Deprecated: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/GlobalFunctions.php on line 2578
Deprecated: Optional parameter $prefix declared before required parameter $code is implicitly treated as a required parameter in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/languages/Language.php on line 4036
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$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
Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/languages/LanguageConverter.php on line 726
Deprecated: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/search/SearchEngine.php on line 1502
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php on line 755
Warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php on line 907
Deprecated: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Pager.php on line 908
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 627
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 629
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 630
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 631
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 633
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 634
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php on line 402
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: 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=MartzmichelleMcClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-07-12T22:51:14ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_15_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 15 Questions/Comments-327 112011-12-08T01:15:14Z<p>Martzmichelle: /* Isabel Eaton, 1899, research on black servants in Philadelphia */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching questions about Woloch, Chapter 13, Urban Wage Earners ==<br />
<br />
While reading the passages about women doing clerical work, I wondered whether men preferred to have women in their office in order to extend patriarchy into the work place. Did employers like having women employees because they had more authority as a boss over women than men? --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
== Helen Campbell, 1893, study on NY wage laborers, “Shop Girls and Piece Workers” ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In Shop Girls and Piece Workers by Helen Campbell, she describes both the lives shop girls and women workers in trades. She describes the Shop Girls as viewing stores as "the high road to fortune." Furthermore, they have "no thought of permanence" for themselves and, rather, expect to marry. These women also try to imitate their rich customers. On the other hand, women in trades work because "there is no one to earn for them," as they are widows, have drunken husbands who demand support themselves, or have children they must take care of. These two sets of women would have wildly different points of view on what is important to them. This idea is important because the document is from 1893, a time of women's rights movements. These groups of women's would likely not have the same ideals concerning women's rights, based on why they earn livings. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
Campbell's acknowledgement of horrible conditions in these factories seems to not deter women from continuing to line up for these jobs and jump on any opportunity to acquire the position. It is obvious that poverty can drive people to do things out of desperation and a need to survive. However, there is still a deep-rooted desire in these poor women to join the ranks of wealthy women. Campbell writes: "From her post behind the counter the shop-girl examines every detail of costume, every air and grace of the women she so often despises, even when longing most to be one of them" (294). Marriage for these poor women was viewed as an escape from the harsh reality of poverty they were trapped in. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
Campbell's description of the shop girls imitating their rich customers is significant to the culture of a shop girl aspiring for a better social class and life. The job of "sales lady" is coveted among working women because the occupation is dreamed as a position to elevate themselves socially. Their jobs as shop girls, allow them to see the upper middle class elite lifestyles. While imitating their customers, the shop girls hope that their facade will allow them to become part of the upper middle class. Campbell writes that these imitations, such as, "gilt rings, bracelets and bangles, frizzes,"allow the shop girls to "stimulate the life daily paraded before her and most passionately desired" (415).-- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Lucy Maynard Salmon, 1897, Vassar Historian who studied domestic service ==<br />
<br />
Lucy Maynard Salmon's study of domestic service demonstrates the reasons why few women choose to work as house servants. The chart lists employees' answers to "What reasons can you give why more women do not choose housework as a regular employment?" (419-420). The most prominent answer from domestics is "Pride, social condition, and unwillingness to be called servants." Looking at this answer makes me think that women of this time have more opportunities outside of domestic servitude that are less demeaning. For example, in class we discussed the emergence of other occupations, such as, teaching, nursing, and secretarial work. These jobs grant women with more freedom than domestic servitude through promotions, more free time, or stable working hours. In addition, the quote from a young factory operative points out reasons that I did not think about or necessarily agree with, but her answer is still interesting. She states that, "Then I think shop or factory girls make the best wive... The domestic after she gets married gets careless. She don't take the pride in her home that the shop girl does. She has lived in such fine houses that her small tenement has no beauty for her after the first glow of married life is over" (423). First, this quote resembles Helen Campbell's piece on shop girls who imitate their upper class clients. Since these women work close to the upper class they see and try to imitate that lifestyle. Second, its shows a divide among women workers. There are distinct groups of female workers, and these women judge each other for their occupations. -- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Isabel Eaton, 1899, research on black servants in Philadelphia ==<br />
<br />
The research done by Isabel Eaton brings into the mix the experiences of black women--an overlooked subset. Eaton points out that black women are "ambitious" and desire for upward social mobility (299). Even these women who were trained in specific skills (like teaching) still had to revert to domestic roles because of prejudices. The experience of a black woman in the late 19th century is quite different than that of white women. This makes me wish that the main historical narrative included not only more about the women in America, but also the lives and experiences of the African-American women. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
In Eaton's study, she looks at the impact of race in domestic servitude. She notices that black servants had different struggles than white servants. One of the most prominent struggles, was that black servants are black, and employees did not hire them. In one quote a black domestic said, "If the mistresses has bad luck with one colored girl they won't never have another. They think all colored is a like" (426). Unlike the white women in Salmon's study who did want to work as domestics because of long hours, lack of dignity, and hard work, the black domestics had no other opportunities for employment. -- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Clara Lanza, 1891, defends the female office clerk in NY ==<br />
<br />
In the Office Clerk by Clara Lanza, she describes women as going out into the business place to work as clerks. This led the women to see themselves as "pioneers in the business world," because they were moving out of the domestic sphere and having an active role outside of the home. It is interesting because towards the end of the document, it is stated that "the girls make good wives," something associated with the domestic sphere. She asserts that it is because men now admire independence, but it is difficult to determine whether that is true. -- Clare O.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Leonara Barry, on what the Knights of Labor are doing for women, 1888 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sadie Frome, 1902, “Story of a Sweatshop Girl” ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought this document was enlightening. The woman writing was clearly a woman who was educated and who had ambition which is so interesting to read about in her own words. Even though the amount of money she makes is only double what she pays in rent each month (which she shares an apartment in order to afford it)she still manages to save up money. I also thought it was interesting to see the line "But tho I belong to the Union I am not a Socialist or Anarchist" (page 311) because it means that the ideology and fear of being associated with these two groups existed before the red scares that happened later. She talks so supportively of the Union yet is afraid to be associated with the good of the Union for being socialist or anarchist. The not-wanting-to-get-married aspect at the end of the document was pretty interesting as well. I wish she would have explained more about this desire and why. I can't help but wonder if she did ever marry Henry and what became of the money which she had managed to save. --Sara S<br />
<br />
What I found interesting about Sadie Frome's "Story of a Sweatshop girl" was her independence. From this account, one can assume she got some form of education (did she write this piece or did someone transcribe this for her?), and was conscious enough of her situation to save money. What I especially loved about this piece was her relationship with Henry. Even though he kept insisting that he wanted to get married, she still felt it was necessary to wait awhile, just for the sake of being more mature when they married. By her account, their relationship was well advanced that they could have gotten married and it would have been appropriate, but she still decided to hold off, but continue dating. The relationship Sadie and Henry had just seemed so modern to me! -Heather T.<br />
<br />
== Overarching questions about Woloch, Chapter 16, Woman Suffrage/Women’s Rights ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Julia Ward Howe, 1899, Reminiscences ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Stanton and Anthony, 1882, piece in History of Woman Suffrage ==<br />
<br />
I believe this article offers insight into the tension between those who fought for black male suffrage and those who fought for female suffrage. Obviously these women feel betrayed by the men who supposedly were interested in helping gain equality for all. "But with arms folded, Greeley, Curtis, Tilton, Beecher, Higginson, Phillips, Garrison, Frederick Douglass, all calmly watched the struggle from afar, and when defeat came to both propositions, no consoling words were offered for woman's loss, but the women who spoke in the campaign were reproached for having 'killed negro suffrage.'" (page 360-361). It was really bold of these women to directly call out the men they believed were acting against them, even unlady like, but I think it reflects the hurt that these women felt. It's easy to reflect upon society and think that women who chose to fight for woman's rights over black rights were racist, but it's also important to see that these women were wounded and hurt by people who pledged allegiance to acquiring woman's rights before abolition and broke that promise as soon as their original goal was reached and women were no longer needed. This article reads almost like a sibling rivalry and it would be interesting to see the response of the men whose names are listed above. It's easy to write off an act as racist, sexist or bigoted, but no act, value or speak has intrinsic value without the context of it's situation. I also would like to point out that even though Anthony and Stanton urge women to no longer depend on men both of these women were married and Stanton left the activist lifestyle to play the mother/wife role before returning to her work. These actions do not reflect women who reject interaction and dependence upon men. It is important to understand context of expressions before interpreting them. Otherwise these women would be portrayed as man-hating misers by their rejection of male help when they simply wished to state that a woman should not rely on a man to fight her battles for her. --Sara S. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Frances Ellen (Watkins) Harper, 1866 Woman’s Rights convention ==<br />
<br />
What a moving speech! I was struck by the phrase at the beginning, where she says that, as a black woman, she couldn't feel like she was missing the rights white women talked about, because she had so much else to deal with because of her race. It wasn't until gender became an important issue in her life with her husband's death that she thought about gender inequality in the law. The argument about whether racism or sexism is a more pressing concern still goes on in contemporary feminism, and lots of people don't like to talk about it; I can't imagine this speech was received very well! Since she worked against racism first, I wonder how she became so prominent as to be invited to speak alongside Anthony and Stanton before this, and if she was as popular after. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
