Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php on line 195
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 571
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 585
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 578
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 603
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 553
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 186
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 203
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 196
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 212
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 175
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php on line 135
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 234
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php on line 292
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php on line 755
Warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php on line 907
Deprecated: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Pager.php on line 908
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 627
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 629
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 630
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 631
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 633
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 634
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php on line 402
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38 https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=KwilsonMcClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T23:14:14ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Potluck_Sign-upPotluck Sign-up2009-04-29T22:47:12Z<p>Kwilson: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''If only we had some sort of handy tool that we could use to coordinate our potluck lunch... hmmm<br />
'''<br />
<br />
Rebecca -- Pita Bread and Hummus<br />
<br />
Kellye S -- Chocolate Chip Cookies<br />
<br />
Lacey- Apple-Carrot Salad, I will bring forks too :)<br />
<br />
Amanda- Iced Tea/Soda/ Lemonade<br />
<br />
Stephen -- Deliciousness (TBD)<br />
<br />
Sarah- Brownies<br />
<br />
Dr. M -- Napkins/Cups/Plates<br />
<br />
Celia -- Pasta or fruit salad<br />
<br />
Mary Beth -- Chips & salsa<br />
<br />
Ashley Wilkins -- Ashley's Meaty Chili :-) I'll have bowls and spoons with me, if someone could bring cornbread that'd be awesome! I'll make it and bring it if I don't see anyone bringing it by Thursday morning<br />
<br />
Kari W. -- Some sort of fruit pie <br />
<br />
WHAT TIME IS THE FINAL AT????? <br />
Noon :-D</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_14_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 14 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-04-23T02:59:17Z<p>Kwilson: /* Mintz and Kellogg Chapter 9: The Golden Age - Families of the 1950s */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Change over Time ==<br />
How has the American family changed over time in the 20th century? What distinguishes each decade? How does this work with our notions of "what the ideal family is?" How does each decade compare to the 19th century families we have studied all semester?<br />
<br />
Ok, this question demands a long answer but I'm going to briefly write that gender roles have constantly changed throughout the century, and the economy has affected these family roles. From the "Companionate Family," where husband and wives became friends and lovers and children became friends, to the influx of women entering the workforce and some men becoming "mr. mom," 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 "ideal" family, the increase of birthrates, and the suburb family, the changes have been numerous and constant. - Celia<br />
<br />
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 "power" 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'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<br />
<br />
While I agree that changing gender roles was a main aspect of change in families over the decades of the 20th century, I think that different ideas concerning children and family size also impacted the nature of the American family. As family size decreased ideas of the "ideal family" changed. Today, everything seems to built around the notion that a family consists of 4 people, 2 parents and 2 children. I think this is a very different notion then people had at the turn of the last century. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
== Today? ==<br />
How is today's American family difference/similar to the ones from Mintz and Kellogg and the article which are 20 and 10 years old respectivly?<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mintz and Kellogg, Chapter 6: The Rise of the Companionate Family, 1900-1930 ==<br />
On page 109, Mintz and Kellogg mentioned that the companionate family is a model and ideal "of family function and behavior, which remains with us today." 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<br />
<br />
There were a lot of parallels to other readings in the 107-201 M&K reading. I was reminded of Riley when reading about divorce and May with childlessness, "shirking duties" and the decline in the birth rate. It was a little frightening how much M&K gloss over the material in order to cover it all, but still very interesting. I am curious about the 1890 "watershed" that was described on page 112. M&K didn'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'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&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'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<br />
<br />
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&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&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's really amazing to see how much the family transitioned over 200 years.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I too was really amazed with the change from the beginning to the end of Mintz & 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&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<br />
<br />
I found it interesting to read on page 240 how the word "family" has been used by both conservative and liberal politicians in the 1980's. Conservatives used the word to mean "traditional social values" to express opposition to big government involvement, while the liberals used the word to mean "compassion" in order to increase government involvement with the poor and so on. The fact that the word "family" was used by both teams over the role of government in American life reestablishes the debate on what is "family" and how does society define it? Is it a small, inclusive unit, or something that the whole community is involved with. We have seen throughout this semester that opinions on this have changed over the nineteenth, and now the twentieth centuries. It is also interesting that conservatives used the word "family" to mean traditional social values. But these values have changed so much over time it is hard to put our finger on what these traditional values are. - Celia<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mintz and Kellogg Chapter 7: American Families Face the Great Depression ==<br />
<br />
I find it really interesting how much families come together during times of need. This was shown during the Great Depression when people relied on each other for food, money, work etc. This is not a new thing created during the depression, but it is a common theme for most of the families we discussed in class. I just think it is really encouraging that even when things are rough, people (for the most part) can turn to their families for support (also a parallel to today, though not to the extreme of the depression). -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
== Mintz and Kellogg Chapter 8: Families on the Home Front ==<br />
<br />
One section I found particularly interesting was the reaction couples had after WWII. I couldn’t help but think of my grandfather who was a soldier in D-Day and was later injured. Upon returning home he had a similar reaction to the Army Captain on p. 171. His wife and he realized very quickly that too many things had changed and ended up like so many couples getting a divorce. I think it is an interesting stress on families that is not necessarily given the attention it deserves. Not only the stress of war, but of other traumatic events, that ultimately change a marriage and push a couple towards divorce. -Mary Beth <br />
<br />
== Mintz and Kellogg Chapter 9: The Golden Age - Families of the 1950s ==<br />
It's incredible to me how people today still compare families to the families of the 1950s. With everything from "Leave it to Beaver" to "Pleasantville" Americans today continue to romanticize the 1950s and the "perfect family." It's no wonder, though, with the age of marriage at a dramatic low and a birthrate that skyrocketed that there were ideal family households in the middle class. It was a return to "normalcy;" a sense of stability that had been disrupted by WWII. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I also like how much the media played into this "perfect family" as Kelly puts it, not only now, but also during the fifties. All the advertisements showing these perfect wives with their perfect lives -- cooking dinner, ironing her husband's shirts and reading a book all at the same time! That stereotype was a ridiculously high standard to live up to. It really is no wonder that so many people rebelled against this "ideal" in decades to come. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
== Stacey Article ==<br />
The author'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&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<br />
<br />
I had some problems with Stacey'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, "[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." (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't know. However, I prefer to think she meant the later. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
<br />
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: "conservatives agree that legalizing gay marriage would further marginalize sexual radicals by segregating counter-cultural gays and lesbians from the 'whitebread' gay couples who could then choose to marry their way into Middle America." This sentence really surprised me. "Whitebread" gay couples??? Does our society really make a distinction between "whitebread" gays and "counter-cultural" 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<br />
<br />
I agree with you Rebecca, I think that she's going a little too far in defining it. I think that she is talking about some of the more disturbing (not necessarily the best way to put it) things that people dream up about sexual deviants. To their thinking the 'whitebread' gays and lesbians would, I guess, be more acceptable. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I found the introduction about classifying “gay families” by one person’s or one couple’s sexual orientation interesting. She brings up an interesting point. Simply because one member of the family is of another ethnicity or religion, the family itself does not change to meet the definition of its one member. It brings up another aspect of American families in attempting to define them and understand ways to categorize different families. – Mary Beth <br />
<br />
== Domestic Partnerships ==<br />
<br />
Hey guys, I thought you might find this interesting. According to my company'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)<br />
<br />
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'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<br />
<br />
<br />
Domestic partners may be of the same sex or of opposite sexes.<br />
<br />
Domestic partners must:<br><br />
• Be parties to a government-recognized civil union or government-recognized<br />
same sex marriage, or be included in a government domestic partner registry<br><br />
OR<br><br />
• Be least 18 years of age,<br><br />
• Have the legal capacity to contract,<br><br />
• Share a close, committed, and exclusive personal relationship that is meant to be<br />
of lasting duration,<br><br />
• Have shared a common legal residence continuously for at least 3 months,<br><br />
• Be financially interdependent,<br><br />
• Not be parties to a legally recognized marriage either to each other or anyone else,<br><br />
• Not share blood or familial relationship that would be bar marriage under the laws<br />
of the state in which the couple resides, nor be a member of another domestic<br />
partnership or substantially similar relationship, and<br><br />
• Not have been a member of another domestic partnership or substantially similar<br />
relationship within the past 6 months.<br><br />
<br />
<br><br />
Financial interdependence may be established with any of the following documents:<br><br />
• Joint mortgage or lease on place of residence<br><br />
• Joint title on motor vehicle<br><br />
• Agreement establishing joint bank account or credit card account<br><br />
• Agreement with a third party lender for joint repayment of indebtedness<br><br />
• Designation of one partner as the other’s beneficiary for life insurance or<br />
retirement benefits<br><br />
• A joint will, or reciprocal wills in which each partner designates the other as<br />
executor or primary beneficiary<br><br />
• Durable powers of attorney by each partner in favor of the other<br><br />
• Health care directives or living wills in which each partner gives the other the<br />
authority to make health care decisions<br><br />
<br />
Wow, that is really interesting and to some extent not hard to come by, meaning that you can get financial interdependence from the power of attorneys for each other, though it does require some level of commitment. I think its really interesting and slightly ironic that gay rights activisim is the cause for legislation that in fact helps some people who are most adamantly against gay rights. -Lacey</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_14_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 14 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-04-23T02:43:21Z<p>Kwilson: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Change over Time ==<br />
How has the American family changed over time in the 20th century? What distinguishes each decade? How does this work with our notions of "what the ideal family is?" How does each decade compare to the 19th century families we have studied all semester?<br />
<br />
Ok, this question demands a long answer but I'm going to briefly write that gender roles have constantly changed throughout the century, and the economy has affected these family roles. From the "Companionate Family," where husband and wives became friends and lovers and children became friends, to the influx of women entering the workforce and some men becoming "mr. mom," 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 "ideal" family, the increase of birthrates, and the suburb family, the changes have been numerous and constant. - Celia<br />
<br />
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 "power" 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'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<br />
<br />
While I agree that changing gender roles was a main aspect of change in families over the decades of the 20th century, I think that different ideas concerning children and family size also impacted the nature of the American family. As family size decreased ideas of the "ideal family" changed. Today, everything seems to built around the notion that a family consists of 4 people, 2 parents and 2 children. I think this is a very different notion then people had at the turn of the last century. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
== Today? ==<br />
How is today's American family difference/similar to the ones from Mintz and Kellogg and the article which are 20 and 10 years old respectivly?<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mintz and Kellogg, Chapter 6: The Rise of the Companionate Family, 1900-1930 ==<br />
On page 109, Mintz and Kellogg mentioned that the companionate family is a model and ideal "of family function and behavior, which remains with us today." 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<br />
<br />
There were a lot of parallels to other readings in the 107-201 M&K reading. I was reminded of Riley when reading about divorce and May with childlessness, "shirking duties" and the decline in the birth rate. It was a little frightening how much M&K gloss over the material in order to cover it all, but still very interesting. I am curious about the 1890 "watershed" that was described on page 112. M&K didn'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'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&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'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<br />
<br />
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&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&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's really amazing to see how much the family transitioned over 200 years.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I too was really amazed with the change from the beginning to the end of Mintz & 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&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<br />
<br />
I found it interesting to read on page 240 how the word "family" has been used by both conservative and liberal politicians in the 1980's. Conservatives used the word to mean "traditional social values" to express opposition to big government involvement, while the liberals used the word to mean "compassion" in order to increase government involvement with the poor and so on. The fact that the word "family" was used by both teams over the role of government in American life reestablishes the debate on what is "family" and how does society define it? Is it a small, inclusive unit, or something that the whole community is involved with. We have seen throughout this semester that opinions on this have changed over the nineteenth, and now the twentieth centuries. It is also interesting that conservatives used the word "family" to mean traditional social values. But these values have changed so much over time it is hard to put our finger on what these traditional values are. - Celia<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mintz and Kellogg Chapter 7: American Families Face the Great Depression ==<br />
<br />
I find it really interesting how much families come together during times of need. This was shown during the Great Depression when people relied on each other for food, money, work etc. This is not a new thing created during the depression, but it is a common theme for most of the families we discussed in class. I just think it is really encouraging that even when things are rough, people (for the most part) can turn to their families for support (also a parallel to today, though not to the extreme of the depression). -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
== Mintz and Kellogg Chapter 8: Families on the Home Front ==<br />
<br />
One section I found particularly interesting was the reaction couples had after WWII. I couldn’t help but think of my grandfather who was a soldier in D-Day and was later injured. Upon returning home he had a similar reaction to the Army Captain on p. 171. His wife and he realized very quickly that too many things had changed and ended up like so many couples getting a divorce. I think it is an interesting stress on families that is not necessarily given the attention it deserves. Not only the stress of war, but of other traumatic events, that ultimately change a marriage and push a couple towards divorce. -Mary Beth <br />
<br />
== Mintz and Kellogg Chapter 9: The Golden Age - Families of the 1950s ==<br />
It's incredible to me how people today still compare families to the families of the 1950s. With everything from "Leave it to Beaver" to "Pleasantville" Americans today continue to romanticize the 1950s and the "perfect family." It's no wonder, though, with the age of marriage at a dramatic low and a birthrate that skyrocketed that there were ideal family households in the middle class. It was a return to "normalcy;" a sense of stability that had been disrupted by WWII. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
== Stacey Article ==<br />
The author'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&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<br />
<br />
I had some problems with Stacey'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, "[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." (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't know. However, I prefer to think she meant the later. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
<br />
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: "conservatives agree that legalizing gay marriage would further marginalize sexual radicals by segregating counter-cultural gays and lesbians from the 'whitebread' gay couples who could then choose to marry their way into Middle America." This sentence really surprised me. "Whitebread" gay couples??? Does our society really make a distinction between "whitebread" gays and "counter-cultural" 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<br />
<br />
I agree with you Rebecca, I think that she's going a little too far in defining it. I think that she is talking about some of the more disturbing (not necessarily the best way to put it) things that people dream up about sexual deviants. To their thinking the 'whitebread' gays and lesbians would, I guess, be more acceptable. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I found the introduction about classifying “gay families” by one person’s or one couple’s sexual orientation interesting. She brings up an interesting point. Simply because one member of the family is of another ethnicity or religion, the family itself does not change to meet the definition of its one member. It brings up another aspect of American families in attempting to define them and understand ways to categorize different families. – Mary Beth <br />
<br />
== Domestic Partnerships ==<br />
<br />
Hey guys, I thought you might find this interesting. According to my company'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)<br />
<br />
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'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<br />
<br />
<br />
Domestic partners may be of the same sex or of opposite sexes.<br />
<br />
Domestic partners must:<br><br />
• Be parties to a government-recognized civil union or government-recognized<br />
same sex marriage, or be included in a government domestic partner registry<br><br />
OR<br><br />
• Be least 18 years of age,<br><br />
• Have the legal capacity to contract,<br><br />
• Share a close, committed, and exclusive personal relationship that is meant to be<br />
of lasting duration,<br><br />
• Have shared a common legal residence continuously for at least 3 months,<br><br />
• Be financially interdependent,<br><br />
• Not be parties to a legally recognized marriage either to each other or anyone else,<br><br />
• Not share blood or familial relationship that would be bar marriage under the laws<br />
of the state in which the couple resides, nor be a member of another domestic<br />
partnership or substantially similar relationship, and<br><br />
• Not have been a member of another domestic partnership or substantially similar<br />
relationship within the past 6 months.<br><br />
<br />
<br><br />
Financial interdependence may be established with any of the following documents:<br><br />
• Joint mortgage or lease on place of residence<br><br />
• Joint title on motor vehicle<br><br />
• Agreement establishing joint bank account or credit card account<br><br />
• Agreement with a third party lender for joint repayment of indebtedness<br><br />
• Designation of one partner as the other’s beneficiary for life insurance or<br />
retirement benefits<br><br />
• A joint will, or reciprocal wills in which each partner designates the other as<br />
executor or primary beneficiary<br><br />
• Durable powers of attorney by each partner in favor of the other<br><br />
• Health care directives or living wills in which each partner gives the other the<br />
authority to make health care decisions<br><br />
<br />
Wow, that is really interesting and to some extent not hard to come by, meaning that you can get financial interdependence from the power of attorneys for each other, though it does require some level of commitment. I think its really interesting and slightly ironic that gay rights activisim is the cause for legislation that in fact helps some people who are most adamantly against gay rights. -Lacey</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_14_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 14 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-04-23T00:41:17Z<p>Kwilson: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Change over Time ==<br />
How has the American family changed over time in the 20th century? What distinguishes each decade? How does this work with our notions of "what the ideal family is?" How does each decade compare to the 19th century families we have studied all semester?<br />
<br />
Ok, this question demands a long answer but I'm going to briefly write that gender roles have constantly changed throughout the century, and the economy has affected these family roles. From the "Companionate Family," where husband and wives became friends and lovers and children became friends, to the influx of women entering the workforce and some men becoming "mr. mom," 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 "ideal" family, the increase of birthrates, and the suburb family, the changes have been numerous and constant. - Celia<br />
<br />
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 "power" 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'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<br />
<br />
== Today? ==<br />
How is today's American family difference/similar to the ones from Mintz and Kellogg and the article which are 20 and 10 years old respectivly?<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mintz and Kellogg, Chapter 6: The Rise of the Companionate Family, 1900-1930 ==<br />
On page 109, Mintz and Kellogg mentioned that the companionate family is a model and ideal "of family function and behavior, which remains with us today." 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<br />
<br />
There were a lot of parallels to other readings in the 107-201 M&K reading. I was reminded of Riley when reading about divorce and May with childlessness, "shirking duties" and the decline in the birth rate. It was a little frightening how much M&K gloss over the material in order to cover it all, but still very interesting. I am curious about the 1890 "watershed" that was described on page 112. M&K didn'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'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&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'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<br />
<br />
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&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&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's really amazing to see how much the family transitioned over 200 years.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I too was really amazed with the change from the beginning to the end of Mintz & 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&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<br />
<br />
<br />
I find it really interesting how much families come together during times of need. This was shown during the Great Depression when people relied on each other for food, money, work etc. This is not a new thing created during the depression, but it is a common theme for most of the families we discussed in class. I just think it is really encouraging that even when things are rough, people (for the most part) can turn to their families for support (also a parallel to today, though not to the extreme of the depression). -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
== Stacey Article ==<br />
The author'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&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<br />
<br />
I had some problems with Stacey'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, "[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." (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't know. However, I prefer to think she meant the later. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
<br />
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: "conservatives agree that legalizing gay marriage would further marginalize sexual radicals by segregating counter-cultural gays and lesbians from the 'whitebread' gay couples who could then choose to marry their way into Middle America." This sentence really surprised me. "Whitebread" gay couples??? Does our society really make a distinction between "whitebread" gays and "counter-cultural" 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<br />
<br />
== Domestic Partnerships ==<br />
<br />
Hey guys, I thought you might find this interesting. According to my company'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)<br />
<br />
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'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<br />
<br />
<br />
Domestic partners may be of the same sex or of opposite sexes.<br />
<br />
Domestic partners must:<br><br />
• Be parties to a government-recognized civil union or government-recognized<br />
same sex marriage, or be included in a government domestic partner registry<br><br />
OR<br><br />
• Be least 18 years of age,<br><br />
• Have the legal capacity to contract,<br><br />
• Share a close, committed, and exclusive personal relationship that is meant to be<br />
of lasting duration,<br><br />
• Have shared a common legal residence continuously for at least 3 months,<br><br />
• Be financially interdependent,<br><br />
• Not be parties to a legally recognized marriage either to each other or anyone else,<br><br />
• Not share blood or familial relationship that would be bar marriage under the laws<br />
of the state in which the couple resides, nor be a member of another domestic<br />
partnership or substantially similar relationship, and<br><br />
• Not have been a member of another domestic partnership or substantially similar<br />
relationship within the past 6 months.<br><br />
<br />
<br><br />
Financial interdependence may be established with any of the following documents:<br><br />
• Joint mortgage or lease on place of residence<br><br />
• Joint title on motor vehicle<br><br />
• Agreement establishing joint bank account or credit card account<br><br />
• Agreement with a third party lender for joint repayment of indebtedness<br><br />
• Designation of one partner as the other’s beneficiary for life insurance or<br />
retirement benefits<br><br />
• A joint will, or reciprocal wills in which each partner designates the other as<br />
executor or primary beneficiary<br><br />
• Durable powers of attorney by each partner in favor of the other<br><br />
• Health care directives or living wills in which each partner gives the other the<br />
authority to make health care decisions<br></div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_13_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 13 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-04-16T03:14:21Z<p>Kwilson: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Irish American Family ==<br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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't was very different. While it economically made sense, socially it had to cause problems - Kellye S<br />
<br />
I also thought that it was interesting and somewhat surprising that the Irish men and women married at such a late age or never at all. With the emphasis on having lots of children, I would have expected them to have married sooner. The fact that they were able to maintain this tradition, especially as it was soon new to them, was also surprising. I was impressed that they would with go marriage to provide economic support for their families back in Ireland and in America. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
This article seems odd to me for some reason, maybe because it touches on so many issues but is so short. For example, it states that Irish marriages were characterized by high levels of animosity. Making this kind of statement is really opening a can of worms, but then the article doesn't explore it very much. Compared to our other readings, this one seemed to just skim the surface of Irish immigrant families. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
I also felt that this article threw out numbers and figures at us but didn't go into much depth with explaining this ethinic tendency. It makes sense that many Irish women felt that they needed to be single in order to raise money for their families in Ireland, but it feels like many ethnic groups would have behaved the same way. Diner explains that the Irish married later in life back home, but I seemed to walk away from this article with more questions then before. What exactly was the reason that the people in Ireland married later and why did it differ so much from other nationalites? Were there more troubled marriages in Ireland? - Celia<br />
<br />
Although this article doesn't go into much detail about the issues it raises, I think it does a good job giving a brief survey of what Irish immigrant life was like for women. After reading this article and the article about the Jewish women, it is interesting to note how much immigrant women do not fit into the cult of true womanhood. Since many families were female-headed households, women had to work longer to make money in order to provide for their family if they ended up being deserted by their husbands. --Kari W. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Working Class Families ==<br />
<br />
