Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php on line 195
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 571
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 585
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 578
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 603
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 553
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 186
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 203
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 196
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 212
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 175
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php on line 135
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 234
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php on line 292
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php on line 755
Warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php on line 907
Deprecated: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Pager.php on line 908
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 627
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 629
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 630
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 631
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 633
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 634
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php on line 402
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38 https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Lwilk8waMcClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T22:37:33ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_15_Questions/CommentsWeek 15 Questions/Comments2007-12-06T02:52:02Z<p>Lwilk8wa: </p>
<hr />
<div>One of the things that stood out to me during these readings was in "The Office Clerk" when the office manager was listing all of the reasons women were superior towards men for these positions. Among these reasons were that they almost always present for the work day and not making up silly excuses for an absence and the precision that they conducted their work in. I found it surprising that this man had such high praise for women. Could he have been saying this to the interviewer (Clara Lanza) to appease the female crowd who would be reading her article? Or did he really feel this way towards his female workers? Did the fact that companies could get away with paying women less than men factor into this appreciation for women clerks? - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I found the article "Objections to Domestic Service" in that Lucy Salmon polled servants and their employers and from that managed to come up with a list of disadvantages. These disadvantages were an effort to dissuade young, American born women from entering this type of service. Such "industrial disadvantages" include "lack of all opportunity for promotion," "lack of organization in the service," "irregularity in working hours," "competition with the foreign born and the negro element," and "the interference with work often by those less skilled than the workers themselves." I can understand Salmon's reasoning for wanting to keep women from working as domestic servants. However, I'm slightly confused when she comments on how with the professions of seamstresses, clerks, trained nurses, and teachers can lead to promotions in the working environment. So in that sense, Salmon is urging women to pursue jobs other than domestic servitude. But is she at all encouraging them to return to the home? -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I think, in response to Vanessa's question, that Lucy Salmon felt that she was encouraging women to return to the home. Where else would they be if not in the work place? They would be at home with their housework and their families. By expressing the disadvantages of the working world she was able to show women what they would be missing from their home if they joined the workforce, without listing all the things to be done at home and the need to be at home. For some that would probably encourage them to work. Also I think that Lucy Salmon was well aware that the majority of women in the workforce were working because they had to to support their families and they would return to the home if it was possible. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I liked the interview contained in Lucy Maynard Salmon’s piece called "Objections to Domestic Service". I thought it was interesting that the girl answering the question “Why do girls dislike domestic service?” says that factory workers are smarter, make better wives, and have cleaner homes while domestic workers that get married become careless and lazy with their housework even though that was their job before marriage and they should probably know how to do it well. I don’t think she really has any proof of this, it’s more about reassuring herself and everyone else that she is in fact a good candidate for marriage. She probably saw marriage as a way out of factory work.-- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
In Julia Ward Howe's writing under "The Joys of Activism," whether this is intended as propaganda or not, it certainly could be and nicely done. I love how she describes the moment she realized that women could and should do better than where they were. "During the first two thirds of my life I looked to the masculine ideal of character as the only true one... In an unexpected hour a new light came to me... The new domain now made clear to me was that of true womanhood - woman no longer in her ancillary relation to her opposite, man, but in her direct relation to the divine plan and purpose, as a free agent, fully sharing with man every human right and every human responsibility." She's certainly encouraging any that read this that she 'saw the light' you could say and the reader can have these realizations too. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I found "Working Women Debate Woman Suffrage" very interesting, especially the entries from "Americus". The person writing these seemed to be extremely bitter towards men. She states that "we won't stay at home any more and cook and wash dishes either; we've done it long enough; let 'him' do it a little while."(Woloch 366) It just seems like she's extremely bitter that women do so much work with raising children and keeping the house clean, but men appear to go out have a good time with their friends and thats it. -Elizabeth frank<br />
<br />
When reading "We Are All Bound up Together," I found it telling when Frances Ellen Harper related her story of life after losing her husband. She was left with four children and no money. Someone even took her to court over a bed. She then discusses how if she had been a man, she would have been remarried by now and would not be facing economic hardship. --E. Hufford<br />
<br />
Isabel Eaton really exemplifies the challenge black men and women faced in finding jobs. There was no guarentee that they would get a job and often times they settled for domestic service. Even if they were educated, "white help" was always preferred. Many people gave up trying to find work outside of the domestic service branch because of this ideology. Black men and women were also refused domestic jobs because of the color of their skin in many cases. --E. Hufford<br />
<br />
I found Leonora Barry's piece on the Knights of Labor to be very interesting. I thought that it showed many of the characteristics mentioned by some of the other readings, the fact that she was a widow with three children for example. She seemed however, to be a very strong woman, one who embrassed her work and her position as master workman. What I found really interesting was that she and others went around educating the children in the factories and such and pushing for the children who are working to be educated in an effort to erase the social and economic situation that causes the circumstances that drive mothers into the workplace. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I also thought the "Office Clerk" by Clara Lanza was an interesting document. I thought it was particularly intersting how it said that women never complained about things like "...the temperature of the building [being] too hot or too cold or that the light is not properly adjusted." Women might not have complained about things like the temperature or light, because they were happy to be able to have a job period that was outside of the home. Men however, could complain about those things and easily get a new job if their current job didn't suit them. ~K. Stinson~<br />
<br />
One trait that I found interesting in “The Office Clerk” was the insistence that office work did not make women unfit for marriage. In fact, the author claims that employment offers these young women the opportunities to meet and wed eligible bachelors, and these working girls often make particularly fine wives. I particularly enjoyed the claim that “men have outgrown their admiration for feminine helplessness and have come to look upon independence as something worth having.” I have to wonder how much of that was actually true and how much was simply the hope of the female author. Unfortunately, we still have women today who fake ignorance or weakness to attract men; how common would it have been in the 19th century? --Ashley H.<br />
<br />
<br />
What really struck me about "A Sweatshop Girl's Story" was how Sadie Frowne felt about injuries sustained on the job in factories. From the way she was talking, she made it seem like these injuries were no big deal. If you hurt your finger, you just wrap it with a bit of cotton, if the injury is worse than that, you may have to have that finger amputated, but, you just accept it and go on with your life. Maybe injuries like that were so common in those factories, that it truely was no big deal. ~K. Stinson~<br />
<br />
The excerpt I enjoyed the most was Sadie Frowne's tale, A Sweatshop Girl's Story. Quite a few things stuck out to me. First, I always assumed that women hated working in the factories because all you hear is how back breaking and boring the work is but she seems to take it in stride. She even talks about how nice it was when the union fought and won for them to "only work nine and half hours." She understood that if she worked hard sooner or later she would fulfill her own American Dream (did that concept exist then?). I was wondering when she says, on page 309 that "Harry has seen me home every night for a long time and makes love to me," if she meant pre-marital sex because she says it so non-chalantly. I agree with K. Stinson that I found it very strange how she described getting hurt in the work place as no big deal. Basically the vibe I got from her account was that while she was proud of her independence, her whole life was based around trying to become the accepted middle class girl. She talks about reading and educating herself, saving money, how ignorant people are low, and how a girl needs to have nice clothes in order to get into high society. -- Emily Miller<br />
<br />
In response to Emily's comment on "A Sweatshop Girl's Story," I've read works where "making love" simply referred to wooing or courtship, not necessarily pre-marital sex, so I think it's quite possible that Frowne is using this meaning here. Additionally, I liked this piece for its depiction of a complete life which included work, school, a boyfriend, and entertainment such as dancing and theater. The lives of these women were difficult, but they were not all drudgery. Frowne remarks, "at the end of the day one feels so weak that there is a great temptation to lie right down and sleep. But you must go out and get air, and have some pleasure." I wonder if this attitude was common among the working women, or if this is an unusual example of girlish optimism and enthusiasm for life. --Ashley H.<br />
<br />
I found the letter written by Americus from "Working Women Debate Suffrage" quite intriguing. She mocked equality by chosing to point out the most grotesque male qualities and declaring that now women could partake in them since they were equal. For instance, spitting tobacco, talking in slang, and snoring were all characteristics she declared women could now mimic. Reading this in the sarcastic manner for which it was intended, it can serve as an example of how some working class women saw suffrage as a threat to the familiar. Although many working class women supported equal wages, it did not necessarily mean they wanted the right to vote. In the introduction, Woloch points out that many working class women identified themselves more with their class than their gender, and some of these women felt suffrage only threatened class unity.- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
In Charlotte Perkins Gilman's "The Ills of the Home", she makes a profound observation when she says, "The permanent error of the housewife lies in the assumption that her love for her family makes her service satisfactorily." A mother washes the clothes, fixes the meals, and cleans the house because she loves her family, but that's not saying if she didn't do those things she would love them less. Gilman makes a great point here when she suggests that one of the reasons mothers have so much difficulty entering the workforce is because they are met with such guilt from society; a society which does not comprehend that mothers may interpret these chores as duties and may need to look elsewhere for personal fulfillment.- Lisa Wilkerson</div>Lwilk8wahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_15_Questions/CommentsWeek 15 Questions/Comments2007-12-06T02:29:25Z<p>Lwilk8wa: </p>
<hr />
<div>One of the things that stood out to me during these readings was in "The Office Clerk" when the office manager was listing all of the reasons women were superior towards men for these positions. Among these reasons were that they almost always present for the work day and not making up silly excuses for an absence and the precision that they conducted their work in. I found it surprising that this man had such high praise for women. Could he have been saying this to the interviewer (Clara Lanza) to appease the female crowd who would be reading her article? Or did he really feel this way towards his female workers? Did the fact that companies could get away with paying women less than men factor into this appreciation for women clerks? - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I found the article "Objections to Domestic Service" in that Lucy Salmon polled servants and their employers and from that managed to come up with a list of disadvantages. These disadvantages were an effort to dissuade young, American born women from entering this type of service. Such "industrial disadvantages" include "lack of all opportunity for promotion," "lack of organization in the service," "irregularity in working hours," "competition with the foreign born and the negro element," and "the interference with work often by those less skilled than the workers themselves." I can understand Salmon's reasoning for wanting to keep women from working as domestic servants. However, I'm slightly confused when she comments on how with the professions of seamstresses, clerks, trained nurses, and teachers can lead to promotions in the working environment. So in that sense, Salmon is urging women to pursue jobs other than domestic servitude. But is she at all encouraging them to return to the home? -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I think, in response to Vanessa's question, that Lucy Salmon felt that she was encouraging women to return to the home. Where else would they be if not in the work place? They would be at home with their housework and their families. By expressing the disadvantages of the working world she was able to show women what they would be missing from their home if they joined the workforce, without listing all the things to be done at home and the need to be at home. For some that would probably encourage them to work. Also I think that Lucy Salmon was well aware that the majority of women in the workforce were working because they had to to support their families and they would return to the home if it was possible. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I liked the interview contained in Lucy Maynard Salmon’s piece called "Objections to Domestic Service". I thought it was interesting that the girl answering the question “Why do girls dislike domestic service?” says that factory workers are smarter, make better wives, and have cleaner homes while domestic workers that get married become careless and lazy with their housework even though that was their job before marriage and they should probably know how to do it well. I don’t think she really has any proof of this, it’s more about reassuring herself and everyone else that she is in fact a good candidate for marriage. She probably saw marriage as a way out of factory work.-- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
In Julia Ward Howe's writing under "The Joys of Activism," whether this is intended as propaganda or not, it certainly could be and nicely done. I love how she describes the moment she realized that women could and should do better than where they were. "During the first two thirds of my life I looked to the masculine ideal of character as the only true one... In an unexpected hour a new light came to me... The new domain now made clear to me was that of true womanhood - woman no longer in her ancillary relation to her opposite, man, but in her direct relation to the divine plan and purpose, as a free agent, fully sharing with man every human right and every human responsibility." She's certainly encouraging any that read this that she 'saw the light' you could say and the reader can have these realizations too. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I found "Working Women Debate Woman Suffrage" very interesting, especially the entries from "Americus". The person writing these seemed to be extremely bitter towards men. She states that "we won't stay at home any more and cook and wash dishes either; we've done it long enough; let 'him' do it a little while."(Woloch 366) It just seems like she's extremely bitter that women do so much work with raising children and keeping the house clean, but men appear to go out have a good time with their friends and thats it. -Elizabeth frank<br />
<br />
When reading "We Are All Bound up Together," I found it telling when Frances Ellen Harper related her story of life after losing her husband. She was left with four children and no money. Someone even took her to court over a bed. She then discusses how if she had been a man, she would have been remarried by now and would not be facing economic hardship. --E. Hufford<br />
<br />
Isabel Eaton really exemplifies the challenge black men and women faced in finding jobs. There was no guarentee that they would get a job and often times they settled for domestic service. Even if they were educated, "white help" was always preferred. Many people gave up trying to find work outside of the domestic service branch because of this ideology. Black men and women were also refused domestic jobs because of the color of their skin in many cases. --E. Hufford<br />
<br />
I found Leonora Barry's piece on the Knights of Labor to be very interesting. I thought that it showed many of the characteristics mentioned by some of the other readings, the fact that she was a widow with three children for example. She seemed however, to be a very strong woman, one who embrassed her work and her position as master workman. What I found really interesting was that she and others went around educating the children in the factories and such and pushing for the children who are working to be educated in an effort to erase the social and economic situation that causes the circumstances that drive mothers into the workplace. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I also thought the "Office Clerk" by Clara Lanza was an interesting document. I thought it was particularly intersting how it said that women never complained about things like "...the temperature of the building [being] too hot or too cold or that the light is not properly adjusted." Women might not have complained about things like the temperature or light, because they were happy to be able to have a job period that was outside of the home. Men however, could complain about those things and easily get a new job if their current job didn't suit them. ~K. Stinson~<br />
<br />
One trait that I found interesting in “The Office Clerk” was the insistence that office work did not make women unfit for marriage. In fact, the author claims that employment offers these young women the opportunities to meet and wed eligible bachelors, and these working girls often make particularly fine wives. I particularly enjoyed the claim that “men have outgrown their admiration for feminine helplessness and have come to look upon independence as something worth having.” I have to wonder how much of that was actually true and how much was simply the hope of the female author. Unfortunately, we still have women today who fake ignorance or weakness to attract men; how common would it have been in the 19th century? --Ashley H.<br />
<br />
<br />
What really struck me about "A Sweatshop Girl's Story" was how Sadie Frowne felt about injuries sustained on the job in factories. From the way she was talking, she made it seem like these injuries were no big deal. If you hurt your finger, you just wrap it with a bit of cotton, if the injury is worse than that, you may have to have that finger amputated, but, you just accept it and go on with your life. Maybe injuries like that were so common in those factories, that it truely was no big deal. ~K. Stinson~<br />
<br />
The excerpt I enjoyed the most was Sadie Frowne's tale, A Sweatshop Girl's Story. Quite a few things stuck out to me. First, I always assumed that women hated working in the factories because all you hear is how back breaking and boring the work is but she seems to take it in stride. She even talks about how nice it was when the union fought and won for them to "only work nine and half hours." She understood that if she worked hard sooner or later she would fulfill her own American Dream (did that concept exist then?). I was wondering when she says, on page 309 that "Harry has seen me home every night for a long time and makes love to me," if she meant pre-marital sex because she says it so non-chalantly. I agree with K. Stinson that I found it very strange how she described getting hurt in the work place as no big deal. Basically the vibe I got from her account was that while she was proud of her independence, her whole life was based around trying to become the accepted middle class girl. She talks about reading and educating herself, saving money, how ignorant people are low, and how a girl needs to have nice clothes in order to get into high society. -- Emily Miller<br />
<br />