I agree, this speech was amazing. In class, I found myself agreeing more with the side of Stanton and Anthony. I believed that by women getting a vote, things could be solved. However, after reading this speech, I have found that Harper convinced me to believe the side of the AWSA. Some things that I found particularly striking in this speech was:<br />
"the nation shall be so color blind, as to know no man by the color of his skin or the curl of his hair. It will then have no privileged class, trampling upon and outraging the unprivileged class, but will be then one great privileged nation, whose privilege will be to produce the loftiest manhood and womanhood that humanity can attain."<br />
The only problem with this is that there were unprivileged white classes who felt limited. <br />
One other thing I found interesting was her comment, "the indifferent will vote on the strongest side of the question, with the winning party." I found this especially convincing, and to be a very good point. I think that she was right about that. --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
== Shoe women of Lynn, MA, 1874 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Amelia Barr, (novelist and married) 1896, Speaks out against female suffrage ==<br />
What I found to be interesting about this piece was the earnest belief Barr has that women are not competent enough to be politicians. She claims women are flip-floppers and would need to learn to be men to be successful. She also believed that women could have political control through the husband and influence political decisions that way. Since she wrote this in 1896, closer to the point of suffrage for women, I wonder how much of the female populace held an opinion like Barr. Was suffrage still unpopular this late in the ninteenth century? Or were more women open to this idea? -Heather T.<br />
<br />
== Anna Garlin Spencer, 1898, response to anti-suffrage attacks ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Charlotte Perkins Gilman, 20th Century feminist, 1903, The Home ==<br />
<br />
Gilman's argument - that women should be able to work outside the home so they can do more specialized labor and further progress - was surprising, and honestly had me disagreeing with her. I get what she's saying that women need not be in the home for the family to survive and be loved and cared for, but I actually felt she didn't give housewives near enough credit for both the value of the actual labor they do and the emotional labor of raising their children. She's right that they can do that while still working outside the home, but I think the dismissive way she goes about suggesting women leave the home for the good of society would have been very off-putting to women of the time who valued and enjoyed the work they did in the home, even if that wasn't all they wanted to do. --Katie C.</div>Martzmichellehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_15_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 15 Questions/Comments-327 112011-12-08T00:54:17Z<p>Martzmichelle: /* Lucy Maynard Salmon, 1897, Vassar Historian who studied domestic service */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching questions about Woloch, Chapter 13, Urban Wage Earners ==<br />
<br />
While reading the passages about women doing clerical work, I wondered whether men preferred to have women in their office in order to extend patriarchy into the work place. Did employers like having women employees because they had more authority as a boss over women than men? --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
== Helen Campbell, 1893, study on NY wage laborers, “Shop Girls and Piece Workers” ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In Shop Girls and Piece Workers by Helen Campbell, she describes both the lives shop girls and women workers in trades. She describes the Shop Girls as viewing stores as "the high road to fortune." Furthermore, they have "no thought of permanence" for themselves and, rather, expect to marry. These women also try to imitate their rich customers. On the other hand, women in trades work because "there is no one to earn for them," as they are widows, have drunken husbands who demand support themselves, or have children they must take care of. These two sets of women would have wildly different points of view on what is important to them. This idea is important because the document is from 1893, a time of women's rights movements. These groups of women's would likely not have the same ideals concerning women's rights, based on why they earn livings. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
Campbell's acknowledgement of horrible conditions in these factories seems to not deter women from continuing to line up for these jobs and jump on any opportunity to acquire the position. It is obvious that poverty can drive people to do things out of desperation and a need to survive. However, there is still a deep-rooted desire in these poor women to join the ranks of wealthy women. Campbell writes: "From her post behind the counter the shop-girl examines every detail of costume, every air and grace of the women she so often despises, even when longing most to be one of them" (294). Marriage for these poor women was viewed as an escape from the harsh reality of poverty they were trapped in. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
Campbell's description of the shop girls imitating their rich customers is significant to the culture of a shop girl aspiring for a better social class and life. The job of "sales lady" is coveted among working women because the occupation is dreamed as a position to elevate themselves socially. Their jobs as shop girls, allow them to see the upper middle class elite lifestyles. While imitating their customers, the shop girls hope that their facade will allow them to become part of the upper middle class. Campbell writes that these imitations, such as, "gilt rings, bracelets and bangles, frizzes,"allow the shop girls to "stimulate the life daily paraded before her and most passionately desired" (415).-- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Lucy Maynard Salmon, 1897, Vassar Historian who studied domestic service ==<br />
<br />
Lucy Maynard Salmon's study of domestic service demonstrates the reasons why few women choose to work as house servants. The chart lists employees' answers to "What reasons can you give why more women do not choose housework as a regular employment?" (419-420). The most prominent answer from domestics is "Pride, social condition, and unwillingness to be called servants." Looking at this answer makes me think that women of this time have more opportunities outside of domestic servitude that are less demeaning. For example, in class we discussed the emergence of other occupations, such as, teaching, nursing, and secretarial work. These jobs grant women with more freedom than domestic servitude through promotions, more free time, or stable working hours. In addition, the quote from a young factory operative points out reasons that I did not think about or necessarily agree with, but her answer is still interesting. She states that, "Then I think shop or factory girls make the best wive... The domestic after she gets married gets careless. She don't take the pride in her home that the shop girl does. She has lived in such fine houses that her small tenement has no beauty for her after the first glow of married life is over" (423). First, this quote resembles Helen Campbell's piece on shop girls who imitate their upper class clients. Since these women work close to the upper class they see and try to imitate that lifestyle. Second, its shows a divide among women workers. There are distinct groups of female workers, and these women judge each other for their occupations. -- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Isabel Eaton, 1899, research on black servants in Philadelphia ==<br />
<br />
The research done by Isabel Eaton brings into the mix the experiences of black women--an overlooked subset. Eaton points out that black women are "ambitious" and desire for upward social mobility (299). Even these women who were trained in specific skills (like teaching) still had to revert to domestic roles because of prejudices. The experience of a black woman in the late 19th century is quite different than that of white women. This makes me wish that the main historical narrative included not only more about the women in America, but also the lives and experiences of the African-American women. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
== Clara Lanza, 1891, defends the female office clerk in NY ==<br />
<br />
In the Office Clerk by Clara Lanza, she describes women as going out into the business place to work as clerks. This led the women to see themselves as "pioneers in the business world," because they were moving out of the domestic sphere and having an active role outside of the home. It is interesting because towards the end of the document, it is stated that "the girls make good wives," something associated with the domestic sphere. She asserts that it is because men now admire independence, but it is difficult to determine whether that is true. -- Clare O.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Leonara Barry, on what the Knights of Labor are doing for women, 1888 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sadie Frome, 1902, “Story of a Sweatshop Girl” ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought this document was enlightening. The woman writing was clearly a woman who was educated and who had ambition which is so interesting to read about in her own words. Even though the amount of money she makes is only double what she pays in rent each month (which she shares an apartment in order to afford it)she still manages to save up money. I also thought it was interesting to see the line "But tho I belong to the Union I am not a Socialist or Anarchist" (page 311) because it means that the ideology and fear of being associated with these two groups existed before the red scares that happened later. She talks so supportively of the Union yet is afraid to be associated with the good of the Union for being socialist or anarchist. The not-wanting-to-get-married aspect at the end of the document was pretty interesting as well. I wish she would have explained more about this desire and why. I can't help but wonder if she did ever marry Henry and what became of the money which she had managed to save. --Sara S<br />
<br />
What I found interesting about Sadie Frome's "Story of a Sweatshop girl" was her independence. From this account, one can assume she got some form of education (did she write this piece or did someone transcribe this for her?), and was conscious enough of her situation to save money. What I especially loved about this piece was her relationship with Henry. Even though he kept insisting that he wanted to get married, she still felt it was necessary to wait awhile, just for the sake of being more mature when they married. By her account, their relationship was well advanced that they could have gotten married and it would have been appropriate, but she still decided to hold off, but continue dating. The relationship Sadie and Henry had just seemed so modern to me! -Heather T.<br />
<br />
== Overarching questions about Woloch, Chapter 16, Woman Suffrage/Women’s Rights ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Julia Ward Howe, 1899, Reminiscences ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Stanton and Anthony, 1882, piece in History of Woman Suffrage ==<br />
<br />
I believe this article offers insight into the tension between those who fought for black male suffrage and those who fought for female suffrage. Obviously these women feel betrayed by the men who supposedly were interested in helping gain equality for all. "But with arms folded, Greeley, Curtis, Tilton, Beecher, Higginson, Phillips, Garrison, Frederick Douglass, all calmly watched the struggle from afar, and when defeat came to both propositions, no consoling words were offered for woman's loss, but the women who spoke in the campaign were reproached for having 'killed negro suffrage.'" (page 360-361). It was really bold of these women to directly call out the men they believed were acting against them, even unlady like, but I think it reflects the hurt that these women felt. It's easy to reflect upon society and think that women who chose to fight for woman's rights over black rights were racist, but it's also important to see that these women were wounded and hurt by people who pledged allegiance to acquiring woman's rights before abolition and broke that promise as soon as their original goal was reached and women were no longer needed. This article reads almost like a sibling rivalry and it would be interesting to see the response of the men whose names are listed above. It's easy to write off an act as racist, sexist or bigoted, but no act, value or speak has intrinsic value without the context of it's situation. I also would like to point out that even though Anthony and Stanton urge women to no longer depend on men both of these women were married and Stanton left the activist lifestyle to play the mother/wife role before returning to her work. These actions do not reflect women who reject interaction and dependence upon men. It is important to understand context of expressions before interpreting them. Otherwise these women would be portrayed as man-hating misers by their rejection of male help when they simply wished to state that a woman should not rely on a man to fight her battles for her. --Sara S. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Frances Ellen (Watkins) Harper, 1866 Woman’s Rights convention ==<br />