I'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, "World-class families did accept a clear division of labor on the basis of gender, however, and often formulated it in terms of domesticity." 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 'women's work' because there were no servants or anyone else to do it. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
It'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<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that though immigrants mostly only made up the working class, they had their own "middle class" 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<br />
<br />
I thought that Coontz's discussion on black family life was very interesting and addresses some of past class discussions on single parenting in black families. That black women found work easier then black men was also interesting and must have been a source of contention. It is sad that racial discrimination lead to the failure of black marriages and divorce. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I was wondering about the impact of immigration on family and labor history while I was reading this excerpt. Immigration played such a huge factor in the way that families were shaped and how families and people related to each other, as well as how labor laws played out. It really made me think about labor history in other countries where there was, as far as I know, less immigration and how they dealt with the rising need for unskilled factory laborers. Did they have the same difficulties as the US or if not how were they different? I realize that this doesn't fall in the scope of this class but it was something I couldn't <br />
help thinking about. -Lacey<br />
<br />
Something else that really struck me was that in certain places it was the work that they did rather than the ethnicity they were that tied them together in a community. Coontz says that this phenomenon was limited, but I think that it happened at all says something about the relationship between immigration, labor and the control of the higher-ups. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I thought the differences between the middle-class cult of domesticity and the working-class cult of domesticity were interesting. In our previous readings we have read about the middle class imposing its values on other people, but this is an example of how the recipients of this middle class ideal adopted it to some extent, but also changed it to work for them. -- Rebecca</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_13_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 13 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-04-13T23:07:37Z<p>Kwilson: </p>
<hr />
<div>== General Comments ==<br />
I found this factoid interesting when I learned about it in my History of Spain class a few semesters back, but the fact that the Jewish community had many women work outside the home so that the men could pray is amazing. It seems like all we've read this semester is the community saw the woman as the pious religious guide, and then here among the Jews its the opposite. The guys are seen as the religious ones. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I agree with Ashley, although it appeared to me that the religious or intellectual occupation of the Jewish man had little bearing to economically advancing the Jewish family. I found it interesting the examples that Glenn uses in her reading that some Jewish fathers who were intellectuals or pious scholars often did not allow their daughters enough opportunity to advance in society. I think it was through these examples where Glenn begins to define how Jewish Zionists and Bundists reacted to socialism and how it effected the Jewish women. --Joe C. <br />
<br />
I also found it interesting that women were respected for working and being the breadwinners as long as their husbands were doing religious things. It especially liked when it said that although the work women were doing now was hard and not fun the women would benefit in the afterlife. It's funny how women would benefit in the afterlife for their hard labor and taking care of their husbands and men would benefit in the afterlife from studying -- seems a little unfair to me. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
I have to say, I still find it depressing to read in articles, books, documents, etc... that females weren't worth as much. That they were seen as lesser beings, burdens, or not much more than a slave to her male family counterparts (father, brothers, husband, etc...). I always feel so sad and sympathetic for them. Although, I also wonder if they felt repressed by the men because that was the life they knew. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this reading. I had never thought about how ethnic/religious groups fit in to the working class history. It was interested to learn about how their religion affected their work. It is also nice to get another religious perspective, specifically the Jewish perspective, about the working class America and gender roles. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
== Women in the Old World ==<br />
I think Glenn's reading makes a clear distinction between Jewish women's lives in the Old World versus their new role in America. Although women received unequal rights and responsibilities, I found it interesting that they were given the opportunity to work in the business sector of the eastern European economy. Whereas in many regions throughout the United States women usually worked domestically, Jewish women in eastern Europe perceived domestic service as the lowest on the hierarchy of female occupations. Yet the business sector for Jewish women was greatly disadvantaged because their Sabbath on saturday rather than sunday forced them to only do business five days of the week. I was also intrigued about their ability to work in artisan shops and their significance to the sewing industry. Yet because of the economic constructs of eastern Europe, they were always subject to shortages of products and machines. --Joe C.</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_13_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 13 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-04-13T22:49:33Z<p>Kwilson: </p>
<hr />
<div>== General Comments ==<br />
I found this factoid interesting when I learned about it in my History of Spain class a few semesters back, but the fact that the Jewish community had many women work outside the home so that the men could pray is amazing. It seems like all we've read this semester is the community saw the woman as the pious religious guide, and then here among the Jews its the opposite. The guys are seen as the religious ones. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I agree with Ashley, although it appeared to me that the religious or intellectual occupation of the Jewish man had little bearing to economically advancing the Jewish family. I found it interesting the examples that Glenn uses in her reading that some Jewish fathers who were intellectuals or pious scholars often did not allow their daughters enough opportunity to advance in society. I think it was through these examples where Glenn begins to define how Jewish Zionists and Bundists reacted to socialism and how it effected the Jewish women. --Joe C. <br />
<br />
I also found it interesting that women were respected for working and being the breadwinners as long as their husbands were doing religious things. It especially liked when it said that although the work women were doing now was hard and not fun the women would benefit in the afterlife. It's funny how women would benefit in the afterlife for their hard labor and taking care of their husbands and men would benefit in the afterlife from studying -- seems a little unfair to me. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
I have to say, I still find it depressing to read in articles, books, documents, etc... that females weren't worth as much. That they were seen as lesser beings, burdens, or not much more than a slave to her male family counterparts (father, brothers, husband, etc...). I always feel so sad and sympathetic for them. Although, I also wonder if they felt repressed by the men because that was the life they knew. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
== Women in the Old World ==<br />
I think Glenn's reading makes a clear distinction between Jewish women's lives in the Old World versus their new role in America. Although women received unequal rights and responsibilities, I found it interesting that they were given the opportunity to work in the business sector of the eastern European economy. Whereas in many regions throughout the United States women usually worked domestically, Jewish women in eastern Europe perceived domestic service as the lowest on the hierarchy of female occupations. Yet the business sector for Jewish women was greatly disadvantaged because their Sabbath on saturday rather than sunday forced them to only do business five days of the week. I was also intrigued about their ability to work in artisan shops and their significance to the sewing industry. Yet because of the economic constructs of eastern Europe, they were always subject to shortages of products and machines. --Joe C.</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_12_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 12 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-04-09T04:35:32Z<p>Kwilson: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Preface& Intro. ==<br />
It's crazy to think about society determining who is suited for having children and who is not. It does not seem like society's place but then reading about how much of a say communities tried to have, or in some cases did have, made it seem like it was rather normal in some societies in the nineteenth century. Procreation is a very private decision among the family itself and it's kind of shocking how public this sacred decision is becoming. With all of the technology and medical advancements we have today the decision to have children is a much more public decision. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
One thing that really struck me in the preface is how emotionally charged this issue was for all the people who answered the author's query. On all sides of the issues people used such strong language, like the one woman complaining about all the "breeder propaganda" in the media. I was most surprised by people like her who were vehemently against having children in general. There is a difference between "that's not right for me" and "why is this breeder propaganda everywhere!?" This attitude surprised me because it is not one that I hear very often. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
== Barren to Infertile ==<br />
<br />
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't get pregnant were blamed. It was always the woman'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 "misdirected powers of fertility." (28) Other causes were often attributed to indiscretions. --Kellye S<br />
<br />
What did you guys think about the picture at the beginning of chapter one? I tried to count the babies, I can't decide if there are ten or eleven. I wonder if colonists really thought about reproduction as so central to the new world they were creating. This picture makes it seem like they did. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
I found it interesting how the concept of republican motherhood fit into this chapter. It said that single or childless women could still feel like they were participating in republican motherhood because they were helping raise and set an example for children in the community. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
== Eugenics ==<br />
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<br />
<br />
I knew eugenics had a start in the 1900s, but I did not realize how quickly it became a dominant mindset among some of the medical community. It was horrible of the eugenicists to try to determine who was allowed to have children and to mock the women who were unable to have their own children. Regardless of how badly some of these women wanted kids, they were still shunned and scorned for being infertile. It just seems like a horrible situation to be in; to be yelled at for being infertile. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
While I agree that many of the statistics on birth control use and the prevalence of abortion surprised me as well, I was also surprised by the adoption process. Not unlike today, it seems that there were more couples trying to adopt children then there were children up for adoption. Many individuals appear to have been desperate to adopt to escape the stigma of childlessness. I was also amazed to learn that forms of artificial reproduction were used in the late 1800s. In addition, the whole concept of "worthy" parents seemed a bit alien to me, almost as if one should have to earn the right to have parents rather then a natural biological ability. --Sarah Gardner <br />
<br />
== Sterilization ==<br />
This always amazes me. Every time I read it I'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<br />
<br />
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't want to have to pay for the poor and if there were even more poor, especially children whose parents couldn'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<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Kelly about the section on sterilization. I was appalled to learn how many men and women, particularly minority groups such as Native Americans and African Americans, were sterilized against their will and frequently without their consent or prior knowledge. Not only does this illustrate discrimination but it really shows how much people, particularly doctors, really believed that by making these individuals infertile, society would be improved. Its unfortunate that they did not put more time and attention towards improving their environments instead of removing their fertility. It also surprised me that eugenics and sterilization remained so prevalent event after Hitler's mass sterilizations in Germany. I would think that that would have halted such acts in the United States. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I also thought this chapter was really disturbing. One thing that stuck out was how even though doctors were performing involuntary sterilization, they were morally against a woman voluntarily getting sterilized, especially if that woman was white middle class. I feel like this is a prime example of how women of color were thought of as second class citizens. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
== Reaction to the Reading ==<br />
<br />
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'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<br />
<br />
Did this reading change how you think about childless families in America? If so, how? -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
Overall, I thought that this was a very interesting reading. I have never really considered the history of childlessness but this article really highlighted the variety of emotions people feel about it and have felt over the course of American history. The historical shifts in society's attitudes towards childlessness seem readily apparent, particularly from the colonial period to the progressive era. --Sarah Gardner</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_12_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 12 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-04-09T04:33:02Z<p>Kwilson: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Preface& Intro. ==<br />
It's crazy to think about society determining who is suited for having children and who is not. It does not seem like society's place but then reading about how much of a say communities tried to have, or in some cases did have, made it seem like it was rather normal in some societies in the nineteenth century. Procreation is a very private decision among the family itself and it's kind of shocking how public this sacred decision is becoming. With all of the technology and medical advancements we have today the decision to have children is a much more public decision. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
One thing that really struck me in the preface is how emotionally charged this issue was for all the people who answered the author's query. On all sides of the issues people used such strong language, like the one woman complaining about all the "breeder propaganda" in the media. I was most surprised by people like her who were vehemently against having children in general. There is a difference between "that's not right for me" and "why is this breeder propaganda everywhere!?" This attitude surprised me because it is not one that I hear very often. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
== Barren to Infertile ==<br />
<br />
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't get pregnant were blamed. It was always the woman'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 "misdirected powers of fertility." (28) Other causes were often attributed to indiscretions. --Kellye S<br />
<br />
What did you guys think about the picture at the beginning of chapter one? I tried to count the babies, I can't decide if there are ten or eleven. I wonder if colonists really thought about reproduction as so central to the new world they were creating. This picture makes it seem like they did. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
== Eugenics ==<br />
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<br />
<br />
I knew eugenics had a start in the 1900s, but I did not realize how quickly it became a dominant mindset among some of the medical community. It was horrible of the eugenicists to try to determine who was allowed to have children and to mock the women who were unable to have their own children. Regardless of how badly some of these women wanted kids, they were still shunned and scorned for being infertile. It just seems like a horrible situation to be in; to be yelled at for being infertile. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
While I agree that many of the statistics on birth control use and the prevalence of abortion surprised me as well, I was also surprised by the adoption process. Not unlike today, it seems that there were more couples trying to adopt children then there were children up for adoption. Many individuals appear to have been desperate to adopt to escape the stigma of childlessness. I was also amazed to learn that forms of artificial reproduction were used in the late 1800s. In addition, the whole concept of "worthy" parents seemed a bit alien to me, almost as if one should have to earn the right to have parents rather then a natural biological ability. --Sarah Gardner <br />
<br />
== Sterilization ==<br />
This always amazes me. Every time I read it I'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<br />
<br />
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't want to have to pay for the poor and if there were even more poor, especially children whose parents couldn'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<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Kelly about the section on sterilization. I was appalled to learn how many men and women, particularly minority groups such as Native Americans and African Americans, were sterilized against their will and frequently without their consent or prior knowledge. Not only does this illustrate discrimination but it really shows how much people, particularly doctors, really believed that by making these individuals infertile, society would be improved. Its unfortunate that they did not put more time and attention towards improving their environments instead of removing their fertility. It also surprised me that eugenics and sterilization remained so prevalent event after Hitler's mass sterilizations in Germany. I would think that that would have halted such acts in the United States. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I also thought this chapter was really disturbing. One thing that stuck out was how even though doctors were performing involuntary sterilization, they were morally against a woman voluntarily getting sterilized, especially if that woman was white middle class. I feel like this is a prime example of how women of color were thought of as second class citizens. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
== Reaction to the Reading ==<br />
<br />
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'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<br />
<br />
Did this reading change how you think about childless families in America? If so, how? -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
Overall, I thought that this was a very interesting reading. I have never really considered the history of childlessness but this article really highlighted the variety of emotions people feel about it and have felt over the course of American history. The historical shifts in society's attitudes towards childlessness seem readily apparent, particularly from the colonial period to the progressive era. --Sarah Gardner</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_12_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 12 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-04-06T18:42:04Z<p>Kwilson: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Background (Please post!)==<br />
<b>This is one of the weeks that the group we are reading about is not Anglo-American. Background and context play an important role in shaping our understanding of these two articles. What background do you have of the two main groups discussed (Cherokee and Sioux)? What have you learned about these topics(from other classes, high school, etc.)? Why might our own background knowledge influence how we interpret Native Americans?</b><br />
<br />
I haven't studied Native Americans in any of my college history classes but I remember studying them in high school. We focused on cultural practices (longhouses versus teepees essentially). We also talked about unfair treaties and the encroachment of Anglos on Indian land. We did NOT study anything about boarding schools or the various other attempts made by the Anglos to assimilate, convert, or get rid of the Native Americans. I know that when I approach these readings I am predisposed to be highly sympathetic towards Native Americans because their stories are so sad. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
While I learned about Native Americans in high school, most of my recent knowledge is from Professor Moon's American West class I am taking this semester. We have talked a little about the boarding school experience and Native American life in general. Other than that my Native American knowledge is very limited. I am also very sympathetic towards Native American history but I do also realize that I really don't know much about it. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
==Overall Comments on Both Articles==<br />
<br />
==Perdue Article==<br />
<br />
Perdue talks a lot about Cherokee women in this article. However I feel that she romanticizes their role in society: talking about how gracious and noble they were to do most of the work. I don't really agree with this. I think the women farmed, did manual labor, made pottery, collected firewood and cared for children because they ''had'' to, not because they were saints. They didn't object because they didn't know any different. Also, other than mentioning that men felt that farming was women's work, she didn't go in depth on how emasculated men were. Did any one notice that she used the explorers' accounts for evidence? She took them at face value, instead of explaining the common point of view of people who interacted with Native Americans in that time period. I felt she also used those accounts to propagate the idea that the Cherokee were sexually promiscuous and licentious. Who's standard is she using? Thomas Jefferson believed the same things, as did most people in the early 18th Century. But it's not what I expected from a modern historian. She didn't question the reliability and accuracy of those sources, and I think she wrote this with rose colored glasses.--Amanda<br />
<br />
==Adams Article==<br />
<br />
After reading this article, I was wondering what the separation did to Sioux families. I think the structure of their families already drastically changed with the introduction of the reservation system. But especially with the "forced procurement" of children, the traditional culture began to decline rapidly. Because so much of their culture was taught and learned (and I don't mean from books), sending children to a foreign school wiped out chances to instill Sioux (or Navajo, Comanche, Kiowa, Caddo...) identity and caused traditional family structure to fall apart.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading this article. I thought it was very well written and entertaining. I like the added personal stories of the children who attended these schools -- it made it more real. I never knew the details and the extent Anglo Americans went to "civilize" these Native Americans. It really is quite depressing. While I think that the Anglo Americans thought they were doing the "right thing" it really doesn't excuse them for it. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
<b>Question:</b> What do you think about the intentions of the missionaries, teachers, and other policy makers who were behind the boarding schools? Do you think genuinely wanted to help Native Americans? Or they were trying to get rid of them? How much of their policy was about religion? How much was about racism? -- Rebecca</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_12_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 12 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-04-06T18:39:13Z<p>Kwilson: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Background (Please post!)==<br />
<b>This is one of the weeks that the group we are reading about is not Anglo-American. Background and context play an important role in shaping our understanding of these two articles. What background do you have of the two main groups discussed (Cherokee and Sioux)? What have you learned about these topics(from other classes, high school, etc.)? Why might our own background knowledge influence how we interpret Native Americans?</b><br />
<br />
I haven't studied Native Americans in any of my college history classes but I remember studying them in high school. We focused on cultural practices (longhouses versus teepees essentially). We also talked about unfair treaties and the encroachment of Anglos on Indian land. We did NOT study anything about boarding schools or the various other attempts made by the Anglos to assimilate, convert, or get rid of the Native Americans. I know that when I approach these readings I am predisposed to be highly sympathetic towards Native Americans because their stories are so sad. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
While I learned about Native Americans in high school, most of my recent knowledge is from Professor Moon's American West class I am taking this semester. We have talked a little about the boarding school experience and Native American life in general. Other than that my Native American knowledge is very limited. I am also very sympathetic towards Native American history but I do also realize that I really don't know much about it. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
==Overall Comments on Both Articles==<br />
<br />
==Perdue Article==<br />
<br />
Perdue talks a lot about Cherokee women in this article. However I feel that she romanticizes their role in society: talking about how gracious and noble they were to do most of the work. I don't really agree with this. I think the women farmed, did manual labor, made pottery, collected firewood and cared for children because they ''had'' to, not because they were saints. They didn't object because they didn't know any different. Also, other than mentioning that men felt that farming was women's work, she didn't go in depth on how emasculated men were. Did any one notice that she used the explorers' accounts for evidence? She took them at face value, instead of explaining the common point of view of people who interacted with Native Americans in that time period. I felt she also used those accounts to propagate the idea that the Cherokee were sexually promiscuous and licentious. Who's standard is she using? Thomas Jefferson believed the same things, as did most people in the early 18th Century. But it's not what I expected from a modern historian. She didn't question the reliability and accuracy of those sources, and I think she wrote this with rose colored glasses.--Amanda<br />
<br />
==Adams Article==<br />
<br />
After reading this article, I was wondering what the separation did to Sioux families. I think the structure of their families already drastically changed with the introduction of the reservation system. But especially with the "forced procurement" of children, the traditional culture began to decline rapidly. Because so much of their culture was taught and learned (and I don't mean from books), sending children to a foreign school wiped out chances to instill Sioux (or Navajo, Comanche, Kiowa, Caddo...) identity and caused traditional family structure to fall apart.--Amanda<br />
<br />
<b>Question:</b> What do you think about the intentions of the missionaries, teachers, and other policy makers who were behind the boarding schools? Do you think genuinely wanted to help Native Americans? Or they were trying to get rid of them? How much of their policy was about religion? How much was about racism? -- Rebecca</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_12_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 12 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-04-05T14:14:00Z<p>Kwilson: New page: ==Overall Comments on Both Articles== ==Perdue Article== ==Adams Article==</p>
<hr />
<div>==Overall Comments on Both Articles==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Perdue Article==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Adams Article==</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_11_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 11 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-04-02T02:57:31Z<p>Kwilson: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Comments about Tuesday's Article ==<br />
<br />
I really found it funny that the guys did not want to plant a little house garden, or even really thought about it because it was 'women's work.' It was also kind of sad that they did not think of it and were malnourished because they weren't eating a good and healthy variety of food. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
== Chapter 3 ==<br />
What pressures did Intermarried couples face?--Joyce<br />
<br />
Riley listed several pressures facing intermarried couples in the West, most of which were related to the family, the community, or legislation. Some of the more specific pressures were related to religion and differences in cultural values. When each individual ascribed too very different ideas about faith, children, and even methods of communication, problems easily resulted. Yet, I believe that on some level, every couple, intermarried or otherwise, had to make concessions or discuss some issues on which they differed. I don't think one can assume that simply because two people come from the same culture or race they shared the exact same values or customs. To be sure, intermarried couples had more differences and hurdles to overcome but I think that every couple would have faced at least a few of the same pressures and challenges. --Sarah Gardner <br />
<br />
<br />
What advantages did intermarried couples have?---Joyce<br />
<br />
Many Native American and Spanish women married Anglo men for economic and social reasons. Anglo men were more economically stable than Native American and Spanish men and the women would therefore have a higher status in society than if they were to marry someone of their own ethnic group. It was also advantageous for Anglo men to marry Native Americans and Spanish because the women knew their native language and culture and therefore was beneficial for trade. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
== Pictures on Pages 102-111==<br />
<br />
I was amused with picture number 18 because I thought the idea that someone would post an item like this, along with a reward for the wife's return. It makes you wonder why she left, if he was able to offer an award their finances might not have been all that bad. Maybe he was abusive, cruel, or something else? -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I think these photographs really show the diversity that the previous chapters talked about, even more than the last set of pictures. You can also see how Anglo culture was imposed on many of the other residents of the west. Particularly in the clothing that they are wearing in the images which for the most part is not their native costume. -Lacey<br />
<br />
== Chapter 4 ==<br />
<br />
I thought that is was an interesting chapter but it didn't seem to fit with the rest of the book. While the other sections seemed to rely more on the notion of cultural layering, this section didn't seem to mention differences in cultural practices except for a few mentions of differing cultural practices at the very beginning. Rather, it seem to focus more on economic influences and differences in gender in relation to rates of divorce. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
== Epilogue ==<br />
<br />
I was surprised that the book ended with a petition to fix the problem of divorce in the West today. Are the concentrations of divorce as high there today as they were in the 19th Century? I also understand her call to teachers. But as a future teacher (who understands the need to influence students positively) I don't know how realistic is to have this expectation. She writes that we need to include courtship practices and marriage customs in multicultural education. Well, we don't teach about that for the "American"/Anglo culture. Parents wouldn't like it. It's too personal (with the variety of diverse family backgrounds today) and frankly beyond the scope of curriculum for our schools. How can we teach children, during school, that divorce is wrong, when some of them might come from broken homes? I felt the jump from the last chapter to the epilogue was a little jolting. I don't know how we can stop the western divorce rate, but I think it's a widespread problem. One thing for sure is that it's not a question we can solve easily. After all though, this is America, and you can marry (almost) whoever you want, and the same goes for divorce.--Amanda<br />