In response to Emily's comment on "A Sweatshop Girl's Story," I've read works where "making love" simply referred to wooing or courtship, not necessarily pre-marital sex, so I think it's quite possible that Frowne is using this meaning here. Additionally, I liked this piece for its depiction of a complete life which included work, school, a boyfriend, and entertainment such as dancing and theater. The lives of these women were difficult, but they were not all drudgery. Frowne remarks, "at the end of the day one feels so weak that there is a great temptation to lie right down and sleep. But you must go out and get air, and have some pleasure." I wonder if this attitude was common among the working women, or if this is an unusual example of girlish optimism and enthusiasm for life. --Ashley H.<br />
<br />
I found the letter written by Americus from "Working Women Debate Suffrage" quite intriguing. She mocked equality by chosing to point out the most grotesque male qualities and declaring that now women could partake in them since they were equal. For instance, spitting tobacco, talking in slang, and snoring were all characteristics she declared women could now mimic. Reading this in the sarcastic manner for which it was intended, it can serve as an example of how some working class women saw suffrage as a threat to the familiar. Although many working class women supported equal wages, it did not necessarily mean they wanted the right to vote. In the introduction, Woloch points out that many working class women identified themselves more with their class than their gender, and some of these women felt suffrage only threatened class unity.- Lisa Wilkerson</div>Lwilk8wahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_9_Questions/CommentsWeek 9 Questions/Comments2007-10-24T02:28:52Z<p>Lwilk8wa: </p>
<hr />
<div>I’m rather amazed with the strict order imposed on a middle class housewife, as read in Catharine Beecher’s “System and Order”. Each day of the week is filled with a specific chore that is repeated the following week. It seems like such a lifestyle would become repetitious and mundane, yet Beecher refers to this “taste for regularity” as a “blessing”. How come?- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
When reading the “Reports on Western Schools” letters from two teachers to Catharine Beecher, it is interesting to see the stark contrast of experiences. The first teacher seems to have zero amenities. She uses a “single board for a writing desk, a few bricks for andirons, and a stick of wood for shovel and tongs”. Some of her students are so poor they cannot afford shoes. She makes subtle hints that she is in need of money for purchasing suitable books, maps, slates, pencils, and paper, but we never read if she ever received any assistance. The other teacher had a new schoolhouse built for her which included writing desks and a black board. It is obvious that she is fairly well off in her new surroundings. Surprisingly, we find out that she has received some money from Mrs. Beecher which she used to purchase soap, candles, and a privacy screen. What would provoke Mrs. Beecher to give money to one of her pupils to spend personally while her other pupil is struggling to afford necessities to develop a decent school?- Lisa Wilkerson</div>Lwilk8wahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_9_Questions/CommentsWeek 9 Questions/Comments2007-10-24T01:31:33Z<p>Lwilk8wa: New page: I’m rather amazed with the strict order imposed on a middle class housewife, as read in Catharine Beecher’s “System and Order”. Each day of the week is filled with a specific chore...</p>
<hr />
<div>I’m rather amazed with the strict order imposed on a middle class housewife, as read in Catharine Beecher’s “System and Order”. Each day of the week is filled with a specific chore that is repeated the following week. It seems like such a lifestyle would become repetitious and mundane, yet Beecher refers to this “taste for regularity” as a “blessing”. How come?- Lisa Wilkerson</div>Lwilk8wahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_8_Questions/CommentsWeek 8 Questions/Comments2007-10-18T03:07:15Z<p>Lwilk8wa: </p>
<hr />
<div>I found it interesting in ''Women Alone: Property and Personalism'' how women expressed their displeasure with family members openly in their wills by leaving them out or adding conditions to the inheritance. Meanwhile men, when writing their wills, adhered to a basic format. I liked how the author made clear that even though women were limited in their influence and power in legal and political rights, they asserted their power through their wills. - Elizabeth Frank <br />
<br />
I too though it was very interesting how women openly expressed their displeasure in their wills by leaving them out or adding conditions to the inheritance, and as for the men, they just followed a simple format. These women finally got the change to assert their power through their wills, something that they never got the chance to do before...as far as political and legal rights are concerned. -Katie D.<br />
<br />
The women of Petersburg seemed to be self-sufficient. I was surprised to hear women wrote a great many of the wills. When it was mentioned how they highly personalized their wills, it reminded me of how a grandmother of mine use to threaten her relations about leaving them out of her will. This same grandmother also had good control of the family finances. I think she was pretty unique. -Cheryl<br />
<br />
It is sort of understandable that a woman would choose favorites, since the patriarch of a family would probably be treated with respect by all members of the family, but a matriarch? I am sure that many family members treated her like she was incompetent and unsuited to lead the family. Would the son-in-law have left that same clause reprimanding Bolling's husband, had he been alive? I doubt it. I wouldn't leave them anything either! -- Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
In Woloch's book, Malefactors and Complainants, Women were very active participants in the New England county courts, where they appeared in several capacities. It was interesting to me that occasionally wives served as attorneys for their husbands;colonies that accepted this practice did so on the grounds that the wife was legally an extension of her husband. -Katie D.<br />
<br />
It doesn't really make sense to me why the wives were able to serve as attorneys for their husbands though if in other capacities women were not thought to be rational or logical or capable of higher thought. Why then would the men put their "fate" in their wives hands? Or did an attorney have a more limited role then, or have a different meaning? --Alex K.<br />
<br />
I gathered from the reading in Woloch that the fame sol traders were not major players but rather women for one reason or another needed to earn a living. The laws passed were to both protect the feme sol traders from being taken advantage of and keep them from taking advantage of others. -Cheryl<br />
<br />
In Woloch we are shown that in New England it was easier for women to receive a divorce from the courts than it was in the Chesapeake region. I actually found this surprising. Because New England was formed around strict religious ideals I expected that divorce would be harder to get approved of. I understand that divorce was given based on if a woman was abused, if adultery was committed or if a wife or husband was left for an extended period without contact from the other. HOWEVER, why was it less difficult to get a divorce in a region with such strong foundations in religion? I feel like I'm missing a connection someplace in there.- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Maybe this is due to the layout of towns in New England verses the Chesapeake. Towns are more prevelant in the north and, perhaps because of this, courts and town councils seem to be more prevelant as well. When you live in an isolated area, probably far removed from the courts and your neighbors, it would be harder to go to the court for anything at all so something like a domestic dispute would be hard to take to court. -- Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
In response to Elizabeth's comment, I was wondering how varying views of marriage may have affected divorce rates in New England and the Chesapeake region. I think we've read that the Puritans viewed marriage more as a civil union than a sacred bond, so it may not actually be contradictory for them to allow divorce. What type of religion, if any, flourished in the Chesapeake? -- Ashley H. <br />
<br />
Elizabeth I think it would be interesting to study how many cases were brought to court and how many divorces were actually approved. While we see New England as strange for allowing divorce in such a strict, Puritan society we are not fully aware of how common the practice was or how easy of a time an abused or neglected woman had winning her case. Another section in Woloch I found fascinating was this idea of Feme Sole Traders which allowed married women to engage in businesses. I thought it was interesting how South Carolina had more "liberal laws." What could be a motive for that? Did a particular trade lend itself to this idea of Feme Sole Traders? How common was the practice? Was it socially unacceptable to take economic matters into one's own hands and not leave it up to the man? --Mary Beth Dillane<br />
<br />
I also was amazed with the section on the Feme Sole Traders. I thought it was unacceptable for women to be able to take on such economic matters, especially after what happened in the Dutch Colonies when the English arrived. Was this practice of the woman being a major player economically really that common? - Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
In another class I have taken it was mentioned that while married women in New England had few legal rights they were more able to divorce because of the Puritan idea of what a home and familiy and patriarchal household. If a marriage was not the ideal marriage or if a man was not upholding his patriarchal responsibilities a woman was within her rights to divorce him. However, who knows what other motives New England law makers might have had. Also on the Feme Sole Traders, the question on a particular trade is a good one. If I had to take a guess I would say whatever trade she might want to get involved in, but also maybe not a trade that was of a masculine sort, like selling men's clothes or something like that. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I'm curious about how sentencing for crimes may have been affected by gender.For example, the reading mentions that Mary Chelson was whipped and had to pay a fee for "committing of fornication.... and having a bastard childe." In the trial Chelson named the father of her child, what would his punishment have been?-- Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
I was also interested in the sentencing for crimes and its relationship to gender. I found it interesting that on one occassion, the "Backway Sentenced", the man got whipped five more times for the woman for committing fornication before marriage. Why did the amount of whipping for fornication change? It seems like for the most part the charge was 15 slashes (even if a bastard child is involved). However, it fluctuates based on the case, sometimes 10 and a small monetary payment, sometimes 20. Why is this? Were some charged less because they were deemed "better" citizens? Fornication is fornication. How can you say one case is worse than another?- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
I found the excert about the sentencing of crimes very interesting. I was amazed at some of the things that people were charged for. For example the people who were fined for fornication before thier marriage. SInce there were a lot of fornication cases in this piece I probably shouldnt have been surprised, but they were MARRIED. Who should care that they had "fornicated" before marriage. And why did they tell people anyway, that seemed silly. Also what was up with that one lady, Margaret Brewster, who disguised herself and came to meeting? --Mary P.<br />
<br />
Maybe it wasn't that they told people about the fornication but that they were caught fornicating when, or where, they shouldn't have been. This is the best explaination I can come up with because you're right that it would be silly for them to admit to committing fornication before marriage. -- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with the comments about the fornication before marriage and the punishments of such, but when taking a look at their society that they lived in, it certainly correlates. I studied in another class that these activities and others that demonstrated individualistic tendencies or independence or even anything that was outside the community norm were severely "frowned upon" and punishment was necessary. Anything to keep the community cohesive and respected. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I believe that, in this deeply religious society, confessing to fornication was essentially confessing to a sin, with the thought process being to repent and accept the punishment. Perhaps reasoning for this was to ensure a Christian afterlife or to prevent a "bastard child" from being ostracized by the surrounding community.- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
I was just amazed, in general, that women were allowed to leave wills and have some say in what happened with property after someone's death. I didn't realize that women were allowed to have this much power in the relationship, was this a new ideology? Or had this always been common? - Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I too was surprised that women were able to have a say in what happened to their property after their death. I also found it interesting that through antenuptial contracts, women could retain come control over their property. I thought that when a woman married, she became the property of her husband.-- E. Hufford<br />
<br />
I was surprised at the Tennison Decision portion of "A Separation Decision" in Wolock. Many of the other divorces or separations seemed to be granted for desertion, and in these cases it makes economic sense to allow a woman to remarry so she does not become a drain on the community. However, in this case John Tennisson was willing to support his wife under his own roof, but she was granted a legal separation because "he could never entertain that love and respect for his said wife . . . as is properly due" (75). Loveless marriages couldn't have been that uncommon; I have to wonder what was going on behind the scenes that made this relationship worse than others. ---Ashley H.<br />
<br />
When reading Suzanne Lebsock's article, I was interested in the fact that white women sometimes left money and other provisions to their slaves when writing their wills. More women than men gave slaves their freedom through their wills. One woman's provisions for her slaves were written with more love and detail than were her provisions for her son and grandchildren according to Lebsock. I think this empahsizes the importance and effect of individual relationships that some white women had with their slaves.--E. Hufford<br />
<br />
I was fascinated reading the Lebsock's article. I did a research paper several years ago about the subject of women and the wills they left behind and it was really common to see where one child would get either everything or most everything. Then when the census records were looked at as well you could see where the woman had several children but some got nothing. That to me was really interesting to see how women divided up their property.~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
Question in response to Mary Beth's comment: Why is that so? Were women leaving their property to the one child that was the favorite? Or just the oldest child? And why exclude some of them from getting anything at all? Men seemed to have certain guidelines that dictated who got what (i.e. oldest son got most or all of the inheritance) but women did not necessarily have those guidelines. So is this an example of a freedom they had, giving their property to whomever they choose? -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
It says on page 79 in Woloch that Goodwife Amee was "presented by the grandjury for absenting her selfe from the publique worship of God." Does this mean that she was brought to court because she left a public display of worship on the Sabbath (Sunday?)? I'm confused about the antenuptial contracts, didn't the wife loose her legal standing when she became married, or was this more of a colonial-time period thing? If it was, how did it change and why? It seems like such a beneficial thing to men, and giving women's limited legal standing anyways, I'm at a loss to explain the change. The end of the blackboard article notes that women were more sensitive to people in precarious economic positions, or their tendency to reward their 'favorite' people, which I found interesting in how that is such a contrast to the tendencies of men. An obvious explanation might be that women could easily sympathize with a slave since, perhaps, they saw their own position in a similar light? -Christopher Plummer<br />
<br />
In the Wolock reading, under the Divorce in New England section, the most common reason for granting a divorce was abandonment by the husband. I'm sure there are varied reasons why these men left their wives but none of the court records state why any of them left. It's probably hard to tell, but did the courts know why these men were leaving? Did the wives? What was the most common reason for abandonment?-- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
I also wondered why abandonment was the most common reason for divorce in New England because I assumed it would be abuse. Were all these men running off and starting other families or did they leave their wives because they felt they could set up a better life for themselves somewhere else?<br />
In the Woloch piece on “Divorce in New England” it was interesting to read that of the thirteen colonies only Massachusetts and Connecticut offered absolute divorce. Even though absolute divorce existed in the 17th century a women could only petition the court for divorce in cases of adultery, desertion, or an absence of seven years. I wonder what the court’s reasoning was behind making a women wait seven years before petitioning the court for a divorce. Seven years seems like a very long time for a woman to have to live by herself and care for her family without her husband’s support. <br />
When Elizabeth Griswould petitioned the court to have sole custody of her children it was interesting to see the court ordering the children’s father to pay child support payments. I was not aware that courts ordered parents to pay child support as early as the seventeenth century.--Caitlin Quinn</div>Lwilk8wahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_8_Questions/CommentsWeek 8 Questions/Comments2007-10-18T02:56:11Z<p>Lwilk8wa: </p>
<hr />
<div>I found it interesting in ''Women Alone: Property and Personalism'' how women expressed their displeasure with family members openly in their wills by leaving them out or adding conditions to the inheritance. Meanwhile men, when writing their wills, adhered to a basic format. I liked how the author made clear that even though women were limited in their influence and power in legal and political rights, they asserted their power through their wills. - Elizabeth Frank <br />
<br />
I too though it was very interesting how women openly expressed their displeasure in their wills by leaving them out or adding conditions to the inheritance, and as for the men, they just followed a simple format. These women finally got the change to assert their power through their wills, something that they never got the chance to do before...as far as political and legal rights are concerned. -Katie D.<br />
<br />
The women of Petersburg seemed to be self-sufficient. I was surprised to hear women wrote a great many of the wills. When it was mentioned how they highly personalized their wills, it reminded me of how a grandmother of mine use to threaten her relations about leaving them out of her will. This same grandmother also had good control of the family finances. I think she was pretty unique. -Cheryl<br />
<br />
It is sort of understandable that a woman would choose favorites, since the patriarch of a family would probably be treated with respect by all members of the family, but a matriarch? I am sure that many family members treated her like she was incompetent and unsuited to lead the family. Would the son-in-law have left that same clause reprimanding Bolling's husband, had he been alive? I doubt it. I wouldn't leave them anything either! -- Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
In Woloch's book, Malefactors and Complainants, Women were very active participants in the New England county courts, where they appeared in several capacities. It was interesting to me that occasionally wives served as attorneys for their husbands;colonies that accepted this practice did so on the grounds that the wife was legally an extension of her husband. -Katie D.<br />
<br />
I gathered from the reading in Woloch that the fame sol traders were not major players but rather women for one reason or another needed to earn a living. The laws passed were to both protect the feme sol traders from being taken advantage of and keep them from taking advantage of others. -Cheryl<br />
<br />
In Woloch we are shown that in New England it was easier for women to receive a divorce from the courts than it was in the Chesapeake region. I actually found this surprising. Because New England was formed around strict religious ideals I expected that divorce would be harder to get approved of. I understand that divorce was given based on if a woman was abused, if adultery was committed or if a wife or husband was left for an extended period without contact from the other. HOWEVER, why was it less difficult to get a divorce in a region with such strong foundations in religion? I feel like I'm missing a connection someplace in there.- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Maybe this is due to the layout of towns in New England verses the Chesapeake. Towns are more prevelant in the north and, perhaps because of this, courts and town councils seem to be more prevelant as well. When you live in an isolated area, probably far removed from the courts and your neighbors, it would be harder to go to the court for anything at all so something like a domestic dispute would be hard to take to court. -- Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
In response to Elizabeth's comment, I was wondering how varying views of marriage may have affected divorce rates in New England and the Chesapeake region. I think we've read that the Puritans viewed marriage more as a civil union than a sacred bond, so it may not actually be contradictory for them to allow divorce. What type of religion, if any, flourished in the Chesapeake? -- Ashley H. <br />
<br />