<br />
What a moving speech! I was struck by the phrase at the beginning, where she says that, as a black woman, she couldn't feel like she was missing the rights white women talked about, because she had so much else to deal with because of her race. It wasn't until gender became an important issue in her life with her husband's death that she thought about gender inequality in the law. The argument about whether racism or sexism is a more pressing concern still goes on in contemporary feminism, and lots of people don't like to talk about it; I can't imagine this speech was received very well! Since she worked against racism first, I wonder how she became so prominent as to be invited to speak alongside Anthony and Stanton before this, and if she was as popular after. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
I agree, this speech was amazing. In class, I found myself agreeing more with the side of Stanton and Anthony. I believed that by women getting a vote, things could be solved. However, after reading this speech, I have found that Harper convinced me to believe the side of the AWSA. Some things that I found particularly striking in this speech was:<br />
"the nation shall be so color blind, as to know no man by the color of his skin or the curl of his hair. It will then have no privileged class, trampling upon and outraging the unprivileged class, but will be then one great privileged nation, whose privilege will be to produce the loftiest manhood and womanhood that humanity can attain."<br />
The only problem with this is that there were unprivileged white classes who felt limited. <br />
One other thing I found interesting was her comment, "the indifferent will vote on the strongest side of the question, with the winning party." I found this especially convincing, and to be a very good point. I think that she was right about that. --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
== Shoe women of Lynn, MA, 1874 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Amelia Barr, (novelist and married) 1896, Speaks out against female suffrage ==<br />
What I found to be interesting about this piece was the earnest belief Barr has that women are not competent enough to be politicians. She claims women are flip-floppers and would need to learn to be men to be successful. She also believed that women could have political control through the husband and influence political decisions that way. Since she wrote this in 1896, closer to the point of suffrage for women, I wonder how much of the female populace held an opinion like Barr. Was suffrage still unpopular this late in the ninteenth century? Or were more women open to this idea? -Heather T.<br />
<br />
== Anna Garlin Spencer, 1898, response to anti-suffrage attacks ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Charlotte Perkins Gilman, 20th Century feminist, 1903, The Home ==<br />
<br />
Gilman's argument - that women should be able to work outside the home so they can do more specialized labor and further progress - was surprising, and honestly had me disagreeing with her. I get what she's saying that women need not be in the home for the family to survive and be loved and cared for, but I actually felt she didn't give housewives near enough credit for both the value of the actual labor they do and the emotional labor of raising their children. She's right that they can do that while still working outside the home, but I think the dismissive way she goes about suggesting women leave the home for the good of society would have been very off-putting to women of the time who valued and enjoyed the work they did in the home, even if that wasn't all they wanted to do. --Katie C.</div>Martzmichellehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_15_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 15 Questions/Comments-327 112011-12-08T00:25:29Z<p>Martzmichelle: /* Helen Campbell, 1893, study on NY wage laborers, “Shop Girls and Piece Workers” */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching questions about Woloch, Chapter 13, Urban Wage Earners ==<br />
<br />
While reading the passages about women doing clerical work, I wondered whether men preferred to have women in their office in order to extend patriarchy into the work place. Did employers like having women employees because they had more authority as a boss over women than men? --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
== Helen Campbell, 1893, study on NY wage laborers, “Shop Girls and Piece Workers” ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In Shop Girls and Piece Workers by Helen Campbell, she describes both the lives shop girls and women workers in trades. She describes the Shop Girls as viewing stores as "the high road to fortune." Furthermore, they have "no thought of permanence" for themselves and, rather, expect to marry. These women also try to imitate their rich customers. On the other hand, women in trades work because "there is no one to earn for them," as they are widows, have drunken husbands who demand support themselves, or have children they must take care of. These two sets of women would have wildly different points of view on what is important to them. This idea is important because the document is from 1893, a time of women's rights movements. These groups of women's would likely not have the same ideals concerning women's rights, based on why they earn livings. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
Campbell's acknowledgement of horrible conditions in these factories seems to not deter women from continuing to line up for these jobs and jump on any opportunity to acquire the position. It is obvious that poverty can drive people to do things out of desperation and a need to survive. However, there is still a deep-rooted desire in these poor women to join the ranks of wealthy women. Campbell writes: "From her post behind the counter the shop-girl examines every detail of costume, every air and grace of the women she so often despises, even when longing most to be one of them" (294). Marriage for these poor women was viewed as an escape from the harsh reality of poverty they were trapped in. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
Campbell's description of the shop girls imitating their rich customers is significant to the culture of a shop girl aspiring for a better social class and life. The job of "sales lady" is coveted among working women because the occupation is dreamed as a position to elevate themselves socially. Their jobs as shop girls, allow them to see the upper middle class elite lifestyles. While imitating their customers, the shop girls hope that their facade will allow them to become part of the upper middle class. Campbell writes that these imitations, such as, "gilt rings, bracelets and bangles, frizzes,"allow the shop girls to "stimulate the life daily paraded before her and most passionately desired" (415).-- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Lucy Maynard Salmon, 1897, Vassar Historian who studied domestic service ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Isabel Eaton, 1899, research on black servants in Philadelphia ==<br />
<br />
The research done by Isabel Eaton brings into the mix the experiences of black women--an overlooked subset. Eaton points out that black women are "ambitious" and desire for upward social mobility (299). Even these women who were trained in specific skills (like teaching) still had to revert to domestic roles because of prejudices. The experience of a black woman in the late 19th century is quite different than that of white women. This makes me wish that the main historical narrative included not only more about the women in America, but also the lives and experiences of the African-American women. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
== Clara Lanza, 1891, defends the female office clerk in NY ==<br />
<br />
In the Office Clerk by Clara Lanza, she describes women as going out into the business place to work as clerks. This led the women to see themselves as "pioneers in the business world," because they were moving out of the domestic sphere and having an active role outside of the home. It is interesting because towards the end of the document, it is stated that "the girls make good wives," something associated with the domestic sphere. She asserts that it is because men now admire independence, but it is difficult to determine whether that is true. -- Clare O.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Leonara Barry, on what the Knights of Labor are doing for women, 1888 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sadie Frome, 1902, “Story of a Sweatshop Girl” ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought this document was enlightening. The woman writing was clearly a woman who was educated and who had ambition which is so interesting to read about in her own words. Even though the amount of money she makes is only double what she pays in rent each month (which she shares an apartment in order to afford it)she still manages to save up money. I also thought it was interesting to see the line "But tho I belong to the Union I am not a Socialist or Anarchist" (page 311) because it means that the ideology and fear of being associated with these two groups existed before the red scares that happened later. She talks so supportively of the Union yet is afraid to be associated with the good of the Union for being socialist or anarchist. The not-wanting-to-get-married aspect at the end of the document was pretty interesting as well. I wish she would have explained more about this desire and why. I can't help but wonder if she did ever marry Henry and what became of the money which she had managed to save. --Sara S<br />
<br />
What I found interesting about Sadie Frome's "Story of a Sweatshop girl" was her independence. From this account, one can assume she got some form of education (did she write this piece or did someone transcribe this for her?), and was conscious enough of her situation to save money. What I especially loved about this piece was her relationship with Henry. Even though he kept insisting that he wanted to get married, she still felt it was necessary to wait awhile, just for the sake of being more mature when they married. By her account, their relationship was well advanced that they could have gotten married and it would have been appropriate, but she still decided to hold off, but continue dating. The relationship Sadie and Henry had just seemed so modern to me! -Heather T.<br />
<br />
== Overarching questions about Woloch, Chapter 16, Woman Suffrage/Women’s Rights ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Julia Ward Howe, 1899, Reminiscences ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Stanton and Anthony, 1882, piece in History of Woman Suffrage ==<br />
<br />
I believe this article offers insight into the tension between those who fought for black male suffrage and those who fought for female suffrage. Obviously these women feel betrayed by the men who supposedly were interested in helping gain equality for all. "But with arms folded, Greeley, Curtis, Tilton, Beecher, Higginson, Phillips, Garrison, Frederick Douglass, all calmly watched the struggle from afar, and when defeat came to both propositions, no consoling words were offered for woman's loss, but the women who spoke in the campaign were reproached for having 'killed negro suffrage.'" (page 360-361). It was really bold of these women to directly call out the men they believed were acting against them, even unlady like, but I think it reflects the hurt that these women felt. It's easy to reflect upon society and think that women who chose to fight for woman's rights over black rights were racist, but it's also important to see that these women were wounded and hurt by people who pledged allegiance to acquiring woman's rights before abolition and broke that promise as soon as their original goal was reached and women were no longer needed. This article reads almost like a sibling rivalry and it would be interesting to see the response of the men whose names are listed above. It's easy to write off an act as racist, sexist or bigoted, but no act, value or speak has intrinsic value without the context of it's situation. I also would like to point out that even though Anthony and Stanton urge women to no longer depend on men both of these women were married and Stanton left the activist lifestyle to play the mother/wife role before returning to her work. These actions do not reflect women who reject interaction and dependence upon men. It is important to understand context of expressions before interpreting them. Otherwise these women would be portrayed as man-hating misers by their rejection of male help when they simply wished to state that a woman should not rely on a man to fight her battles for her. --Sara S. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Frances Ellen (Watkins) Harper, 1866 Woman’s Rights convention ==<br />