<br />
== Mintz and Kellogg ==<br />
I felt that Mintz and Kellogg kind of sensationalized the struggles that these people went to, particularly those moving out west. I feel that if there continued to be people who made the decision to go out west the risks couldn't be as completely insurmountable as Mintz and Kellogg make them out to be. It just goes back to many of our previous statements that they overgeneralize, I guess. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I agree with Lacey that Mintz and Kellogg often speak too broadly and generally in this section. Something that Mintz and Kellogg do not mention in their brief discussion of American families on the western trail is that, in spite of their attempts to "maintain a firm sexual division of labor," they were often unable to do so. Women often drove wagons and men had to cook when their wives were ill or unable to do so. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
This sectioned mentioned how the main thing pioneers relied on while they were traveling westward was their family. Their family had to work together in order to survive. While this focus is on the nuclear family, it is more about a sense of community with their family rather than the growing individualism seen in the east. The environment a family was in determined how that family reacted to each other. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
== Any other Questions/Comments about the readings from Tuesday or Thursday ==<br />
<br />
I like this reading (Riley) because of its straightforwardness. Question: What explains the high divorce rate in the West? Answer: Cultural layering and changing courtship/ marriage practices due to the cultural layering.--Amanda</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_11_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 11 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-04-02T00:43:39Z<p>Kwilson: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Comments about Tuesday's Article ==<br />
<br />
I really found it funny that the guys did not want to plant a little house garden, or even really thought about it because it was 'women's work.' It was also kind of sad that they did not think of it and were malnourished because they weren't eating a good and healthy variety of food. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
== Chapter 3 ==<br />
What pressures did Intermarried couples face?--Joyce<br />
<br />
Riley listed several pressures facing intermarried couples in the West, most of which were related to the family, the community, or legislation. Some of the more specific pressures were related to religion and differences in cultural values. When each individual ascribed too very different ideas about faith, children, and even methods of communication, problems easily resulted. Yet, I believe that on some level, every couple, intermarried or otherwise, had to make concessions or discuss some issues on which they differed. I don't think one can assume that simply because two people come from the same culture or race they shared the exact same values or customs. To be sure, intermarried couples had more differences and hurdles to overcome but I think that every couple would have faced at least a few of the same pressures and challenges. --Sarah Gardner <br />
<br />
<br />
What advantages did intermarried couples have?---Joyce<br />
<br />
Many Native American and Spanish women married Anglo men for economic and social reasons. Anglo men were more economically stable than Native American and Spanish men and the women would therefore have a higher status in society than if they were to marry someone of their own ethnic group. It was also advantageous for Anglo men to marry Native Americans and Spanish because the women knew their native language and culture and therefore was beneficial for trade. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
== Pictures on Pages 102-111==<br />
<br />
I was amused with picture number 18 because I thought the idea that someone would post an item like this, along with a reward for the wife's return. It makes you wonder why she left, if he was able to offer an award their finances might not have been all that bad. Maybe he was abusive, cruel, or something else? -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I think these photographs really show the diversity that the previous chapters talked about, even more than the last set of pictures. You can also see how Anglo culture was imposed on many of the other residents of the west. Particularly in the clothing that they are wearing in the images which for the most part is not their native costume. -Lacey<br />
<br />
== Chapter 4 ==<br />
<br />
I thought that is was an interesting chapter but it didn't seem to fit with the rest of the book. While the other sections seemed to rely more on the notion of cultural layering, this section didn't seem to mention differences in cultural practices except for a few mentions of differing cultural practices at the very beginning. Rather, it seem to focus more on economic influences and differences in gender in relation to rates of divorce. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
== Epilogue ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mintz and Kellogg ==<br />
I felt that Mintz and Kellogg kind of sensationalized the struggles that these people went to, particularly those moving out west. I feel that if there continued to be people who made the decision to go out west the risks couldn't be as completely insurmountable as Mintz and Kellogg make them out to be. It just goes back to many of our previous statements that they overgeneralize, I guess. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I agree with Lacey that Mintz and Kellogg often speak too broadly and generally in this section. Something that Mintz and Kellogg do not mention in their brief discussion of American families on the western trail is that, in spite of their attempts to "maintain a firm sexual division of labor," they were often unable to do so. Women often drove wagons and men had to cook when their wives were ill or unable to do so. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
== Any other Questions/Comments about the readings from Tuesday or Thursday ==</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_11_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 11 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-03-31T02:19:40Z<p>Kwilson: </p>
<hr />
<div>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'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<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Lacey on the creep factor. Heh, that would disturb me greatly... more so with my mom's mom than dad'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<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
The first half of this book is interesting. I like Riley's use of the term "cultural layering." I also noticed that she used the phrase "women of color" 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'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't feel it's right to lump them together like you can perhaps get away with (like her use of Anglo or Chicana) but the Chippewa can'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 <br />
<br />
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 "Anglos" 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're all over the place. - Celia<br />
<br />
I thought it was really helpful how Riley showed how the different groups of people dealt with issues like courting for example. Having the different groups right next to each other in certain categories really made the similarities and differences easier to notice. Writing it this way made her point a lot easier for me to understand and I felt like I retained a lot more information. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
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't agree with Riley'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<br />
<br />
I thought that this book has been quite fascinating so far. It's just more proof that we can't divide America into the North, South, East, and West and say 'this is how it was.' 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 "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers." 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 "Harvey Girls" where she goes out west to marry a man she had been writing to, only to be disapointed when she arrives. - Celia<br />
<br />
The Native American courting rituals were crazy. I don'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<br />
<br />
I agree with Rebecca that poorly matched spouses was not more likely to cause divorce. There have been many cases of arranged marriages that worked out fine and did not end in divorce. People who were in situations like that dealt with the fact that their marriage was arranged and many times actually ended up eventually loving that person. I think that the elements in living and surviving in the West along with the high expectations about marriage were the main causes of divorce. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
== Pictures ==<br />
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<br />
<br />
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's domestic duties included work outside the home, especially pictures taken of the Native American women. --Joe C.<br />
<br />
I don't think these pictures were the kind that women were sending to the men, rather the ones of the native women might have been a part of a photographic study and the others for record keeping purposes or to send home to the photograph. This was the era where photographs took off, as well as the concept of sending "family portraits" to friends and family. I thought the contrast between ethnic modes of dress displayed in the portraits quite interesting. It is also neat that you can see that the people who lived then liked to mix and match their ethnic clothing with American styles of dress. It is quite fascinating looking at that from the viewpoint of assimilation. -Lacey</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_11_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 11 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-03-31T02:15:26Z<p>Kwilson: </p>
<hr />
<div>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'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<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Lacey on the creep factor. Heh, that would disturb me greatly... more so with my mom's mom than dad'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<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
The first half of this book is interesting. I like Riley's use of the term "cultural layering." I also noticed that she used the phrase "women of color" 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'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't feel it's right to lump them together like you can perhaps get away with (like her use of Anglo or Chicana) but the Chippewa can'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 <br />
<br />
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 "Anglos" 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're all over the place. - Celia<br />
<br />
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't agree with Riley'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<br />
<br />
I thought that this book has been quite fascinating so far. It's just more proof that we can't divide America into the North, South, East, and West and say 'this is how it was.' 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 "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers." 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 "Harvey Girls" where she goes out west to marry a man she had been writing to, only to be disapointed when she arrives. - Celia<br />
<br />
The Native American courting rituals were crazy. I don'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<br />
<br />
I agree with Rebecca that poorly matched spouses was not more likely to cause divorce. There have been many cases of arranged marriages that worked out fine and did not end in divorce. People who were in situations like that dealt with the fact that their marriage was arranged and many times actually ended up eventually loving that person. I think that the elements in living and surviving in the West along with the high expectations about marriage were the main causes of divorce. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
== Pictures ==<br />
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<br />
<br />
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's domestic duties included work outside the home, especially pictures taken of the Native American women. --Joe C.<br />
<br />
I don't think these pictures were the kind that women were sending to the men, rather the ones of the native women might have been a part of a photographic study and the others for record keeping purposes or to send home to the photograph. This was the era where photographs took off, as well as the concept of sending "family portraits" to friends and family. I thought the contrast between ethnic modes of dress displayed in the portraits quite interesting. It is also neat that you can see that the people who lived then liked to mix and match their ethnic clothing with American styles of dress. It is quite fascinating looking at that from the viewpoint of assimilation. -Lacey</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_11_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 11 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-03-31T02:13:20Z<p>Kwilson: </p>
<hr />
<div>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'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<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Lacey on the creep factor. Heh, that would disturb me greatly... more so with my mom's mom than dad'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<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
The first half of this book is interesting. I like Riley's use of the term "cultural layering." I also noticed that she used the phrase "women of color" 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'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't feel it's right to lump them together like you can perhaps get away with (like her use of Anglo or Chicana) but the Chippewa can'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 <br />
<br />
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 "Anglos" 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're all over the place. - Celia<br />
<br />
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't agree with Riley'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<br />
<br />
I thought that this book has been quite fascinating so far. It's just more proof that we can't divide America into the North, South, East, and West and say 'this is how it was.' 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 "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers." 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 "Harvey Girls" where she goes out west to marry a man she had been writing to, only to be disapointed when she arrives. - Celia<br />
<br />
The Native American courting rituals were crazy. I don'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<br />
<br />
I agree with Rebecca that poorly matched spouses were more likely to divorce. There have been many cases of arranged marriages that worked out fine and did not end in divorce. People who were in situations like that dealt with the fact that their marriage was arranged and many times actually ended up eventually loving that person. I think that the elements in living and surviving in the West along with the high expectations about marriage were the main causes of divorce. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
== Pictures ==<br />
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<br />
<br />
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's domestic duties included work outside the home, especially pictures taken of the Native American women. --Joe C.</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_10_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 10 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-03-26T01:36:49Z<p>Kwilson: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Porfiriato ==<br />
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 ''at any cost'' 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 "I'm done" 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'd love to take credit for actually remembering all of this, but it came from my notes from Dr. Poska's class this semester of Latin American History. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
One part of this article that stuck out to me was interracial marriage between Chicano women and Anglo-Saxon men. This seemed like it was really only a viable option for lighter skinned Mexicans because then their husbands could pass them off as white. Even so, it was a type of independence for these women. I liked the story about the woman who cut her hair because she wanted to show her husband that he could not control her like her father did while she was in Mexico. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
== Bonnie Thornton Dill ==<br />
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 'women of color' and it mean more than just African American women. I understand it completely... but, and please don't see me as racist for saying this, I've always hated that phrase because I know it means not-white skinned people... but our creamish/peachy color is a color too... I'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'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<br />
<br />
I also really enjoyed reading this article. It really put things into perspective. It showed how although these women came from different cultural backgrounds, they were experiencing some of the same things. Each group had their own way of dealing with the discrimination. I particularly found the concept of "compadrazgos" really interesting. The concept of godparents crossed the racial and class lines. It's interesting to see how children bring people together. -- Kari W.</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_10_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 10 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-03-26T01:03:07Z<p>Kwilson: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Porfiriato ==<br />
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 ''at any cost'' 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 "I'm done" 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'd love to take credit for actually remembering all of this, but it came from my notes from Dr. Poska's class this semester of Latin American History. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
== Bonnie Thornton Dill ==<br />
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 'women of color' and it mean more than just African American women. I understand it completely... but, and please don't see me as racist for saying this, I've always hated that phrase because I know it means not-white skinned people... but our creamish/peachy color is a color too... I'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'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<br />
<br />
I also really enjoyed reading this article. It really put things into perspective. It showed how although these women came from different cultural backgrounds, they were experiencing some of the same things. Each group had their own way of dealing with the discrimination. I particularly found the concept of "compadrazgos" really interesting. The concept of godparents crossed the racial and class lines. It's interesting to see how children bring people together. -- Kari W.</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_9_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 9 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-03-19T03:06:22Z<p>Kwilson: /* The American Father */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Bridging Tues. and Thurs. ==<br />
I think we would have been better off reading Evelyn Glenn's article on Chinese-American families before reading ''China Men''. Reading ''China Men'' 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't really get in ''China Men'' until you get to the section on laws as relating to Chinese immigrants. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Lacey on this. I felt like I understood ''China Men'' 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<br />
<br />
I was definately seeing parallels between the two and Glenn's article answered alot of questions I had. It kind of connected the dots in ''China Men''. The big issue, I think, in the two readings is the importance of family, as Glenn writes,"filial piety, respect for elders and reverence for tradion" which are the principle teachings of Confucius. I agree with Lacey, I wish we had read this before the other - Celia<br />
<br />
I agree as well, if I hadn'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<br />
<br />
I think its also important to bridge the two genres of a literature/nonfiction work like Kingston with the historical article of Glenn. I think by reading Kingston's work in a history course rather than an English course, its easier for me to pull out the history of families and Chinese culture. --Joyce<br />
<br />
I definitely feel like the Glenn article was a nice addition to the reading because it really helped to put the Kingston book into context. Like we were discussing in class on Tuesday, we went into this topic with very little knowledge about the subject so reading this article maybe first, would have been helpful. It definitely put the oral histories in context, though, which answered a lot of questions. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I agree with everyone that this would have been nicer to have up front. I was very confused reading for Tuesday but I feel like the class discussion was really helpful. The article confirmed a lot of what we said in class. I guess like Ashley said putting the article at the end made it more challenging, but I still would have preferred background knowledge before getting so involved in a book which was so different from the others we have read. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
== The American Father ==<br />
<br />
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't know how he got here, it was either A or B, but we're not sure. -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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'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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
I felt bad for this family, but it was inspiring to read the lengths the family went to in order to gain success. After their hard work, their children went on to continue the tradition of teaching (the brother in Vietnam) and be successful, financially independent, and acculturated citizens.-Joyce M<br />
<br />
I also thought it was interesting reading about how the Father was treated by his wife after he lost his business. She pretty much insulted him in every way possible and in front of her children. Middle class whites would not approve of this type of relationship. In some ways I think the mother was a little too harsh on the Father, but I can see how she would be frustrated. With the Father not having a job the family was losing most of their income. I can imagine that would be a terrible situation to live in. Though, I don't think that yelling and nagging him was the most productive way to get the Father to work at the time. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
== Glenn, "Split Household..." ==<br />
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'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<br />
<br />
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 "paper sons" 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<br />
<br />
It is amazing that any Chinese immigrated to the United States at all with so many restrictions place upon them. I realized their situation in China must have been desperate that they even considered traveling to another country, to leave their families and spouses in order to live in a country where they would make menial money and never become citizens until the 40s.---Joyce M<br />
<br />
== The Brother in Vietnam ==<br />
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'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't know what to make of it, and am glad we have an article to supplement.--Amanda<br />
<br />
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 "their whole lives suddenly make sense," 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<br />
<br />
Um, I'm with Amanda. Based on the title of the section, I was expecting something completely different. I mean, it was an interesting chapter and the involvement in the war was definitely something interesting to learn about, but the book was confusing enough as it is. I didn't really need to be thrown off by another chapter. -Kelly W.</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_9_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 9 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-03-19T02:59:01Z<p>Kwilson: /* Bridging Tues. and Thurs. */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Bridging Tues. and Thurs. ==<br />
I think we would have been better off reading Evelyn Glenn's article on Chinese-American families before reading ''China Men''. Reading ''China Men'' 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't really get in ''China Men'' until you get to the section on laws as relating to Chinese immigrants. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Lacey on this. I felt like I understood ''China Men'' 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<br />
<br />
I was definately seeing parallels between the two and Glenn's article answered alot of questions I had. It kind of connected the dots in ''China Men''. The big issue, I think, in the two readings is the importance of family, as Glenn writes,"filial piety, respect for elders and reverence for tradion" which are the principle teachings of Confucius. I agree with Lacey, I wish we had read this before the other - Celia<br />
<br />
I agree as well, if I hadn'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<br />
<br />
I think its also important to bridge the two genres of a literature/nonfiction work like Kingston with the historical article of Glenn. I think by reading Kingston's work in a history course rather than an English course, its easier for me to pull out the history of families and Chinese culture. --Joyce<br />
<br />
I definitely feel like the Glenn article was a nice addition to the reading because it really helped to put the Kingston book into context. Like we were discussing in class on Tuesday, we went into this topic with very little knowledge about the subject so reading this article maybe first, would have been helpful. It definitely put the oral histories in context, though, which answered a lot of questions. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I agree with everyone that this would have been nicer to have up front. I was very confused reading for Tuesday but I feel like the class discussion was really helpful. The article confirmed a lot of what we said in class. I guess like Ashley said putting the article at the end made it more challenging, but I still would have preferred background knowledge before getting so involved in a book which was so different from the others we have read. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
== The American Father ==<br />
<br />
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't know how he got here, it was either A or B, but we're not sure. -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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'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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
I felt bad for this family, but it was inspiring to read the lengths the family went to in order to gain success. After their hard work, their children went on to continue the tradition of teaching (the brother in Vietnam) and be successful, financially independent, and acculturated citizens.-Joyce M<br />
<br />
== Glenn, "Split Household..." ==<br />
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'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<br />
<br />
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 "paper sons" 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<br />
<br />
It is amazing that any Chinese immigrated to the United States at all with so many restrictions place upon them. I realized their situation in China must have been desperate that they even considered traveling to another country, to leave their families and spouses in order to live in a country where they would make menial money and never become citizens until the 40s.---Joyce M<br />
<br />
== The Brother in Vietnam ==<br />
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'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't know what to make of it, and am glad we have an article to supplement.--Amanda<br />
<br />
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 "their whole lives suddenly make sense," 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</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_9_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 9 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-03-17T03:09:40Z<p>Kwilson: </p>
<hr />
<div>== In General ==<br />
I have to say, in general, this book was confusing at first. However, after reading the synopsis on the back of the book and trying to differentiate between stories it started making a little more sense. Hopefully everything pulls together better at the end. -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
== On Discovery & On Fathers ==<br />
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<br />
<br />
Going off of Lacey's point above, part of the problem with the sources is that they are stories told down in families and eventually recorded from how they sound. The book itself reads on that it is Non-Fiction and Literature. One of the questions to think about for tomorrow's discussion is how does this book fit into the rest of the semester. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I read Kingston's ''Woman Warrior'' 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. ''Woman Warrior'' 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<br />
<br />
I have to agree that the understanding the context of this work is difficult at first. I did not immediately understand that this was a series of narratives told by the author. A brief introduction explaining the format and the origin of the text would have been helpful for readers to understand the intent of the work sooner rather then immediately diving into The On Discovery section. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
Going back to the issue of sources -- if these are stories passed down by family members, we have to wonder how accurate these stories really are. The person telling the story could have left things out which they felt gave the family a poor name or something of the sort. I feel that if there was more context to this book it would be more useful. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
I agree with Sarah's point. I thought this was a novel when I first started reading. A disclaimer would have been nice. But even knowing it's her own stories, what do we make of the sources? How representative are the vignettes? --Amanda<br />
<br />
== The Father from China ==<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
In reading this section I couldn't help feeling sorry for the father. To be a scholar and study for exams for so hard and so long and ultimately work in a laundry must have felt degrading. I also thought it was interesting that he insisted that his wife get an education before coming to America as he did not want "an ignorant villager for his American wife." (68) Despite his work in a laundry, he still wanted to have the proper appearance of an educated man with a modern wife. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== The Grandfather of the Sierra Nevada ==<br />
I thought this chapter was surreal. It reads a lot like ''Memoirs of a Geisha'' where history and myth are intertwined to make the moral of the story understandable, but the thing that this story is trying to tell is more amorphous and yet more real. I had heard of the legend of the Spinning Girl and the Cowboy and I understand why men fresh from China would feel connected and homesick from it. I also knew about the way that Chinamen were made to work on the railways. But these things combined with the way that he felt he was having sex with the world or the fact that the white men were impish demons just destroyed the credibilty. And I know that makes me seem as if I am contradicting myself because all of these things relate back to the construction of an ethnic masculinity and family relationships, but this really threw me for a loop. -Lacey.<br />
<br />
== The Making of More Americans ==<br />
<br />
I thought that this section really illustrated the variety of effects that coming to America could have on Chinese immigrants. For example, Sao puts priority on his daughters instead of his mother back in China. Traditionally he would have been responsible for his mother's welfare and care in her old age. However, he buys into the idea of American materialism and invests in a tv and a car instead of feeding his own mother who starves to death. Oppositely, Uncle Bon is so disgusted by what he sees as wasteful American practices and selfishness that he returns to China with the intent of joining the communists. It seems that while some Chinese Americans became acculturated into American society, others were repulsed by it. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I also noticed what Sarah points out about Sao not providing for his family in China. His family wrote him many letters complaining about their hunger and health and Sao feels it is more beneficial to take care of his immediate family and life in America, not his extended family in China. This shows the switch to a more nuclear family and individual focus rather than extended/community family focus. In this case the distance of being in America made that process possible, but in order to survive in America and in American culture, Sao had to look out for himself. --Kari W.</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_9_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 9 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-03-17T03:03:37Z<p>Kwilson: </p>