Elizabeth I think it would be interesting to study how many cases were brought to court and how many divorces were actually approved. While we see New England as strange for allowing divorce in such a strict, Puritan society we are not fully aware of how common the practice was or how easy of a time an abused or neglected woman had winning her case. Another section in Woloch I found fascinating was this idea of Feme Sole Traders which allowed married women to engage in businesses. I thought it was interesting how South Carolina had more "liberal laws." What could be a motive for that? Did a particular trade lend itself to this idea of Feme Sole Traders? How common was the practice? Was it socially unacceptable to take economic matters into one's own hands and not leave it up to the man? --Mary Beth Dillane<br />
<br />
I also was amazed with the section on the Feme Sole Traders. I thought it was unacceptable for women to be able to take on such economic matters, especially after what happened in the Dutch Colonies when the English arrived. Was this practice of the woman being a major player economically really that common? - Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
In another class I have taken it was mentioned that while married women in New England had few legal rights they were more able to divorce because of the Puritan idea of what a home and familiy and patriarchal household. If a marriage was not the ideal marriage or if a man was not upholding his patriarchal responsibilities a woman was within her rights to divorce him. However, who knows what other motives New England law makers might have had. Also on the Feme Sole Traders, the question on a particular trade is a good one. If I had to take a guess I would say whatever trade she might want to get involved in, but also maybe not a trade that was of a masculine sort, like selling men's clothes or something like that. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I'm curious about how sentencing for crimes may have been affected by gender.For example, the reading mentions that Mary Chelson was whipped and had to pay a fee for "committing of fornication.... and having a bastard childe." In the trial Chelson named the father of her child, what would his punishment have been?-- Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
I found the excert about the sentencing of crimes very interesting. I was amazed at some of the things that people were charged for. For example the people who were fined for fornication before thier marriage. SInce there were a lot of fornication cases in this piece I probably shouldnt have been surprised, but they were MARRIED. Who should care that they had "fornicated" before marriage. And why did they tell people anyway, that seemed silly. Also what was up with that one lady, Margaret Brewster, who disguised herself and came to meeting? --Mary P.<br />
<br />
Maybe it wasn't that they told people about the fornication but that they were caught fornicating when, or where, they shouldn't have been. This is the best explaination I can come up with because you're right that it would be silly for them to admit to committing fornication before marriage. -- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with the comments about the fornication before marriage and the punishments of such, but when taking a look at their society that they lived in, it certainly correlates. I studied in another class that these activities and others that demonstrated individualistic tendencies or independence or even anything that was outside the community norm were severely "frowned upon" and punishment was necessary. Anything to keep the community cohesive and respected. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I believe that, in this deeply religious society, confessing to fornication was essentially confessing to a sin, with the thought process being to repent and accept the punishment. Perhaps reasoning for this was to ensure a Christian afterlife or to prevent a "bastard child" from being ostracized by the surrounding community.- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
I was just amazed, in general, that women were allowed to leave wills and have some say in what happened with property after someone's death. I didn't realize that women were allowed to have this much power in the relationship, was this a new ideology? Or had this always been common? - Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I too was surprised that women were able to have a say in what happened to their property after their death. I also found it interesting that through antenuptial contracts, women could retain come control over their property. I thought that when a woman married, she became the property of her husband.-- E. Hufford<br />
<br />
I was surprised at the Tennison Decision portion of "A Separation Decision" in Wolock. Many of the other divorces or separations seemed to be granted for desertion, and in these cases it makes economic sense to allow a woman to remarry so she does not become a drain on the community. However, in this case John Tennisson was willing to support his wife under his own roof, but she was granted a legal separation because "he could never entertain that love and respect for his said wife . . . as is properly due" (75). Loveless marriages couldn't have been that uncommon; I have to wonder what was going on behind the scenes that made this relationship worse than others. ---Ashley H.<br />
<br />
When reading Suzanne Lebsock's article, I was interested in the fact that white women sometimes left money and other provisions to their slaves when writing their wills. More women than men gave slaves their freedom through their wills. One woman's provisions for her slaves were written with more love and detail than were her provisions for her son and grandchildren according to Lebsock. I think this empahsizes the importance and effect of individual relationships that some white women had with their slaves.--E. Hufford<br />
<br />
I was fascinated reading the Lebsock's article. I did a research paper several years ago about the subject of women and the wills they left behind and it was really common to see where one child would get either everything or most everything. Then when the census records were looked at as well you could see where the woman had several children but some got nothing. That to me was really interesting to see how women divided up their property.~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
Question in response to Mary Beth's comment: Why is that so? Were women leaving their property to the one child that was the favorite? Or just the oldest child? And why exclude some of them from getting anything at all? Men seemed to have certain guidelines that dictated who got what (i.e. oldest son got most or all of the inheritance) but women did not necessarily have those guidelines. So is this an example of a freedom they had, giving their property to whomever they choose? -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
It says on page 79 in Woloch that Goodwife Amee was "presented by the grandjury for absenting her selfe from the publique worship of God." Does this mean that she was brought to court because she left a public display of worship on the Sabbath (Sunday?)? I'm confused about the antenuptial contracts, didn't the wife loose her legal standing when she became married, or was this more of a colonial-time period thing? If it was, how did it change and why? It seems like such a beneficial thing to men, and giving women's limited legal standing anyways, I'm at a loss to explain the change. The end of the blackboard article notes that women were more sensitive to people in precarious economic positions, or their tendency to reward their 'favorite' people, which I found interesting in how that is such a contrast to the tendencies of men. An obvious explanation might be that women could easily sympathize with a slave since, perhaps, they saw their own position in a similar light? -Christopher Plummer<br />
<br />
In the Wolock reading, under the Divorce in New England section, the most common reason for granting a divorce was abandonment by the husband. I'm sure there are varied reasons why these men left their wives but none of the court records state why any of them left. It's probably hard to tell, but did the courts know why these men were leaving? Did the wives? What was the most common reason for abandonment?-- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
I also wondered why abandonment was the most common reason for divorce in New England because I assumed it would be abuse. Were all these men running off and starting other families or did they leave their wives because they felt they could set up a better life for themselves somewhere else?<br />
In the Woloch piece on “Divorce in New England” it was interesting to read that of the thirteen colonies only Massachusetts and Connecticut offered absolute divorce. Even though absolute divorce existed in the 17th century a women could only petition the court for divorce in cases of adultery, desertion, or an absence of seven years. I wonder what the court’s reasoning was behind making a women wait seven years before petitioning the court for a divorce. Seven years seems like a very long time for a woman to have to live by herself and care for her family without her husband’s support. <br />
When Elizabeth Griswould petitioned the court to have sole custody of her children it was interesting to see the court ordering the children’s father to pay child support payments. I was not aware that courts ordered parents to pay child support as early as the seventeenth century.--Caitlin Quinn</div>Lwilk8wahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_7_Questions/CommentsWeek 7 Questions/Comments2007-10-11T02:40:58Z<p>Lwilk8wa: </p>
<hr />
<div>In the reading from Woloch's book, part of Martha Ballard's diary, I thought it was great how Martha didn't even begin her career until age 42,had six kids,and had several careers such as a housewife, slaughtered livestock, spun flax, produced candles and soap, knitted cloathing, pieced quilts, raised chickens, milked cows, fed pigs, and grew vegetables. Martha also ran a buisy local practice as a healer and midwife, and did much more! This was a remarkable women in my eyes.-Katie D.<br />
<br />
In the reading from Woloch's book, part of Martha Ballard's diary, I liked how her diary was at once a professional log, a family record, and a community record, because of her continual involvement with clients, neighbors, and local happenings.- Katie D.<br />
<br />
I also liked how her diary was a log not only for herself and her family but also for her community. While reading the entries it was clear that she was writing it not only for herself because of how she records the details, like who is sick, who gave birth etc. I found it interesting that it was a midwife who seemed to be keeping logs of the town and not a man in some other professional field within the town.- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Along those lines, I was wondering why she didn't begin keeping a diary until she was 50 years old. Was it because she thought of her diary as more of a log for the community (as Elizabeth put it) and this was the time she was doing the most communal work (after her kids were not so young)? --Alex K.<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting too how her diary did cover all points of her life, not just about her being a good wife or a good mother or a good midwife or what have you. That was one aspect of her diary that stood out from the diaries we have looked at previously. The diaries from the other periods seemed more concerned with making the writer look like a good Christian or the proper woman of the time, like she wrote it because she knew that it would be read some day and that she wanted to make sure her decendants knew what a wonderful person she was. While Martha Ballard may have had the same intention it also seems as though she wanted to keep the record more for herself and her children then to show how good she was. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
Pardon me if this is common knowledge and I am just out the loop, but who was looking after Margaret's children while her and her husband were away on business? Were they all grown up and out of the house? Were they looking after themselves? I would assume because there is hardly any mention of them, and the fact that Margaret was middle-aged, that they were already grown. Also, it probably would've been a little too risky to go out to care for the sick and come back to children, whose immune systems were already vulnerable. Hmm...I guess I kind of answered my own question...but feel free to sound off if you agree or disagree.- Lisa W.<br />
<br />
In her diary, Martha Ballard mentions a man by the name of Mr. Ballard a couple of times, which I’m assuming is her husband. I was curious as to how much control he actually had over her life. I got the impression that midwives were usually widows or were unattached to a man. Does that make her case unusual? She is very independent and very busy, and she seems to do a lot of her healing and midwife duties on her own. -- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
--Yes, it was common 18th century practice for a husband and wife to address each other as "Mr. Smith" and "Mrs. Smith" even when writing to each other. Although, the emergence of companionate marriage in some relationships did change that. A more interesting question to me is, in what ways did the Ballards' marriage show signs of the emergence of companionate marriage?.--A. Meyer<br />
<br />
I believe the Ballard's marriage did show characteristics of a companionate marriage. I think the fact that she mentioned her anniversary among her work notes could show that it is something that she is proud of. Also, Martha was a very active midwife and I do not she could have been without support from her husband. - Fiona C.<br />
<br />
In response to Jennifer about Mr. Ballard, who I too assume is her husband, I suppose that he had as much control over some aspects of her life as most men did over their wives. But I also got the impression that he is not always/not often at home. Frequently she wrote about him being off surveying somewhere. But also Martha was an older woman, who had already given birth to children, who did have a vocation and so she did have probably slightly more control then most. At the same time however, she is still known as Mrs. Martha Ballard and her role as a housewife and mother and grandmother takes presidence over her role as a midwife. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I think Martha uses the name Mr. Ballard, who I am sure is her husband, out of respect and love for her husband as the provider and business man that he is. I know when I was young it was not uncommon for couple who were elderly at that time to refer to themselves as Mr. Smith and Mrs. Smith. Also couples who were business people tended to call each other by their formal names. I am a big fan of the old T.V. series The Walton’s. The Godseys were characters in the show that called each other Mr. Godsey and Mrs. Godsey. They didn’t often use their first name when they where addressing each other. ---Cheryl<br />
<br />
I agree somewhat with Cheryl on why Martha refers to her husband as Mr. Ballard, but maybe this use of full names could give us some idea of why she kept the diary. It was obviously not solely for personal pleasure. Maybe she was keeping it so that later on others could understand it if necessary and she wanted to be clear about who she was referring to. She often references how much she paid for certain services or how much she was paid so I can't help but wonder what exactly this diary was kept for. For her own personal recollection? As some sort of family banking account? As proof of particular jobs and payments? -- Allison J<br />
<br />
While reading over Martha's diary online, I was surprised to read the section about Martha's son and eventual daughter-in-law. The couple had a child out of wedlock but the courts were less concerned with their immoral behavior but rather identifying the father so that the community would not be responsible for supporting the mother and child. Is this evidence of the ongoing shift from a religious to a secular society ? --E. Hufford<br />
<br />
Religion still seems to be a very large factor in her life since she notes who in her family went to church on Sunday and she usually gives a clear reason if she doesn't go. She also talks about town meetings during which they decide to hire on preachers, etc. Possibly this concern over the father of the illegitimate child really is just a concern about money. At this time there would obviously be no government programs for single mothers or illegitimate children so something had to be done. Maybe this situation just shows that premarital sex did happen and it happened frequently enough that the community knew that it was important to take action before they were saddled with a child to care for. -- Allison J <br />
<br />
When reading Martha's diary dated the 9th of July 1806, I was appalled when reading of the Purrinton murders. I was shocked in the sense that one does not usually attribute such horrific behavior to that time. Many people today blame suicide-homicides on the society in which we live. I found it intersting and horrifying that such atrocities did happen even two hundred years ago.--E. Hufford<br />
<br />
I have been reading a lot of medical history lately and I found Martha’s diary passages in the winter very interesting in the fact that she gives good details on her ailments. The details are so good it makes me wonder if the fact there are many times during the winter when they are feeling fatigued and colicky that maybe it might be due to lack of a completely balanced diet. Often in the 1700s and 1800s fruits and vegetables are not very abundant. This food items are very high in various vitamins and minerals our body needs. Some of the symptoms Martha wrote about fit some of the vitamin deficiency diseases I am studying. ---Cheryl<br />
<br />
What I would like to know is how Martha Ballard had the time to run her own household and take care of her own family as well as be a busy midwife. She seemed to be on call all the time and at the end of the diary entry in the Woloch book, she said she lost 42 nights of sleep that year! ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
In response to Katherine's comment I think Martha had more time to focus on being a midwife because her children were all grown up by this time so she did not have to spend anytime on child rearing. I researched her a bit more and found out that she wrote at night while her family slept so she was not spending time during the day on these entries. <br />
Martha Ballard is a wonderful example of an 18th century woman who was not only a dutiful wife and mother but also had a professional role in her community as midwife and healer for thirty years. I found it remarkable that she kept her diary for such a long period of time and made daily entries. Martha also seemed to be very sick throughout some of these years but that did not stop her from performing all her household and professional duties. –Caitlin Quinn<br />
<br />
In Woloch's excerpt, I noticed that though the year she delivered 28 babies and 17 of them were "daughters" that is a lot of female babies. Was there something in this town's water that made them all girls? I also would have liked to read about how many of these babies survived the year, and how their mothers were doing. Why did she tell us the number of daughters? Does that show us that she values girl babies over boy babies? Could it be that she was just using short hand and telling us how many of one sex is easier than how many of both? -- Julie Castanien<br />
<br />
I also would like to comment on how cool that website was that had her entire diary. It provided an excellent way of seeing the source first hand while still making it understandable. -- Julie Castanien<br />
<br />
I agree with Julie, I liked how the site explained her dating system and the way she spelled her words. It made it much easier to understand what she was writing. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I'm curious about the qualifications for being a midwife. I assume training was fairly informal and reputation seemed to be the only resume. The Woloch reading refers to another, less trustworthy midwife "Mrs. Smith." Why was Smith not trusted? What was the difference between Smith and Ballard?-- Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
After reading Kelly's question, I wondered under what conditions midwives were held responsible for the death of an infant or mother in labor. With limited medical knowledge, how was it determined whether a death (or near-death, as in the case of Mrs. Babcock) was the fault of the midwife or a natural event beyond human aid?-- Ashley H.<br />
<br />
I don't understand how Mrs. Smith still remained a midwife. After many botched medical performances, how come her reputation never got smeared? How was she still being called for medical assistance? Since Mrs. Ballard did note some of Mrs. Smith's faulty doings, was there ever anyone that she could consult in order to get her to stop practicing? It seems like Mrs. Smith being in the picture just made for more "clean-up work" for Mrs. Ballard and more trecherous ailments for her patients.- Lisa W.<br />
<br />
<br />
Becoming a midwife seemed to be one of the few ways women could achieve status in the eighteenth century community. I wonder if this contributed to Ballard's desire to seek the role later in life. --Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
<br />
There seemed to be little mention of her husband, I wonder why that it is. Maybe he was busy or nothing worth noting happened? I guess since Martha already had six kids, she knew pretty much all one could know about having children, so midwifery seemed like a logical thing for her do. It certainly kept her busy, since she delivers a couple kids every month. The editor characterizes other midwives as 'competitors,' which I found interesting. The thought of midwifery usually doesn't bring competition and economics to my mind. -Christopher Plummer<br />
<br />
Chris raises an interesting question, did many areas have multiple midwives? The Ballards' Augusta-area home seemed to be more on the frontier...--A. Meyer<br />
<br />
Did anyone else find the practice of making women swear the identity of their child's father in the height of labor--so it would be the truth--absolutely absurd? What besides fear of death and pain would make the women be truthful?--A. Meyer<br />
<br />
In response to Andrea's question, I agree that it seems like a ridiculous notion to us. With the very real possibility of death in labor, however, perhaps it was believed that a Christian woman wouldn't risk damnation by lying with death possibly moments away.-- Ashley H.<br />
<br />
I also thought it was interesting how much time and effort Ballard put into her work. She often spent a whole day with her patients and sometimes had to travel long distances or in bad weather. In one year she had lost 42 nights of sleep! - Fiona C.<br />