<br />
What a moving speech! I was struck by the phrase at the beginning, where she says that, as a black woman, she couldn't feel like she was missing the rights white women talked about, because she had so much else to deal with because of her race. It wasn't until gender became an important issue in her life with her husband's death that she thought about gender inequality in the law. The argument about whether racism or sexism is a more pressing concern still goes on in contemporary feminism, and lots of people don't like to talk about it; I can't imagine this speech was received very well! Since she worked against racism first, I wonder how she became so prominent as to be invited to speak alongside Anthony and Stanton before this, and if she was as popular after. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
I agree, this speech was amazing. In class, I found myself agreeing more with the side of Stanton and Anthony. I believed that by women getting a vote, things could be solved. However, after reading this speech, I have found that Harper convinced me to believe the side of the AWSA. Some things that I found particularly striking in this speech was:<br />
"the nation shall be so color blind, as to know no man by the color of his skin or the curl of his hair. It will then have no privileged class, trampling upon and outraging the unprivileged class, but will be then one great privileged nation, whose privilege will be to produce the loftiest manhood and womanhood that humanity can attain."<br />
The only problem with this is that there were unprivileged white classes who felt limited. <br />
One other thing I found interesting was her comment, "the indifferent will vote on the strongest side of the question, with the winning party." I found this especially convincing, and to be a very good point. I think that she was right about that. --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
== Shoe women of Lynn, MA, 1874 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Amelia Barr, (novelist and married) 1896, Speaks out against female suffrage ==<br />
What I found to be interesting about this piece was the earnest belief Barr has that women are not competent enough to be politicians. She claims women are flip-floppers and would need to learn to be men to be successful. She also believed that women could have political control through the husband and influence political decisions that way. Since she wrote this in 1896, closer to the point of suffrage for women, I wonder how much of the female populace held an opinion like Barr. Was suffrage still unpopular this late in the ninteenth century? Or were more women open to this idea? -Heather T.<br />
<br />
== Anna Garlin Spencer, 1898, response to anti-suffrage attacks ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Charlotte Perkins Gilman, 20th Century feminist, 1903, The Home ==<br />
<br />
Gilman's argument - that women should be able to work outside the home so they can do more specialized labor and further progress - was surprising, and honestly had me disagreeing with her. I get what she's saying that women need not be in the home for the family to survive and be loved and cared for, but I actually felt she didn't give housewives near enough credit for both the value of the actual labor they do and the emotional labor of raising their children. She's right that they can do that while still working outside the home, but I think the dismissive way she goes about suggesting women leave the home for the good of society would have been very off-putting to women of the time who valued and enjoyed the work they did in the home, even if that wasn't all they wanted to do. --Katie C.</div>Martzmichellehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_13-14_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 13-14 Questions/Comments-327 112011-11-30T23:31:04Z<p>Martzmichelle: /* Sarah Morgan, 1863, Teen diary */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching or comparative questions ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Louisa May Alcott, Hospital Sketches, 1862-1863 ==<br />
<br />
In Louisa May Alcott's description of being a Union nurse, it is apparent that women are new to the field of nursing, and even then, their definition of nursing is not what it is today. Alcott writes, "I find real pleasure in comforting, tending, and cheering these poor souls who seem to love me, to feel my sympathy though unspoken, and acknowledge my hearty good-will, in spite of the ignorance, awkwardness, and bashfulness which I cannot help showing in so new and trying a situation." Alcott's main role was to keep up the spirits of the men, not doing any actual medical aide. Furthermore, she describeds fulfilling these duties with awkwardness and bashfulness. This is likely because ladies were supposed to be in the home, and if they are out of the home they are certainly not supposed to be dealing with men they are not married to. --Clare O<br />
<br />
In Louisa May Alcott's account, I found it interesting to see the change in gender norms for women. While women were now allowed to work outside the house and in Alcott's case even encouraged, "Shall I stay, Mother?...No, go! and the Lord be with you!" (258). Her mother encouraged her to go and participate, eventhough she would have been hundreds of miles away, but at the same time, her duties while being a nurse, were still part of the expectation for women. She cooked, and cared for the wounded and sick in a "motherly" manner, she wrote letters for them rather than actually do any medical treatment. Even though women had similar tasks while being away from the house, they slightly improved the norms for women by getting society to see them as not just an asset to the household. --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== Mary Livermore, [Northern women on farm during war], 1890 -- Woloch and Major Problems readings. ==<br />
<br />
I rather enjoyed this reading. Mary describes her initial reaction of women in the fields "At first, it displeased me, and I turned away in aversion" (262) yet her curiosity got the best of her. When her carriage had to stop she approached these women and asked them about their work. Instead of completely ignoring and dismissing the women she instead questions them, getting first hand insight to why they would be involved in work for men. This made me think that even though she may not have approved at first, she probably understood and accepted the practice more. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
== Louticia Jackson’s letter in 1863 ==<br />
<br />
In Louticia Jackson's letter to her son, she mentions how she took care of one of her slaves, Willes. Eventhough we've learned that slaves are seen as property and therefore any punishment can't be too harsh because it would then effect the work of the investment. I found it really surprising the way she took care of Willes when he was sick "...he took the fever immediately after wchich lasted some 5 or 6 weeks in which time i attended him closely day and night, bathed and rubbed him with my own hands fearing it would not be faithfully done [otherwise]" (265). Instead of having another female slave take care of Willes, she took it upon herself to take care of him and bath him each night, with her hands. This is probably a rare case, but it was one that surprised me. --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== Eva Jones to Mary Jones, her mother-in-law, 1865 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Accounts of former slaves, 1865-1937 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== VA woman, recorded by abolitionist Laura Haviland in 1866 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Harriet Tubman, from her white female biographer, Sarah Bradford, 1886 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Clara Burdett, to notary in Union camp in KY, March 1865 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Fanny Berry, in Weevils in the Wheat, 1937 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Tennessee Woman, 1929 [TN Nanny] ==<br />
<br />
I think that this woman had to be strong throughout her life. She knew she was free but continued to stay for the children, her bond with them must have been great. The part of her story I found intriguing was that she used the power to "walk away" in stopping the children from being mistreated from their stepmother. The former master even knew that the children visited their old nanny after she left and gave her food, clothes and money, he must have known how important she was to his children. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
== Mary Anderson, NC ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Katie Darling, in TX ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sarah and Lucy Chase, Teaching the Freedmen, 1866-1868 ==<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed these articles because these women existed as outliers in a nation where race is a decisive issue. I especially liked the end of the last letter by Sarah Chase to Mr. May "No matter how strict the rules, and wise and kind the teachers plans, for the comfort, and rights of the black scholar; the ''feeling'' of the whites expressd or not -- ''will'' keep the sensitive African away; though he would willingly bear cold, hunger, and whippings if need be--to 'get a little larning.' (280)" This expression of doubt by Sarah Chase bears a reflection of the tension of race relations in the south and other integrated areas. If I had to choose between feeding and clothing myself or attending college it really would not be a choice. One can talk about the importance of education until they're blue in the face, but basic necessities, including safety for these blacks, are ultimately more important. --Sara S. <br />
<br />
== Susie King Taylor, Reminiscences of My Life in Camp, 1902 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Ada Bacot, Confederate Nurse, 1862 ==<br />
<br />
I found Ada Bacot's comments on Two Wounded Yankees extremely interesting. She is a Confederate nurse, and yet she feels she has a duty to treat them. She describes them as human beings, something her male counterparts would likely gloss over and simply describe them as the enemy. But Ada feels pity, and although she doesn't like it, she helps the soldiers. This is likely due to the role of women as being caretakers and motherly. She continues to fill that role regardless of the color of the men's uniforms. --Clare O<br />
<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Clare on this. This document made me feel really empathetic towards the people fighting in the Civil War. It's easy to paint the picture of Southerners being barbaric slave owners and Northerners being too concerned with industrialization and profit to care about the lives of humans, but here it is a confederate woman who isn't fighting for slavery or against industrialization, but is fighting to keep dying men alive. "I can't help feeling pity for them, they are human beings. They are our enemys too, wounded and in our power. It will be hard to treat them as I do the other men but I know it is my duty. The heat is almost over powering. (202)" This makes the war human, and having been in Charlottesville for the summer months before, I can only imagine how awful the hospital smelled and felt especially without air-conditioning. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
Ada Bacot demonstrates the conflict of ideologies within war. It is not black and white for Bacot. She, a Confederate nurse, helps Yankees because she "cant help feeling pity for them, they are human beings." As she is supporting the Confederate forces, she is forced to take care of the "enemy." --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Maria Daly, 1862, Northerner in the South (New Orleans) ==<br />
<br />
Maria Daly seems to write about the war in a positive, patriotic light. In that sense, she is very much against the South. She describes, "Southern ladies and gentlemen...are very agreeable people with very finished and courtly manners, but they are a class utterly unsuited and antagonistic to the principles of out government." She sees the South as a tyranny. She also states how the women nurses and volunteers are a comfort to the men. However, I am confused by the last paragraph... - Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Sarah Morgan, 1863, Teen diary ==<br />
<br />
Morgan's entry demonstrates the support some women gave to the war. She is very excited for the war and wants to join somehow. She thinks of all the ways she can support the Rebel cause with sewing and knitting. -- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Cornelia Hancock, Union Nurse, 1863 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Caroline Kirkland, 1863, defends Northern women’s support of Northern men ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas, January 1865 ==</div>Martzmichellehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_13-14_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 13-14 Questions/Comments-327 112011-11-30T23:28:22Z<p>Martzmichelle: /* Maria Daly, 1862, Northerner in the South (New Orleans) */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching or comparative questions ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Louisa May Alcott, Hospital Sketches, 1862-1863 ==<br />