<hr />
<div>== In General ==<br />
I have to say, in general, this book was confusing at first. However, after reading the synopsis on the back of the book and trying to differentiate between stories it started making a little more sense. Hopefully everything pulls together better at the end. -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
== On Discovery & On Fathers ==<br />
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<br />
<br />
Going off of Lacey's point above, part of the problem with the sources is that they are stories told down in families and eventually recorded from how they sound. The book itself reads on that it is Non-Fiction and Literature. One of the questions to think about for tomorrow's discussion is how does this book fit into the rest of the semester. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I read Kingston's ''Woman Warrior'' 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. ''Woman Warrior'' 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<br />
<br />
I have to agree that the understanding the context of this work is difficult at first. I did not immediately understand that this was a series of narratives told by the author. A brief introduction explaining the format and the origin of the text would have been helpful for readers to understand the intent of the work sooner rather then immediately diving into The On Discovery section. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
Going back to the issue of sources -- if these are stories passed down by family members, we have to wonder how accurate these stories really are. The person telling the story could have left things out which they felt gave the family a poor name or something of the sort. I feel that if there was more context to this book it would be more useful. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
I agree with Sarah's point. I thought this was a novel when I first started reading. A disclaimer would have been nice. But even knowing it's her own stories, what do we make of the sources? How representative are the vignettes? --Amanda<br />
<br />
== The Father from China ==<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
In reading this section I couldn't help feeling sorry for the father. To be a scholar and study for exams for so hard and so long and ultimately work in a laundry must have felt degrading. I also thought it was interesting that he insisted that his wife get an education before coming to America as he did not want "an ignorant villager for his American wife." (68) Despite his work in a laundry, he still wanted to have the proper appearance of an educated man with a modern wife. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== The Grandfather of the Sierra Nevada ==<br />
I thought this chapter was surreal. It reads a lot like ''Memoirs of a Geisha'' where history and myth are intertwined to make the moral of the story understandable, but the thing that this story is trying to tell is more amorphous and yet more real. I had heard of the legend of the Spinning Girl and the Cowboy and I understand why men fresh from China would feel connected and homesick from it. I also knew about the way that Chinamen were made to work on the railways. But these things combined with the way that he felt he was having sex with the world or the fact that the white men were impish demons just destroyed the credibilty. And I know that makes me seem as if I am contradicting myself because all of these things relate back to the construction of an ethnic masculinity and family relationships, but this really threw me for a loop. -Lacey.<br />
<br />
== The Making of More Americans ==<br />
<br />
I thought that this section really illustrated the variety of effects that coming to America could have on Chinese immigrants. For example, Sao puts priority on his daughters instead of his mother back in China. Traditionally he would have been responsible for his mother's welfare and care in her old age. However, he buys into the idea of American materialism and invests in a tv and a car instead of feeding his own mother who starves to death. Oppositely, Uncle Bon is so disgusted by what he sees as wasteful American practices and selfishness that he returns to China with the intent of joining the communists. It seems that while some Chinese Americans became acculturated into American society, others were repulsed by it. --Sarah Gardner</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_9_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 9 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-03-17T02:41:47Z<p>Kwilson: </p>
<hr />
<div>== On Discovery & On Fathers ==<br />
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<br />
<br />
Going off of Lacey's point above, part of the problem with the sources is that they are stories told down in families and eventually recorded from how they sound. The book itself reads on that it is Non-Fiction and Literature. One of the questions to think about for tomorrow's discussion is how does this book fit into the rest of the semester. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I read Kingston's ''Woman Warrior'' 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. ''Woman Warrior'' 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<br />
<br />
I have to agree that the understanding the context of this work is difficult at first. I did not immediately understand that this was a series of narratives told by the author. A brief introduction explaining the format and the origin of the text would have been helpful for readers to understand the intent of the work sooner rather then immediately diving into The On Discovery section. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
Going back to the issue of sources -- if these are stories passed down by family members, we have to wonder how accurate these stories really are. The person telling the story could have left things out which they felt gave the family a poor name or something of the sort. I feel that if there was more context to this book it would be more useful. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
== The Father from China ==<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
In reading this section I couldn't help feeling sorry for the father. To be a scholar and study for exams for so hard and so long and ultimately work in a laundry must have felt degrading. I also thought it was interesting that he insisted that his wife get an education before coming to America as he did not want "an ignorant villager for his American wife." (68) Despite his work in a laundry, he still wanted to have the proper appearance of an educated man with a modern wife. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== In General ==<br />
I have to say, in general, this book was confusing at first. However, after reading the synopsis on the back of the book and trying to differentiate between stories it started making a little more sense. Hopefully everything pulls together better at the end. -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
== The Making of More Americans ==<br />
<br />
I thought that this section really illustrated the variety of effects that coming to America could have on Chinese immigrants. For example, Sao puts priority on his daughters instead of his mother back in China. Traditionally he would have been responsible for his mother's welfare and care in her old age. However, he buys into the idea of American materialism and invests in a tv and a car instead of feeding his own mother who starves to death. Oppositely, Uncle Bon is so disgusted by what he sees as wasteful American practices and selfishness that he returns to China with the intent of joining the communists. It seems that while some Chinese Americans became acculturated into American society, others were repulsed by it. --Sarah Gardner</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_8_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 8 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-03-12T00:47:48Z<p>Kwilson: </p>
<hr />
<div>== A bit from Tuesday ==<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
<br />
== The Welcome Child ==<br />
<br />
I found Cowan's comment on how a marriage is not complete nor is a life without having a child. He says, "A married life without children is an unlovable and unsatisfactory life." Men and women have to rear a child to have any self worth in the world. While I don't necessarily agree with his comment, I do feel that raising a child is a noteworthy and important task. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
The majority of this chapter talked about the arguments for and against birth control. It was interesting to read about all the different reasons why people were for or against it. Also, the main sources used to promote birth control were written by John Humphrey Noyes of the Oneidas. I'm not sure how representative that is of the 19th century views for birth control because the Oneidas did not have the biggest following and had very controversial ideas of "complex marriages". -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Perfecting The Race ==<br />
I found it very interesting how while many Victorian writers felt that sex was something that shouldn'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<br />
<br />
<br />
==Some Nineteenth Century Lives== <br />
<br />
I thought this chapter with the "real life" experiences was ridiculous. I don't know how accurate these stories are, but they seem like very extreme experiences. I feel like adding these stories into the advice manuals made these illnesses appear more real to the readers and was a type of scare tactic to get people to be sexually moral. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
== Epilogue ==<br />
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's rights in the epilogue. Shouldn't there have been some mention of that elsewhere in the book? This is a very confusing and annoying book.... --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
<br />
== Rotundo: Chapter 6 ==<br />
<br />
I know this is from a book titled ''American Manhood'', 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't get derogatory names for doing so. They get called player and man-whore is a phrase that I've seen guys only take with pride and usually given to them with pride. However, women can'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'm not saying men and women should go around and have sex with everything that walks and everything be all hunky dorey, I'm just annoyed with the double standards that have been in place for centuries and are still in place today. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I also found the double standard irritating. Women were expected to be so much more moral and proper than men were and quite frequently they ended up with a ruined reputation for some minor action. I thought that some of that was interesting, however, especially in the section on courtship. Rotundo makes some interesting comments on women who were considered coquettes and the fact that king of behavior might be their only way to grasp control in the situation and they were seen as manipulative or vain and flighty. -Lacey</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_8_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 8 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-03-12T00:43:23Z<p>Kwilson: </p>
<hr />
<div>== A bit from Tuesday ==<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
<br />
== The Welcome Child ==<br />
<br />
I found Cowan's comment on how a marriage is not complete nor is a life without having a child. He says, "A married life without children is an unlovable and unsatisfactory life." Men and women have to rear a child to have any self worth in the world. While I don't necessarily agree with his comment, I do feel that raising a child is a noteworthy and important task. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
The majority of this chapter talked about the arguments for and against birth control. It was interesting to read about all the different reasons why people were for or against it. Also, the main sources used to promote birth control were written by John Humphrey Noyes of the Oneidas. I'm not sure how representative that is of the 19th century views for birth control because the Oneidas did not have the biggest following and had very controversial ideas of "complex marriages". -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Perfecting The Race ==<br />
I found it very interesting how while many Victorian writers felt that sex was something that shouldn'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<br />
<br />
<br />
== Epilogue ==<br />
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's rights in the epilogue. Shouldn't there have been some mention of that elsewhere in the book? This is a very confusing and annoying book.... --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
<br />
== Rotundo: Chapter 6 ==<br />
<br />
I know this is from a book titled ''American Manhood'', 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't get derogatory names for doing so. They get called player and man-whore is a phrase that I've seen guys only take with pride and usually given to them with pride. However, women can'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'm not saying men and women should go around and have sex with everything that walks and everything be all hunky dorey, I'm just annoyed with the double standards that have been in place for centuries and are still in place today. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I also found the double standard irritating. Women were expected to be so much more moral and proper than men were and quite frequently they ended up with a ruined reputation for some minor action. I thought that some of that was interesting, however, especially in the section on courtship. Rotundo makes some interesting comments on women who were considered coquettes and the fact that king of behavior might be their only way to grasp control in the situation and they were seen as manipulative or vain and flighty. -Lacey</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_8_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 8 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-03-10T03:11:41Z<p>Kwilson: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching Ideas ==<br />
<br />
So far I do like this read, but I do have one problem with it. I know its just the style or whatever, but the Preface and Intro had a lot of the author and her ideas and whatnot, I loved the story that led to the creation of this work.... and the rest of the chapters are mostly 'here read the source yourself and have very little comment and input from me' and on top of it at first it was hard to distinguish who was the author and what wasn't because the preface and intro had the author's speech in regular print whereas in the chapter the author's speech in italicized... its rather confusing and annoying. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
<br />
I wasn't really sure where to put this because it was mentioned in a few of the chapters, the whole eating thing. I have my own theory on some of their theories, like the guy who said that sexual desires decreased/desisted when a person eats only bread and water. Well, duh. The body is having a hard time subsisting on the mediocre food its getting and, at least with other critters and animals, if the body isn't getting enough nutrients they don't have the desire to mate and reproduce. Well, in the long run we'd have those same instincts, so if our bodies don't have enough nutrients, it would be then possible for our desire to go down because we don't have the nutrients. That, or because we're still hungry and we may think of survival before pleasure >^.^< Just a thought and a rant. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
My opinion of this half of the book is that it's interesting but complete ludicrous. It tells us something (I'm not sure what) that people believed this stuff, wrote about it, read it, and perhaps took some of it to heart. But there was no scientific proof or logical reason for most of the advice given, and I have a hard time understanding the rationale of the time period.--Amanda<br />
<br />
My feelings on this book have been interesting. I have to say this has been the most entertaining book. I have been sharing a couple passages with people and I even laugh out loud at some points. I agree with Amanda that some of this seems ludicrous to us now, but people really believed it then, just like we really believe that eating blueberries will prevent cancer. - Celia<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
I am very glad for the preparation the introduction of this text provides. I felt as if I was stepping into a world that was completely alien to what we see today, that is not to say that I don't see the relation to the modern sense of American modesty and taboo. But they go to such great lengths to have a conversation about they are so hesitant about that they talk in circles around the simplest of concepts. I feel very much akin to Frederick Marryat's take on American prudery. -Lacey<br />
<br />
== Chapter 1 ==<br />
I feel like, definitely in the beginning of, chapter one really elaborated on the importance of a proper upbringing by the mother. Children were to be taught from the get-go about chastity and saved before they even had the chance to understand the idea of sex so that they never had to worry about harm or improper behavior. The emphasis of all of this education falling on the mother delves back into the idea of the Republican Motherhood and the mother being the one in charge of the children - a topic we've been discussing for the past couple of weeks. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 2 ==<br />
One of the things I found particularly interesting about Ch. 2 was the incorporation of science, specifically medicine, into the understanding of the damaging effects of “sexual excess.” I don’t think any of us were surprised by the relationship between inappropriate sexual acts and sin, but I found the incorporation of science to be very interesting. By listing physical ailments and symptoms as well as using empirical evidence (even if it is cited as weak by Walters) plus the role of physicians, advice manual writers were able to bring a justification to their concerns about sexual excess. I think by giving examples of physical ailments associated with this type of sexual deviance they were not only further pointing out the damages to the person, but even giving physical proof of the sin within these people. Even phrenologists used physical anatomy to attempt to better understand sexual excess, pointing to a larger desire for physical, scientific evidence of sexual deviance. –Mary Beth <br />
<br />
This is kind of a small point but I found it interesting reading about the Oneidas. They were the complete opposite of what these manuals were teaching and yet they still gained some what of a following. It was interesting to read that not everyone believed the extreme ideas about chastity during the time period. Not that I am endorsing the Oneidas at all (I think they are just crazy), but it was somewhat refreshing to read something other than "sex is bad". -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
== Chapter 3 ==<br />
<br />
This chapter was the first mention of family. The book discussed the incorporation of nurses and the replacement of mothers. Apparently the advice of the time was to not use them if possible, but if necessary, to watch them very closely. Then Walters goes on to explain how Dr. Kellogg thought sexual corruption was a hereditary trait through "libidinous blood" (p. 52). I found the parts about how masturbation was a main cause of insanity interesting. And, I had no idea about corsets being used to prevent blood from "overloading sexual organs" (58). In terms of the advice about what to eat and not to eat, I was wondering what the heck people could eat. It seems as though safe diets must have consisted of primarily milk. -Amanda<br />
<br />
Chapter 3, entitled "The Path Downward" shows many factors in the corruption of society from certain points of view. It doesn't take the reader long to realize that many of these advise columns, or lectures or treatises were written by men and women from a certain social class with certain idealized ideas about what American sexuality should be. In what ways does Walters demonstrate the middle-class idea that certain classes contributed to the downfall of the nation's youth? - Celia<br />
<br />
I thought it was very interesting that nurses were blamed for the sexual behavior of their charges. While the advice manuals in no way vindicated parents from being responsible for their children, it seems clear that it was the influence of nurses and maids of the poorer classes who were to blame for initially polluting upper and middle class children. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
== Chapter 4 ==<br />
<br />
Just wanted to point out that Walters talks about women& hysterics on page 72. The hysterical woman has been recurrent throughout the periods and topics we've covered so far. --Amanda<br />
<br />
In his introduction Walters points out that there is underrepresentation of women in sex advice columns in the nineteenth century, which is apparently true by the numbers of sources in this book by men and the number of sources by women. Walters states that women were considered less sexual than men, so there was very little informtion on women's sexuality to write on. However, in chapter four the reader learns about the role of women regarding sexuality- at least mostly from men's point of view. How did some of these male writers view women and their sensuality? - Celia<br />
<br />
Women were viewed in a variety of ways by male writers. For example, Beecher wrote, indirectly, about male fears of female seduction. Sanger wrote about women as prostitutes, a topic which seemed to fascinate many of the male writers. I suppose this was largely due to the fact that prostitution was an anomaly to men who viewed women as virtuous creatures with little to no sexual drive. I also have to wonder as to the accuracy of Sanger's survey of prostitutes. How many of them would have been inclined to tell the truth or to speak with him and his investigators at all? --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I'm not saying this was the case in this particular situation, Sarah, but if they felt it would help their general well-being, the average prostitute may be more willing to talk. You've gotta figure, these are women who are making their livelihood in the late hours on the seedier areas of town. Their job isn't safe, and they don't have a reputation that will get them more respectable work. They have to go with what they have. Who knows, maybe they just wanted to be taken a little bit more seriously. -Cash<br />
<br />
== Chapter 5 ==<br />
It's apparent that marriage was indeed an important element to society during this time period. I just wanted to point out one little sentence that seriously had me a bit perplexed (and laughing?) - "If all men and women were married and their marriages were perfect, wars would cease; disease would disappear; supreme order would prevail; love universal would reign; heaven would descend to earth."(81) I find this viewpoint, and Holcombe's continuing idea that sex and marriage are both as spiritual as love meaning they are eternal, to be a bit extreme. The fact that he hoped for sex after death is a new idea to me. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 6 ==<br />
<br />
I thought that Evrie's discussion of slaves really illustrated how subhuman some individuals believed black slaves to be. His descriptions make them appear no better then animals and his accusations are untrue. For example, as we discussed in class, slaves did attempt to have stable families and were negatively impacted and hurt by separation from those they loved. However, it is by labeling them as incapable of sustaining the same relations as whites that makes slavery permissible to him and other pro-slavery authors. The capability to understand and participate in marriage and family then, were symbols of civilization and superiority and, at least to some, distinguished black from white in Victorian America. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I found this chapter really interesting because it gave two different viewpoints. There was Evrie's argument that Sarah talked about, which seems to be the common attitude towards slaves, but there was also Tower's abolitionist argument. I enjoyed reading the different perspectives, especially Tower's. It was nice to read about someone actually sticking up for the the black population and calling out white plantation owners. --Kari W. <br />
<br />
== Chapter 7 ==</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_8_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 8 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-03-10T02:41:12Z<p>Kwilson: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching Ideas ==<br />
<br />
So far I do like this read, but I do have one problem with it. I know its just the style or whatever, but the Preface and Intro had a lot of the author and her ideas and whatnot, I loved the story that led to the creation of this work.... and the rest of the chapters are mostly 'here read the source yourself and have very little comment and input from me' and on top of it at first it was hard to distinguish who was the author and what wasn't because the preface and intro had the author's speech in regular print whereas in the chapter the author's speech in italicized... its rather confusing and annoying. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
<br />
I wasn't really sure where to put this because it was mentioned in a few of the chapters, the whole eating thing. I have my own theory on some of their theories, like the guy who said that sexual desires decreased/desisted when a person eats only bread and water. Well, duh. The body is having a hard time subsisting on the mediocre food its getting and, at least with other critters and animals, if the body isn't getting enough nutrients they don't have the desire to mate and reproduce. Well, in the long run we'd have those same instincts, so if our bodies don't have enough nutrients, it would be then possible for our desire to go down because we don't have the nutrients. That, or because we're still hungry and we may think of survival before pleasure >^.^< Just a thought and a rant. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
My opinion of this half of the book is that it's interesting but complete ludicrous. It tells us something (I'm not sure what) that people believed this stuff, wrote about it, read it, and perhaps took some of it to heart. But there was no scientific proof or logical reason for most of the advice given, and I have a hard time understanding the rationale of the time period.--Amanda<br />
<br />
My feelings on this book have been interesting. I have to say this has been the most entertaining book. I have been sharing a couple passages with people and I even laugh out loud at some points. I agree with Amanda that some of this seems ludicrous to us now, but people really believed it then, just like we really believe that eating blueberries will prevent cancer. - Celia<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
I am very glad for the preparation the introduction of this text provides. I felt as if I was stepping into a world that was completely alien to what we see today, that is not to say that I don't see the relation to the modern sense of American modesty and taboo. But they go to such great lengths to have a conversation about they are so hesitant about that they talk in circles around the simplest of concepts. I feel very much akin to Frederick Marryat's take on American prudery. -Lacey<br />
<br />
== Chapter 1 ==<br />
I feel like, definitely in the beginning of, chapter one really elaborated on the importance of a proper upbringing by the mother. Children were to be taught from the get-go about chastity and saved before they even had the chance to understand the idea of sex so that they never had to worry about harm or improper behavior. The emphasis of all of this education falling on the mother delves back into the idea of the Republican Motherhood and the mother being the one in charge of the children - a topic we've been discussing for the past couple of weeks. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 2 ==<br />
One of the things I found particularly interesting about Ch. 2 was the incorporation of science, specifically medicine, into the understanding of the damaging effects of “sexual excess.” I don’t think any of us were surprised by the relationship between inappropriate sexual acts and sin, but I found the incorporation of science to be very interesting. By listing physical ailments and symptoms as well as using empirical evidence (even if it is cited as weak by Walters) plus the role of physicians, advice manual writers were able to bring a justification to their concerns about sexual excess. I think by giving examples of physical ailments associated with this type of sexual deviance they were not only further pointing out the damages to the person, but even giving physical proof of the sin within these people. Even phrenologists used physical anatomy to attempt to better understand sexual excess, pointing to a larger desire for physical, scientific evidence of sexual deviance. –Mary Beth <br />
<br />
This is kind of a small point but I found it interesting reading about the Oneidas. They were the complete opposite of what these manuals were teaching and yet they still gained some what of a following. It was interesting to read that not everyone believed the extreme ideas about chastity during the time period. Not that I am endorsing the Oneidas at all (I think they are just crazy), but it was somewhat refreshing to read something other than "sex is bad". -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
== Chapter 3 ==<br />
<br />
This chapter was the first mention of family. The book discussed the incorporation of nurses and the replacement of mothers. Apparently the advice of the time was to not use them if possible, but if necessary, to watch them very closely. Then Walters goes on to explain how Dr. Kellogg thought sexual corruption was a hereditary trait through "libidinous blood" (p. 52). I found the parts about how masturbation was a main cause of insanity interesting. And, I had no idea about corsets being used to prevent blood from "overloading sexual organs" (58). In terms of the advice about what to eat and not to eat, I was wondering what the heck people could eat. It seems as though safe diets must have consisted of primarily milk. -Amanda<br />
<br />
Chapter 3, entitled "The Path Downward" shows many factors in the corruption of society from certain points of view. It doesn't take the reader long to realize that many of these advise columns, or lectures or treatises were written by men and women from a certain social class with certain idealized ideas about what American sexuality should be. In what ways does Walters demonstrate the middle-class idea that certain classes contributed to the downfall of the nation's youth? - Celia<br />
<br />
I thought it was very interesting that nurses were blamed for the sexual behavior of their charges. While the advice manuals in no way vindicated parents from being responsible for their children, it seems clear that it was the influence of nurses and maids of the poorer classes who were to blame for initially polluting upper and middle class children. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
== Chapter 4 ==<br />
<br />
Just wanted to point out that Walters talks about women& hysterics on page 72. The hysterical woman has been recurrent throughout the periods and topics we've covered so far. --Amanda<br />
<br />
In his introduction Walters points out that there is underrepresentation of women in sex advice columns in the nineteenth century, which is apparently true by the numbers of sources in this book by men and the number of sources by women. Walters states that women were considered less sexual than men, so there was very little informtion on women's sexuality to write on. However, in chapter four the reader learns about the role of women regarding sexuality- at least mostly from men's point of view. How did some of these male writers view women and their sensuality? - Celia<br />
<br />
Women were viewed in a variety of ways by male writers. For example, Beecher wrote, indirectly, about male fears of female seduction. Sanger wrote about women as prostitutes, a topic which seemed to fascinate many of the male writers. I suppose this was largely due to the fact that prostitution was an anomaly to men who viewed women as virtuous creatures with little to no sexual drive. I also have to wonder as to the accuracy of Sanger's survey of prostitutes. How many of them would have been inclined to tell the truth or to speak with him and his investigators at all? --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
== Chapter 5 ==<br />
It's apparent that marriage was indeed an important element to society during this time period. I just wanted to point out one little sentence that seriously had me a bit perplexed (and laughing?) - "If all men and women were married and their marriages were perfect, wars would cease; disease would disappear; supreme order would prevail; love universal would reign; heaven would descend to earth."(81) I find this viewpoint, and Holcombe's continuing idea that sex and marriage are both as spiritual as love meaning they are eternal, to be a bit extreme. The fact that he hoped for sex after death is a new idea to me. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 6 ==<br />