<br />
Another common theme I found throughout Ballard's diary was disease and death. Not only did three of her own children die in 1769, but her diary is dotted with funerals and deaths. There were seven or eight deaths in the excerpt from the book alone. --Alex K.</div>Lwilk8wahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_7_Questions/CommentsWeek 7 Questions/Comments2007-10-11T02:39:36Z<p>Lwilk8wa: </p>
<hr />
<div>In the reading from Woloch's book, part of Martha Ballard's diary, I thought it was great how Martha didn't even begin her career until age 42,had six kids,and had several careers such as a housewife, slaughtered livestock, spun flax, produced candles and soap, knitted cloathing, pieced quilts, raised chickens, milked cows, fed pigs, and grew vegetables. Martha also ran a buisy local practice as a healer and midwife, and did much more! This was a remarkable women in my eyes.-Katie D.<br />
<br />
In the reading from Woloch's book, part of Martha Ballard's diary, I liked how her diary was at once a professional log, a family record, and a community record, because of her continual involvement with clients, neighbors, and local happenings.- Katie D.<br />
<br />
I also liked how her diary was a log not only for herself and her family but also for her community. While reading the entries it was clear that she was writing it not only for herself because of how she records the details, like who is sick, who gave birth etc. I found it interesting that it was a midwife who seemed to be keeping logs of the town and not a man in some other professional field within the town.- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Along those lines, I was wondering why she didn't begin keeping a diary until she was 50 years old. Was it because she thought of her diary as more of a log for the community (as Elizabeth put it) and this was the time she was doing the most communal work (after her kids were not so young)? --Alex K.<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting too how her diary did cover all points of her life, not just about her being a good wife or a good mother or a good midwife or what have you. That was one aspect of her diary that stood out from the diaries we have looked at previously. The diaries from the other periods seemed more concerned with making the writer look like a good Christian or the proper woman of the time, like she wrote it because she knew that it would be read some day and that she wanted to make sure her decendants knew what a wonderful person she was. While Martha Ballard may have had the same intention it also seems as though she wanted to keep the record more for herself and her children then to show how good she was. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
Pardon me if this is common knowledge and I am just out the loop, but who was looking after Margaret's children while her and her husband were away on business? Were they all grown up and out of the house? Were they looking after themselves? I would assume because there is hardly any mention of them, and the fact that Margaret was middle-aged, that they were already grown. Also, it probably would've been a little too risky to go out to care for the sick and come back to children, whose immune systems were already vulnerable. I guess I kind of answered my own question...- Lisa W.<br />
<br />
In her diary, Martha Ballard mentions a man by the name of Mr. Ballard a couple of times, which I’m assuming is her husband. I was curious as to how much control he actually had over her life. I got the impression that midwives were usually widows or were unattached to a man. Does that make her case unusual? She is very independent and very busy, and she seems to do a lot of her healing and midwife duties on her own. -- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
--Yes, it was common 18th century practice for a husband and wife to address each other as "Mr. Smith" and "Mrs. Smith" even when writing to each other. Although, the emergence of companionate marriage in some relationships did change that. A more interesting question to me is, in what ways did the Ballards' marriage show signs of the emergence of companionate marriage?.--A. Meyer<br />
<br />
I believe the Ballard's marriage did show characteristics of a companionate marriage. I think the fact that she mentioned her anniversary among her work notes could show that it is something that she is proud of. Also, Martha was a very active midwife and I do not she could have been without support from her husband. - Fiona C.<br />
<br />
In response to Jennifer about Mr. Ballard, who I too assume is her husband, I suppose that he had as much control over some aspects of her life as most men did over their wives. But I also got the impression that he is not always/not often at home. Frequently she wrote about him being off surveying somewhere. But also Martha was an older woman, who had already given birth to children, who did have a vocation and so she did have probably slightly more control then most. At the same time however, she is still known as Mrs. Martha Ballard and her role as a housewife and mother and grandmother takes presidence over her role as a midwife. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I think Martha uses the name Mr. Ballard, who I am sure is her husband, out of respect and love for her husband as the provider and business man that he is. I know when I was young it was not uncommon for couple who were elderly at that time to refer to themselves as Mr. Smith and Mrs. Smith. Also couples who were business people tended to call each other by their formal names. I am a big fan of the old T.V. series The Walton’s. The Godseys were characters in the show that called each other Mr. Godsey and Mrs. Godsey. They didn’t often use their first name when they where addressing each other. ---Cheryl<br />
<br />
I agree somewhat with Cheryl on why Martha refers to her husband as Mr. Ballard, but maybe this use of full names could give us some idea of why she kept the diary. It was obviously not solely for personal pleasure. Maybe she was keeping it so that later on others could understand it if necessary and she wanted to be clear about who she was referring to. She often references how much she paid for certain services or how much she was paid so I can't help but wonder what exactly this diary was kept for. For her own personal recollection? As some sort of family banking account? As proof of particular jobs and payments? -- Allison J<br />
<br />
While reading over Martha's diary online, I was surprised to read the section about Martha's son and eventual daughter-in-law. The couple had a child out of wedlock but the courts were less concerned with their immoral behavior but rather identifying the father so that the community would not be responsible for supporting the mother and child. Is this evidence of the ongoing shift from a religious to a secular society ? --E. Hufford<br />
<br />
Religion still seems to be a very large factor in her life since she notes who in her family went to church on Sunday and she usually gives a clear reason if she doesn't go. She also talks about town meetings during which they decide to hire on preachers, etc. Possibly this concern over the father of the illegitimate child really is just a concern about money. At this time there would obviously be no government programs for single mothers or illegitimate children so something had to be done. Maybe this situation just shows that premarital sex did happen and it happened frequently enough that the community knew that it was important to take action before they were saddled with a child to care for. -- Allison J <br />
<br />
When reading Martha's diary dated the 9th of July 1806, I was appalled when reading of the Purrinton murders. I was shocked in the sense that one does not usually attribute such horrific behavior to that time. Many people today blame suicide-homicides on the society in which we live. I found it intersting and horrifying that such atrocities did happen even two hundred years ago.--E. Hufford<br />
<br />
I have been reading a lot of medical history lately and I found Martha’s diary passages in the winter very interesting in the fact that she gives good details on her ailments. The details are so good it makes me wonder if the fact there are many times during the winter when they are feeling fatigued and colicky that maybe it might be due to lack of a completely balanced diet. Often in the 1700s and 1800s fruits and vegetables are not very abundant. This food items are very high in various vitamins and minerals our body needs. Some of the symptoms Martha wrote about fit some of the vitamin deficiency diseases I am studying. ---Cheryl<br />
<br />
What I would like to know is how Martha Ballard had the time to run her own household and take care of her own family as well as be a busy midwife. She seemed to be on call all the time and at the end of the diary entry in the Woloch book, she said she lost 42 nights of sleep that year! ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
In response to Katherine's comment I think Martha had more time to focus on being a midwife because her children were all grown up by this time so she did not have to spend anytime on child rearing. I researched her a bit more and found out that she wrote at night while her family slept so she was not spending time during the day on these entries. <br />
Martha Ballard is a wonderful example of an 18th century woman who was not only a dutiful wife and mother but also had a professional role in her community as midwife and healer for thirty years. I found it remarkable that she kept her diary for such a long period of time and made daily entries. Martha also seemed to be very sick throughout some of these years but that did not stop her from performing all her household and professional duties. –Caitlin Quinn<br />
<br />
In Woloch's excerpt, I noticed that though the year she delivered 28 babies and 17 of them were "daughters" that is a lot of female babies. Was there something in this town's water that made them all girls? I also would have liked to read about how many of these babies survived the year, and how their mothers were doing. Why did she tell us the number of daughters? Does that show us that she values girl babies over boy babies? Could it be that she was just using short hand and telling us how many of one sex is easier than how many of both? -- Julie Castanien<br />
<br />
I also would like to comment on how cool that website was that had her entire diary. It provided an excellent way of seeing the source first hand while still making it understandable. -- Julie Castanien<br />
<br />
I agree with Julie, I liked how the site explained her dating system and the way she spelled her words. It made it much easier to understand what she was writing. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I'm curious about the qualifications for being a midwife. I assume training was fairly informal and reputation seemed to be the only resume. The Woloch reading refers to another, less trustworthy midwife "Mrs. Smith." Why was Smith not trusted? What was the difference between Smith and Ballard?-- Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
After reading Kelly's question, I wondered under what conditions midwives were held responsible for the death of an infant or mother in labor. With limited medical knowledge, how was it determined whether a death (or near-death, as in the case of Mrs. Babcock) was the fault of the midwife or a natural event beyond human aid?-- Ashley H.<br />
<br />
I don't understand how Mrs. Smith still remained a midwife. After many botched medical performances, how come her reputation never got smeared? How was she still being called for medical assistance? Since Mrs. Ballard did note some of Mrs. Smith's faulty doings, was there ever anyone that she could consult in order to get her to stop practicing? It seems like Mrs. Smith being in the picture just made for more "clean-up work" for Mrs. Ballard and more trecherous ailments for her patients.- Lisa W.<br />
<br />
<br />
Becoming a midwife seemed to be one of the few ways women could achieve status in the eighteenth century community. I wonder if this contributed to Ballard's desire to seek the role later in life. --Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
<br />
There seemed to be little mention of her husband, I wonder why that it is. Maybe he was busy or nothing worth noting happened? I guess since Martha already had six kids, she knew pretty much all one could know about having children, so midwifery seemed like a logical thing for her do. It certainly kept her busy, since she delivers a couple kids every month. The editor characterizes other midwives as 'competitors,' which I found interesting. The thought of midwifery usually doesn't bring competition and economics to my mind. -Christopher Plummer<br />
<br />
Chris raises an interesting question, did many areas have multiple midwives? The Ballards' Augusta-area home seemed to be more on the frontier...--A. Meyer<br />
<br />
Did anyone else find the practice of making women swear the identity of their child's father in the height of labor--so it would be the truth--absolutely absurd? What besides fear of death and pain would make the women be truthful?--A. Meyer<br />
<br />
In response to Andrea's question, I agree that it seems like a ridiculous notion to us. With the very real possibility of death in labor, however, perhaps it was believed that a Christian woman wouldn't risk damnation by lying with death possibly moments away.-- Ashley H.<br />
<br />
I also thought it was interesting how much time and effort Ballard put into her work. She often spent a whole day with her patients and sometimes had to travel long distances or in bad weather. In one year she had lost 42 nights of sleep! - Fiona C.<br />
<br />
Another common theme I found throughout Ballard's diary was disease and death. Not only did three of her own children die in 1769, but her diary is dotted with funerals and deaths. There were seven or eight deaths in the excerpt from the book alone. --Alex K.</div>Lwilk8wahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_7_Questions/CommentsWeek 7 Questions/Comments2007-10-11T02:16:34Z<p>Lwilk8wa: </p>
<hr />
<div>In the reading from Woloch's book, part of Martha Ballard's diary, I thought it was great how Martha didn't even begin her career until age 42,had six kids,and had several careers such as a housewife, slaughtered livestock, spun flax, produced candles and soap, knitted cloathing, pieced quilts, raised chickens, milked cows, fed pigs, and grew vegetables. Martha also ran a buisy local practice as a healer and midwife, and did much more! This was a remarkable women in my eyes.-Katie D.<br />
<br />
In the reading from Woloch's book, part of Martha Ballard's diary, I liked how her diary was at once a professional log, a family record, and a community record, because of her continual involvement with clients, neighbors, and local happenings.- Katie D.<br />
<br />
I also liked how her diary was a log not only for herself and her family but also for her community. While reading the entries it was clear that she was writing it not only for herself because of how she records the details, like who is sick, who gave birth etc. I found it interesting that it was a midwife who seemed to be keeping logs of the town and not a man in some other professional field within the town.- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting too how her diary did cover all points of her life, not just about her being a good wife or a good mother or a good midwife or what have you. That was one aspect of her diary that stood out from the diaries we have looked at previously. The diaries from the other periods seemed more concerned with making the writer look like a good Christian or the proper woman of the time, like she wrote it because she knew that it would be read some day and that she wanted to make sure her decendants knew what a wonderful person she was. While Martha Ballard may have had the same intention it also seems as though she wanted to keep the record more for herself and her children then to show how good she was. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
In her diary, Martha Ballard mentions a man by the name of Mr. Ballard a couple of times, which I’m assuming is her husband. I was curious as to how much control he actually had over her life. I got the impression that midwives were usually widows or were unattached to a man. Does that make her case unusual? She is very independent and very busy, and she seems to do a lot of her healing and midwife duties on her own. -- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
--Yes, it was common 18th century practice for a husband and wife to address each other as "Mr. Smith" and "Mrs. Smith" even when writing to each other. Although, the emergence of companionate marriage in some relationships did change that. A more interesting question to me is, in what ways did the Ballards' marriage show signs of the emergence of companionate marriage?.--A. Meyer<br />
<br />
I believe the Ballard's marriage did show characteristics of a companionate marriage. I think the fact that she mentioned her anniversary among her work notes could show that it is something that she is proud of. Also, Martha was a very active midwife and I do not she could have been without support from her husband. - Fiona C.<br />
<br />
In response to Jennifer about Mr. Ballard, who I too assume is her husband, I suppose that he had as much control over some aspects of her life as most men did over their wives. But I also got the impression that he is not always/not often at home. Frequently she wrote about him being off surveying somewhere. But also Martha was an older woman, who had already given birth to children, who did have a vocation and so she did have probably slightly more control then most. At the same time however, she is still known as Mrs. Martha Ballard and her role as a housewife and mother and grandmother takes presidence over her role as a midwife. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I think Martha uses the name Mr. Ballard, who I am sure is her husband, out of respect and love for her husband as the provider and business man that he is. I know when I was young it was not uncommon for couple who were elderly at that time to refer to themselves as Mr. Smith and Mrs. Smith. Also couples who were business people tended to call each other by their formal names. I am a big fan of the old T.V. series The Walton’s. The Godseys were characters in the show that called each other Mr. Godsey and Mrs. Godsey. They didn’t often use their first name when they where addressing each other. ---Cheryl<br />
<br />
I agree somewhat with Cheryl on why Martha refers to her husband as Mr. Ballard, but maybe this use of full names could give us some idea of why she kept the diary. It was obviously not solely for personal pleasure. Maybe she was keeping it so that later on others could understand it if necessary and she wanted to be clear about who she was referring to. She often references how much she paid for certain services or how much she was paid so I can't help but wonder what exactly this diary was kept for. For her own personal recollection? As some sort of family banking account? As proof of particular jobs and payments? -- Allison J<br />
<br />
While reading over Martha's diary online, I was surprised to read the section about Martha's son and eventual daughter-in-law. The couple had a child out of wedlock but the courts were less concerned with their immoral behavior but rather identifying the father so that the community would not be responsible for supporting the mother and child. Is this evidence of the ongoing shift from a religious to a secular society ? --E. Hufford<br />
<br />
Religion still seems to be a very large factor in her life since she notes who in her family went to church on Sunday and she usually gives a clear reason if she doesn't go. She also talks about town meetings during which they decide to hire on preachers, etc. Possibly this concern over the father of the illegitimate child really is just a concern about money. At this time there would obviously be no government programs for single mothers or illegitimate children so something had to be done. Maybe this situation just shows that premarital sex did happen and it happened frequently enough that the community knew that it was important to take action before they were saddled with a child to care for. -- Allison J <br />
<br />
When reading Martha's diary dated the 9th of July 1806, I was appalled when reading of the Purrinton murders. I was shocked in the sense that one does not usually attribute such horrific behavior to that time. Many people today blame suicide-homicides on the society in which we live. I found it intersting and horrifying that such atrocities did happen even two hundred years ago.--E. Hufford<br />
<br />
I have been reading a lot of medical history lately and I found Martha’s diary passages in the winter very interesting in the fact that she gives good details on her ailments. The details are so good it makes me wonder if the fact there are many times during the winter when they are feeling fatigued and colicky that maybe it might be due to lack of a completely balanced diet. Often in the 1700s and 1800s fruits and vegetables are not very abundant. This food items are very high in various vitamins and minerals our body needs. Some of the symptoms Martha wrote about fit some of the vitamin deficiency diseases I am studying. ---Cheryl<br />
<br />
What I would like to know is how Martha Ballard had the time to run her own household and take care of her own family as well as be a busy midwife. She seemed to be on call all the time and at the end of the diary entry in the Woloch book, she said she lost 42 nights of sleep that year! ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
In response to Katherine's comment I think Martha had more time to focus on being a midwife because her children were all grown up by this time so she did not have to spend anytime on child rearing. I researched her a bit more and found out that she wrote at night while her family slept so she was not spending time during the day on these entries. <br />
Martha Ballard is a wonderful example of an 18th century woman who was not only a dutiful wife and mother but also had a professional role in her community as midwife and healer for thirty years. I found it remarkable that she kept her diary for such a long period of time and made daily entries. Martha also seemed to be very sick throughout some of these years but that did not stop her from performing all her household and professional duties. –Caitlin Quinn<br />
<br />