<br />
In Louisa May Alcott's description of being a Union nurse, it is apparent that women are new to the field of nursing, and even then, their definition of nursing is not what it is today. Alcott writes, "I find real pleasure in comforting, tending, and cheering these poor souls who seem to love me, to feel my sympathy though unspoken, and acknowledge my hearty good-will, in spite of the ignorance, awkwardness, and bashfulness which I cannot help showing in so new and trying a situation." Alcott's main role was to keep up the spirits of the men, not doing any actual medical aide. Furthermore, she describeds fulfilling these duties with awkwardness and bashfulness. This is likely because ladies were supposed to be in the home, and if they are out of the home they are certainly not supposed to be dealing with men they are not married to. --Clare O<br />
<br />
In Louisa May Alcott's account, I found it interesting to see the change in gender norms for women. While women were now allowed to work outside the house and in Alcott's case even encouraged, "Shall I stay, Mother?...No, go! and the Lord be with you!" (258). Her mother encouraged her to go and participate, eventhough she would have been hundreds of miles away, but at the same time, her duties while being a nurse, were still part of the expectation for women. She cooked, and cared for the wounded and sick in a "motherly" manner, she wrote letters for them rather than actually do any medical treatment. Even though women had similar tasks while being away from the house, they slightly improved the norms for women by getting society to see them as not just an asset to the household. --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== Mary Livermore, [Northern women on farm during war], 1890 -- Woloch and Major Problems readings. ==<br />
<br />
I rather enjoyed this reading. Mary describes her initial reaction of women in the fields "At first, it displeased me, and I turned away in aversion" (262) yet her curiosity got the best of her. When her carriage had to stop she approached these women and asked them about their work. Instead of completely ignoring and dismissing the women she instead questions them, getting first hand insight to why they would be involved in work for men. This made me think that even though she may not have approved at first, she probably understood and accepted the practice more. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
== Louticia Jackson’s letter in 1863 ==<br />
<br />
In Louticia Jackson's letter to her son, she mentions how she took care of one of her slaves, Willes. Eventhough we've learned that slaves are seen as property and therefore any punishment can't be too harsh because it would then effect the work of the investment. I found it really surprising the way she took care of Willes when he was sick "...he took the fever immediately after wchich lasted some 5 or 6 weeks in which time i attended him closely day and night, bathed and rubbed him with my own hands fearing it would not be faithfully done [otherwise]" (265). Instead of having another female slave take care of Willes, she took it upon herself to take care of him and bath him each night, with her hands. This is probably a rare case, but it was one that surprised me. --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== Eva Jones to Mary Jones, her mother-in-law, 1865 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Accounts of former slaves, 1865-1937 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== VA woman, recorded by abolitionist Laura Haviland in 1866 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Harriet Tubman, from her white female biographer, Sarah Bradford, 1886 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Clara Burdett, to notary in Union camp in KY, March 1865 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Fanny Berry, in Weevils in the Wheat, 1937 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Tennessee Woman, 1929 [TN Nanny] ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mary Anderson, NC ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Katie Darling, in TX ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sarah and Lucy Chase, Teaching the Freedmen, 1866-1868 ==<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed these articles because these women existed as outliers in a nation where race is a decisive issue. I especially liked the end of the last letter by Sarah Chase to Mr. May "No matter how strict the rules, and wise and kind the teachers plans, for the comfort, and rights of the black scholar; the ''feeling'' of the whites expressd or not -- ''will'' keep the sensitive African away; though he would willingly bear cold, hunger, and whippings if need be--to 'get a little larning.' (280)" This expression of doubt by Sarah Chase bears a reflection of the tension of race relations in the south and other integrated areas. If I had to choose between feeding and clothing myself or attending college it really would not be a choice. One can talk about the importance of education until they're blue in the face, but basic necessities, including safety for these blacks, are ultimately more important. --Sara S. <br />
<br />
== Susie King Taylor, Reminiscences of My Life in Camp, 1902 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Ada Bacot, Confederate Nurse, 1862 ==<br />
<br />
I found Ada Bacot's comments on Two Wounded Yankees extremely interesting. She is a Confederate nurse, and yet she feels she has a duty to treat them. She describes them as human beings, something her male counterparts would likely gloss over and simply describe them as the enemy. But Ada feels pity, and although she doesn't like it, she helps the soldiers. This is likely due to the role of women as being caretakers and motherly. She continues to fill that role regardless of the color of the men's uniforms. --Clare O<br />
<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Clare on this. This document made me feel really empathetic towards the people fighting in the Civil War. It's easy to paint the picture of Southerners being barbaric slave owners and Northerners being too concerned with industrialization and profit to care about the lives of humans, but here it is a confederate woman who isn't fighting for slavery or against industrialization, but is fighting to keep dying men alive. "I can't help feeling pity for them, they are human beings. They are our enemys too, wounded and in our power. It will be hard to treat them as I do the other men but I know it is my duty. The heat is almost over powering. (202)" This makes the war human, and having been in Charlottesville for the summer months before, I can only imagine how awful the hospital smelled and felt especially without air-conditioning. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
Ada Bacot demonstrates the conflict of ideologies within war. It is not black and white for Bacot. She, a Confederate nurse, helps Yankees because she "cant help feeling pity for them, they are human beings." As she is supporting the Confederate forces, she is forced to take care of the "enemy." --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Maria Daly, 1862, Northerner in the South (New Orleans) ==<br />
<br />
Maria Daly seems to write about the war in a positive, patriotic light. In that sense, she is very much against the South. She describes, "Southern ladies and gentlemen...are very agreeable people with very finished and courtly manners, but they are a class utterly unsuited and antagonistic to the principles of out government." She sees the South as a tyranny. She also states how the women nurses and volunteers are a comfort to the men. However, I am confused by the last paragraph... - Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Sarah Morgan, 1863, Teen diary ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Cornelia Hancock, Union Nurse, 1863 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Caroline Kirkland, 1863, defends Northern women’s support of Northern men ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas, January 1865 ==</div>Martzmichellehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_13-14_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 13-14 Questions/Comments-327 112011-11-30T23:21:01Z<p>Martzmichelle: /* Ada Bacot, Confederate Nurse, 1862 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching or comparative questions ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Louisa May Alcott, Hospital Sketches, 1862-1863 ==<br />
<br />
In Louisa May Alcott's description of being a Union nurse, it is apparent that women are new to the field of nursing, and even then, their definition of nursing is not what it is today. Alcott writes, "I find real pleasure in comforting, tending, and cheering these poor souls who seem to love me, to feel my sympathy though unspoken, and acknowledge my hearty good-will, in spite of the ignorance, awkwardness, and bashfulness which I cannot help showing in so new and trying a situation." Alcott's main role was to keep up the spirits of the men, not doing any actual medical aide. Furthermore, she describeds fulfilling these duties with awkwardness and bashfulness. This is likely because ladies were supposed to be in the home, and if they are out of the home they are certainly not supposed to be dealing with men they are not married to. --Clare O<br />
<br />
In Louisa May Alcott's account, I found it interesting to see the change in gender norms for women. While women were now allowed to work outside the house and in Alcott's case even encouraged, "Shall I stay, Mother?...No, go! and the Lord be with you!" (258). Her mother encouraged her to go and participate, eventhough she would have been hundreds of miles away, but at the same time, her duties while being a nurse, were still part of the expectation for women. She cooked, and cared for the wounded and sick in a "motherly" manner, she wrote letters for them rather than actually do any medical treatment. Even though women had similar tasks while being away from the house, they slightly improved the norms for women by getting society to see them as not just an asset to the household. --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== Mary Livermore, [Northern women on farm during war], 1890 -- Woloch and Major Problems readings. ==<br />
<br />
I rather enjoyed this reading. Mary describes her initial reaction of women in the fields "At first, it displeased me, and I turned away in aversion" (262) yet her curiosity got the best of her. When her carriage had to stop she approached these women and asked them about their work. Instead of completely ignoring and dismissing the women she instead questions them, getting first hand insight to why they would be involved in work for men. This made me think that even though she may not have approved at first, she probably understood and accepted the practice more. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
== Louticia Jackson’s letter in 1863 ==<br />
<br />
In Louticia Jackson's letter to her son, she mentions how she took care of one of her slaves, Willes. Eventhough we've learned that slaves are seen as property and therefore any punishment can't be too harsh because it would then effect the work of the investment. I found it really surprising the way she took care of Willes when he was sick "...he took the fever immediately after wchich lasted some 5 or 6 weeks in which time i attended him closely day and night, bathed and rubbed him with my own hands fearing it would not be faithfully done [otherwise]" (265). Instead of having another female slave take care of Willes, she took it upon herself to take care of him and bath him each night, with her hands. This is probably a rare case, but it was one that surprised me. --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== Eva Jones to Mary Jones, her mother-in-law, 1865 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Accounts of former slaves, 1865-1937 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== VA woman, recorded by abolitionist Laura Haviland in 1866 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Harriet Tubman, from her white female biographer, Sarah Bradford, 1886 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Clara Burdett, to notary in Union camp in KY, March 1865 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Fanny Berry, in Weevils in the Wheat, 1937 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Tennessee Woman, 1929 [TN Nanny] ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mary Anderson, NC ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Katie Darling, in TX ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sarah and Lucy Chase, Teaching the Freedmen, 1866-1868 ==<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed these articles because these women existed as outliers in a nation where race is a decisive issue. I especially liked the end of the last letter by Sarah Chase to Mr. May "No matter how strict the rules, and wise and kind the teachers plans, for the comfort, and rights of the black scholar; the ''feeling'' of the whites expressd or not -- ''will'' keep the sensitive African away; though he would willingly bear cold, hunger, and whippings if need be--to 'get a little larning.' (280)" This expression of doubt by Sarah Chase bears a reflection of the tension of race relations in the south and other integrated areas. If I had to choose between feeding and clothing myself or attending college it really would not be a choice. One can talk about the importance of education until they're blue in the face, but basic necessities, including safety for these blacks, are ultimately more important. --Sara S. <br />