<br />
I thought that Evrie's discussion of slaves really illustrated how subhuman some individuals believed black slaves to be. His descriptions make them appear no better then animals and his accusations are untrue. For example, as we discussed in class, slaves did attempt to have stable families and were negatively impacted and hurt by separation from those they loved. However, it is by labeling them as incapable of sustaining the same relations as whites that makes slavery permissible to him and other pro-slavery authors. The capability to understand and participate in marriage and family then, were symbols of civilization and superiority and, at least to some, distinguished black from white in Victorian America. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
== Chapter 7 ==</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_7_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 7 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-02-26T02:17:22Z<p>Kwilson: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Chapter 5 ==<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, I still cannot see the role of religion in Whites'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'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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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 "decline in their class position."<br />
Religion, I thought, was a theme in the chapter and book that Whites uses too much. I understand both MB and Ashley's position. ''Some'' 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<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
== Chapter 6 ==<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Chapter 7 ==<br />
<br />
I learned something new from this chapter! I actually didn't know that such organizations, like the Confederate Survivors' 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<br />
<br />
I found the speech given by Cummings at the end of the chapter to be really interesting. He explains the concepts of the "Golden Age" and the "Iron Age" 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't think the Golden Age was so golden. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
<br />
=="Freed Women" Article==<br />
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<br />
<br />
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.</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_7_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 7 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-02-26T02:08:57Z<p>Kwilson: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Chapter 5 ==<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, I still cannot see the role of religion in Whites'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'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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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 "decline in their class position."<br />
Religion, I thought, was a theme in the chapter and book that Whites uses too much. I understand both MB and Ashley's position. ''Some'' 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<br />
<br />
== Chapter 6 ==<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Chapter 7 ==<br />
<br />
I learned something new from this chapter! I actually didn't know that such organizations, like the Confederate Survivors' 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<br />
<br />
I found the speech given by Cummings at the end of the chapter to be really interesting. He explains the concepts of the "Golden Age" and the "Iron Age" 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't think the Golden Age was so golden. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
<br />
=="Freed Women" Article==<br />
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</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_7_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 7 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-02-25T19:39:33Z<p>Kwilson: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Chapter 5 ==<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, I still cannot see the role of religion in Whites'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'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<br />
<br />
== Chapter 6 ==<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Chapter 7 ==<br />
<br />
I learned something new from this chapter! I actually didn't know that such organizations, like the Confederate Survivors' 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<br />
<br />
<br />
=="Freed Women" Article==</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_7_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 7 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-02-24T00:44:48Z<p>Kwilson: </p>
<hr />
<div>== The Book in General ==<br />
<br />
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'm reading the same thing over and over. I guess that'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<br />
<br />
I have to admit, it was kind of interesting to have Mrs. Thomas's journal thoughts in the Whites'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'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<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
<br />
Sorry, had to add another heading because I wanted to make a comment about the Introduction. Whites line about the "great southern slaveholding planters" 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<br />
<br />
==Chapter 1==<br />
<br />
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'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<br />
<br />
==Chapter 2== <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Chapter 3== <br />
<br />
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'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 "town fathers", for not taking care of them like their husbands did. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
==Chapter 4==</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_7_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 7 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-02-23T20:15:08Z<p>Kwilson: </p>
<hr />
<div>== The Book in General ==<br />
<br />
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'm reading the same thing over and over. I guess that'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<br />
<br />
I have to admit, it was kind of interesting to have Mrs. Thomas's journal thoughts in the Whites'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'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<br />
<br />
<br />
==Chapter 1== <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Chapter 2== <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Chapter 3== <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Chapter 4==</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_6_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 6 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-02-19T04:49:30Z<p>Kwilson: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching Topics ==<br />
<br />
After reading last week's monograph and this week'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'm not trying to be gross, I'm just wondering if it also happened in America. I'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<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Chapter 4 ==<br />
<br />
During Tuesday'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, "White women responded to the extramarital affairs of their spouses with a combination of resignation, denial, and displaced hostility and vidictiveness toward their slaves." I figured since we talked about it, I'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 'extramarital sex,' 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<br />
<br />
One thing I found interesting was the reason behind sexual violence. "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." (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'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's indiscretions. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
It seems to me that there was a little bit of irony in this chapter. It discusses at the beginning of the chapter that although the state of Virginia demanded that death sentence be placed on a slave who murdered a white or black male or female. Rothman then goes on to state that Virginia communities did not always agree with that sort of punishment without all the evidence and particular circumstances considered. After reading the cases of the chapter, it appears to me that the majority of cases went straight to the death penalty, especially in Manuel's case. Therefore, the argument should be that a male slave who acted alone in murdering a white male, regardless of the crime the white male committed, the black slave would be on a one way street to the gallows. --Joe C.<br />
<br />
Rothman certainly had more sources for this chapter and made his points well. The cases were fascinating but I was frankly shocked by some of the circumstances (Ben, the wife and Gooding come to mind). And actually, I have to disagree with Joe. While some slaves such as Manuel and Henry were hanged, many were acquitted or the sentence was lessened to "transportation." I was really surprised by this. This chapter exposed many facets of white&black relations that are not usually taught. I had no idea the extent to which whites tried and often succeeded in intervening on the behalf of slaves. Even the fact that some slaves had attorneys and their cases were brought into courts surprised me. After reading this chapter, I felt that slave women had one choice in life: between rape or death.--Amanda<br />
<br />
Responding to Amanda's comment about transportation instead of execution: I don't see this as whites intervening on behalf of slaves. I think it was totally self-serving. At least that is how Rothman presents it in this chapter. I also think that reason behind the attorneys was maybe not so much to protect the slave. Maybe it was just because the slave was a valuable piece of property, so the decision to kill the slave had to go through proper legal channels. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
In reading this chapter, I was struck by how much personal relationships and situations influenced the sentences of slaves accused of murdering white men. Like Amanda, I did not expect to read that white men often petitioned the governor on the behalf of a slave. Granted, as Rothman discusses, slaves were viewed as "valuable" and so many men wanted to save them for work, yet many of the petitioners were neighbors who seem to legitimately have had some feeling for the victims. I also was unaware of the frequency with which slaves were able to testify in court. Ultimately though, this chapter really illustrated the social hierarchy to me. That white men would stand up for a black man who clearly raped a white woman, because she was poor, really surprised me and shows that gender and class were, at least occasionally, as important as race in court cases and public opinion. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I agree with Amanda. When I first started to read this chapter, I thought it would be all about black slaves receiving the death penalty for killing white people. But I was surprised at the number of sentences that were not death penalties. I was also surprised that when black men had sex with white women of sordid reputation, no male protection or were poor, they (the slaves) often gained the sympathy of white men. This is mostly because the black slaves were considered more valuable and less contemptible to society. This and, as Amanda wrote above, some of the cases where white men were lenient towards blacks were surprising. - Celia<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Joe here. As Joe points out the state of Virginia demanded that death sentence be placed on a slave who murdered a white or black male or female yet there are contradictions in terms of how/if/what punishment was carried out. However, Sarah too raises a very important point about value. -Stephen<br />
<br />
I wanted to elaborate on Kellye's point a bit and just point out that, as twenty-first century individuals, we tend to forget that (enslaved) black women once did not have ownership of their own bodies. Because they were property their bodies too were simply a thing that belonged to a white slave owner. Essentially, they were toys for their masters to play with, as horrible as that sounds. I did find it interesting though, that at one point Rothman discussed the issue of Malinda, a slave woman who killed another black man as he tried to sexually assault her. Against someone of her own kind, she had the ability to cry self-defense. Against any white man that typically was not the case. -Kelly<br />
<br />
I found this chapter to be very disturbing first of all. However, I found the case of Peggy and Patrick very interesting. They were first given the death penalty, but the jury thought that Peggy received mercy because of her horrible treatment prior to the murder. It was almost like these white men were trying to say that her horrible treatment was a rare case and that slave owners are not normally like that in order to give slaveholders a better name. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Chapter 5 ==<br />
<br />
Reading through the chapter, a question kept running through my mind. Did men or women ever lie about interracial adultery, or was it always proven to be the case that the offending party was in fact sleeping with someone that was not only not the husband/wife, but of a different race? It just seems to me like this is a claim that could just be thrown out there no matter what and because of the scandal attached, there wouldn't be much in the way of defense for the offending party. -Cash<br />
<br />
To answer Cash's first question, I would say of course they lied. The only proof of adultery only came from being caught in the act, or having a child. In southern American society, especially within the legal constructs of Virginia, males were the more convincing because they were only guilty if they were caught in the act. Both scenarios for proof of adulterous activity were possible for women and in a gender polarized society, white males generally had the upper hand and were more convincing. I laughed after reading on page 175 at the list of men from Nansemond County that had told the legislature they acted responsibly. Although it is possible, the white slave owning males' word was their only proof of innocence. --Joe C.<br />
<br />
While I think we are inclined to speculate that people lied about interracial marriages (and it is definitely possible that it did happen) I think we need to keep in mind the shame associated with making a public claim. Rotham goes to great length to describe the shame that both men and women felt. If a man was cheating it was not only embarrassing to the man, but in some way the woman was unable to fulfill her role as a proper women, including sexually pleasing the man. If a woman was cheating it was embarrassing for her, but even more embarrassing for a man who had loss control of his wife, particularly her sexual life, which attacked not only his role as husband, but his masculinity. While it is an interesting point to consider I think we must remember the public shame associated with all of these accusations. – Mary Beth<br />
<br />
I think it's interesting that Rothman explained that whites felt it wasn't white supremacy on the line, but rather the sanctity of marriage. Clearly just as Stevenson said it was much easier for men to get divorces. I am really perplexed by the case of Sarah and Richard Hall on p. 178-179. Why the heck did Sarah get married if she was already involved with a black man? I thought perhaps it was about property and legal status, but did she just expect to keep having the black man's children and live with her husband? What ''was'' she thinking?!--Amanda<br />
<br />
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Chapter 4 Rothman was talking about how when white men were having sex with black women it was more a power thing, something to emasculate the black male slaves. But in Chapter 5, when white women had sex with black men it was a violation of their marriage vows. I am not a fan of either man or wife cheating, but I thought that this situation was very off balanced. Anyone else agree? -Celia<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Celia. Those poor women who wanted a divorce had to have so much evidence other than adultery in order for it to actually be considered and if a man wanted to get a divorce he just had to state that his wife was sleeping with a slave. Also, women had to prove that they were a good wife to the jury in order to get a divorce. The double standard is really ridiculous. I understand that my opinion is based off of modern times and ideas, but still you would think people would be able to see that back then. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
== Chapter 6 ==<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
I think Rothman's point about racial ambiguity was well argued. None of the cases were clear cut and although ancestry was the legal determining factor, physical characteristics often played a role as well.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I agree with Amanda and Kellye. The dicatomy for charaterizing slaves was intresting, but also valueable in seeking a better understanding of the legal factors of the day. - Stephen<br />
<br />
== Epilogue ==<br />
In the Epilogue, Rothman discusses a valuable point of view that most Americans today tend to default their way in to (for lack of a better phrase) and that is the "slavery was bad but everyone is equal now" approach to life. Although rather cheesey, Rothman lays it all on the line as he says "Finally, they seem to feel we can move on. Tom and Sally were really in love, after all, and slavery was a long time ago." He argues that interracial sex and the amount of time and energy whites spent hating blacks and both sides of the color line spent feuding is often overlooked in history classes today in a "slavery ended hundreds of years ago and we're not like that anymore" sort of way. So I have a question - do you think that's true? Do Americans today kind of, "romanticize" the era, so to speak? -Kelly</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_6_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 6 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-02-19T04:40:40Z<p>Kwilson: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching Topics ==<br />
<br />
After reading last week's monograph and this week'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'm not trying to be gross, I'm just wondering if it also happened in America. I'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<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Chapter 4 ==<br />
<br />
During Tuesday'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, "White women responded to the extramarital affairs of their spouses with a combination of resignation, denial, and displaced hostility and vidictiveness toward their slaves." I figured since we talked about it, I'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 'extramarital sex,' 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<br />
<br />
One thing I found interesting was the reason behind sexual violence. "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." (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'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's indiscretions. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
It seems to me that there was a little bit of irony in this chapter. It discusses at the beginning of the chapter that although the state of Virginia demanded that death sentence be placed on a slave who murdered a white or black male or female. Rothman then goes on to state that Virginia communities did not always agree with that sort of punishment without all the evidence and particular circumstances considered. After reading the cases of the chapter, it appears to me that the majority of cases went straight to the death penalty, especially in Manuel's case. Therefore, the argument should be that a male slave who acted alone in murdering a white male, regardless of the crime the white male committed, the black slave would be on a one way street to the gallows. --Joe C.<br />
<br />
Rothman certainly had more sources for this chapter and made his points well. The cases were fascinating but I was frankly shocked by some of the circumstances (Ben, the wife and Gooding come to mind). And actually, I have to disagree with Joe. While some slaves such as Manuel and Henry were hanged, many were acquitted or the sentence was lessened to "transportation." I was really surprised by this. This chapter exposed many facets of white&black relations that are not usually taught. I had no idea the extent to which whites tried and often succeeded in intervening on the behalf of slaves. Even the fact that some slaves had attorneys and their cases were brought into courts surprised me. After reading this chapter, I felt that slave women had one choice in life: between rape or death.--Amanda<br />
<br />
In reading this chapter, I was struck by how much personal relationships and situations influenced the sentences of slaves accused of murdering white men. Like Amanda, I did not expect to read that white men often petitioned the governor on the behalf of a slave. Granted, as Rothman discusses, slaves were viewed as "valuable" and so many men wanted to save them for work, yet many of the petitioners were neighbors who seem to legitimately have had some feeling for the victims. I also was unaware of the frequency with which slaves were able to testify in court. Ultimately though, this chapter really illustrated the social hierarchy to me. That white men would stand up for a black man who clearly raped a white woman, because she was poor, really surprised me and shows that gender and class were, at least occasionally, as important as race in court cases and public opinion. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I agree with Amanda. When I first started to read this chapter, I thought it would be all about black slaves receiving the death penalty for killing white people. But I was surprised at the number of sentences that were not death penalties. I was also surprised that when black men had sex with white women of sordid reputation, no male protection or were poor, they (the slaves) often gained the sympathy of white men. This is mostly because the black slaves were considered more valuable and less contemptible to society. This and, as Amanda wrote above, some of the cases where white men were lenient towards blacks were surprising. - Celia<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Joe here. As Joe points out the state of Virginia demanded that death sentence be placed on a slave who murdered a white or black male or female yet there are contradictions in terms of how/if/what punishment was carried out. However, Sarah too raises a very important point about value. -Stephen<br />
<br />
I wanted to elaborate on Kellye's point a bit and just point out that, as twenty-first century individuals, we tend to forget that (enslaved) black women once did not have ownership of their own bodies. Because they were property their bodies too were simply a thing that belonged to a white slave owner. Essentially, they were toys for their masters to play with, as horrible as that sounds. I did find it interesting though, that at one point Rothman discussed the issue of Malinda, a slave woman who killed another black man as he tried to sexually assault her. Against someone of her own kind, she had the ability to cry self-defense. Against any white man that typically was not the case. -Kelly<br />
<br />
== Chapter 5 ==<br />
<br />
Reading through the chapter, a question kept running through my mind. Did men or women ever lie about interracial adultery, or was it always proven to be the case that the offending party was in fact sleeping with someone that was not only not the husband/wife, but of a different race? It just seems to me like this is a claim that could just be thrown out there no matter what and because of the scandal attached, there wouldn't be much in the way of defense for the offending party. -Cash<br />
<br />
To answer Cash's first question, I would say of course they lied. The only proof of adultery only came from being caught in the act, or having a child. In southern American society, especially within the legal constructs of Virginia, males were the more convincing because they were only guilty if they were caught in the act. Both scenarios for proof of adulterous activity were possible for women and in a gender polarized society, white males generally had the upper hand and were more convincing. I laughed after reading on page 175 at the list of men from Nansemond County that had told the legislature they acted responsibly. Although it is possible, the white slave owning males' word was their only proof of innocence. --Joe C.<br />
<br />
While I think we are inclined to speculate that people lied about interracial marriages (and it is definitely possible that it did happen) I think we need to keep in mind the shame associated with making a public claim. Rotham goes to great length to describe the shame that both men and women felt. If a man was cheating it was not only embarrassing to the man, but in some way the woman was unable to fulfill her role as a proper women, including sexually pleasing the man. If a woman was cheating it was embarrassing for her, but even more embarrassing for a man who had loss control of his wife, particularly her sexual life, which attacked not only his role as husband, but his masculinity. While it is an interesting point to consider I think we must remember the public shame associated with all of these accusations. – Mary Beth<br />
<br />
I think it's interesting that Rothman explained that whites felt it wasn't white supremacy on the line, but rather the sanctity of marriage. Clearly just as Stevenson said it was much easier for men to get divorces. I am really perplexed by the case of Sarah and Richard Hall on p. 178-179. Why the heck did Sarah get married if she was already involved with a black man? I thought perhaps it was about property and legal status, but did she just expect to keep having the black man's children and live with her husband? What ''was'' she thinking?!--Amanda<br />
<br />
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Chapter 4 Rothman was talking about how when white men were having sex with black women it was more a power thing, something to emasculate the black male slaves. But in Chapter 5, when white women had sex with black men it was a violation of their marriage vows. I am not a fan of either man or wife cheating, but I thought that this situation was very off balanced. Anyone else agree? -Celia<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Celia. Those poor women who wanted a divorce had to have so much evidence other than adultery in order for it to actually be considered and if a man wanted to get a divorce he just had to state that his wife was sleeping with a slave. Also, women had to prove that they were a good wife to the jury in order to get a divorce. The double standard is really ridiculous. I understand that my opinion is based off of modern times and ideas, but still you would think people would be able to see that back then. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
== Chapter 6 ==<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
I think Rothman's point about racial ambiguity was well argued. None of the cases were clear cut and although ancestry was the legal determining factor, physical characteristics often played a role as well.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I agree with Amanda and Kellye. The dicatomy for charaterizing slaves was intresting, but also valueable in seeking a better understanding of the legal factors of the day. - Stephen<br />
<br />
== Epilogue ==<br />
In the Epilogue, Rothman discusses a valuable point of view that most Americans today tend to default their way in to (for lack of a better phrase) and that is the "slavery was bad but everyone is equal now" approach to life. Although rather cheesey, Rothman lays it all on the line as he says "Finally, they seem to feel we can move on. Tom and Sally were really in love, after all, and slavery was a long time ago." He argues that interracial sex and the amount of time and energy whites spent hating blacks and both sides of the color line spent feuding is often overlooked in history classes today in a "slavery ended hundreds of years ago and we're not like that anymore" sort of way. So I have a question - do you think that's true? Do Americans today kind of, "romanticize" the era, so to speak? -Kelly</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_6_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 6 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-02-17T02:10:52Z<p>Kwilson: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching Topics ==<br />
<br />
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'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 "oh look at whose having sex with who and are they cheating in the celebrity world." --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I have to say that I disagree with Ashley, I thought the book was very interesting. Yeah, the first chapter read kind of like a tabloid, but it was interesting to see how far-reaching the interracial relations went. Look at that crazy genealogy in the interlude. Then you also get to see how shortsighted and contradictory these people really were. I find it incredibly fascinating. -Lacey<br />
<br />
This week is supposed to be interracial sex and all that jazz... however, with my own view points I have problems with the whole "Those two people can't be together and have a family because of the color of their skin." 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't people just leave others alone? If you don't like what 2 other people are doing, don't look at them. If people did like Mrs. White Jane Doe having sex with Mr. Black Joe Smith, then don'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 'across the color line,' but no one seemed to care much until blacks were free, honestly, does it matter that the blacks were free? Oy.... --Ashely Wilkins<br />
<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Andrew and Kellye. I was a bit confused when I was reading this about the fact that it was more okay before the Civil War? What was the difference or change in attuitudes caused by? - Stephen<br />
<br />
== Chapter 1 - Tom and Sally ==<br />
<br />
The relationship between Thomas Jefferson and James Callender is what interested me the most. I guess this was just my naive "The Founding Fathers are Gods" education but I didn'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.<br />
<br />
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's needs. -- Kellye S<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
Andrew, I feel this is similar to what we were discussing in class. We have a tendency to find behavior which as a whole we find wrong, somehow less wrong in considering the founders. I feel that Rothman continues this trend to an extent regardign Hemings, but not regarding Callender. Sexism?<br />
<br />
I thought the negotiation powers that Sally had while in France were very interesting. It seemed like slaves in that position really had no choice but to believe their masters would keep their word. In France, she had very little opportunity and was away from their families and if she went to Virginia she could stay with her family and have some more freedoms. Was this going to France thing a common occurrence or was this just a Thomas Jefferson/wealthy elite thing? -- Kari W. <br />
== Chapter 2 - David and Nancy ==<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that the marriage of Issac and West was not as socially unacceptable because Issac was a Jew. White Protestants viewed Jews as inferior and therefore could somewhat justify the black/white relationship. It wasn’t one of “them” who was having sexual relations with a black woman. They would really look for anything to try and not put a blemish on the supreme white society. - Kari W. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Chapter 3 - Brothels and Prostitution ==<br />
Did anyone else catch that most of the women being hauled into court for prostitution were generally being charged with anything but that? -Lacey</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_6_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 6 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-02-17T02:09:52Z<p>Kwilson: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching Topics ==<br />
<br />
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'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 "oh look at whose having sex with who and are they cheating in the celebrity world." --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I have to say that I disagree with Ashley, I thought the book was very interesting. Yeah, the first chapter read kind of like a tabloid, but it was interesting to see how far-reaching the interracial relations went. Look at that crazy genealogy in the interlude. Then you also get to see how shortsighted and contradictory these people really were. I find it incredibly fascinating. -Lacey<br />
<br />
This week is supposed to be interracial sex and all that jazz... however, with my own view points I have problems with the whole "Those two people can't be together and have a family because of the color of their skin." 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't people just leave others alone? If you don't like what 2 other people are doing, don't look at them. If people did like Mrs. White Jane Doe having sex with Mr. Black Joe Smith, then don'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 'across the color line,' but no one seemed to care much until blacks were free, honestly, does it matter that the blacks were free? Oy.... --Ashely Wilkins<br />