In Woloch's excerpt, I noticed that though the year she delivered 28 babies and 17 of them were "daughters" that is a lot of female babies. Was there something in this town's water that made them all girls? I also would have liked to read about how many of these babies survived the year, and how their mothers were doing. Why did she tell us the number of daughters? Does that show us that she values girl babies over boy babies? Could it be that she was just using short hand and telling us how many of one sex is easier than how many of both? -- Julie Castanien<br />
<br />
I also would like to comment on how cool that website was that had her entire diary. It provided an excellent way of seeing the source first hand while still making it understandable. -- Julie Castanien<br />
<br />
I agree with Julie, I liked how the site explained her dating system and the way she spelled her words. It made it much easier to understand what she was writing. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I'm curious about the qualifications for being a midwife. I assume training was fairly informal and reputation seemed to be the only resume. The Woloch reading refers to another, less trustworthy midwife "Mrs. Smith." Why was Smith not trusted? What was the difference between Smith and Ballard?-- Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
After reading Kelly's question, I wondered under what conditions midwives were held responsible for the death of an infant or mother in labor. With limited medical knowledge, how was it determined whether a death (or near-death, as in the case of Mrs. Babcock) was the fault of the midwife or a natural event beyond human aid?-- Ashley H.<br />
<br />
I don't understand how Mrs. Smith still remained a midwife. After many botched medical performances, how come her reputation never got smeared? How was she still being called for medical assistance? Since Mrs. Ballard did note some of Mrs. Smith's faulty doings, was there ever anyone that she could consult in order to get her to stop practicing? It seems like Mrs. Smith being in the picture just made for more "clean-up work" for Mrs. Ballard and more trecherous ailments for her patients.- Lisa W.<br />
<br />
<br />
Becoming a midwife seemed to be one of the few ways women could achieve status in the eighteenth century community. I wonder if this contributed to Ballard's desire to seek the role later in life. --Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
<br />
There seemed to be little mention of her husband, I wonder why that it is. Maybe he was busy or nothing worth noting happened? I guess since Martha already had six kids, she knew pretty much all one could know about having children, so midwifery seemed like a logical thing for her do. It certainly kept her busy, since she delivers a couple kids every month. The editor characterizes other midwives as 'competitors,' which I found interesting. The thought of midwifery usually doesn't bring competition and economics to my mind. -Christopher Plummer<br />
<br />
Chris raises an interesting question, did many areas have multiple midwives? The Ballards' Augusta-area home seemed to be more on the frontier...--A. Meyer<br />
<br />
Did anyone else find the practice of making women swear the identity of their child's father in the height of labor--so it would be the truth--absolutely absurd? What besides fear of death and pain would make the women be truthful?--A. Meyer<br />
<br />
In response to Andrea's question, I agree that it seems like a ridiculous notion to us. With the very real possibility of death in labor, however, perhaps it was believed that a Christian woman wouldn't risk damnation by lying with death possibly moments away.-- Ashley H.<br />
<br />
I also thought it was interesting how much time and effort Ballard put into her work. She often spent a whole day with her patients and sometimes had to travel long distances or in bad weather. In one year she had lost 42 nights of sleep! - Fiona C.</div>Lwilk8wahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_6_Questions/CommentsWeek 6 Questions/Comments2007-10-04T02:01:32Z<p>Lwilk8wa: </p>
<hr />
<div>In the reading by Eve Korkfield titled Judith Sargent Murray: The Story of Margaretta, I thought it was interesting, while tracing her education, that Mr. Vigillius's wife pronounced her to be "a perfect mistress; her knowledge of the English, and French tongues, was fully adequate to her years; and her manner of reading had peculiar charms; her handwriting was neat and easy; she was a good accomptant...and much more. Margaretta was quite the accomplisher! - Katie D.<br />
<br />
Eve Korkfields Judith Sergeant Mary was very interesting in the fact that her parents’ idea of education sounded like a basic training for future sophisticated wives. I am sure young Mary would have no problem procuring a wealth husband with all of her learned refinements.--Cheryl<br />
<br />
Going along with that same reading, I don't quite know what I think or how I feel about the following lines:<br />
<br />
~"I think the propriety of circumscribing the education of a female, within such narrow bounds as are frequently assigned, is at least problematical."<br />
<br />
~"The accomplished, the liberally accomplished female, if she is destined to move in the line of competency, will be regarded as a pleasing and instructive companion." <br />
<br />
~"We have been assiduously employed in cultivating the mind of Margaretta."<br />
<br />
These lines just really caught my eye and wondered if they caught anyone else's eye. They all, to me, seem to run with the themes/ideas we've discussed in class. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
Vanessa, I agree with your comments that these few selections do somewhat contradict what we know about the role education played in the lives of pre-Revolutionary women. However when we fast forward to the post-war period, it seems like the idea of women receiving an education change with regards to "public virtue" and "republican motherhood". Women could receive an education if it a)made them a better companion to their husband or b)helped them to better teach their sons/the next generation of American citizens morals and genteel manners.- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
The line "We have been assiduously employed in cultivating the mind of Margaretta" also caught my eye and it ties in perfectly with the one that really stuck out to me, "and when the mind is judiciously balanced, it renders the possessor not only more valuable but also more amiable, and more generally useful." I'm kind of amused that the education of women was merely to make them more useful, and better yet, more useful to men. Their job was, as we learned in the lecture on Tuesday, to be able to teach men how to properly run the country and teach girls how to assist those men in whatever way possible. I can't decipher, though, whether or not this story was meant to be somewhat satirical since it was written by a woman pretending to be a man. I kind of got the feeling she was criticizing the education system. Thoughts? -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
In the Murray reading, I found the following sentence particularly interesting: "No, Mr. Pedant, she was not unfitted for her proper sphere; and your stomach, however critical it may be, never digested finer puddings than those which I, with an uncommon zest, have partook, as knowing they were the composition of her fair hand--- yes, in the receipts of cookery she is thoroughly versed; she is in every respect the complete housewife" (136). After listing all her accomplishments, Murray's narrator, Mr. Vigillius, seems to feel it is necessary to assure the reader that Margaretta possesses the necessary feminine skills as well. This passage almost reads like an advertisement of Margaretta's suitability for marriage. -Ashley H. <br />
<br />
I find Rowson's biography rather odd. For a woman known as an actress, how did she achieve the respectability to open a popular girls' school in a town as straitlaced as Boston? How did did she manage to publish under her own name and achieve such success? Does it seem to anyone else that she borrowed details from her own life to write with?--A. Meyer<br />
<br />
In the reading from Catherine Scholten, it was interesting to me how during the colonial period pregnant women were commonly thought of as "breeding" and "teeming", though theologians attributed dignity to carrying the "living soul" of a child. -Katie D.<br />
<br />
In Catherine Scholten's account of the change that took place in childbirth procedures I had a question occur to me. While obviously the new medical science allowed doctors to help reduce the pain and risk of childbirth, why did they not let women train in this new medically accepted field? I understand that men thought that women wouldn't be able to understand all the technical terms and the sciences that the training would occur, but at the same time, women had been delivering the children through midwifery long before men came into the field. Wouldn't it have made more sense to simply train the women who already knew a great deal about birthing in the new sciences so that the woman giving birth would still be comfortable and the death rates in birth would go down?- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I agree with Elizabeth, while I understand that men thought women perhaps were not as capable to understand the science of it, I found it crazy that they had to do almost everything blindly because women were nervous about the male doctors seeing their privates. Another thing that struck me was that while this showed the intrusion of men in the womens sphere (I believe it proves the mens of that time superiority complex) it also showed some progress. Men saw it as their duty to protect women through child brith and "... women could now reasonably look to men for safety in the "perilous conditions" of childbirth." -- Emily Miller<br />
<br />
<br />
I still find it very odd that women were able to be convinced that men--who had no experience with women's bodies or the childbearing process--were their superiors when it came to childbirth. Furthermore, because midwives first started calling doctors for difficult births, I wonder how that changed doctors' perceptions of childbirth. Did it cause male doctors to think childbirth was more dangerous than it really was, leading to some of the 19th century emphasis on not wearing out a woman's body? Why did the change to male doctors seem to coincide with an increased emphasis on smaller families and reserving energy and resources? I find Scholten's report on NY laws requiring midwives not to discuss their business and women's bodies in front of men (except in emergencies) very interesting. It makes me wonder how much male doctors lost out on, because midwives wouldn't discuss it in front of them. It also makes me wonder how female midwives became desperate and concerned enough about science that they were willing to bring in male doctors, when the feelings against talking about childbearing in front of men were so strong--A. Meyer<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In the excerpt from Susanna Rowson’s: “Charlotte. A Tale of Truth” she writes about the tragic story of a young girl who leaves her family and friends behind for an Army Lieutenant she falls in love with. In the preface Rowson explains that she wrote the novel to warn parents about what could happen to their daughters as well as for young women who could find themselves in a situation similar to Charlottes. I really enjoyed reading this piece because even though Rowson wrote it in 1794 I found it easy to relate to the dilemma Charlotte was having over wanting to please her parents but at the same time trying to follow her heart. It is interesting to see that women today still feel many of the same pressures Charlotte felt in the 1790s. For instance many women are still concerned about choosing a husband who is accepted by their friends and family and it can split families apart when a woman defies her parents and marries someone who they find unsuitable. Many men today are also careful about respecting the wishes of their future in-laws by asking her father for permission to marry.--Caitlin Quinn<br />
<br />
In regards to "Charlotte. A Tale of Truth", the preface says it's somewhat based on a true story. Despite its romanticized points, it makes me wonder if it was a common occurrence for men to take women to the colonies against their will. Also, if they did come here and were unhappy, why couldn't they write back to their fathers and tell them they were virtually kidnapped? I know my daddy would fork up any amount to get me back home. Seeing Charlotte's father's undying love for her, I'm sure he would have done the same.- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
I also found "Charlotte. A Tale of Truth" interesting but what I found most interesting was the image that was shown of the Army Lieutenant. Susanna Rowson writes his character as a less than wonderful man, after all Charlotte told him she wouldn't go with him because of her duty to her parents but he picked her up and took her anyway, at this point it seemed to be against her will. And once in America he left her alone the majority of the time and in the end instead of dying in the arms of her "love" she died in the arms of her dad (which was still very touching). Was Susanna warning girls against dishonoring her parents or keeping an eye out for men who would tell them what they wanted to hear in order to achieve their goals? - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
"Charlotte. A Tale of Truth" was a very touching piece. I found it interesting that the idea of not wanting to disappoint her father mattered greatly to Charlotte. As she was dying, all Charlotte wanted was to see her father one last time and receive his blessing. It almost seems to reemphasize the beloved American concept of "Daddy's little girl." --E.Hufford<br />
<br />
I was very taken with the story about Charlotte. I feel pretty certain that Rowson wrote this story to discourage young women to give into passions of love. I thought the way she depicted Montraville, fit the descriptions of a seducer to a tee. Charlotte’s act of giving her baby to her father and then dying in his arms was a dramatic way to drive home the message that young women should listen to their parents’ advice. ---Cheryl<br />
<br />
I thought Rowson's piece reflected the different stereotypes attributed to women during this time. There was Charlotte, the helpless rich girl who is indecisive and weak; the promiscuous Mademoiselle, and the wise Madame Du Pont trying to steer Charlotte in the right direction. Furthermore, Rowson didn't believe these characters could change. Mademoiselle was bad in the beginning and bad in the end, Charlotte was always helpless. -F. Cobb<br />
<br />
So while reading Scholten's piece, I decided that had I lived during that time, I strongly doubt I would have had children. Childbirth is hard enough today with the pain and anxiety surrounding it. Add the thought of dying and the need to be spiritually prepared as John Oliver so kindly pointed out in his "A Present for Teeming Women," and there is no doubt many women today would probably have been scared out of childbearing (myself included). -- E. Hufford<br />
<br />
In response to E. Hufford, I was thinking that childbirth would be difficult, but the only certain way to avoid pregancy would be to remain unmarried. With the limited opportunities available to women, I think many women would rather risk childbirth than a poor spinsterhood. What kind of social stigma was attached to women who chose to remain unmarried or those who were unable to have children?-- Ashley H. <br />
<br />
I was a little confused by Murray's piece, "The Story of Margaretta." Apparently Murray wrote the series under the name of Mr. Vigillius. Therefore, she is pretending to be a man writing about the education of a woman, though she really is a woman. Why would she use the pen name? What it because she wanted to be taken seriously? - F. Cobb<br />
<br />
The question I had in my head while reading Scholten's article was, "why didn't women want men in there?" The article mentions prejudice as the cause, which seems ridiculously simple but obvious. Its interesting for me to see how the interpretation of the Bible seemed to follow the presence of male midwifery. Maybe its just the organization of the article, but does suggest that in America, social change precedes and causes a change in religion? Is this a common trend? The very fact that men are actually entering the profession of midwifery seems to be the flat reason for it being accepted. The need for professionals in times of emergencies ultimately gave way to just a general need when people realized that these people knew what they were doing (relatively) and that their tools wouldn't actually harm the child. On a different topic, I found this quote from Murray really interesting: "Her person, the symmetry of her features, the rose and lily of her complexion....these are the endowments of nature --while the artificial accomplishments with which she is invested...confer upon her no real or intrinsic merit." pg 137. Maybe I'm misreading that, but is that say her looks are more 'valuable' than the 'artificial' accomplishments of character? <br />
-Christopher Plummer</div>Lwilk8wahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_6_Questions/CommentsWeek 6 Questions/Comments2007-10-04T01:45:37Z<p>Lwilk8wa: </p>
<hr />
<div>In the reading by Eve Korkfield titled Judith Sargent Murray: The Story of Margaretta, I thought it was interesting, while tracing her education, that Mr. Vigillius's wife pronounced her to be "a perfect mistress; her knowledge of the English, and French tongues, was fully adequate to her years; and her manner of reading had peculiar charms; her handwriting was neat and easy; she was a good accomptant...and much more. Margaretta was quite the accomplisher! - Katie D.<br />
<br />
Eve Korkfields Judith Sergeant Mary was very interesting in the fact that her parents’ idea of education sounded like a basic training for future sophisticated wives. I am sure young Mary would have no problem procuring a wealth husband with all of her learned refinements.--Cheryl<br />
<br />
Going along with that same reading, I don't quite know what I think or how I feel about the following lines:<br />
<br />
~"I think the propriety of circumscribing the education of a female, within such narrow bounds as are frequently assigned, is at least problematical."<br />
<br />
~"The accomplished, the liberally accomplished female, if she is destined to move in the line of competency, will be regarded as a pleasing and instructive companion." <br />
<br />
~"We have been assiduously employed in cultivating the mind of Margaretta."<br />
<br />
These lines just really caught my eye and wondered if they caught anyone else's eye. They all, to me, seem to run with the themes/ideas we've discussed in class. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
Vanessa, I agree with your comments that these few selections do somewhat contradict what we know about the role education played in the lives of pre-Revolutionary women. However when we fast forward to the post-war period, it seems like the idea of women receiving an education change with regards to "public virtue" and "republican motherhood". Women could receive an education if it a)made them a better companion to their husband or b)helped them to better teach their sons/the next generation of American citizens morals and genteel manners.- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
The line "We have been assiduously employed in cultivating the mind of Margaretta" also caught my eye and it ties in perfectly with the one that really stuck out to me, "and when the mind is judiciously balanced, it renders the possessor not only more valuable but also more amiable, and more generally useful." I'm kind of amused that the education of women was merely to make them more useful, and better yet, more useful to men. Their job was, as we learned in the lecture on Tuesday, to be able to teach men how to properly run the country and teach girls how to assist those men in whatever way possible. I can't decipher, though, whether or not this story was meant to be somewhat satirical since it was written by a woman pretending to be a man. I kind of got the feeling she was criticizing the education system. Thoughts? -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
In the Murray reading, I found the following sentence particularly interesting: "No, Mr. Pedant, she was not unfitted for her proper sphere; and your stomach, however critical it may be, never digested finer puddings than those which I, with an uncommon zest, have partook, as knowing they were the composition of her fair hand--- yes, in the receipts of cookery she is thoroughly versed; she is in every respect the complete housewife" (136). After listing all her accomplishments, Murray's narrator, Mr. Vigillius, seems to feel it is necessary to assure the reader that Margaretta possesses the necessary feminine skills as well. This passage almost reads like an advertisement of Margaretta's suitability for marriage. -Ashley H. <br />
<br />
<br />
In the reading from Catherine Scholten, it was interesting to me how during the colonial period pregnant women were commonly thought of as "breeding" and "teeming", though theologians attributed dignity to carrying the "living soul" of a child. -Katie D.<br />
<br />
In Catherine Scholten's account of the change that took place in childbirth procedures I had a question occur to me. While obviously the new medical science allowed doctors to help reduce the pain and risk of childbirth, why did they not let women train in this new medically accepted field? I understand that men thought that women wouldn't be able to understand all the technical terms and the sciences that the training would occur, but at the same time, women had been delivering the children through midwifery long before men came into the field. Wouldn't it have made more sense to simply train the women who already knew a great deal about birthing in the new sciences so that the woman giving birth would still be comfortable and the death rates in birth would go down?- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I agree with Elizabeth, while I understand that men thought women perhaps were not as capable to understand the science of it, I found it crazy that they had to do almost everything blindly because women were nervous about the male doctors seeing their privates. Another thing that struck me was that while this showed the intrusion of men in the womens sphere (I believe it proves the mens of that time superiority complex) it also showed some progress. Men saw it as their duty to protect women through child brith and "... women could now reasonably look to men for safety in the "perilous conditions" of childbirth." -- Emily Miller<br />
<br />
<br />