<br />
== Susie King Taylor, Reminiscences of My Life in Camp, 1902 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Ada Bacot, Confederate Nurse, 1862 ==<br />
<br />
I found Ada Bacot's comments on Two Wounded Yankees extremely interesting. She is a Confederate nurse, and yet she feels she has a duty to treat them. She describes them as human beings, something her male counterparts would likely gloss over and simply describe them as the enemy. But Ada feels pity, and although she doesn't like it, she helps the soldiers. This is likely due to the role of women as being caretakers and motherly. She continues to fill that role regardless of the color of the men's uniforms. --Clare O<br />
<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Clare on this. This document made me feel really empathetic towards the people fighting in the Civil War. It's easy to paint the picture of Southerners being barbaric slave owners and Northerners being too concerned with industrialization and profit to care about the lives of humans, but here it is a confederate woman who isn't fighting for slavery or against industrialization, but is fighting to keep dying men alive. "I can't help feeling pity for them, they are human beings. They are our enemys too, wounded and in our power. It will be hard to treat them as I do the other men but I know it is my duty. The heat is almost over powering. (202)" This makes the war human, and having been in Charlottesville for the summer months before, I can only imagine how awful the hospital smelled and felt especially without air-conditioning. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
Ada Bacot demonstrates the conflict of ideologies within war. It is not black and white for Bacot. She, a Confederate nurse, helps Yankees because she "cant help feeling pity for them, they are human beings." As she is supporting the Confederate forces, she is forced to take care of the "enemy." --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Maria Daly, 1862, Northerner in the South (New Orleans) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sarah Morgan, 1863, Teen diary ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Cornelia Hancock, Union Nurse, 1863 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Caroline Kirkland, 1863, defends Northern women’s support of Northern men ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas, January 1865 ==</div>Martzmichellehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_12_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 12 Questions/Comments-327 112011-11-17T01:30:55Z<p>Martzmichelle: /* Comparative source questions */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Comparative source questions ==<br />
<br />
Most (all) of these women are Christian and from the North. They condemn the South for having slavery, but I wonder if they see unfair employment, negative stereotypes, and racism in the North as a problem. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== The Advocate of Moral Reform, 1838 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Maria Stewart, 1831, “O, Ye Daughters of Africa, Awake!” in the Liberator. ==<br />
<br />
"It is the blood of our fathers, and the tears of our brethren that have enriched your soils. AND WE CLAIM OUR RIGHTS." (237) These last few lines stuck out to me. It is one of the strongest arguements I think blacks could have made when it came to being members and citizens of this country. Stewart also mentions how African daughters are being cheated when they do not have the means to be educated and are never given the opportunity. This was a very strong piece, and having been written by a woman, makes it more significant.<br />
---Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== Letter to Liberator from Andover Female Antislavery Society, 1836 ==<br />
<br />
In A Letter to the Liberator by the Andover Female Antislavery Society, I thought it was interesting in the way the women use religious rhetoric compared to womens role in religion in the past. For example, the assert that "God never mad [women] to be inactive-- nor in all cases to follow in the wake of man." Furthermore, they state that they believe "God gave woman a heart to feel-- an eye to weep-- a hand to work-- a tongue to speak." Not very long before this time, women were absolutely expected to 'follow' man and were expected to be silent in church. Women's new role as moral pillar of the family certainly aided this, as the women state they "will do a Christian woman's duty." --Clare O.<br />
<br />
The second to last paragraph on pg. 238 reminds me of how the slave owners/masters used Christianity to reiterate that slavery was in fact encouraged by God. Mary P. Abbott does an amazing job defending her view that slavery is condemned by God and Christianity. She goes onto say how slavery goes against everything God says when it comes to marriages, family, equality. This piece was very empowering and had every argument it needed for women, blacks, and slaves in general. --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== Sarah Grimke’s response to the Mass Clergy, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
== Declaration of Sentiments at Seneca Falls, 1848 (written by Elizabeth Cady Stanton) ==<br />
<br />
It mentions that of the 300 participants over the two day meeting, that 40 of them were wen. Being that the convention was to discuss the social, civil and religious rights of women, how common/uncommon is it to have that many men in attendance? - Matt<br />
<br />
What I love about this document is the fact that Stanton took inspiration for this document from the Declaration of Independence. When they held this convention in Seneca Falls NY, these women really were declaring independence for women from society and the subservience they were put under. Although it would take over fifty years for women to obtain the vote, this document still acted as an outline for what women wanted to accomplish with liberation. These women were truly exceptional and forward-thinking for the time they lived in! -Heather T.<br />
<br />
== Lucy Stone (and Henry Blackwell)’s Marriage Protest, 1855 ==<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed the insight which this document offered to us. In the introduction it states that "Stone kept her name, refused to 'obey' and challenged the system of coveture." Although this protest by her and her husband has done nothing significant (women still take their husbands name, many religious ceremonies still discuss obedience of the wife, etc) in the overall societal impact of marriage, it was shocking to read that women didn't take their husbands name in 1855! And that her husband was in on the protest! I know this doesn't offer much into the lives of average American wives, but it surprised me to say the very least. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
I agree with Sara that it was really suprising that women did not take their husbands names during this time period. I wonder why it was common for women not to do so? You would think in a patriarchal society that men would demand that their wives take their name, so that they could reaffirm their manhood or hold power over their wives in this way.--Catherine K.<br />
<br />
I was really surprised when I read this document. I agree that it was nice to see the woman "protest" taking her husband's name but that was the very minimum that she was protesting. The document also goes on to state that she had a problem with her husband having “custody of the wife’s person.” and the control of the children. So while the main thing that is taken away from this her not wanting to take the name, I think that it was much bigger. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Sojourner Truth (Isabella Van Wagener), 1851 (Ohio Convention). ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Isablle Graham and Society for Relief of Poor Widows, 1806 ==<br />
<br />
The idea of a middle class is apparent in the document "Mrs. Isabella Graham Addresses Members of the Society for the Relief of Poor Widows with Small Children, April 1800, and Their Daughters (Volunteer Teachers), April 1806." Graham discusses the comforts that the members of the society enjoy, such as dwellings, fires, and parties, while the poor widows have no comforts whatsoever. One of the most important aspects of the idea of the middle class to women is their new ability to help others due to their privileged status. This document is an excellent example of this emerging charity. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Anti-Slavery Convention of American Women, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
The convention is very religious. There is always scripture and prayer. Also, most of the arguments focus around religious reasons to end slavery. This religious factor probably came to the abolitionist movement because it was dominated by women. In class we discussed women as more moral than men and more involved in the Church. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== American Female Reform Society Warns Mothers of “Solitary Vice”, 1839 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== 1848, Elizabeth McClintock and Elizabeth Cady Stanton defend the Declaration of Sentiments and the 1848 convention ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sarah Josepha Hale, Editor of ''Godey's Lady's Book,'' Praises Women's Indirect Political Influence, 1852 ==<br />
<br />
Even though it was short, this document was insightful because of the last sentence of it "This is the way American women should vote, namely, by influencing rightly the votes of men." This sentence implies a sort of power which women have over their husbands within their household and I have to wonder to the extent which this so-called power manifested itself. Sure, persuasion is powerful, but not having control of one's finances or lifestyle cannot be construed as power. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
I wonder if men felt women had this much power over their vote? I doubt it because women were not given the vote because men thought women could not think for themselves. This document shows that some women, actually, think men cannot think for themselves when voting. -- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Julie Roy Jeffrey, “Ordinary Women in the Antislavery Movement,” in the Introduction to The Great Silent Army of Abolitionism: Ordinary Women in the Anti-slavery Movement, 1998. ==<br />
<br />
Jeffrey's essay really brings to light an overlooked side effect of the abolitionist movement, the movement towards more self empowered women. When thinking about the anti-slavery, the focus is always on white people who saw the injustices in slavery and spoke out against it but Jeffrey's goes beyond that to illuminate the complexities of the movement. As the anti-slavery movement was unpopular in comparison to other social movements of the time woman faced a fair amount of adversity that only helped to build their abilities to control the public sphere. The women who participated in this movement were forced to gain the ability to forcefully argue their opinion in order to gain respect that then translated into how they viewed their own lives and the gendered roles they served. Is it fair to assume that the social implications for women during the anti-slavery movement were just as great as the cause they supported? --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
== Nancy Isenberg’s “Women’s Rights and the Politics of Church and State in Antebellum America,” (1998) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Shirley Yee, “Free Black Women in the Abolitionist Movement,” in Black Women Abolitionists: A Study in Activism, 1828-1860, (1992). ==</div>Martzmichellehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_12_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 12 Questions/Comments-327 112011-11-17T01:21:42Z<p>Martzmichelle: /* Sarah Josepha Hale, Editor of ''Godey's Lady's Book,'' Praises Women's Indirect Political Influence, 1852 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Comparative source questions ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== The Advocate of Moral Reform, 1838 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Maria Stewart, 1831, “O, Ye Daughters of Africa, Awake!” in the Liberator. ==<br />
<br />
"It is the blood of our fathers, and the tears of our brethren that have enriched your soils. AND WE CLAIM OUR RIGHTS." (237) These last few lines stuck out to me. It is one of the strongest arguements I think blacks could have made when it came to being members and citizens of this country. Stewart also mentions how African daughters are being cheated when they do not have the means to be educated and are never given the opportunity. This was a very strong piece, and having been written by a woman, makes it more significant.<br />
---Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== Letter to Liberator from Andover Female Antislavery Society, 1836 ==<br />
<br />
In A Letter to the Liberator by the Andover Female Antislavery Society, I thought it was interesting in the way the women use religious rhetoric compared to womens role in religion in the past. For example, the assert that "God never mad [women] to be inactive-- nor in all cases to follow in the wake of man." Furthermore, they state that they believe "God gave woman a heart to feel-- an eye to weep-- a hand to work-- a tongue to speak." Not very long before this time, women were absolutely expected to 'follow' man and were expected to be silent in church. Women's new role as moral pillar of the family certainly aided this, as the women state they "will do a Christian woman's duty." --Clare O.<br />
<br />
The second to last paragraph on pg. 238 reminds me of how the slave owners/masters used Christianity to reiterate that slavery was in fact encouraged by God. Mary P. Abbott does an amazing job defending her view that slavery is condemned by God and Christianity. She goes onto say how slavery goes against everything God says when it comes to marriages, family, equality. This piece was very empowering and had every argument it needed for women, blacks, and slaves in general. --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== Sarah Grimke’s response to the Mass Clergy, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
== Declaration of Sentiments at Seneca Falls, 1848 (written by Elizabeth Cady Stanton) ==<br />
<br />
It mentions that of the 300 participants over the two day meeting, that 40 of them were wen. Being that the convention was to discuss the social, civil and religious rights of women, how common/uncommon is it to have that many men in attendance? - Matt<br />
<br />
What I love about this document is the fact that Stanton took inspiration for this document from the Declaration of Independence. When they held this convention in Seneca Falls NY, these women really were declaring independence for women from society and the subservience they were put under. Although it would take over fifty years for women to obtain the vote, this document still acted as an outline for what women wanted to accomplish with liberation. These women were truly exceptional and forward-thinking for the time they lived in! -Heather T.<br />
<br />
== Lucy Stone (and Henry Blackwell)’s Marriage Protest, 1855 ==<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed the insight which this document offered to us. In the introduction it states that "Stone kept her name, refused to 'obey' and challenged the system of coveture." Although this protest by her and her husband has done nothing significant (women still take their husbands name, many religious ceremonies still discuss obedience of the wife, etc) in the overall societal impact of marriage, it was shocking to read that women didn't take their husbands name in 1855! And that her husband was in on the protest! I know this doesn't offer much into the lives of average American wives, but it surprised me to say the very least. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
I agree with Sara that it was really suprising that women did not take their husbands names during this time period. I wonder why it was common for women not to do so? You would think in a patriarchal society that men would demand that their wives take their name, so that they could reaffirm their manhood or hold power over their wives in this way.--Catherine K.<br />
<br />
== Sojourner Truth (Isabella Van Wagener), 1851 (Ohio Convention). ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Isablle Graham and Society for Relief of Poor Widows, 1806 ==<br />
<br />
The idea of a middle class is apparent in the document "Mrs. Isabella Graham Addresses Members of the Society for the Relief of Poor Widows with Small Children, April 1800, and Their Daughters (Volunteer Teachers), April 1806." Graham discusses the comforts that the members of the society enjoy, such as dwellings, fires, and parties, while the poor widows have no comforts whatsoever. One of the most important aspects of the idea of the middle class to women is their new ability to help others due to their privileged status. This document is an excellent example of this emerging charity. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Anti-Slavery Convention of American Women, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
The convention is very religious. There is always scripture and prayer. Also, most of the arguments focus around religious reasons to end slavery. This religious factor probably came to the abolitionist movement because it was dominated by women. In class we discussed women as more moral than men and more involved in the Church. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== American Female Reform Society Warns Mothers of “Solitary Vice”, 1839 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== 1848, Elizabeth McClintock and Elizabeth Cady Stanton defend the Declaration of Sentiments and the 1848 convention ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sarah Josepha Hale, Editor of ''Godey's Lady's Book,'' Praises Women's Indirect Political Influence, 1852 ==<br />
<br />
Even though it was short, this document was insightful because of the last sentence of it "This is the way American women should vote, namely, by influencing rightly the votes of men." This sentence implies a sort of power which women have over their husbands within their household and I have to wonder to the extent which this so-called power manifested itself. Sure, persuasion is powerful, but not having control of one's finances or lifestyle cannot be construed as power. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
I wonder if men felt women had this much power over their vote? I doubt it because women were not given the vote because men thought women could not think for themselves. This document shows that some women, actually, think men cannot think for themselves when voting. -- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Julie Roy Jeffrey, “Ordinary Women in the Antislavery Movement,” in the Introduction to The Great Silent Army of Abolitionism: Ordinary Women in the Anti-slavery Movement, 1998. ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Nancy Isenberg’s “Women’s Rights and the Politics of Church and State in Antebellum America,” (1998) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Shirley Yee, “Free Black Women in the Abolitionist Movement,” in Black Women Abolitionists: A Study in Activism, 1828-1860, (1992). ==</div>Martzmichellehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_12_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 12 Questions/Comments-327 112011-11-17T01:13:38Z<p>Martzmichelle: /* Anti-Slavery Convention of American Women, 1837 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Comparative source questions ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== The Advocate of Moral Reform, 1838 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Maria Stewart, 1831, “O, Ye Daughters of Africa, Awake!” in the Liberator. ==<br />
<br />
"It is the blood of our fathers, and the tears of our brethren that have enriched your soils. AND WE CLAIM OUR RIGHTS." (237) These last few lines stuck out to me. It is one of the strongest arguements I think blacks could have made when it came to being members and citizens of this country. Stewart also mentions how African daughters are being cheated when they do not have the means to be educated and are never given the opportunity. This was a very strong piece, and having been written by a woman, makes it more significant.<br />
---Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== Letter to Liberator from Andover Female Antislavery Society, 1836 ==<br />
<br />
In A Letter to the Liberator by the Andover Female Antislavery Society, I thought it was interesting in the way the women use religious rhetoric compared to womens role in religion in the past. For example, the assert that "God never mad [women] to be inactive-- nor in all cases to follow in the wake of man." Furthermore, they state that they believe "God gave woman a heart to feel-- an eye to weep-- a hand to work-- a tongue to speak." Not very long before this time, women were absolutely expected to 'follow' man and were expected to be silent in church. Women's new role as moral pillar of the family certainly aided this, as the women state they "will do a Christian woman's duty." --Clare O.<br />
<br />
The second to last paragraph on pg. 238 reminds me of how the slave owners/masters used Christianity to reiterate that slavery was in fact encouraged by God. Mary P. Abbott does an amazing job defending her view that slavery is condemned by God and Christianity. She goes onto say how slavery goes against everything God says when it comes to marriages, family, equality. This piece was very empowering and had every argument it needed for women, blacks, and slaves in general. --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== Sarah Grimke’s response to the Mass Clergy, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
== Declaration of Sentiments at Seneca Falls, 1848 (written by Elizabeth Cady Stanton) ==<br />
<br />
It mentions that of the 300 participants over the two day meeting, that 40 of them were wen. Being that the convention was to discuss the social, civil and religious rights of women, how common/uncommon is it to have that many men in attendance? - Matt<br />
<br />
What I love about this document is the fact that Stanton took inspiration for this document from the Declaration of Independence. When they held this convention in Seneca Falls NY, these women really were declaring independence for women from society and the subservience they were put under. Although it would take over fifty years for women to obtain the vote, this document still acted as an outline for what women wanted to accomplish with liberation. These women were truly exceptional and forward-thinking for the time they lived in! -Heather T.<br />
<br />
== Lucy Stone (and Henry Blackwell)’s Marriage Protest, 1855 ==<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed the insight which this document offered to us. In the introduction it states that "Stone kept her name, refused to 'obey' and challenged the system of coveture." Although this protest by her and her husband has done nothing significant (women still take their husbands name, many religious ceremonies still discuss obedience of the wife, etc) in the overall societal impact of marriage, it was shocking to read that women didn't take their husbands name in 1855! And that her husband was in on the protest! I know this doesn't offer much into the lives of average American wives, but it surprised me to say the very least. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
I agree with Sara that it was really suprising that women did not take their husbands names during this time period. I wonder why it was common for women not to do so? You would think in a patriarchal society that men would demand that their wives take their name, so that they could reaffirm their manhood or hold power over their wives in this way.--Catherine K.<br />
<br />
== Sojourner Truth (Isabella Van Wagener), 1851 (Ohio Convention). ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Isablle Graham and Society for Relief of Poor Widows, 1806 ==<br />
<br />
The idea of a middle class is apparent in the document "Mrs. Isabella Graham Addresses Members of the Society for the Relief of Poor Widows with Small Children, April 1800, and Their Daughters (Volunteer Teachers), April 1806." Graham discusses the comforts that the members of the society enjoy, such as dwellings, fires, and parties, while the poor widows have no comforts whatsoever. One of the most important aspects of the idea of the middle class to women is their new ability to help others due to their privileged status. This document is an excellent example of this emerging charity. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Anti-Slavery Convention of American Women, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
The convention is very religious. There is always scripture and prayer. Also, most of the arguments focus around religious reasons to end slavery. This religious factor probably came to the abolitionist movement because it was dominated by women. In class we discussed women as more moral than men and more involved in the Church. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== American Female Reform Society Warns Mothers of “Solitary Vice”, 1839 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== 1848, Elizabeth McClintock and Elizabeth Cady Stanton defend the Declaration of Sentiments and the 1848 convention ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sarah Josepha Hale, Editor of ''Godey's Lady's Book,'' Praises Women's Indirect Political Influence, 1852 ==<br />
<br />