<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Andrew and Kellye. I was a bit confused when I was reading this about the fact that it was more okay before the Civil War? What was the difference or change in attuitudes caused by? - Stephen<br />
<br />
== Chapter 1 - Tom and Sally ==<br />
<br />
The relationship between Thomas Jefferson and James Callender is what interested me the most. I guess this was just my naive "The Founding Fathers are Gods" education but I didn'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.<br />
<br />
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's needs. -- Kellye S<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
Andrew, I feel this is similar to what we were discussing in class. We have a tendency to find behavior which as a whole we find wrong, somehow less wrong in considering the founders. I feel that Rothman continues this trend to an extent regardign Hemings, but not regarding Callender. Sexism?<br />
<br />
I thought the negotiation powers that Sally had while in France were very interesting. It seemed like slaves in that position really had no choice but to believe their masters would keep their word. In France, she had very little opportunity and was away from their families and if she went to Virginia she could stay with her family and have some more freedoms. Was this a common occurrence or was this just a Thomas Jefferson/wealthy elite thing? -- Kari W. <br />
== Chapter 2 - David and Nancy ==<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that the marriage of Issac and West was not as socially unacceptable because Issac was a Jew. White Protestants viewed Jews as inferior and therefore could somewhat justify the black/white relationship. It wasn’t one of “them” who was having sexual relations with a black woman. They would really look for anything to try and not put a blemish on the supreme white society. - Kari W. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Chapter 3 - Brothels and Prostitution ==<br />
Did anyone else catch that most of the women being hauled into court for prostitution were generally being charged with anything but that? -Lacey</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_6_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 6 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-02-17T01:57:39Z<p>Kwilson: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching Topics ==<br />
<br />
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'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 "oh look at whose having sex with who and are they cheating in the celebrity world." --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I have to say that I disagree with Ashley, I thought the book was very interesting. Yeah, the first chapter read kind of like a tabloid, but it was interesting to see how far-reaching the interracial relations went. Look at that crazy genealogy in the interlude. Then you also get to see how shortsighted and contradictory these people really were. I find it incredibly fascinating. -Lacey<br />
<br />
This week is supposed to be interracial sex and all that jazz... however, with my own view points I have problems with the whole "Those two people can't be together and have a family because of the color of their skin." 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't people just leave others alone? If you don't like what 2 other people are doing, don't look at them. If people did like Mrs. White Jane Doe having sex with Mr. Black Joe Smith, then don'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 'across the color line,' but no one seemed to care much until blacks were free, honestly, does it matter that the blacks were free? Oy.... --Ashely Wilkins<br />
<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Andrew and Kellye. I was a bit confused when I was reading this about the fact that it was more okay before the Civil War? What was the difference or change in attuitudes caused by? - Stephen<br />
<br />
== Chapter 1 - Tom and Sally ==<br />
<br />
The relationship between Thomas Jefferson and James Callender is what interested me the most. I guess this was just my naive "The Founding Fathers are Gods" education but I didn'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.<br />
<br />
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's needs. -- Kellye S<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
Andrew, I feel this is similar to what we were discussing in class. We have a tendency to find behavior which as a whole we find wrong, somehow less wrong in considering the founders. I feel that Rothman continues this trend to an extent regardign Hemings, but not regarding Callender. Sexism?<br />
<br />
== Chapter 2 - David and Nancy ==<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that the marriage of Issac and West was not as socially unacceptable because Issac was a Jew. White Protestants viewed Jews as inferior and therefore could somewhat justify the black/white relationship. It wasn’t one of “them” who was having sexual relations with a black woman. They would really look for anything to try and not put a blemish on the supreme white society. - Kari W. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Chapter 3 - Brothels and Prostitution ==<br />
Did anyone else catch that most of the women being hauled into court for prostitution were generally being charged with anything but that? -Lacey</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_5_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 5 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-02-12T04:13:19Z<p>Kwilson: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Slave Family ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I always knew it happened, but it was still sad to read about the cases where slaves would marry (with or without permission from their 'masters') and then one of the spouses be sold off, or their children get sold off. Compared to the whites, slave family was vastly different, especially the most households being headed by a female member. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Stevenson spends quite some time discussing the matrifocal family. I found it particularly interesting the link between matrifocal structured families and Virginia law as well as a reference to family structures back in Africa. While I can see how the law dictating the status of a child via the mother would create a matrifocally structured family, I struggle to understand how slaves might have preferred this family structure (p.223). While it may have been familiar it was certainly not ideal and I think it is a stretch to make such a claim that since matrifocally structured families were popular in West Africa that families might even prefer this set up in Virginia. Granted, Stevenson has not painted the picture of stability for those families that were able or willing to have nuclear families, but matrifocal families placed such a burden of protection and sole caretaker on the woman, that it seems far from a preference for matrifocal families, but more likely a necessity of the situation. – Mary Beth<br />
<br />
Looking at the two accounts by Stevenson and Mintz and Kellogg, one gets a look into how "exceptional" Loudoun County, VA was in Antebellum South. Stevenson offers many numbers and figures on how slave families were seperated, for the most part, between various plantations that their masters owned. Mintz and Kellogg declare that slave families were very rarely seperated. I suppose this goes to show how Loudoun was made up of different people, lots of white upper-class who owned numerous plantations all over the state and many parts of the South. This explains why Stevenson stresses seperation amongst black slave families -- Celia<br />
<br />
Slave families were certainly different from free families. Although there are a number of similarities, there were numerous differences. I found one passage to be extremely telling of the situation--“We were not allowed to call our mammies ‘mother.’” In some cases, slave families were not even recognized by whites. It is hard to form a cohesive family unit when you are dominated by a group of people who do not recognize your right to a family. It is easy to see why the community played such a large role in the slave family. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
The reading about slave families really bothered me. I first can not even imagine living the life of a slave then having to be separated from the only happiness in your whole life; their families. Very sad... –Jimmy Conroy<br />
<br />
Slave family life was definitely depressing to read about. Most of the families had to live a part because of all the slave trading. They were never really able to develop a nuclear family. One thing that really stuck out was when the master died the slaves got divided up. I can't even imaging having my family sold somewhere else and being able to do nothing about it. It was really encouraging to read about the slaves who were sold to other plantations being welcomed into families already living on that plantation. They provided a sense of community and family in an awful situation. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
== Slave Children ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In some ways, the slave children can be compared to the children of the slums in the NY. Only sorta mind you. The comparison is that they both had to start working from a really early age. I know we didn't get an age for the kids in NY, but the slave children were working at the age of 6... which means some of them probably got beat for 'misbehaving' at the age of 6... or even younger. :-( --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Ashley's comment really struck me because I knew that children factory labor regulations were bad, but when you see the direct comparison to children slaves it really shows how even after slavery America had much growing to do. --Jimmy Conroy<br />
<br />
I see your point. The young age children were expected to begin work was true of kids in most places, be it on southern farms, northern factories or slave families. I think it speaks to the fact that life for families was harder in general.--Amanda<br />
<br />
== It takes a village... ==<br />
After reading both sections of Stevenson's book about white and black families, I wonder which group this statement applies to best: it takes a village to raise a child. I can see both sides. White families may have had a mid-wife involved in the family, along with slave nurses, and extended family. White women seem to have had more time to raise their own children. In black families and communities, childrearing defaulted to other slaves and older women. Mothers had little if any time to be mothers, and may have been separated from their kids either by work or sale. Is it clear cut which group--black or white--raised children with the community? -Amanda<br />
<br />
It is interesting to see the parallels between slave families and white families during industrialization. Both sets were facing exploitation of some sort, and both relied on the community. In the case of slaves, the community functioned as a defacto family. One could count on the community to raise your child if you were every separated. The community was also responsible for babysitting and food preparation. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
I think both black and white families needed the support of the community in order to raise their children. In the case of white families communities were not only physical and emotional support, but created the ideals of what a family should look like. The community helped mold the child into the adult that was acceptable to white society. They would set standards for children to meet, encourage racial hierarchy etc. Black slave families had to rely on the community they were living in because it was so common for a slave to be sold. People had to rely on the community as a type of family for support when their biological families were miles away. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
== Childbirth ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In reading the chapter on slave marriage and families, I was struck by the practice of slave masters encouraging pregnancy in their female slaves for their own financial benefit. This seems to be a grave contradiction with the statistics that Stevenson provides showing that over half of slave babies died before the age of 1. It seems very odd that a master would provide incentives for female slaves to reproduce and yet provide them with such poor living situations and conditions that only half of their babies survived to actually be an asset to them. This really illustrates the lack of value they put on the life of slaves as human beings. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
That did seem strange. I guess people didn't really think things through when it came to making money. -- Celia<br />
<br />
<br />
== Distinctions ==<br />
<br />
I was really interested in the section in Mintz and Kellogg about African American kinship systems and how they made distinctions between themselves and their white owners. The authors state that the slaves did not merely wish to continue their African customs or to deviate completely from their white owners' ways. They combined the two to suit their situation. The thing that jumped out at me was their view on first-cousin marriage. They believed it was incest and this belief was carried over with them from West Africa, while at the same time many Southerners married first-cousins. This goes to show that the slaves put a lot of emphasis on their extended family system. -- Celia<br />
<br />
I noticed that too about slave families. Another point M&K made were the naming systems slaves used, which were similar to American systems. Just like everyone in Burr Powell's family had either Burr or Powell in their name, Molly got Isaac's name from her family. Often times these names were from former owners, which also mixed the African and American culture.--Amanda</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_5_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 5 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-02-12T04:03:09Z<p>Kwilson: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Slave Family ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I always knew it happened, but it was still sad to read about the cases where slaves would marry (with or without permission from their 'masters') and then one of the spouses be sold off, or their children get sold off. Compared to the whites, slave family was vastly different, especially the most households being headed by a female member. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Stevenson spends quite some time discussing the matrifocal family. I found it particularly interesting the link between matrifocal structured families and Virginia law as well as a reference to family structures back in Africa. While I can see how the law dictating the status of a child via the mother would create a matrifocally structured family, I struggle to understand how slaves might have preferred this family structure (p.223). While it may have been familiar it was certainly not ideal and I think it is a stretch to make such a claim that since matrifocally structured families were popular in West Africa that families might even prefer this set up in Virginia. Granted, Stevenson has not painted the picture of stability for those families that were able or willing to have nuclear families, but matrifocal families placed such a burden of protection and sole caretaker on the woman, that it seems far from a preference for matrifocal families, but more likely a necessity of the situation. – Mary Beth<br />
<br />
Looking at the two accounts by Stevenson and Mintz and Kellogg, one gets a look into how "exceptional" Loudoun County, VA was in Antebellum South. Stevenson offers many numbers and figures on how slave families were seperated, for the most part, between various plantations that their masters owned. Mintz and Kellogg declare that slave families were very rarely seperated. I suppose this goes to show how Loudoun was made up of different people, lots of white upper-class who owned numerous plantations all over the state and many parts of the South. This explains why Stevenson stresses seperation amongst black slave families -- Celia<br />
<br />
Slave families were certainly different from free families. Although there are a number of similarities, there were numerous differences. I found one passage to be extremely telling of the situation--“We were not allowed to call our mammies ‘mother.’” In some cases, slave families were not even recognized by whites. It is hard to form a cohesive family unit when you are dominated by a group of people who do not recognize your right to a family. It is easy to see why the community played such a large role in the slave family. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
The reading about slave families really bothered me. I first can not even imagine living the life of a slave then having to be separated from the only happiness in your whole life; their families. Very sad... –Jimmy Conroy<br />
<br />
Slave family life was definitely depressing to read about. Most of the families had to live a part because of all the slave trading. They were never really able to develop a nuclear family. One thing that really stuck out was when the master died the slaves got divided up. I can't even imaging having my family sold somewhere else and being able to do nothing about it. It was really encouraging to read about the slaves who were sold to other plantations being welcomed into families already living on that plantation. They provided a sense of community and family in an awful situation. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
== Slave Children ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In some ways, the slave children can be compared to the children of the slums in the NY. Only sorta mind you. The comparison is that they both had to start working from a really early age. I know we didn't get an age for the kids in NY, but the slave children were working at the age of 6... which means some of them probably got beat for 'misbehaving' at the age of 6... or even younger. :-( --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Ashley's comment really struck me because I knew that children factory labor regulations were bad, but when you see the direct comparison to children slaves it really shows how even after slavery America had much growing to do. --Jimmy Conroy<br />
<br />
== It takes a village... ==<br />
After reading both sections of Stevenson's book about white and black families, I wonder which group this statement applies to best: it takes a village to raise a child. I can see both sides. White families may have had a mid-wife involved in the family, along with slave nurses, and extended family. White women seem to have had more time to raise their own children. In black families and communities, childrearing defaulted to other slaves and older women. Mothers had little if any time to be mothers, and may have been separated from their kids either by work or sale. Is it clear cut which group--black or white--raised children with the community? -Amanda<br />
<br />
It is interesting to see the parallels between slave families and white families during industrialization. Both sets were facing exploitation of some sort, and both relied on the community. In the case of slaves, the community functioned as a defacto family. One could count on the community to raise your child if you were every separated. The community was also responsible for babysitting and food preparation. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
== Childbirth ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In reading the chapter on slave marriage and families, I was struck by the practice of slave masters encouraging pregnancy in their female slaves for their own financial benefit. This seems to be a grave contradiction with the statistics that Stevenson provides showing that over half of slave babies died before the age of 1. It seems very odd that a master would provide incentives for female slaves to reproduce and yet provide them with such poor living situations and conditions that only half of their babies survived to actually be an asset to them. This really illustrates the lack of value they put on the life of slaves as human beings. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
That did seem strange. I guess people didn't really think things through when it came to making money. -- Celia<br />
<br />
<br />
== Distinctions ==<br />
<br />
I was really interested in the section in Mintz and Kellogg about African American kinship systems and how they made distinctions between themselves and their white owners. The authors state that the slaves did not merely wish to continue their African customs or to deviate completely from their white owners' ways. They combined the two to suit their situation. The thing that jumped out at me was their view on first-cousin marriage. They believed it was incest and this belief was carried over with them from West Africa, while at the same time many Southerners married first-cousins. This goes to show that the slaves put a lot of emphasis on their extended family system. -- Celia<br />
<br />
I noticed that too about slave families. Another point M&K made were the naming systems slaves used, which were similar to American systems. Just like everyone in Burr Powell's family had either Burr or Powell in their name, Molly got Isaac's name from her family. Often times these names were from former owners, which also mixed the African and American culture.--Amanda</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_5_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 5 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-02-10T04:27:44Z<p>Kwilson: </p>
<hr />
<div>Please add comments under a current group or create a new group. Thanks<br />
<br />
<br />
== Preface ==<br />
<br />
Having read the first part of Stevenson's work, do you agree with her statement in the preface that Loudoun County was "a practical research site for this kind of study"? She states that the area is both "exceptional and typical" 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<br />
<br />
I was wondering about that statement myself. When Steveson says "Upper South" I am a little confused about whether she means "Upper Class" or the northern part of the South. The first thing that came to mind, whether "upper" refers to class or geography is the exceptional state that Virginia was (and I'm not saying that just because I am a Virginian.) Loudoun's close proximity to Washington DC increases the exceptionality of its residents because most of them are directly involved with the politics of the time. Also, Virginia is exceptional because it is the state of the Cavaliers, and of the first families. I knew right off the bat that this wasn't going to be a fair representation of the Southern communities. Stevenson does provide information on lower classes, free blacks and black slaves, but it seems to really focus in on the first families of Virginia. -- Celia M.<br />
<br />
== Henrietta ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I can't remember where I had read Henrietta's story before Chapter 4's ''Parenting'', 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<br />
<br />
I can't stand what the mistress did to poor Henrietta. Smashing her face underneath a rocking chair causing so much damage that she couldn't open her mouth entirely ever again is a horrible thing to do to a child. It just upsets me that this was a form of punishment for sneaking a sweet. And calling your daughter to come help? Way to teach your child to respect others (20th century viewpoint, I know I know.) -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
== NewlyWeds ==<br />
<br />
I found one part kind of interesting in that it hasn't changed all that much today either. When two people get married, well, two younger people, they can'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'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<br />
<br />
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'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's society's marriage celebrations (ex. wife'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 "unbecoming behavior." (page 65) --Joe Cirenza<br />
<br />
I found it interesting how much of a lack of communication there was between husband and wife. Each person envied the others lifestyle and yet both were depressed. It did talk about writing letters back and forth, but they never expressed what they were truly feeling. Women only expressed their feelings to other women who could relate to them. Society was so caught up in their gender roles that couples could not talk to each other openly. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
== Courtship ==<br />
<br />
There were certain places that were considered acceptable for meeting and seeing potential suitors. After church, picnics and parent'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<br />
<br />
I thought the letter writing was very interesting as well. I thought that they were very interesting in the conventions they used to make their intentions known. From a modern perspective I find it baffling to follow such a strict guideline. I also spent last Friday skimming through letters, from later in the century mind, and I had a hard time realizing when the authors actually got married, they continued to write in much the same way. By turns it was incredibly stilted and others just as passionate. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I found it pretty clear through Stevenson's reading that the informal meeting between men and women of the lower classes was much more "meaningful" than the 'formal debuts' 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's class resume. --Joe Cirenza<br />
<br />
I think those meetings at Church, social events and walks in the parks were still based on a social resume. We need to take into consideration the idea of meeting in “appropriate” places. For wealthier individuals that meeting might take place at a debut or the parlor of a wealthy family, but a church yard would also be deemed an appropriate place to meet someone. It implies that both individuals are members of a church, members of the same denomination, and bodes well for the woman being pious and able to guide her family spiritually. Burr Harrison’s advice in the beginning of chapter 2 about choosing a woman who was “a good girl of good health, good temper, good habits and good appearance” and his final warning to choose wisely touches upon both the gender roles we have already discussed in class and the role of courtship in marriages. Even in the courtship stage men were expected to be responsible for the woman, financially responsible, and dominant in the relationship. Women were expected to be physically attractive, pure and submissive. Stevenson points to how damaging it could be if either the man or woman could not live up to these expectations. A man unable to financially support a woman was in some ways not masculine and could be denied approval to marry a girl. A woman unable to remain pure not only embarrassed herself but her entire family and the issue of pregnancy out of wedlock led to shame and the breaking apart of families. We see how societal expectations placed pressures on the family and the consequences of not living up to these expectations just like in marriage. – Mary Beth <br />
<br />
<br />
== Gender Convention ==<br />
Early in Chapter 2, Stevenson discusses George Fitzhugh's opinions of women and the correlation between women and slavery (p. 42). Do you agree that women were essentially enslaved in southern families? --Amanda<br />
<br />
I studied something along this line in an anthropology class. Around this time, white men generally grouped children, idiots, women and "inferior" races together in one intellectual and emotional group. George Fitzhugh does the same thing in his proslavery treatise. He basically wrote that women and children are not capable of being set free in a harsh society. Stevenson uses Fitzhugh's treatise as an example of what some writers wrote on the subject of women and slaves being essentially bound together as persons who were unable to depend on themselves. Though I do not think that white women were anywhere close to slavery, I do believe that they ''felt,'' and in some ways, were enslaved in a society and homelife where they were suppressed. -- Celia M<br />
<br />
== Parenting ==<br />
<br />
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. "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." 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<br />
<br />
The amount of time, energy and thought put into deciding on which school your children (daughters) would attend astounds me. Not for that reason, specifically, because we put a lot of time and thought into where we go today, but how much the status of the school mattered to the parents. Like the instance with Kate and how her mother wanted her to go to school in Richmond because it was the "social hub" of the state whereas her father chose the school in Fauquier because it was "of the highest grade." The more privileged your daughter, the better a suitor they will find, I suppose. I see some similarities in how important the status of a school is to families today when it comes to college, but there seems to be just a completely different motive behind the selection process back then. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
Racial hierarchy was obviously a huge issue in raising children. Parents would teach their children that they were superior to their slaves and that they should not become friends with them. Children respecting their slaves could disrupt the social hierarchy idea when the child became an adult. Although it seems barbaric to us, these parents raised their children like they had been raised. In order to keep the order in that southern society, unfortunately, children had to be taught that they were superior to their black slaves. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
== Divorce ==<br />
<br />
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 ''a mensa et thora'', 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<br />
<br />
<br />
== "Heathenish Housekeeping" ==<br />
I was so happy to read the poem on p.48-49. Finally we have a poem about the lazy husbands instead of the wasteful, idle wives. What did you think of the poem? Was it representative of most men's attitudes at this time? Or was this preacher an anomaly? -Amanda<br />
<br />
== Health and Illness ==<br />
<br />
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 "found enormous common ground to build a companionable relationship" (107). --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I couldn't help but notice a similarity with past readings. This was particularly that men were allowed fits of distemper while women were thought to be troublesome and lazy if they complained of being overworked. One of the quotes that really struck me was when Robert Conrad wrote to his wife "The worst habit...which anyone can contract is the habit of being sick..."(77). He says it in such a matter of fact way that it seems being sick or melancholic is her fault. -Lacey</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_5_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 5 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-02-10T03:41:14Z<p>Kwilson: </p>
<hr />
<div>Please add comments under a current group or create a new group. Thanks<br />
<br />
<br />
== Preface ==<br />
<br />
Having read the first part of Stevenson's work, do you agree with her statement in the preface that Loudoun County was "a practical research site for this kind of study"? She states that the area is both "exceptional and typical" 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<br />
<br />
I was wondering about that statement myself. When Steveson says "Upper South" I am a little confused about whether she means "Upper Class" or the northern part of the South. The first thing that came to mind, whether "upper" refers to class or geography is the exceptional state that Virginia was (and I'm not saying that just because I am a Virginian.) Loudoun's close proximity to Washington DC increases the exceptionality of its residents because most of them are directly involved with the politics of the time. Also, Virginia is exceptional because it is the state of the Cavaliers, and of the first families. I knew right off the bat that this wasn't going to be a fair representation of the Southern communities. Stevenson does provide information on lower classes, free blacks and black slaves, but it seems to really focus in on the first families of Virginia. -- Celia M.<br />
<br />
== Henrietta ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I can't remember where I had read Henrietta's story before Chapter 4's ''Parenting'', 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<br />
<br />
I can't stand what the mistress did to poor Henrietta. Smashing her face underneath a rocking chair causing so much damage that she couldn't open her mouth entirely ever again is a horrible thing to do to a child. It just upsets me that this was a form of punishment for sneaking a sweet. And calling your daughter to come help? Way to teach your child to respect others (20th century viewpoint, I know I know.) -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
== NewlyWeds ==<br />
<br />
I found one part kind of interesting in that it hasn't changed all that much today either. When two people get married, well, two younger people, they can'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'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<br />
<br />
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'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's society's marriage celebrations (ex. wife'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 "unbecoming behavior." (page 65) --Joe Cirenza<br />
<br />
I found it interesting how much of a lack of communication there was between husband and wife. Each person envied the others lifestyle and yet both were depressed. It did talk about writing letters back and forth, but they never expressed what they were truly feeling. Women only expressed their feelings to other women who could relate to them. Society was so caught up in their gender roles that couples could not talk to each other openly. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