I still find it very odd that women were able to be convinced that men--who had no experience with women's bodies or the childbearing process--were their superiors when it came to childbirth. Furthermore, because midwives first started calling doctors for difficult births, I wonder how that changed doctors' perceptions of childbirth. Did it cause male doctors to think childbirth was more dangerous than it really was, leading to some of the 19th century emphasis on not wearing out a woman's body? Why did the change to male doctors seem to coincide with an increased emphasis on smaller families and reserving energy and resources? I find Scholten's report on NY laws requiring midwives not to discuss their business and women's bodies in front of men (except in emergencies) very interesting. It makes me wonder how much male doctors lost out on, because midwives wouldn't discuss it in front of them. It also makes me wonder how female midwives became desperate and concerned enough about science that they were willing to bring in male doctors, when the feelings against talking about childbearing in front of men were so strong--A. Meyer<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In the excerpt from Susanna Rowson’s: “Charlotte. A Tale of Truth” she writes about the tragic story of a young girl who leaves her family and friends behind for an Army Lieutenant she falls in love with. In the preface Rowson explains that she wrote the novel to warn parents about what could happen to their daughters as well as for young women who could find themselves in a situation similar to Charlottes. I really enjoyed reading this piece because even though Rowson wrote it in 1794 I found it easy to relate to the dilemma Charlotte was having over wanting to please her parents but at the same time trying to follow her heart. It is interesting to see that women today still feel many of the same pressures Charlotte felt in the 1790s. For instance many women are still concerned about choosing a husband who is accepted by their friends and family and it can split families apart when a woman defies her parents and marries someone who they find unsuitable. Many men today are also careful about respecting the wishes of their future in-laws by asking her father for permission to marry.--Caitlin Quinn<br />
<br />
I also found "Charlotte. A Tale of Truth" interesting but what I found most interesting was the image that was shown of the Army Lieutenant. Susanna Rowson writes his character as a less than wonderful man, after all Charlotte told him she wouldn't go with him because of her duty to her parents but he picked her up and took her anyway, at this point it seemed to be against her will. And once in America he left her alone the majority of the time and in the end instead of dying in the arms of her "love" she died in the arms of her dad (which was still very touching). Was Susanna warning girls against dishonoring her parents or keeping an eye out for men who would tell them what they wanted to hear in order to achieve their goals? - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
"Charlotte. A Tale of Truth" was a very touching piece. I found it interesting that the idea of not wanting to disappoint her father mattered greatly to Charlotte. As she was dying, all Charlotte wanted was to see her father one last time and receive his blessing. It almost seems to reemphasize the beloved American concept of "Daddy's little girl." --E.Hufford<br />
<br />
I was very taken with the story about Charlotte. I feel pretty certain that Rowson wrote this story to discourage young women to give into passions of love. I thought the way she depicted Montraville, fit the descriptions of a seducer to a tee. Charlotte’s act of giving her baby to her father and then dying in his arms was a dramatic way to drive home the message that young women should listen to their parents’ advice. ---Cheryl<br />
<br />
I thought Rowson's piece reflected the different stereotypes attributed to women during this time. There was Charlotte, the helpless rich girl who is indecisive and weak; the promiscuous Mademoiselle, and the wise Madame Du Pont trying to steer Charlotte in the right direction. Furthermore, Rowson didn't believe these characters could change. Mademoiselle was bad in the beginning and bad in the end, Charlotte was always helpless. -F. Cobb<br />
<br />
So while reading Scholten's piece, I decided that had I lived during that time, I strongly doubt I would have had children. Childbirth is hard enough today with the pain and anxiety surrounding it. Add the thought of dying and the need to be spiritually prepared as John Oliver so kindly pointed out in his "A Present for Teeming Women," and there is no doubt many women today would probably have been scared out of childbearing (myself included). -- E. Hufford<br />
<br />
In response to E. Hufford, I was thinking that childbirth would be difficult, but the only certain way to avoid pregancy would be to remain unmarried. With the limited opportunities available to women, I think many women would rather risk childbirth than a poor spinsterhood. What kind of social stigma was attached to women who chose to remain unmarried or those who were unable to have children?-- Ashley H. <br />
<br />
I was a little confused by Murray's piece, "The Story of Margaretta." Apparently Murray wrote the series under the name of Mr. Vigillius. Therefore, she is pretending to be a man writing about the education of a woman, though she really is a woman. Why would she use the pen name? What it because she wanted to be taken seriously? - F. Cobb<br />
<br />
The question I had in my head while reading Scholten's article was, "why didn't women want men in there?" The article mentions prejudice as the cause, which seems ridiculously simple but obvious. Its interesting for me to see how the interpretation of the Bible seemed to follow the presence of male midwifery. Maybe its just the organization of the article, but does suggest that in America, social change precedes and causes a change in religion? Is this a common trend? The very fact that men are actually entering the profession of midwifery seems to be the flat reason for it being accepted. The need for professionals in times of emergencies ultimately gave way to just a general need when people realized that these people knew what they were doing (relatively) and that their tools wouldn't actually harm the child. On a different topic, I found this quote from Murray really interesting: "Her person, the symmetry of her features, the rose and lily of her complexion....these are the endowments of nature --while the artificial accomplishments with which she is invested...confer upon her no real or intrinsic merit." pg 137. Maybe I'm misreading that, but is that say her looks are more 'valuable' than the 'artificial' accomplishments of character? <br />
-Christopher Plummer</div>Lwilk8wahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_5_Questions/CommentsWeek 5 Questions/Comments2007-09-27T01:23:10Z<p>Lwilk8wa: </p>
<hr />
<div>"Thomas Paine Admits Women Have Some Rights" left me wondering if his comments would have helped or hindered women in the eighteenth century. Paine states grievances against women while projecting them to be weak and fragile. He praises their contributions and advocates for recognition of female accomplishment, while belittling women with allusions to their inability to care for themselves. Paine's claims seem to be overwhelmingly contradictory. So, my question is-- Could Paine be considered an early feminist? -Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
When reading "Thomas Paine Admits Women Have Some Rights", I also was a bit confused to where Paine was coming from. His claim's were infact very contradictory with one another. After reading Kelly's question,this leads me to believe that he could be a considered an early feminist in some ways. -Katie D.<br />
<br />
I also found "Thomas Paine Admits Women Have some Rights" very interesting in that he contradicts himself in saying women are weak but have a great deal of courage for putting up with oppression throughout time and the world. Though this article did make me wonder what men's reaction to his article would have been. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Well, I too was a little confused. But looking at it in context- this is all propoganda. Is this not to just gather more patriots for the "cause"? His soft side of defending women could gather more support from the women, yet his ideas of the mascline chivalry could win the support of men. - Talya Halpern. <br />
<br />
When reading the essay "A Carolina Patriot" in Woloch's book, there was an excerpt found from Eliza Wilkerson's wartime letters to an unspecified friend. I found it intersting that she said "For my part, "I would rather explore unknown regions, blessed with liberty, than remain in my native country if to be cursed with slavery"(p.123). Throughout this excerpt Eliza seems to be "inventing" herself - adopting the pose appropriate to a "female patriot". -Katie D.<br />
<br />
I found the letter that Katie D. mentioned to be very interesting and I would agree with the statement that she seems to be "inventing" herself. Everything that she wrote is apparently saturated with patriotic thoughts and feelings. I am curious however just how common an attitude towards politics at the time was Eliza Wilkerson's or were more women inclined to have more of the feelings of Grace Galloway (starting on page 124). Grace Galloway's diary entries are such a total opposite to the letter of ELiza Wilkerson that a reader is battered with very strong opposing views. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
In regards to Katie and Mary's comments, I am also curious about how a different audience would have altered Eliza Wilkerson's statements. How might her opinions or framing of opinions have been altered if voiced to a man? Would Eliza have the same feeling of invention? -Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
In regards to Eliza’s letter, I was also struck by her quote, “I would rather explore unknown regions, blessed with liberty, than remain in my native country if to be cursed with slavery.” It certainly paints a pretty bold picture. However, I always find it ironic when plantation owners, who are presumably slave owners, make comparisons to how wickedly they are being treated by others, when they themselves own slaves. Essentially saying, “It’s okay to treat someone else like that, just as long as it’s not me.”- Lisa Wilkerson <br />
<br />
While reading Benjamin Rush's "Thoughts Upon Female Education" I was struck by the change in the views concerning female education that we have come upon in just this short span that we have discussed. Where as before women were taught to read mostly so that they could read the Bible, now men are encouraged to promote the education of their daughters for the sake of their property, for women were often left as stewards of property and business during a husbands absence, but also, and from Rush's continuing mention of it importantly, the fact that these daughters will be growing up and getting married and having children, particularly sons, and they will have the task of educating these sons in a manner befitting their status and learning. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary regarding Rush's lecture on female education. Girls were actually going to be challenged academically in all of the subjects they formerly were kept away from. What intrigued me about this lecture, however, is that it was aimed towards men in the audience and not actually the girls who would be undergoing this new academic change. And not only was it directed at men, but at men of a much higher social class who would be in charge of allowing this change to happen. It really shows how the elite were coming into play and actually becoming a threat to the rest of the colonists. (I also enjoy that he refused to let students study French, but that's a bit off-topic) - Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I though that it was interesting how in Esther DeBerdt's "Sentiments of an American Woman", she freely admits that women have "...feeble hands..." (115). I would have thought that a comment like that would be more likely to come from a man of that time and not a woman. ~Katherine S.~<br />
<br />
I felt that the way Mary Jemison described the Native Americans in the article "The War for Independence...", made them seem very materialistic. It seemed that all the Native Americans cared about were the goods they were going to receive from the British and nothing else. ~Katherine S.~<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading "An American Woman Asserts Women's Rights." I found it interesting that this woman flat out said that many women would do whatever they could to help the revolution during this time when many men felt like women wouldn't want to give up their luxuries to help the cause. I also enjoyed how she compared american women to the women of antiquity who helped save their nations. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I also enjoyed reading "An American Woman Asserts Women's Rights." I am the sap that this stuff was written for- I immediately felt like I could go dig a trench or build a wall to help our good ole' boys. I thought it was an excellent propoganda piece and could serve to get women who are not interested in politics involved in the fight for America's independence.- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
I also enjoyed reading Esther DeBerdt Reed's piece. By showing examples of past women who struggled on behalf of their own nations, Esther bolsters her argument. I like the fact that she did not try to argue in passive manner. She asserts herself and her fellow women who want to do more to serve their nation. Her sentiments are much more convincing and empowering due to the manner in which she presented herself. --E. Hufford<br />
<br />
When reading Abigail Adams' correspondence with her husband John and friend Mercy, I found myself sympathizing with Abigail. Her frustration with John when he wrote. "As to your extraordinary Code of Laws, I cannot but laugh" must have been great. Reading her letter to Mercy about John's repsonse seems as though it could have been written by a woman today to a friend complaining about her husband's actions.-- E. Hufford<br />
<br />
I agree with those thoughts on the letters of Abigail Adams. And I find it revealing in John Adams' character. He's a historically important figure in our nations history and we hold him on a high pedestal for that. But he still thinks typical thoughts of the time period with regards to women and their "rights." His comments not only include the "I cannot but laugh comment" but even to say "We know better than to repeal our Masculine systems." We can continue to think of John Adams as a great man and important to the founding of our nation, but we must recognize his averageness in his thoughts. If that made any sense at all. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I felt that Phillis Wheatley's address to George III was an amazing piece of literature. I think it was so clever to include the words free and equal into her poem. Wheatley was treated a lot differently from most slaves . She was educated among white children, and was even sent to Europe to progress is studies and writing. Did her owners really read her poem? I am sure they were delighted for her--and them because they own her. But did they hear it? Did anyone else see those underlying messages for freedom from slavery? Did anyone agree with her underlying tones of the poem? - Talya Halpern<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Talya that Wheatley was very clever and I think it's possible she was underestimated by those around her. She was obviously intelligent but her cleverness leads me to think she could outsmart even her owners. Of course, we will probably never know, but I like to think she had a few laughs at the expense of others as she wrote this poem as well as her others. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I felt that Mary Jemison Views the Revolution was a great account of the War for Independence. Mary’s descriptions were not that of a typical woman. She describes scenes of prisoners being punished that many women would not even want to watch let alone observe and write about. I especially like the end of her story when she writes of how she hired herself out to an escaped black slave and how she was not too worried about the gun the slave stood over her with. I doubt many women of the colonial settlements would do the same.--Cheryl</div>Lwilk8wahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_5_Questions/CommentsWeek 5 Questions/Comments2007-09-27T01:01:44Z<p>Lwilk8wa: </p>
<hr />
<div>"Thomas Paine Admits Women Have Some Rights" left me wondering if his comments would have helped or hindered women in the eighteenth century. Paine states grievances against women while projecting them to be weak and fragile. He praises their contributions and advocates for recognition of female accomplishment, while belittling women with allusions to their inability to care for themselves. Paine's claims seem to be overwhelmingly contradictory. So, my question is-- Could Paine be considered an early feminist? -Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
When reading "Thomas Paine Admits Women Have Some Rights", I also was a bit confused to where Paine was coming from. His claim's were infact very contradictory with one another. After reading Kelly's question,this leads me to believe that he could be a considered an early feminist in some ways. -Katie D.<br />
<br />
I also found "Thomas Paine Admits Women Have some Rights" very interesting in that he contradicts himself in saying women are weak but have a great deal of courage for putting up with oppression throughout time and the world. Though this article did make me wonder what men's reaction to his article would have been. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Well, I too was a little confused. But looking at it in context- this is all propoganda. Is this not to just gather more patriots for the "cause"? His soft side of defending women could gather more support from the women, yet his ideas of the mascline chivalry could win the support of men. - Talya Halpern. <br />
<br />
When reading the essay "A Carolina Patriot" in Woloch's book, there was an excerpt found from Eliza Wilkerson's wartime letters to an unspecified friend. I found it intersting that she said "For my part, "I would rather explore unknown regions, blessed with liberty, than remain in my native country if to be cursed with slavery"(p.123). Throughout this excerpt Eliza seems to be "inventing" herself - adopting the pose appropriate to a "female patriot". -Katie D.<br />
<br />
I found the letter that Katie D. mentioned to be very interesting and I would agree with the statement that she seems to be "inventing" herself. Everything that she wrote is apparently saturated with patriotic thoughts and feelings. I am curious however just how common an attitude towards politics at the time was Eliza Wilkerson's or were more women inclined to have more of the feelings of Grace Galloway (starting on page 124). Grace Galloway's diary entries are such a total opposite to the letter of ELiza Wilkerson that a reader is battered with very strong opposing views. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
In regards to Katie and Mary's comments, I am also curious about how a different audience would have altered Eliza Wilkerson's statements. How might her opinions or framing of opinions have been altered if voiced to a man? Would Eliza have the same feeling of invention? -Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
In regards to Eliza’s letter, I was also struck by her quote, “I would rather explore unknown regions, blessed with liberty, than remain in my native country if to be cursed with slavery.” It certainly paints a pretty bold picture. However, I always find it ironic when plantation owners, who are presumably slave owners, make comparisons to how wickedly they are being treated by others, when they themselves own slaves. Essentially saying, “It’s okay to treat someone else like that, just as long as it’s not me.”- Lisa Wilkerson <br />
<br />
While reading Benjamin Rush's "Thoughts Upon Female Education" I was struck by the change in the views concerning female education that we have come upon in just this short span that we have discussed. Where as before women were taught to read mostly so that they could read the Bible, now men are encouraged to promote the education of their daughters for the sake of their property, for women were often left as stewards of property and business during a husbands absence, but also, and from Rush's continuing mention of it importantly, the fact that these daughters will be growing up and getting married and having children, particularly sons, and they will have the task of educating these sons in a manner befitting their status and learning. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary regarding Rush's lecture on female education. Girls were actually going to be challenged academically in all of the subjects they formerly were kept away from. What intrigued me about this lecture, however, is that it was aimed towards men in the audience and not actually the girls who would be undergoing this new academic change. And not only was it directed at men, but at men of a much higher social class who would be in charge of allowing this change to happen. It really shows how the elite were coming into play and actually becoming a threat to the rest of the colonists. (I also enjoy that he refused to let students study French, but that's a bit off-topic) - Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I though that it was interesting how in Esther DeBerdt's "Sentiments of an American Woman", she freely admits that women have "...feeble hands..." (115). I would have thought that a comment like that would be more likely to come from a man of that time and not a woman. ~Katherine S.~<br />
<br />
I felt that the way Mary Jemison described the Native Americans in the article "The War for Independence...", made them seem very materialistic. It seemed that all the Native Americans cared about were the goods they were going to receive from the British and nothing else. ~Katherine S.~<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading "An American Woman Asserts Women's Rights." I found it interesting that this woman flat out said that many women would do whatever they could to help the revolution during this time when many men felt like women wouldn't want to give up their luxuries to help the cause. I also enjoyed how she compared american women to the women of antiquity who helped save their nations. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I also enjoyed reading Esther DeBerdt Reed's piece. By showing examples of past women who struggled on behalf of their own nations, Esther bolsters her argument. I like the fact that she did not try to argue in passive manner. She asserts herself and her fellow women who want to do more to serve their nation. Her sentiments are much more convincing and empowering due to the manner in which she presented herself. --E. Hufford<br />
<br />
When reading Abigail Adams' correspondence with her husband John and friend Mercy, I found myself sympathizing with Abigail. Her frustration with John when he wrote. "As to your extraordinary Code of Laws, I cannot but laugh" must have been great. Reading her letter to Mercy about John's repsonse seems as though it could have been written by a woman today to a friend complaining about her husband's actions.-- E. Hufford<br />
<br />
I agree with those thoughts on the letters of Abigail Adams. And I find it revealing in John Adams' character. He's a historically important figure in our nations history and we hold him on a high pedestal for that. But he still thinks typical thoughts of the time period with regards to women and their "rights." His comments not only include the "I cannot but laugh comment" but even to say "We know better than to repeal our Masculine systems." We can continue to think of John Adams as a great man and important to the founding of our nation, but we must recognize his averageness in his thoughts. If that made any sense at all. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I felt that Phillis Wheatley's address to George III was an amazing piece of literature. I think it was so clever to include the words free and equal into her poem. Wheatley was treated a lot differently from most slaves . She was educated among white children, and was even sent to Europe to progress is studies and writing. Did her owners really read her poem? I am sure they were delighted for her--and them because they own her. But did they hear it? Did anyone else see those underlying messages for freedom from slavery? Did anyone agree with her underlying tones of the poem? - Talya Halpern<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Talya that Wheatley was very clever and I think it's possible she was underestimated by those around her. She was obviously intelligent but her cleverness leads me to think she could outsmart even her owners. Of course, we will probably never know, but I like to think she had a few laughs at the expense of others as she wrote this poem as well as her others. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I felt that Mary Jemison Views the Revolution was a great account of the War for Independence. Mary’s descriptions were not that of a typical woman. She describes scenes of prisoners being punished that many women would not even want to watch let alone observe and write about. I especially like the end of her story when she writes of how she hired herself out to an escaped black slave and how she was not too worried about the gun the slave stood over her with. I doubt many women of the colonial settlements would do the same.--Cheryl</div>Lwilk8wahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_4_Questions/CommentsWeek 4 Questions/Comments2007-09-18T20:56:59Z<p>Lwilk8wa: New page: I found David Brainerd’s “A Remarkable Instance of Awakening” to be implausible. His accounts focused on the ideal response when converting non-believers i.e. confession of sin and r...</p>
<hr />
<div>I found David Brainerd’s “A Remarkable Instance of Awakening” to be implausible. His accounts focused on the ideal response when converting non-believers i.e. confession of sin and realization of God’s power. These outcomes seem almost too good to be legitimate. The one example that threw a red flag up for me was when he said a young Indian convert of his laid flat on the ground after his service praying incessantly in her native language which he translated as, “have mercy on me, and help me to give you my heart”. Wouldn’t that be the ultimate form of flattery if your sermons were so good that they could make someone publicly display such compassion?- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
I got extremely frustrated while reading the examination of Abigail Hobbs at Salem Prison under “The ‘Casco Girls’ Accuse George Burroughs, 1692” in MP. First off, Abigail’s testimony contradicts itself so many times that it becomes quite obvious, at least to me, that she is lying. Why wasn’t this obvious to the Judge? Why wasn’t faulty testimony penalized? I thought these accusers were supposed to be hard-nosed Christians. If this were true how did they live with themselves knowing they committed a sin (LYING) in order to convict an innocent person?- Lisa Wilkerson</div>Lwilk8wahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_3_Questions/CommentsWeek 3 Questions/Comments2007-09-12T01:53:13Z<p>Lwilk8wa: </p>
<hr />
<div>In Early American Women, the essay by Susanna Wesely made me feel thankful I was brought up the way I was. I disagree with her methods of controling children. I don't believe in programing children to be the way a parent wishes. I do agree with some of her her principles however. I think children should be praised everytime they behave correctly or are obediant. I believe children should be taught to be respectful to other's property. I don't think children need to be preforming the same routine every day regardless if it is in eating, sleeping ect. In Wesely's essay, she herself noted that when the children had to be at seperate houses when their home was destroyed by fire, that when they were reunited under one roof again, they aquired some bad behaviors. Perhaps if Wesely weren't so strict with her routines and ridgid discipline, her children may have come back with fewer negative influences.--Cheryl<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with Cheryl I was very glad my parents were not that strict. I think what got me the most was how the essay described how the mother would break the free will of the kids. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I also was very shocked when I read the account of Abigail Bailey and 1) she had 17 kids and 2) her husband tried having a relationship beyond a fatherly one. The account definitely showed how helpless a woman was when discovering her husband doing something wrong. In the intro to the account it says that she got her husband arrested but with the help of her brothers. But would she have been able to have him arrested without her brothers assistance?- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I, too, was shocked while reading Abigail Bailey's "An Abominable Wickedness" and I agree with Elizabeth that the narrative did show how helpless a woman was under the rule of her husband. Yet, there are two sides to this wifely obedience. A “proper” woman saw it her solemn duty to uphold the marriage covenant and be a kind, faithful, and subservient wife to her husband. However, when the husband has violated the marriage covenant and has behaved immorally, exceptions ensue. All of a sudden, a woman with no rights now has all legal authority in the marriage. She knew divorce and breaking up her family was a sin (imagine how tough this must have been for her to deal with) but once she realized it was not her fault, she placed all guilt and blame on Mr. Bailey. Where was the point when Abigail realized enough was enough and she had to say something? Despite the fact she confronted him long after the first signs of his wrongdoing; many women could have assumed their position and not have said a word. I found it quite empowering to see docile and obedient Abigail become an enlivened woman and mother whose priorities changed; her duty was no longer to her husband but to her children.- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
I found Martha Ballard’s entry “A Maine Midwife” to be quite insightful. Just by her keeping a very brief journal we are able to calculate birth rates, see some folk remedies, find out when and how people died, and keep up on town news and events. On a sidenote: what’s the deal with all the burnt feet during those first few days in August?- Lisa Wilkerson</div>Lwilk8wahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_3_Questions/CommentsWeek 3 Questions/Comments2007-09-12T01:37:33Z<p>Lwilk8wa: </p>
<hr />
<div>In Early American Women, the essay by Susanna Wesely made me feel thankful I was brought up the way I was. I disagree with her methods of controling children. I don't believe in programing children to be the way a parent wishes. I do agree with some of her her principles however. I think children should be praised everytime they behave correctly or are obediant. I believe children should be taught to be respectful to other's property. I don't think children need to be preforming the same routine every day regardless if it is in eating, sleeping ect. In Wesely's essay, she herself noted that when the children had to be at seperate houses when their home was destroyed by fire, that when they were reunited under one roof again, they aquired some bad behaviors. Perhaps if Wesely weren't so strict with her routines and ridgid discipline, her children may have come back with fewer negative influences.--Cheryl<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with Cheryl I was very glad my parents were not that strict. I think what got me the most was how the essay described how the mother would break the free will of the kids. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I also was very shocked when I read the account of Abigail Bailey and 1) she had 17 kids and 2) her husband tried having a relationship beyond a fatherly one. The account definitely showed how helpless a woman was when discovering her husband doing something wrong. In the intro to the account it says that she got her husband arrested but with the help of her brothers. But would she have been able to have him arrested without her brothers assistance?- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I, too, was shocked while reading Abigail Bailey's "An Abominable Wickedness" and I agree with Elizabeth that the narrative did show how helpless a woman was under the rule of her husband. Yet, there are two sides to this wifely obedience. A “proper” woman saw it her solemn duty to uphold the marriage covenant and be a kind, faithful, and subservient wife to her husband. However, when the husband has violated the marriage covenant and has behaved immorally, exceptions ensue. All of a sudden, a woman with no rights now has all legal authority in the marriage. She knew divorce and breaking up her family was a sin (imagine how tough this must have been for her to deal with) but once she realized it was not her fault, she placed all guilt and blame on Mr. Bailey. Where was the point when Abigail realized enough was enough and she had to say something? Despite the fact she confronted him long after the first signs of his wrongdoing; many women could have assumed their position and not have said a word. I found it quite empowering to see docile and obedient Abigail become an enlivened woman and mother whose priorities changed; her duty was no longer to her husband but to her children.- Lisa Wilkerson</div>Lwilk8wahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_2_Questions/CommentsWeek 2 Questions/Comments2007-09-05T20:31:55Z<p>Lwilk8wa: </p>
<hr />
<div>I found it interesting in the passage by John Heckewelder( page 30- 33) in Modern Problems where he says that the women's work load was so much lighter than that of the mens. I found this particularly interesting because in one of my classes last semester we read some articles about Europeans reactions to Native American society in Virginia and it said how lazy the European men felt that the Indian men were because it appeared that the women did the majority of the work within the village. I thought it was interesting seeing the different views that this reading exposed. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Continuing from what Elizabeth wrote, It is infact very intersting to see how different groups of people play differnt roles, and how each group views those roles played by each gender.--Katie D.<br />
<br />
In Woloch's book, having to do with marriage and treatment of their wives,(p.9-11), I found it intersting how he says that there are many persons who believe, from the labour that they see the Indian women perform, that they are in a manner treated as slaves. These labours, indeed, are hard, compared with the tasks that are imposed upon females in civilized society, but they are no more than their fair share of the hardships attendant on savage life. So they are not only voluntarily, but cheerfully submitted to the work. <br />
--Katie D.<br />
<br />
Katie, I was also interested in the idea that somehow fieldwork alone made slaves, but housework did not...Is there any explanation for that, Dr. McClurken? Or someone else who saw something I missed?--A. Meyer<br />
<br />
Throughout the personal narratives we have read, it has become obvious that Europeans thought their way of life to be far more superior to the way of life of the Natives they encountered. Due to the fact that they had never seen a society perform this way, Europeans defined this foreign culture as erroneous and thought it their divine right to intervene. Are there any current examples of this “responsibility” to intrude on foreign societies and make them like ours? Without trying to make this a political argument, one may argue the situation in Iraq. For instance, an attempt was made by the U.S. to spread democracy to this dictatorship. - Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
To what extent were European prejudices against natives based on differences about gender roles? To what extent were they more based on standards of living and tools? If native peoples had similar gender roles to Europeans, would the Europeans have had better gender relations, or would they still be doomed due to European prejudices about tools or desires for land?--Andrea Meyer<br />
<br />
We have several accounts of Native men being introduced to European ideas about gender and the absolute rights European men had in the 17th century. How frequently and quickly did Natives apply these ideas, and how did the application process disrupt Native family dynamics? Because all our accounts are from Europeans, we really don't have any sense of how things were within the Native families when European ideas were experimented with. Did Native women resist European ideals or did some accept these "new" roles?--Andrea Meyer<br />
<br />
It’s amazing that over 300 years later we are running into the same storylines. The story of Sarah Ahhaton committing adultery sounds as if it could’ve been taken right off the front pages of People Magazine. It’s surprising to see the parallels between our two time periods. Sarah accused her husband, William, of philandering long before he became suspicious and jealous of her relationship with Joseph. Yet, William was not put on trial and was not questioned about his unfaithfulness. It was Sarah who was wrongfully accused, pleaded innocent, and was ridiculed before she had even committed the sin (granted William did have a right to speculate- but that’s not the point). Why wasn’t William ever questioned about his running around? And what about Joseph- he gets off scot-free! What we see here is something that has continually found its way into society: the double standard.- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
In Woloch page 21, the recollections of Mary Jemison, I was really struck by her point of view on the work and labor of Indian women. "Our labor was not severe... Notwithstanding the Indian women have all the fuel and bread to procure, and the cooking to perform, their task is probably not harder that that of white women, who have those articles provided for them; and their cares certainly are not half as numerous, nor half as great." As a European woman now being held in captivity, I think it's a more trustworthy look at the work of Indian women versus the work of white women. -- Vanessa Smiley</div>Lwilk8wahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_2_Questions/CommentsWeek 2 Questions/Comments2007-09-05T20:23:11Z<p>Lwilk8wa: </p>
<hr />
<div>I found it interesting in the passage by John Heckewelder( page 30- 33) in Modern Problems where he says that the women's work load was so much lighter than that of the mens. I found this particularly interesting because in one of my classes last semester we read some articles about Europeans reactions to Native American society in Virginia and it said how lazy the European men felt that the Indian men were because it appeared that the women did the majority of the work within the village. I thought it was interesting seeing the different views that this reading exposed. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Continuing from what Elizabeth wrote, It is infact very intersting to see how different groups of people play differnt roles, and how each group views those roles played by each gender.--Katie D.<br />
<br />
In Woloch's book, having to do with marriage and treatment of their wives,(p.9-11), I found it intersting how he says that there are many persons who believe, from the labour that they see the Indian women perform, that they are in a manner treated as slaves. These labours, indeed, are hard, compared with the tasks that are imposed upon females in civilized society, but they are no more than their fair share of the hardships attendant on savage life. So they are not only voluntarily, but cheerfully submitted to the work. <br />
--Katie D.<br />
<br />
Katie, I was also interested in the idea that somehow fieldwork alone made slaves, but housework did not...Is there any explanation for that, Dr. McClurken? Or someone else who saw something I missed?--A. Meyer<br />
<br />
Throughout the personal narratives we have read, it has become obvious that Europeans thought their way of life to be far more superior to the way of life of the Natives they encountered. Due to the fact that they had never seen a society perform this way, Europeans defined this foreign culture as erroneous and thought it their divine right to intervene. Are there any current examples of this “responsibility” to intrude on foreign societies and make them like ours? Without trying to make this a political argument, one may argue the situation in Iraq. For instance, an attempt was made by the U.S. to spread democracy to this dictatorship. - Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
To what extent were European prejudices against natives based on differences about gender roles? To what extent were they more based on standards of living and tools? If native peoples had similar gender roles to Europeans, would the Europeans have had better gender relations, or would they still be doomed due to European prejudices about tools or desires for land?--Andrea Meyer<br />
<br />
We have several accounts of Native men being introduced to European ideas about gender and the absolute rights European men had in the 17th century. How frequently and quickly did Natives apply these ideas, and how did the application process disrupt Native family dynamics? Because all our accounts are from Europeans, we really don't have any sense of how things were within the Native families when European ideas were experimented with. Did Native women resist European ideals or did some accept these "new" roles?--Andrea Meyer<br />
<br />
It’s amazing that over 300 years later we are running into the same storylines. The story of Sarah Ahhaton committing adultery sounds as if it could’ve been taken right off the front pages of People Magazine. It’s surprising to see the parallels between our two time periods. Sarah accused her husband, William, of philandering long before he became suspicious and jealous of her relationship with Joseph. Yet, William was not put on trial and was not questioned about his unfaithfulness. It was Sarah who was wrongfully accused, pleaded innocent, and was ridiculed before she had even committed the sin (granted William did have a right to speculate- but that’s not the point). Why wasn’t William ever questioned about his running around? What we see here is something that has continually found its way into society: the double standard.- Lisa Wilkerson</div>Lwilk8wahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_2_Questions/CommentsWeek 2 Questions/Comments2007-09-04T21:49:27Z<p>Lwilk8wa: </p>
<hr />
<div>I found it interesting in the passage by John Heckewelder( page 30- 33) in Modern Problems where he says that the women's work load was so much lighter than that of the mens. I found this particularly interesting because in one of my classes last semester we read some articles about Europeans reactions to Native American society in Virginia and it said how lazy the European men felt that the Indian men were because it appeared that the women did the majority of the work within the village. I thought it was interesting seeing the different views that this reading exposed. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Throughout the personal narratives we have read, it has become obvious that Europeans thought their way of life to be far more superior to the way of life of the Natives they encountered. Due to the fact that they had never seen a society perform this way, Europeans defined this foreign culture as erroneous and thought it their divine right to intervene. Are there any current examples of this “responsibility” to intrude on foreign societies and make them like ours? Without trying to make this a political argument, one may argue the situation in Iraq. For instance, an attempt was made by the U.S. to spread democracy to this dictatorship. - Lisa Wilkerson</div>Lwilk8wahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_1_Questions/CommentsWeek 1 Questions/Comments2007-08-30T01:00:01Z<p>Lwilk8wa: </p>
<hr />
<div> -- Major Problems, 1-23<br />
<br />
The first essay mentions how women were once only seen as important to history because of their relation to important men. A prime example of this is our University. Mary Washington is recognized solely as the mother of George Washington. She is seen as important because of her son not because of any of her own actions. -- Allison<br />
<br />
I think Allison makes an excellent point. I'm reminded of a quote from the movie History Boys. The quote is from the woman history teacher who says, "History is a commentary on the various and continuing incapabilities of men. What is history? History is women following behind with the bucket." She may have some feminist tendencies when saying this, but I think it can be a relevant quote for what Kate Haulman is saying in her essay and the point Allison made. -- Vanessa<br />
<br />
One of my other professors mentioned that history is constantly being reinterpreted and rewritten, so can any of the questions represented by this book ever actually be answered to everyone's satisfaction? -- Allison<br />
<br />
In response to Allison's question: I think that you have a good point. I seriously doubt that any of these questions will ever be answered to everyone's satisfaction. Like in all things there will always be someone who is not satisfied, someone who continues to look for another way to answer the question. Its human nature. You can see that just looking at the essays, even though the historians writing this are all involved in women's history they all have different ideas of how you should go about it and what you should focus on. --Mary<br />
<br />