== Courtship ==<br />
<br />
There were certain places that were considered acceptable for meeting and seeing potential suitors. After church, picnics and parent'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<br />
<br />
I thought the letter writing was very interesting as well. I thought that they were very interesting in the conventions they used to make their intentions known. From a modern perspective I find it baffling to follow such a strict guideline. I also spent last Friday skimming through letters, from later in the century mind, and I had a hard time realizing when the authors actually got married, they continued to write in much the same way. By turns it was incredibly stilted and others just as passionate. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I found it pretty clear through Stevenson's reading that the informal meeting between men and women of the lower classes was much more "meaningful" than the 'formal debuts' 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's class resume. --Joe Cirenza<br />
<br />
I think those meetings at Church, social events and walks in the parks were still based on a social resume. We need to take into consideration the idea of meeting in “appropriate” places. For wealthier individuals that meeting might take place at a debut or the parlor of a wealthy family, but a church yard would also be deemed an appropriate place to meet someone. It implies that both individuals are members of a church, members of the same denomination, and bodes well for the woman being pious and able to guide her family spiritually. Burr Harrison’s advice in the beginning of chapter 2 about choosing a woman who was “a good girl of good health, good temper, good habits and good appearance” and his final warning to choose wisely touches upon both the gender roles we have already discussed in class and the role of courtship in marriages. Even in the courtship stage men were expected to be responsible for the woman, financially responsible, and dominant in the relationship. Women were expected to be physically attractive, pure and submissive. Stevenson points to how damaging it could be if either the man or woman could not live up to these expectations. A man unable to financially support a woman was in some ways not masculine and could be denied approval to marry a girl. A woman unable to remain pure not only embarrassed herself but her entire family and the issue of pregnancy out of wedlock led to shame and the breaking apart of families. We see how societal expectations placed pressures on the family and the consequences of not living up to these expectations just like in marriage. – Mary Beth <br />
<br />
<br />
== Gender Convention ==<br />
Early in Chapter 2, Stevenson discusses George Fitzhugh's opinions of women and the correlation between women and slavery (p. 42). Do you agree that women were essentially enslaved in southern families? --Amanda<br />
<br />
== Parenting ==<br />
<br />
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. "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." 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<br />
<br />
The amount of time, energy and thought put into deciding on which school your children (daughters) would attend astounds me. Not for that reason, specifically, because we put a lot of time and thought into where we go today, but how much the status of the school mattered to the parents. Like the instance with Kate and how her mother wanted her to go to school in Richmond because it was the "social hub" of the state whereas her father chose the school in Fauguier because it was "of the highest grade." The more privileged your daughter, the better a suitor they will find, I suppose. I see some similarities in how important the status of a school is to families today when it comes to college, but there seems to be just a completely different motive behind the selection process back then. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
== Divorce ==<br />
<br />
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 ''a mensa et thora'', 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<br />
<br />
<br />
== "Heathenish Housekeeping" ==<br />
I was so happy to read the poem on p.48-49. Finally we have a poem about the lazy husbands instead of the wasteful, idle wives. What did you think of the poem? Was it representative of most men's attitudes at this time? Or was this preacher an anomaly? -Amanda<br />
<br />
== Health and Illness ==<br />
<br />
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 "found enormous common ground to build a companionable relationship" (107). --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I couldn't help but notice a similarity with past readings. This was particularly that men were allowed fits of distemper while women were thought to be troublesome and lazy if they complained of being overworked. One of the quotes that really struck me was when Robert Conrad wrote to his wife "The worst habit...which anyone can contract is the habit of being sick..."(77). He says it in such a matter of fact way that it seems being sick or melancholic is her fault. -Lacey</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_4_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 4 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-02-04T15:20:01Z<p>Kwilson: New page: 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...</p>
<hr />
<div>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 "ideal." Not only were children working in factories to help "earn their keep", 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's really interesting to read how different living situations affected family life. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
<br />
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.</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_4_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 4 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-02-03T01:00:05Z<p>Kwilson: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Cross-Document Questions/Comments ==<br />
'''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.'''<br />
<br />
'''Comparison''' 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.<br />
<br />
'''“Family Wage”''': All three readings for Tuesday in some form dealt with the notion of a family wage. Boydston defined it as the ability for the male, head of household to be able to provide enough income for his family to survive as well as prevent women in the family from working outside the home. Mintz and Kellogg also discussed it as the father’s responsibility to provide a sufficient income for the entire family. All three readings deal with this ideal that was established by the middle-class that women were expected to remain at home and work within the sphere of domesticity, while fathers were the sole economic provider for the entire family. Boydston discussed how women were responsible for stretching the income of their husbands by buying items in bulk, utilizing food from a garden, and working outside the home either helping husbands or being a domestic servant. Stansell spent a significant time discussing that the cult of domesticity was class specific and created by a bourgeois self-consciousness. The notion of “poor” changed substantially from ideas of elder, handicapped or widowed individuals to those people simply struggling to survive in a new system of manufacturing. Stansell also alludes to the notion of charity extended by genteel women to working-class women. We see again the struggle to meet an ideal based upon religion and the home as appropriate spheres for women, yet these spheres are unrealistic for working-class women who cannot work just within their homes or participate fully in religious clubs or activities. In all three readings we see the working-class family struggle to live up to an ideal that is simply unrealistic and out of reach. We also see how this ideal family causes stress and tension on the working-class family as they struggle to meet this ideal, but more importantly as they struggle to survive. – Mary Beth <br />
== Boydston ==<br />
<br />
'''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.''' <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Invisibility:''' Boydston talks about how the woman'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 "Lynn shoemakers were full time wage earners with no important means of support other than their income from shoemaking." 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 'wage equals family subsistence' is even stronger today than it was in the 1800s. Does that mean that a non-wage-earning woman's contribution to the working class household is even more invisible now than it was then? -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
'''Inequality:''' Boydston talks about the impact of a worker'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't need to make as much, or they are married, in which case they can partially rely on their husbands' incomes and therefore don'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's earning potential today. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
I wanted to add to Rebecca'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'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<br />
<br />
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'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't understand is how men in some families could witness women's contributions and still think they spent "more time trifling than a baby"? -Amanda<br />
<br />
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'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't come out of the normal family budget. From reading Boydston's article, I think its made clear that even though the housewife'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<br />
<br />
'''Obligation''' To what extent does Boydston provide evidence that the tasks performed by wifes were seen as obligations? What evidence does she give? - Stephen<br />
<br />
'''Marx''' I find Boydston'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' labor was distinctive enough to be reconized outside of the typical Marxist analysis? - Stephen<br />
<br />
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's income women would never truly be considered able to contribute to the family'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<br />
<br />
== Mintz & Kellogg ==<br />
<br />
'''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.'''<br />
<br />
'''Homestead''' 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<br />
<br />
'''Destruction''' Do you agree with Carroll Wright (pg. 85) who maintained that the factory system destroys family life? - Stephen<br />
<br />
'''Immigration''' What are the fundemental diffrences outlined by Mintz and Kellogg regarding immigrant families and those who were already established in this country? - Stephen<br />
<br />
'''Homestead''' I think Homestead is a good example of typical life in a mill town during the mid-19th Century in a northern city. Mintz& Kellogg go on to explain conditions in other northern cities, especially for immigrants. One continuity for all working-class families is the need for subsistence from all members (or more than the male head of house) of the family. Like Stansell, M&K describe scavenging as a way to produce more income. It reminded me of immigrant or "guest worker" programs of today to read about the Italian brothers who wanted to take/send their earnings home. --Amanda<br />
<br />
'''Immigration''' I found it interesting that people who immigrated alone created a type of community with each other. Most came alone to earn money to bring the rest of their family to the new world and they bonded over their common situations. They created their own type of family. People also created a sense of family by boarding with other low income families. It is interesting how important a sense of family was to these immigrants. -- Kari W. <br />
== Stansell ==<br />
'''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.''' <br />
<br />
<br />
The exert from Stansell's book brings up a lot of the same point that I recall reading in Boydston'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's article seemed to exalt and shine light onto the lives of the non-wage-earner woman, while Stansell'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's how I felt after reading it... --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
'''Republic''' How did "Republican ideas of government, authority, and power," support already familiar justifications of sexual hierarchies? That is to say "in a republican culture which placed the independence of the male citizen at its zenith," how did the dependent status of women effect this era in understanding the family? - Stephen<br />
<br />
'''Debauchery''' In the Bedlow/Sawyer rape trial it is argued that the girl should have been better attuned to the "etiquette of debauchery." Is this not both an example of the gender gap but also the inherent flaw of that gap? - Stephen<br />
<br />
'''Republican Motherhood:''' 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 "republican motherhood" 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<br />
<br />
'''Ideal?'''This excerpt showed that the domestic "ideal" described in Mintz and Kellogg was rarely met. Women's domestic sphere was interrupted when they were forced to go to work in order to help provide for the family. However, some of the work women did was house work for families who wealthier. This kept some of the "ideal" norms for women but they were done outside of the home.--Kari W.</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_4_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 4 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-02-03T00:51:48Z<p>Kwilson: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Cross-Document Questions/Comments ==<br />
'''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.'''<br />
<br />
'''Comparison''' 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.<br />
<br />
'''“Family Wage”''': All three readings for Tuesday in some form dealt with the notion of a family wage. Boydston defined it as the ability for the male, head of household to be able to provide enough income for his family to survive as well as prevent women in the family from working outside the home. Mintz and Kellogg also discussed it as the father’s responsibility to provide a sufficient income for the entire family. All three readings deal with this ideal that was established by the middle-class that women were expected to remain at home and work within the sphere of domesticity, while fathers were the sole economic provider for the entire family. Boydston discussed how women were responsible for stretching the income of their husbands by buying items in bulk, utilizing food from a garden, and working outside the home either helping husbands or being a domestic servant. Stansell spent a significant time discussing that the cult of domesticity was class specific and created by a bourgeois self-consciousness. The notion of “poor” changed substantially from ideas of elder, handicapped or widowed individuals to those people simply struggling to survive in a new system of manufacturing. Stansell also alludes to the notion of charity extended by genteel women to working-class women. We see again the struggle to meet an ideal based upon religion and the home as appropriate spheres for women, yet these spheres are unrealistic for working-class women who cannot work just within their homes or participate fully in religious clubs or activities. In all three readings we see the working-class family struggle to live up to an ideal that is simply unrealistic and out of reach. We also see how this ideal family causes stress and tension on the working-class family as they struggle to meet this ideal, but more importantly as they struggle to survive. – Mary Beth <br />
== Boydston ==<br />
<br />
'''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.''' <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Invisibility:''' Boydston talks about how the woman'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 "Lynn shoemakers were full time wage earners with no important means of support other than their income from shoemaking." 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 'wage equals family subsistence' is even stronger today than it was in the 1800s. Does that mean that a non-wage-earning woman's contribution to the working class household is even more invisible now than it was then? -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
'''Inequality:''' Boydston talks about the impact of a worker'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't need to make as much, or they are married, in which case they can partially rely on their husbands' incomes and therefore don'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's earning potential today. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
I wanted to add to Rebecca'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'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<br />
<br />
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'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't understand is how men in some families could witness women's contributions and still think they spent "more time trifling than a baby"? -Amanda<br />
<br />
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'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't come out of the normal family budget. From reading Boydston's article, I think its made clear that even though the housewife'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<br />
<br />
'''Obligation''' To what extent does Boydston provide evidence that the tasks performed by wifes were seen as obligations? What evidence does she give? - Stephen<br />
<br />
'''Marx''' I find Boydston'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' labor was distinctive enough to be reconized outside of the typical Marxist analysis? - Stephen<br />
<br />
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's income women would never truly be considered able to contribute to the family'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<br />
<br />
== Mintz & Kellogg ==<br />
<br />
'''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.'''<br />
<br />
'''Homestead''' 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<br />
<br />
'''Destruction''' Do you agree with Carroll Wright (pg. 85) who maintained that the factory system destroys family life? - Stephen<br />
<br />
'''Immigration''' What are the fundemental diffrences outlined by Mintz and Kellogg regarding immigrant families and those who were already established in this country? - Stephen<br />
<br />
'''Homestead''' I think Homestead is a good example of typical life in a mill town during the mid-19th Century in a northern city. Mintz& Kellogg go on to explain conditions in other northern cities, especially for immigrants. One continuity for all working-class families is the need for subsistence from all members (or more than the male head of house) of the family. Like Stansell, M&K describe scavenging as a way to produce more income. It reminded me of immigrant or "guest worker" programs of today to read about the Italian brothers who wanted to take/send their earnings home. --Amanda<br />
<br />
'''Immigration''' I found it interesting that people who immigrated alone created a type of community with each other. Most came alone to earn money to bring the rest of their family to the new world and they bonded over their common situations. They created their own type of family. People also created a sense of family by boarding with other low income families. It is interesting how important a sense of family was to these immigrants. -- Kari W. <br />
== Stansell ==<br />
'''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.''' <br />
<br />
<br />
The exert from Stansell's book brings up a lot of the same point that I recall reading in Boydston'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's article seemed to exalt and shine light onto the lives of the non-wage-earner woman, while Stansell'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's how I felt after reading it... --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
'''Republic''' How did "Republican ideas of government, authority, and power," support already familiar justifications of sexual hierarchies? That is to say "in a republican culture which placed the independence of the male citizen at its zenith," how did the dependent status of women effect this era in understanding the family? - Stephen<br />
<br />
'''Debauchery''' In the Bedlow/Sawyer rape trial it is argued that the girl should have been better attuned to the "etiquette of debauchery." Is this not both an example of the gender gap but also the inherent flaw of that gap? - Stephen<br />
<br />
'''Republican Motherhood:''' 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 "republican motherhood" 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</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_3_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 3 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-01-29T01:30:48Z<p>Kwilson: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Faragher ==<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
I think a very intresting point Faragher brought up is the role childbareing played in the female farmer'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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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'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. <br />
<br />
== Dublin ==<br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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 <br />
<br />
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's times, I feel like it's rare to hear of such camaraderie in the work force, regardless of gender. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I think that the importance of the Dublin's reading was to emphasize the significant active role of women in the factory town. Women'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'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.<br />
<br />
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's Association. It was definitely a huge change from the supposed "submissive" women we read about before. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
== Comparative comments/questions ==<br />
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</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_3_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 3 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-01-29T01:21:16Z<p>Kwilson: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Faragher ==<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
I think a very intresting point Faragher brought up is the role childbareing played in the female farmer'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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
== Dublin ==<br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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 <br />
<br />
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's times, I feel like it's rare to hear of such camaraderie in the work force, regardless of gender. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I think that the importance of the Dublin's reading was to emphasize the significant active role of women in the factory town. Women'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'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.<br />
<br />
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's Association. It was definitely a huge change from the supposed "submissive" women we read about before. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
== Comparative comments/questions ==<br />
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</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_3_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 3 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-01-26T23:07:58Z<p>Kwilson: </p>
<hr />
<div>The first section of chapter seven of the ''American Manhood'' 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'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<br />
<br />
Just continuing what Lacey was mentioning about with the dresses, I know my grandmother didn'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'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'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<br />
<br />
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 "Little House on the Prairie." Laura'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<br />
<br />
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's argument on obstetrics for last week. It seems that in more rural areas it would take time for this new "Democratic Family" 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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
Did anyone else notice in chapter 7 of "American Manhood" the paragraph that stated that a woman's fortune, social standing and reputation depended on that of her husband's? My mind went immediately to Abigail and Greenleaf Patch. Their story seems to be a perfect example of this. No matter what Abigail did to try to improve her family's station in life after she divorced Greenleaf, she could never climb out of the hole her husband dug for her. According to Rotundo this power that belonged to the man gave him the authority to make decisions regarding the family's welfare even if, as in the example of Henry Poor's poor financial decisions, they weren't the most rational. But Rotundo admits later that this wasn't the case in all marriages and some couples appointed one person or the other to make certain decisions depending on their individual strengths and needs. Thank goodness for that! Celia M.<br />
<br />
I agree that this chapter deals only with newly urbanized areas. Was this development of a more individualized, nurturing family the norm once the other parts of the country became industrialized or was this solely a New England thing? --Kari <br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading this chapter in Mintz and Kellogg. It was interesting reading about the roles of women. This time period showed a significant increase in women's responsibilities from only being submissive to their husbands to actually being able to be in control of property and their own wages. Also, I found it interesting that men wanted women to raise the next generation of patriots. Its fascinating that throughout history, wars always bring more rights to women. Although a lot of those, like jobs, are taken away when the men come home, it always leaves a lasting effect. -- Kari</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_2_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 2 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-01-22T05:00:46Z<p>Kwilson: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Readings ==<br />
<br />
== Catherine Scholten ==<br />
<br />
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'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't see what the hell is going on, so how can you deliver the baby safely when you can't even see, thats just stupidity. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
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't allow women to enter the medical practice because they lacked the "power of action" and the "active power of mind," yet they were the original midwives and primary caregivers. Celia M.<br />
<br />
Celia, let's remember that American women have only been allowed to vote since 1920. Is their patronizingly small role in medicine really that big of a stretch? -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
After reading Scholten'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'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.<br />
<br />
<br />
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't help that I do first-person interpretation of medicine in this time period.) So that brings me to Ashley's comment about women starting to give birth on their backs rather than in squatting or sitting positions, and Joseph's comment on the fact that they were suddenly letting men into the "lying-in." Scholten doesn't mention this until halfway through the piece, but it wasn'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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
It was interesting to see the transformation childbirth customs through the years, and I have to say, I had no idea that midwives took such a backseat once the physician became a bigger part of childbirth. It almost seems as though they were viewed as superfluous or as an archaic, outdated custom. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
It was also interesting to read that the use of alcohol in birthing reached as far back as it did. My mom (a registered nurse) and I have discussed on multiple occasions that while she was taught the methods of dispensing intravenous alcohol in childbirth, it is a vastly outdated practice, and her delivery of my oldest brother in 1981 was probably one of the last times that IV alcohol was used in such a manner. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I agree that this was a very interesting article. While I agree that it is unfortunate that midwives and female relations were largely removed from the childbirth process, there were some positive aspects of the move to male physicians such as the belief that it should be made less painful, as Celia already mentioned. Scholten also notes this "implied a new social appreciation of women." I believe that the former practice of referring to pregnant women as "breeding" or "teeming" makes them sound more like cattle then human beings and while it is unfortunate that women were displaced in midwifery, women may have gained some greater appreciation from at least some of the male gender as a result. That said, it doesn't appear that women gained physically from the change, swapping potentially ill-informed midwives with doctors too socially conscious to treat them as proper medicine would dictate. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I agree with some of Sarah’s comments. I don’t think that the shift to doctors was a bad thing at all. At some point, a process as serious as childbirth would have come under scientific scrutiny. It is unfortunate, however, that the norms of the time excluded women from the practice. Their hands on experience and knowledge, coupled with scientific advances, could have served as a major catalyst for advancement in the field. Similarly, if society had been ready for male doctors to visually experience the process, advancement may have been more rapid. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
In response to Celia and Cash's comments: I think the essay stated that it was the early 1800s when attempts were made to make childbirth a less painful experience. This coincided with a religious movement and relieving women of suffering related to scripture. I also was surprised to know that women essentially were kicked out of the field. Considering how involved women ''have'' been in medicine, from early nurses through the postbellum era, it seems counterintuitive to exclude women from a field that pertains only to their gender. I agree with Andrew (and Sarah): the knowledge and training men were able to receive coupled with women's experience and acceptance by other women would have would have advanced the field.--Amanda<br />
<br />
What were the roles of Midwives? How did they vary both within the colonies and in comparison to European counterparts? - Stephen<br />
<br />
I think the role of midwives is actually quite fascinating. The amount of reliance and trust women put in them to safely deliver their children is just remarkable, almost like the same amount of faith women put in doctors and medicine (and heavy drugs) today. They were there for more than birth too, which I think is often overlooked, in that they were seen as the person to go to when you had an illness or a disease because they had such an incredible knowledge of herbs and recipes. Whether they knew it or not, they were vital to a society during their "prime" for lack of a better word. I think it's neat that, even though times have changed remarkably in terms of medicine and childbirth go, midwives are still around today. They are still trusted with childbirth today and it's interesting that it's an alternative that never seemed to go away for some people. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I feel like the shift from midwives and a communal birth to a more private birth with a physician is another way of showing the shift to a more personalized and independent lifestyle. I also think that this was another area that men had to be superior over women even though the midwife had been the norm for ages. I do think that these physicians were obviously beneficial to the world of medicine and to saving women and childrens' lives. It is just unfortunate that the women who had been helping other women give birth since, well, pretty much the beginning of time had to take a back seat to men and science. But really, what else is new? - Kari <br />
<br />
<br />
== Paul Johnson ==<br />
Well, I have to say this was an interesting read indeed. Greenleaf just made me angry throughout the reading and I couldn'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't recorded anywhere? --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
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't seem unlikely that many women took up the family responsibilities when their partner didn't. It was a means of survival- financially, emotionally, socially, etc. It is what being a family is all about. Celia M<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
Yet another agreement about Greenleaf. However, I have to say that it appears that Greenleaf didn't have much of an example to go upon to be able to become a useful, productive citizen. From what little we see of his father it seems that they were very similar in their inability to take care of their family. Would not such a dysfunctional family provide a poor role model for the children? It's no wonder that Abigail had to take up the duties that would normally have fallen to her partner. -Lacey<br />