There was one section while reading that stood out for me and that was the part on page twelve about equality and difference. I found it interesting that she should mention the idea that so often in the search for women's "equality" women want to be treated as if they were men and often over look the differences between men and women because they have often been used as a basis for discimination. While this section was very confusing, in my opinion at least, just because of the strong and opposing opinions about the subject, personally I think that just because a woman wants to be seen as an equal to a man in the eyes of society and in the eyes of the law that is no reason to set aside her femininity. --Mary<br />
<br />
In regards to Mary's comment, I agree that equality should never be awarded based on one's femininity. The dichotomy was a contrast between feminists who deny difference between males and females and those who use their differences as a strength or access to power. I think it is vital to realize that "femininity" is a construct that has been forced upon women. "Femininity" and "Masculinity" have regulated gender politics and certainly there is nothing wrong with expressing either- but they are just labels that have been oppressive to those who wish to transcend their designated gender roles. I think that there would be value in discussing from where "femininity" stems and how free thought is and has been affected by this construct. --Kelly<br />
<br />
I'd like to pose a question of opinion, if permitted, in response to Mary's and Kelly's comments. It's a situation that I know many instances of and wonder about what everyone else thinks of it. Woman A wants to go to college, get a degree, and continue her education (perhaps to get a masters or doctorate). She hopes to achieve a full and lengthy career while maintaining a family life. Woman B wants to finish college but her main goal is to start a family and stay at home to take care of her children and the household. She has no desire for a career and is more than satisfied with her life as a stay-at-home mom/homemaker. I don't really have a follow-up question other than to open the floor to opinion, but is there anything wrong with either woman's goals and should either be seen as less-equal or more equal than the other? -- Vanessa<br />
<br />
In response to Vanessa's comment, I don't believe the issue should be whether or not one woman's goals are more or less equal to those of the other woman. The important issue is that women have the choice to pursue an education and career and/or they have the choice to become mothers and care for their households. We have come a long way in history considering the choice was not always there. -- Elizabeth<br />
<br />
I agree with Elizabeth but also think that looking at what influences a woman's life goal could potentially be telling. I would be curious about how the goals of Woman A and B have been supported by their peers, the media, and other outside forces. --Kelly <br />
<br />
I have been a stay at home mom but I also held a part-time job if hours that were different from my husbands. This was a way I could balanace a career and be a mother at the same time. It was difficult but I had plenty of support from my family, peers and others. The only thing I put on hold was my education. Hopefully this coming spring I will graduate.--Cheryl<br />
<br />
Women's history has come a long way. I agree with Gerda Lerner when she says "the striking fact about the historiography of women is the general neglect of the subject by historians." (p.8). There is something about the neglect of women's studies that makes us want to focus even more on their history. --Katie<br />
<br />
Knowing that it is gender that defines "man" and "woman", or "male" and "female", what exactly truely defines the category "women"? --Katie<br />
<br />
I believe that when studying women's history it is easy to get caught up in the oppression of women. It's important to remember that not all cultures were as oppressive over women as were European societies. We know that many Native American women had a stronger role in soceity than most European women. This is not to say that women were never oppressed, rather that depending on the soceity of study, women's roles were different.-- Elizabeth<br />
<br />
In response to Elizabeth's comment: I definitely agree. In fact, while I was reading the essays, I kept reminding myself about the different situations of women throughout history, like Native Americans as you mentioned. However, not focusing on oppression is sometimes hard to do as Leslie Alexander points out, some scholars seek to incoroporate race into their studies and end up "focusing exclusively on oppression" (20).--Kaitlyn<br />
<br />
In her essay Alexander argued that historians are "reluctant to explore how the reality of race influences Black women's lives." What is the cause of this reluctance? Can this statement also be applied to all minority women? - Fiona<br />
<br />
The authors argue that women's history needs to be examined from multiple angles: class, race, culture, ethnicity, sexuality, age, work, etc. Is this possible? Would it still be women's history or would it become something like African American women's history or Latino women's history? - Fiona<br />
<br />
I don't think the reading covered this so i was curious if anyone else knew- How did the study of women specifically in history begin? did it begin with the feminist movements?- Elizabeth<br />
<br />
As Cheryl states below, the preface states the basic reasons that this topic came into play. 1) the feminist movement in the 1960s and 2) women began to enter into the field of history and historical study as a result of employment opportunities that they had not previously been given. And one reason seems to be the result of the other. - Kelly W.<br />
<br />
In the preface of the book, more details are given about the study of women's histroy.--Cheryl<br />
<br />
I was actually curious about the same thing. I believe one of the authors mentioned that the field of study stretched all the way back to the 1950s (I could be wrong). That being said, with the ever-changing role of women in society, how do you think the study of women's history has changed since its beginning and how do you think it will change in the future?--Kaitlyn<br />
<br />
Why would the feminist movement be thought of as damaging to Women's Studies? I would think that it would be a positive thing so that women can see where they've been and how they could advance. - Elizabeth<br />
<br />
To comment on Allison’s Mary Washington statement that opened this discussion, Bock’s essay makes a great point in her public v. private dichotomy. She says, “male workers, male politicians and male scholars perform their tasks only because they are born, reared, and cared for by the women’s labor”(10). Thus, George is a public reflection of Mary’s private raising. We are able to see the woman Mary was through the man George became.--Lisa<br />
<br />
How does one determine what is gender neutral? Especially when it comes to applying gender neutrallity to laws that invovled violence like rape and battery?--Cheryl<br />
<br />
There is a comment somewhere amongst these essays that states that women’s history is a compilation of only the exceptional women from history, thus creating a history that is unrepresentative of every woman. Isn’t most history (not just women’s history) we read that of the extraordinary and not the commonplace?--Lisa</div>Lwilk8wahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_1_Questions/CommentsWeek 1 Questions/Comments2007-08-30T00:33:12Z<p>Lwilk8wa: </p>
<hr />
<div> -- Major Problems, 1-23<br />
<br />
The first essay mentions how women were once only seen as important to history because of their relation to important men. A prime example of this is our University. Mary Washington is recognized solely as the mother of George Washington. She is seen as important because of her son not because of any of her own actions. -- Allison<br />
<br />
I think Allison makes an excellent point. I'm reminded of a quote from the movie History Boys. The quote is from the woman history teacher who says, "History is a commentary on the various and continuing incapabilities of men. What is history? History is women following behind with the bucket." She may have some feminist tendencies when saying this, but I think it can be a relevant quote for what Kate Haulman is saying in her essay and the point Allison made. -- Vanessa<br />
<br />
One of my other professors mentioned that history is constantly being reinterpreted and rewritten, so can any of the questions represented by this book ever actually be answered to everyone's satisfaction? -- Allison<br />
<br />
In response to Allison's question: I think that you have a good point. I seriously doubt that any of these questions will ever be answered to everyone's satisfaction. Like in all things there will always be someone who is not satisfied, someone who continues to look for another way to answer the question. Its human nature. You can see that just looking at the essays, even though the historians writing this are all involved in women's history they all have different ideas of how you should go about it and what you should focus on. --Mary<br />
<br />
There was one section while reading that stood out for me and that was the part on page twelve about equality and difference. I found it interesting that she should mention the idea that so often in the search for women's "equality" women want to be treated as if they were men and often over look the differences between men and women because they have often been used as a basis for discimination. While this section was very confusing, in my opinion at least, just because of the strong and opposing opinions about the subject, personally I think that just because a woman wants to be seen as an equal to a man in the eyes of society and in the eyes of the law that is no reason to set aside her femininity. --Mary<br />
<br />
In regards to Mary's comment, I agree that equality should never be awarded based on one's femininity. The dichotomy was a contrast between feminists who deny difference between males and females and those who use their differences as a strength or access to power. I think it is vital to realize that "femininity" is a construct that has been forced upon women. "Femininity" and "Masculinity" have regulated gender politics and certainly there is nothing wrong with expressing either- but they are just labels that have been oppressive to those who wish to transcend their designated gender roles. I think that there would be value in discussing from where "femininity" stems and how free thought is and has been affected by this construct. --Kelly<br />
<br />
I'd like to pose a question of opinion, if permitted, in response to Mary's and Kelly's comments. It's a situation that I know many instances of and wonder about what everyone else thinks of it. Woman A wants to go to college, get a degree, and continue her education (perhaps to get a masters or doctorate). She hopes to achieve a full and lengthy career while maintaining a family life. Woman B wants to finish college but her main goal is to start a family and stay at home to take care of her children and the household. She has no desire for a career and is more than satisfied with her life as a stay-at-home mom/homemaker. I don't really have a follow-up question other than to open the floor to opinion, but is there anything wrong with either woman's goals and should either be seen as less-equal or more equal than the other? -- Vanessa<br />
<br />
In response to Vanessa's comment, I don't believe the issue should be whether or not one woman's goals are more or less equal to those of the other woman. The important issue is that women have the choice to pursue an education and career and/or they have the choice to become mothers and care for their households. We have come a long way in history considering the choice was not always there. -- Elizabeth<br />
<br />
I agree with Elizabeth but also think that looking at what influences a woman's life goal could potentially be telling. I would be curious about how the goals of Woman A and B have been supported by their peers, the media, and other outside forces. --Kelly <br />
<br />
Women's history has come a long way. I agree with Gerda Lerner when she says "the striking fact about the historiography of women is the general neglect of the subject by historians." (p.8). There is something about the neglect of women's studies that makes us want to focus even more on their history. --Katie<br />
<br />
Knowing that it is gender that defines "man" and "woman", or "male" and "female", what exactly truely defines the category "women"? --Katie<br />
<br />
I believe that when studying women's history it is easy to get caught up in the oppression of women. It's important to remember that not all cultures were as oppressive over women as were European societies. We know that many Native American women had a stronger role in soceity than most European women. This is not to say that women were never oppressed, rather that depending on the soceity of study, women's roles were different.-- Elizabeth<br />
<br />
In response to Elizabeth's comment: I definitely agree. In fact, while I was reading the essays, I kept reminding myself about the different situations of women throughout history, like Native Americans as you mentioned. However, not focusing on oppression is sometimes hard to do as Leslie Alexander points out, some scholars seek to incoroporate race into their studies and end up "focusing exclusively on oppression" (20).--Kaitlyn<br />
<br />
In her essay Alexander argued that historians are "reluctant to explore how the reality of race influences Black women's lives." What is the cause of this reluctance? Can this statement also be applied to all minority women? - Fiona<br />
<br />
The authors argue that women's history needs to be examined from multiple angles: class, race, culture, ethnicity, sexuality, age, work, etc. Is this possible? Would it still be women's history or would it become something like African American women's history or Latino women's history? - Fiona<br />
<br />
I don't think the reading covered this so i was curious if anyone else knew- How did the study of women specifically in history begin? did it begin with the feminist movements?- Elizabeth<br />
<br />
I was actually curious about the same thing. I believe one of the authors mentioned that the field of study stretched all the way back to the 1950s (I could be wrong). That being said, with the ever-changing role of women in society, how do you think the study of women's history has changed since its beginning and how do you think it will change in the future?--Kaitlyn<br />
<br />
Why would the feminist movement be thought of as damaging to Women's Studies? I would think that it would be a positive thing so that women can see where they've been and how they could advance. - Elizabeth<br />
<br />
To comment on Allison’s Mary Washington statement that opened this discussion, Bock’s essay makes a great point in her public v. private dichotomy. She says, “male workers, male politicians and male scholars perform their tasks only because they are born, reared, and cared for by the women’s labor”(10). Thus, George is a public reflection of Mary’s private raising. We are able to see the woman Mary was through the man George became.--Lisa</div>Lwilk8wahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_1_Questions/CommentsWeek 1 Questions/Comments2007-08-30T00:30:56Z<p>Lwilk8wa: </p>
<hr />
<div> -- Major Problems, 1-23<br />
<br />
The first essay mentions how women were once only seen as important to history because of their relation to important men. A prime example of this is our University. Mary Washington is recognized solely as the mother of George Washington. She is seen as important because of her son not because of any of her own actions. -- Allison<br />
<br />
I think Allison makes an excellent point. I'm reminded of a quote from the movie History Boys. The quote is from the woman history teacher who says, "History is a commentary on the various and continuing incapabilities of men. What is history? History is women following behind with the bucket." She may have some feminist tendencies when saying this, but I think it can be a relevant quote for what Kate Haulman is saying in her essay and the point Allison made. -- Vanessa<br />
<br />
One of my other professors mentioned that history is constantly being reinterpreted and rewritten, so can any of the questions represented by this book ever actually be answered to everyone's satisfaction? -- Allison<br />
<br />
In response to Allison's question: I think that you have a good point. I seriously doubt that any of these questions will ever be answered to everyone's satisfaction. Like in all things there will always be someone who is not satisfied, someone who continues to look for another way to answer the question. Its human nature. You can see that just looking at the essays, even though the historians writing this are all involved in women's history they all have different ideas of how you should go about it and what you should focus on. --Mary<br />
<br />
There was one section while reading that stood out for me and that was the part on page twelve about equality and difference. I found it interesting that she should mention the idea that so often in the search for women's "equality" women want to be treated as if they were men and often over look the differences between men and women because they have often been used as a basis for discimination. While this section was very confusing, in my opinion at least, just because of the strong and opposing opinions about the subject, personally I think that just because a woman wants to be seen as an equal to a man in the eyes of society and in the eyes of the law that is no reason to set aside her femininity. --Mary<br />
<br />
In regards to Mary's comment, I agree that equality should never be awarded based on one's femininity. The dichotomy was a contrast between feminists who deny difference between males and females and those who use their differences as a strength or access to power. I think it is vital to realize that "femininity" is a construct that has been forced upon women. "Femininity" and "Masculinity" have regulated gender politics and certainly there is nothing wrong with expressing either- but they are just labels that have been oppressive to those who wish to transcend their designated gender roles. I think that there would be value in discussing from where "femininity" stems and how free thought is and has been affected by this construct. --Kelly<br />
<br />
I'd like to pose a question of opinion, if permitted, in response to Mary's and Kelly's comments. It's a situation that I know many instances of and wonder about what everyone else thinks of it. Woman A wants to go to college, get a degree, and continue her education (perhaps to get a masters or doctorate). She hopes to achieve a full and lengthy career while maintaining a family life. Woman B wants to finish college but her main goal is to start a family and stay at home to take care of her children and the household. She has no desire for a career and is more than satisfied with her life as a stay-at-home mom/homemaker. I don't really have a follow-up question other than to open the floor to opinion, but is there anything wrong with either woman's goals and should either be seen as less-equal or more equal than the other? -- Vanessa<br />
<br />
In response to Vanessa's comment, I don't believe the issue should be whether or not one woman's goals are more or less equal to those of the other woman. The important issue is that women have the choice to pursue an education and career and/or they have the choice to become mothers and care for their households. We have come a long way in history considering the choice was not always there. -- Elizabeth<br />
<br />
Women's history has come a long way. I agree with Gerda Lerner when she says "the striking fact about the historiography of women is the general neglect of the subject by historians." (p.8). There is something about the neglect of women's studies that makes us want to focus even more on their history. --Katie<br />
<br />
Knowing that it is gender that defines "man" and "woman", or "male" and "female", what exactly truely defines the category "women"? --Katie<br />
<br />
I believe that when studying women's history it is easy to get caught up in the oppression of women. It's important to remember that not all cultures were as oppressive over women as were European societies. We know that many Native American women had a stronger role in soceity than most European women. This is not to say that women were never oppressed, rather that depending on the soceity of study, women's roles were different.-- Elizabeth<br />
<br />
In response to Elizabeth's comment: I definitely agree. In fact, while I was reading the essays, I kept reminding myself about the different situations of women throughout history, like Native Americans as you mentioned. However, not focusing on oppression is sometimes hard to do as Leslie Alexander points out, some scholars seek to incoroporate race into their studies and end up "focusing exclusively on oppression" (20).--Kaitlyn<br />
<br />
In her essay Alexander argued that historians are "reluctant to explore how the reality of race influences Black women's lives." What is the cause of this reluctance? Can this statement also be applied to all minority women? - Fiona<br />
<br />
The authors argue that women's history needs to be examined from multiple angles: class, race, culture, ethnicity, sexuality, age, work, etc. Is this possible? Would it still be women's history or would it become something like African American women's history or Latino women's history? - Fiona<br />
<br />
<br />
I don't think the reading covered this so i was curious if anyone else knew- How did the study of women specifically in history begin? did it begin with the feminist movements?- Elizabeth<br />
<br />
I was actually curious about the same thing. I believe one of the authors mentioned that the field of study stretched all the way back to the 1950s (I could be wrong). That being said, with the ever-changing role of women in society, how do you think the study of women's history has changed since its beginning and how do you think it will change in the future?--Kaitlyn<br />
<br />
Why would the feminist movement be thought of as damaging to Women's Studies? I would think that it would be a positive thing so that women can see where they've been and how they could advance. - Elizabeth<br />
<br />
To comment on Allison’s Mary Washington statement that opened this discussion, Bock’s essay makes a great point in her public v. private dichotomy. She says, “male workers, male politicians and male scholars perform their tasks only because they are born, reared, and cared for by the women’s labor.” Thus, George is a public reflection of Mary’s private raising. We are able to see the woman Mary was through the man George became.--Lisa</div>Lwilk8wa 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