<br />
While I agree with everyone that Greenleaf was far from a model citizen or husband, he was subject to several disadvantages. I think that this narrative illustrates the implications of social pressures and norms of the time period in New England. If you did not own your own land you were at a distinct disadvantage and being the youngest son of 10 children in a splintered family would not have allowed him many opportunities or positive examples, as Lacey mentioned. That said, I do not think that that justifies his actions and his treatment of his family. Also, was anyone else surprised by the statistic that 1 in 3 women were pregnant on their wedding day? I think a lot of people have a false image of very straitlaced, pious New England families, when in fact people were dealing with many of the same issues that are still relevant today. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I, too, agree with everyone about disliking Greenleaf. I think that the situation Abigail was in must have been somewhat common because it mentions in the article that during the late 18th and early 19th century there was a "decline of patriarchal authority". It sounds to me like women wanted to show their husbands they could survive without them by creating their own separate domestic sphere. I really enjoyed reading about how these women were able to adapt to these awful situations and growing from them to become independent. - Kari<br />
<br />
As the first male student in the class to post on this particular essay, I did not feel the same dislike for Greenleaf until after reading that Greenleaf Patch became a drunkard and stole money earned from his wife in children. I think a couple points have not been introduced in these blog entries that may alter one's opinion of Greenleaf. In the introduction Paul Johnson indicates that the story is reconstructed from distant impersonal and fragmentary sources, the majority being government documents. It's interesting that there was no indication of written diaries from either of the family members or local people about Greenleaf and Abigail Patch. Paul Johnson also indicates that increasing numbers of men owned no land in the New England area. Is it possible that the economic instability of Greenleaf's family may have shaped his personality and his future actions? -Joseph C.<br />
<br />
I think that Greenleaf was a loser. The significance of this lies in its parallels to modern society. Mintz & Kellog spoke of the model family, one with strong moral convictions and community ties. However, they failed to comment on unconventional families in NE. In today’s society, there are hundreds of family templates. Nuclear, single parent, extended live-in, etc. The same went for colonial NE. Although M&K forgot about unconventional family types, it does not mean they did not exist. NE, like modern society, was not a fairy-tale. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
To Joseph's question: yes, definitely, it's possible and likely. I didn't react in the same way to Greenleaf, but found this essay as a supplement to the Mintz& Kellogg readings. Their ideas of family so far seem to be shaped by the middle of the road or exceptional (in terms of wealth and standing) families. Here's something that discusses early pregnancies, debt, alcoholism and divorce! This essay makes up for something missing thus far from our textbook. I noted though that debt of Greenleaf's era was passed in the family. Today we find debt still a problem, but more the presence of debt in one's own life, not from that of his father. The Patch family also shows us the idea of lineage and marring the "good family name." I think this is why this class starts where it does, in the late 1700s. Before families were settled and assumed identities in their communities, the idea of the "good family name" was nonexistent.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I also have to defend Joe a little here. We have to consider Greenleaf in the context of the era and how problems espeically financial in nature become generational. However, I too can understand the concern about Greenleaf's actions. - Stephen<br />
<br />
First of all, "Mayo Greenleaf Patch?" Really? I almost feel bad for him with a name like that. However, I have a hard time getting past the fact that he was a failed patriarch, essentially. It was a time when the father was in charge of the family and was the provider and he had a difficult time doing that job. Although it could be a total "girl power" moment because this situation allowed Abigail and the others like her to become independent and wear the pants, unfortunately that's not how things were done in the 18th and 19th century. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I was really impressed by Johnson's methodology. The way he used records of censuses, taxes, and court cases to figure out the story of these people's lives is very cool. One part that jumped out at me is when Greenleaf's mother-in-law said that her "children" were taking all of her furniture, Johnson was able to figure out that she could ONLY be talking about Greenleaf and Abigail. Another part I was impressed with was how Johnson used the tax record of Greenleaf housing the school teacher as proof that he was a trusted member of the community. I mean, that makes sense and doesn't seem like a huge leap, but when you think that all that this guy had in front of him were a bunch of government records, I think it is very impressive that he was able to infer so much about Greenleaf's character and personal life. I guess historians like Johnson have to get creative in how they use their sources. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
== Extra Credit: What did the President's inaugural address say (directly or indirectly) about American families and individuals? ==<br />
<br />
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's problems. --Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
It was definitely a speech using family as an allegory for the entire nation. Government was painted as a head of the family, willing to help and reach out to those it cares for, as long as those who need caring for are willing to work for what they receive. He mentioned the importance of ancestry and recognizing our immigrant heritage, as well as ensuring that our values are not lost. Most importantly, I thought, was his inclusion of both beliefs and NON-beliefs. I am not sure if Obama was the first President to overtly mention atheism, but I think it sent a great message that regardless of what you do or do not believe in, you will not be discriminated against. It was truly a powerful speech. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
He talked about the progression of American society through the lens of the family. He specifically discussed generational progression. In so many words, Obama said that the hard work and sacrifice of past generations have made possible the radical change our country is experiencing. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
President Obama's speech also reinforced Mintz and Kellogg's point that the American family, once a self-sufficient unit, is now dependent on social programs. For instance, in his speech, Obama mentioned the need to improve health care, better our schools and colleges, and provide for retirees, all things that were once responsibilities of families. He also, as others have previously mentioned, spoke of the importance our actions have on future generations. Lastly, he applauded the self-sacrifice of future generations of Americans which have allowed us, their descendants, to live in a great and free nation. His speech clearly made the case that the family is still very important to society. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
President Obama spoke directly about the generation Kennedy appealed to for service to their country, reminding us that this country was built on the backs of the different groups he mentioned. I think he alluded to the sense of "family" in a bigger sense, that if everyone pitches in and unites and helps one another, our common goals will be met.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I think one of the most specific examples of President Obama's speech that spoke directly to families was that a parents willingness to nurture a child that finally decides our fate. I think that this particularly reflects the argument of Mintz and Kellogg that New England families after the American Revolution took a more caring approach to children that would mold their lives in the direction they preferred. -Joseph C.<br />
<br />
"At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because we the people have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears, and true to our founding documents. So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans." i think the concept of considering these matters in the realm of another generation of the AMERICAN family, is intresting. However I think another family theme can be found in considering how our concepts of American style living/governing is pased through our families. - Stephen<br />
<br />
It seemed that he discussed the responsibility one holds towards his country as very similar to the relationship of a child to his parents. The government, or nation in this case, is the giving parent that, when in need of help from the child in times of sickness or dispair would expect the same to be given willingly. These are the duties that "we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly". He is saying perhaps the American family should feel this very sense of pride towards responsibility. Wait, I'm not in this class. Where's the Technology wiki? - Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
President Obama talked a lot about key values that make America the nation that it is today and that will make America a better nation in the future. These values are things that comes from the family. If children are not taught these values at home with their families, how will they ever fully learn and experience them? Obviously our nation's problems will not be fixed overnight. However, if we educate the future generations on how to properly act, with honesty and integrity, in certain situations, then this country will be able to grow and prosper. -Kari</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_2_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 2 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-01-22T04:48:25Z<p>Kwilson: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Readings ==<br />
<br />
== Catherine Scholten ==<br />
<br />
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'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't see what the hell is going on, so how can you deliver the baby safely when you can't even see, thats just stupidity. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
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't allow women to enter the medical practice because they lacked the "power of action" and the "active power of mind," yet they were the original midwives and primary caregivers. Celia M.<br />
<br />
Celia, let's remember that American women have only been allowed to vote since 1920. Is their patronizingly small role in medicine really that big of a stretch? -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
After reading Scholten'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'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.<br />
<br />
<br />
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't help that I do first-person interpretation of medicine in this time period.) So that brings me to Ashley's comment about women starting to give birth on their backs rather than in squatting or sitting positions, and Joseph's comment on the fact that they were suddenly letting men into the "lying-in." Scholten doesn't mention this until halfway through the piece, but it wasn'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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
It was interesting to see the transformation childbirth customs through the years, and I have to say, I had no idea that midwives took such a backseat once the physician became a bigger part of childbirth. It almost seems as though they were viewed as superfluous or as an archaic, outdated custom. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
It was also interesting to read that the use of alcohol in birthing reached as far back as it did. My mom (a registered nurse) and I have discussed on multiple occasions that while she was taught the methods of dispensing intravenous alcohol in childbirth, it is a vastly outdated practice, and her delivery of my oldest brother in 1981 was probably one of the last times that IV alcohol was used in such a manner. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I agree that this was a very interesting article. While I agree that it is unfortunate that midwives and female relations were largely removed from the childbirth process, there were some positive aspects of the move to male physicians such as the belief that it should be made less painful, as Celia already mentioned. Scholten also notes this "implied a new social appreciation of women." I believe that the former practice of referring to pregnant women as "breeding" or "teeming" makes them sound more like cattle then human beings and while it is unfortunate that women were displaced in midwifery, women may have gained some greater appreciation from at least some of the male gender as a result. That said, it doesn't appear that women gained physically from the change, swapping potentially ill-informed midwives with doctors too socially conscious to treat them as proper medicine would dictate. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I agree with some of Sarah’s comments. I don’t think that the shift to doctors was a bad thing at all. At some point, a process as serious as childbirth would have come under scientific scrutiny. It is unfortunate, however, that the norms of the time excluded women from the practice. Their hands on experience and knowledge, coupled with scientific advances, could have served as a major catalyst for advancement in the field. Similarly, if society had been ready for male doctors to visually experience the process, advancement may have been more rapid. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
In response to Celia and Cash's comments: I think the essay stated that it was the early 1800s when attempts were made to make childbirth a less painful experience. This coincided with a religious movement and relieving women of suffering related to scripture. I also was surprised to know that women essentially were kicked out of the field. Considering how involved women ''have'' been in medicine, from early nurses through the postbellum era, it seems counterintuitive to exclude women from a field that pertains only to their gender. I agree with Andrew (and Sarah): the knowledge and training men were able to receive coupled with women's experience and acceptance by other women would have would have advanced the field.--Amanda<br />
<br />
What were the roles of Midwives? How did they vary both within the colonies and in comparison to European counterparts? - Stephen<br />
<br />
I think the role of midwives is actually quite fascinating. The amount of reliance and trust women put in them to safely deliver their children is just remarkable, almost like the same amount of faith women put in doctors and medicine (and heavy drugs) today. They were there for more than birth too, which I think is often overlooked, in that they were seen as the person to go to when you had an illness or a disease because they had such an incredible knowledge of herbs and recipes. Whether they knew it or not, they were vital to a society during their "prime" for lack of a better word. I think it's neat that, even though times have changed remarkably in terms of medicine and childbirth go, midwives are still around today. They are still trusted with childbirth today and it's interesting that it's an alternative that never seemed to go away for some people. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I feel like the shift from midwives and a communal birth to a more private birth with a physician is another way of showing the shift to a more personalized and independent lifestyle. I also think that this was another area that men had to be superior over women even though the midwife had been the norm for ages. I do think that these physicians were obviously beneficial to the world of medicine and to saving women and childrens' lives. It is just unfortunate that the women who had been helping other women give birth since, well, pretty much the beginning of time had to take a back seat to men and science. But really, what else is new? - Kari <br />
<br />
<br />
== Paul Johnson ==<br />
Well, I have to say this was an interesting read indeed. Greenleaf just made me angry throughout the reading and I couldn'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't recorded anywhere? --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
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't seem unlikely that many women took up the family responsibilities when their partner didn't. It was a means of survival- financially, emotionally, socially, etc. It is what being a family is all about. Celia M<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
Yet another agreement about Greenleaf. However, I have to say that it appears that Greenleaf didn't have much of an example to go upon to be able to become a useful, productive citizen. From what little we see of his father it seems that they were very similar in their inability to take care of their family. Would not such a dysfunctional family provide a poor role model for the children? It's no wonder that Abigail had to take up the duties that would normally have fallen to her partner. -Lacey<br />
<br />
While I agree with everyone that Greenleaf was far from a model citizen or husband, he was subject to several disadvantages. I think that this narrative illustrates the implications of social pressures and norms of the time period in New England. If you did not own your own land you were at a distinct disadvantage and being the youngest son of 10 children in a splintered family would not have allowed him many opportunities or positive examples, as Lacey mentioned. That said, I do not think that that justifies his actions and his treatment of his family. Also, was anyone else surprised by the statistic that 1 in 3 women were pregnant on their wedding day? I think a lot of people have a false image of very straitlaced, pious New England families, when in fact people were dealing with many of the same issues that are still relevant today. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I, too, agree with everyone about disliking Greenleaf. I think that the situation Abigail was in must have been somewhat common because it mentions in the article that during the late 18th and early 19th century there was a "decline of patriarchal authority". It sounds to me like women wanted to show their husbands they could survive without them by creating their own separate domestic sphere. I really enjoyed reading about how these women were able to adapt to these awful situations and growing from them to become independent. - Kari<br />
<br />
As the first male student in the class to post on this particular essay, I did not feel the same dislike for Greenleaf until after reading that Greenleaf Patch became a drunkard and stole money earned from his wife in children. I think a couple points have not been introduced in these blog entries that may alter one's opinion of Greenleaf. In the introduction Paul Johnson indicates that the story is reconstructed from distant impersonal and fragmentary sources, the majority being government documents. It's interesting that there was no indication of written diaries from either of the family members or local people about Greenleaf and Abigail Patch. Paul Johnson also indicates that increasing numbers of men owned no land in the New England area. Is it possible that the economic instability of Greenleaf's family may have shaped his personality and his future actions? -Joseph C.<br />
<br />
I think that Greenleaf was a loser. The significance of this lies in its parallels to modern society. Mintz & Kellog spoke of the model family, one with strong moral convictions and community ties. However, they failed to comment on unconventional families in NE. In today’s society, there are hundreds of family templates. Nuclear, single parent, extended live-in, etc. The same went for colonial NE. Although M&K forgot about unconventional family types, it does not mean they did not exist. NE, like modern society, was not a fairy-tale. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
To Joseph's question: yes, definitely, it's possible and likely. I didn't react in the same way to Greenleaf, but found this essay as a supplement to the Mintz& Kellogg readings. Their ideas of family so far seem to be shaped by the middle of the road or exceptional (in terms of wealth and standing) families. Here's something that discusses early pregnancies, debt, alcoholism and divorce! This essay makes up for something missing thus far from our textbook. I noted though that debt of Greenleaf's era was passed in the family. Today we find debt still a problem, but more the presence of debt in one's own life, not from that of his father. The Patch family also shows us the idea of lineage and marring the "good family name." I think this is why this class starts where it does, in the late 1700s. Before families were settled and assumed identities in their communities, the idea of the "good family name" was nonexistent.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I also have to defend Joe a little here. We have to consider Greenleaf in the context of the era and how problems espeically financial in nature become generational. However, I too can understand the concern about Greenleaf's actions. - Stephen<br />
<br />
First of all, "Mayo Greenleaf Patch?" Really? I almost feel bad for him with a name like that. However, I have a hard time getting past the fact that he was a failed patriarch, essentially. It was a time when the father was in charge of the family and was the provider and he had a difficult time doing that job. Although it could be a total "girl power" moment because this situation allowed Abigail and the others like her to become independent and wear the pants, unfortunately that's not how things were done in the 18th and 19th century. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I was really impressed by Johnson's methodology. The way he used records of censuses, taxes, and court cases to figure out the story of these people's lives is very cool. One part that jumped out at me is when Greenleaf's mother-in-law said that her "children" were taking all of her furniture, Johnson was able to figure out that she could ONLY be talking about Greenleaf and Abigail. Another part I was impressed with was how Johnson used the tax record of Greenleaf housing the school teacher as proof that he was a trusted member of the community. I mean, that makes sense and doesn't seem like a huge leap, but when you think that all that this guy had in front of him were a bunch of government records, I think it is very impressive that he was able to infer so much about Greenleaf's character and personal life. I guess historians like Johnson have to get creative in how they use their sources. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
== Extra Credit: What did the President's inaugural address say (directly or indirectly) about American families and individuals? ==<br />
<br />
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's problems. --Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
It was definitely a speech using family as an allegory for the entire nation. Government was painted as a head of the family, willing to help and reach out to those it cares for, as long as those who need caring for are willing to work for what they receive. He mentioned the importance of ancestry and recognizing our immigrant heritage, as well as ensuring that our values are not lost. Most importantly, I thought, was his inclusion of both beliefs and NON-beliefs. I am not sure if Obama was the first President to overtly mention atheism, but I think it sent a great message that regardless of what you do or do not believe in, you will not be discriminated against. It was truly a powerful speech. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
He talked about the progression of American society through the lens of the family. He specifically discussed generational progression. In so many words, Obama said that the hard work and sacrifice of past generations have made possible the radical change our country is experiencing. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
President Obama's speech also reinforced Mintz and Kellogg's point that the American family, once a self-sufficient unit, is now dependent on social programs. For instance, in his speech, Obama mentioned the need to improve health care, better our schools and colleges, and provide for retirees, all things that were once responsibilities of families. He also, as others have previously mentioned, spoke of the importance our actions have on future generations. Lastly, he applauded the self-sacrifice of future generations of Americans which have allowed us, their descendants, to live in a great and free nation. His speech clearly made the case that the family is still very important to society. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
President Obama spoke directly about the generation Kennedy appealed to for service to their country, reminding us that this country was built on the backs of the different groups he mentioned. I think he alluded to the sense of "family" in a bigger sense, that if everyone pitches in and unites and helps one another, our common goals will be met.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I think one of the most specific examples of President Obama's speech that spoke directly to families was that a parents willingness to nurture a child that finally decides our fate. I think that this particularly reflects the argument of Mintz and Kellogg that New England families after the American Revolution took a more caring approach to children that would mold their lives in the direction they preferred. -Joseph C.<br />
<br />
"At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because we the people have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears, and true to our founding documents. So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans." i think the concept of considering these matters in the realm of another generation of the AMERICAN family, is intresting. However I think another family theme can be found in considering how our concepts of American style living/governing is pased through our families. - Stephen</div>Kwilsonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_2_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 2 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-01-22T01:25:02Z<p>Kwilson: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Readings ==<br />
<br />
== Catherine Scholten ==<br />
<br />
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'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't see what the hell is going on, so how can you deliver the baby safely when you can't even see, thats just stupidity. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
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't allow women to enter the medical practice because they lacked the "power of action" and the "active power of mind," yet they were the original midwives and primary caregivers. Celia M.<br />
<br />
Celia, let's remember that American women have only been allowed to vote since 1920. Is their patronizingly small role in medicine really that big of a stretch? -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
After reading Scholten'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'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.<br />
<br />
<br />
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't help that I do first-person interpretation of medicine in this time period.) So that brings me to Ashley's comment about women starting to give birth on their backs rather than in squatting or sitting positions, and Joseph's comment on the fact that they were suddenly letting men into the "lying-in." Scholten doesn't mention this until halfway through the piece, but it wasn'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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
It was interesting to see the transformation childbirth customs through the years, and I have to say, I had no idea that midwives took such a backseat once the physician became a bigger part of childbirth. It almost seems as though they were viewed as superfluous or as an archaic, outdated custom. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
It was also interesting to read that the use of alcohol in birthing reached as far back as it did. My mom (a registered nurse) and I have discussed on multiple occasions that while she was taught the methods of dispensing intravenous alcohol in childbirth, it is a vastly outdated practice, and her delivery of my oldest brother in 1981 was probably one of the last times that IV alcohol was used in such a manner. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I agree that this was a very interesting article. While I agree that it is unfortunate that midwives and female relations were largely removed from the childbirth process, there were some positive aspects of the move to male physicians such as the belief that it should be made less painful, as Celia already mentioned. Scholten also notes this "implied a new social appreciation of women." I believe that the former practice of referring to pregnant women as "breeding" or "teeming" makes them sound more like cattle then human beings and while it is unfortunate that women were displaced in midwifery, women may have gained some greater appreciation from at least some of the male gender as a result. That said, it doesn't appear that women gained physically from the change, swapping potentially ill-informed midwives with doctors too socially conscious to treat them as proper medicine would dictate. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
== Paul Johnson ==<br />
Well, I have to say this was an interesting read indeed. Greenleaf just made me angry throughout the reading and I couldn'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't recorded anywhere? --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
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't seem unlikely that many women took up the family responsibilities when their partner didn't. It was a means of survival- financially, emotionally, socially, etc. It is what being a family is all about. Celia M<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
Yet another agreement about Greenleaf. However, I have to say that it appears that Greenleaf didn't have much of an example to go upon to be able to become a useful, productive citizen. From what little we see of his father it seems that they were very similar in their inability to take care of their family. Would not such a dysfunctional family provide a poor role model for the children? It's no wonder that Abigail had to take up the duties that would normally have fallen to her partner. -Lacey<br />
<br />
While I agree with everyone that Greenleaf was far from a model citizen or husband, he was subject to several disadvantages. I think that this narrative illustrates the implications of social pressures and norms of the time period in New England. If you did not own your own land you were at a distinct disadvantage and being the youngest son of 10 children in a splintered family would not have allowed him many opportunities or positive examples, as Lacey mentioned. That said, I do not think that that justifies his actions and his treatment of his family. Also, was anyone else surprised by the statistic that 1 in 3 women were pregnant on their wedding day? I think a lot of people have a false image of very straitlaced, pious New England families, when in fact people were dealing with many of the same issues that are still relevant today. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I, too, agree with everyone about disliking Greenleaf. I think that the situation Abigail was in must have been somewhat common because it mentions in the article that during the late 18th and early 19th century there was a "decline of patriarchal authority". It sounds to me like women wanted to show their husbands they could survive without them by creating their own separate domestic sphere. I really enjoyed reading about how these women were able to adapt to these awful situations and growing from them to become independent. - Kari <br />
<br />
== Extra Credit: What did the President's inaugural address say (directly or indirectly) about American families and individuals? ==<br />
<br />
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's problems. --Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
It was definitely a speech using family as an allegory for the entire nation. Government was painted as a head of the family, willing to help and reach out to those it cares for, as long as those who need caring for are willing to work for what they receive. He mentioned the importance of ancestry and recognizing our immigrant heritage, as well as ensuring that our values are not lost. Most importantly, I thought, was his inclusion of both beliefs and NON-beliefs. I am not sure if Obama was the first President to overtly mention atheism, but I think it sent a great message that regardless of what you do or do not believe in, you will not be discriminated against. It was truly a powerful speech. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
He talked about the progression of American society through the lens of the family. He specifically discussed generational progression. In so many words, Obama said that the hard work and sacrifice of past generations have made possible the radical change our country is experiencing. –Andrew B</div>Kwilson Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38