Even though it was short, this document was insightful because of the last sentence of it "This is the way American women should vote, namely, by influencing rightly the votes of men." This sentence implies a sort of power which women have over their husbands within their household and I have to wonder to the extent which this so-called power manifested itself. Sure, persuasion is powerful, but not having control of one's finances or lifestyle cannot be construed as power. --Sara S. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Julie Roy Jeffrey, “Ordinary Women in the Antislavery Movement,” in the Introduction to The Great Silent Army of Abolitionism: Ordinary Women in the Anti-slavery Movement, 1998. ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Nancy Isenberg’s “Women’s Rights and the Politics of Church and State in Antebellum America,” (1998) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Shirley Yee, “Free Black Women in the Abolitionist Movement,” in Black Women Abolitionists: A Study in Activism, 1828-1860, (1992). ==</div>Martzmichellehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_11_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 11 Questions/Comments-327 092011-11-09T01:59:12Z<p>Martzmichelle: /* Violet Cragg requests an Army Pension, 1908 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Mary Anne Sadlier's Bessy Conway ==<br />
<br />
I found it really interesting that Bessy, upon leaving Ireland to come to America, said that she was planning on returning to her family in a few years. Was it common for men and women who left Ireland to plan on returning one day? Also, I thought it was cool that Bessy was able to return home and help her family, it seems very ideal, like this is what the typical Irish immigrant woman would strive to do, leave home on her own (getting her burden off her family) and making enough money to turn around and help support her family. So what was Mary Anne Sadlier's goal in writing this story? -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
It was very obvious that Bessy loved Ireland. I also wonder how many Irish immigrants that wanted to return home one day actually did. The trip to America had to be an extremely long trip. For her to come to America, work hard in difficult circumstances, and then make the trip back to Ireland took a lot of strength and courage. I just wonder how often situations like this actually happened. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
I think that Bessy Conway was one of the lucky ones because she was able to go and had a job lined up for her with a place to live. She was one of those who embraced the myth of so much opportunity in a new world. She was a hard worker and expected the same of others around her (especially the other servants in the house.)-Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
I agree that Bessy did embrace the myth of so much opportunity in America. I wonder how much of this was because she was a character in Mary Anne Sadlier's story. Do you think the all immigrants worked hard and expected the same of those around them? How many actually returned home after making money? I find it hard to imagine going to a new country and making money, then going back to poverty and starvation. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
I found the mixed chapters we read of Bessy's story put a sense of reality on the true plight of young Irish women and men. From the early chapters discussing her families struggles and her earnestness to leave her home to help her family made me wonder if all young immigrants cared the same for Ireland and their families as Bessy? Chapters 6 and 15 stood out the most to me with their discussion of religion and how it was so important eventually leading to Bessy's dismissal was this normal in America? Did Americans fear religious takeover from the Irish immigrants? -Megan W. <br />
<br />
I thought the pictures of the starving people was awful and it was hard to read the chapter about Bessy's starving family. They kept their faith in God and kept saying that God would save them. I cannot imagine having enough food. Bessy was definitely a very lucky girl that she had a good job and earned quite a bit of money. It think it is interesting that Mary Anne Sadlier made Bessy out to be a hard worker which and implied that is why she was successful. Bessy just had a better opportunity then most. The author made the other servant out to be lazy which is why they ultimately were lost to poverty. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
I agree with LeAnn that Bessy was lucky to find a good job where she could earn money. I also think it is interesting that Mary Anne Sadlier made Bessy out to be a hard worker, I think this was a piece that was meant to be the goal for female Irish immigrants who came to the United States. I don't know how realistic the story is, but I think that it gives working Irish immigrant women something to strive for. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
In Chapter 1. We see the "push" and "pull," which had lured and forced immigrants to America. On page 6 it shows how Bessy went to America to get work to save her family, which is the push. The pull is that Bessy wanted her dream to come true "to see the world." --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Jannicke Saehle, 1847, Norwegian immigrant’s letters ==<br />
I enjoyed this piece, it provided a lot of information about immigrants (though certainly not the majority of the poor Irish who suffered an awful journey across the Atlantic.) Jannicke Saehle obviously has some money as she was able to site see once arriving in America. I found her statement about sea sickness, “And after five minutes my turn came, also, to contribute my share to the Atlantic Ocean,” quite humorous. <br />
I also found it interesting her mentioning the abundance of food in America and that Americans tended to toss the extra to swine while people in her homeland starved. I certainly hope Johannes, her brother to whom she was writing, was not one of the starving people for I would hate to hear of all the waste if I were to be one of the starving poor. <br />
One question, though, how common were the museums that she described with wild animals? –Megan Mc<br />
<br />
I didn't realize that museuems of the kind she was describing existed at this time period in New York...I wonder if she was mentioning the Museum of Natural History. I have been there but who is the soldier with no head? I don't remember seeing that last time I went to any history museums. Her story was nice to read, because unlike so many others she truly seems to be living a better life in America. Even her passage over seemed to be blessed with good fortune. the tone of Jannickes story was happy and upbeat making her seem like the type of person who would find the silver lining in ever episode. However I wonder if she was trying to play things up a bit to comfort her family that maybe was worried about her well being?--Emma Peck<br />
<br />
I agree with Emma about liking the tone of the piece. Most tales or accounts of people immigrating to the United States around this time usually are filled with bad tales, deaths, sicknesses etc. It was interesting to point out the fact though that maybe she was not being 100% truthful about it to ease her family's worry. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I agree that the tone of these letters were a nice change of pace. However, I also find it hard to believe that immigration was full of happiness and sunshine. Especially since every other story that I have heard was a lot more negative. I think that the immigrants that wrote these letters were lying to try to keep their families from worrying about them. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
It is an interesting, and very sweet, idea to look at this letter as an example of immigrants to relive their families back home that they are doing well. While reading this I did make note that it was exceptionally perky, and as for Amy’s comment I too question the percentage of honesty in this letter, though it very well may be as Emma stated that she was the type to find the silver lining in every situation. -- Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
I've got to agree with the previous comments that Jannicke doesn't appear to be an average immigrant. Although she came to the United States as a servant, I think she had a better financial situation than most other immigrants. Her ability to write supports this conclusion. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
== William Sanger, New York Prostitutes, 1858 ==<br />
I found it interesting that Sanger sympathizes with the prostitutes in his study and that he blamed fathers, husbands, and families for not doing their job. The immorality is from the failures of these figures in women's lives. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
I also found Dr. Sanger's belief that the women he interviewed were victims of their environment (and not necessarily prostitutes because of a moral flaw in character, etc.) very interesting. I think it could be applied in geographical concepts and ideas, too- for example, the belief in "environmental determinism" (or the idea that your environment and surroundings have a major impact on who you are as a person) versus "environmental possibilism", where your environment can place some limits on you, but you are essentially responsible for who you are and what you do. I also found it interesting that, in discussing the reasons why some of the women would have cited "Inclination" as a reason for their becoming a prostitute, Dr. Sanger also mentioned and acknowledged female desires. In most of what we have discussed in class, we have talked about how women were expected to be "pure" and "chaste", while only men could actually have sexual desires and emotions. Dr. Sanger states, "The force of desire can be neither denied nor disputed, but still in the bosoms of most females that force exists in a slumbering state until aroused by some outside influences." Thus, he still, in many ways, is reinforcing the belief that women (while acknowledging that they might actually have "desires"- shocking!)should keep these repressed and private. -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
I agree that it is very interesting that Sanger blamed husbands, fathers, and the environment for these women becoming prostitutes. I think that a lot of that comes from the fact that women were expected to be so "pure" and "chaste". Obviously, they really weren't so pure and chaste. I mean I definitely don't think a woman would become a prostitute just because she likes sex. The women that Sanger studied were young, poor immigrants. They needed to make money and there were not many job opportunities for them. I think there's more to it than just that their husbands and fathers failed them. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
I didn't find the statistics gathered by Sanger to be other than what I expected. Young, immigrants, poor, etc. I did find it amusing that he (as well as everybody else) was convinced women were passionless and just would not be inclined to do such a "profession". - Christine<br />
<br />
The causes for women turning to prostitution were varied but most were centered around what others did to them. Family abandoning them, violated, alcohol were some of the reasons. I thought what was particularly interesting was the number one reason: they voluntarily went into prostitution to gratify their own sexual passions. If the survey is true, why would Sanger feel sympathetic towards the women? The choice was theirs in most cases. -Amy Van Ness <br />
<br />
I do not think that all of those women choose to go into prostitution for sexual gratification. There was such a taboo against women who sold themselves that none of those women would do it if not for necessity. The women were probably lying. I felt awful that they had to resort to this to support their family. I am surprised that there were so many that said their family turned them out. I cannot imagine getting thrown out of my house. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
I agree with LeAnn.... I think the women did not want to admit the true reason for their going into prostitution so they made up these stories to protect someone or something. --- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that a fair number of women seemed to choose “inclination” as the reason they were prostitutes, which basically means they just liked sex. I personally have a hard time understanding why anyone (even people who really like sex) would choose to be a prostitute unless they had no other means to support themselves. So, how many of these women were actually telling the truth? Were they perhaps to proud to admit that they were prostitutes because they were unable to support themselves another way? Wouldn’t it be worse for them to imply that they were lusty and passionate when it was understood that women were uninterested in sex rather than that they were just simply poor and needy? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
To me Dr. Sanger was reinforcing the notion that women were more primative and needy of men, given that many said that they were in the profession to satisfy their own desires and that the powerful impact that men had on their becoming prostitutes. Although it is interesting to see the doctor blaming some of the issue on men. - Will Hechmer<br />
<br />
I also have a problem with the category of inclination. Every one of those examples listed stated that these women became prostitutes due to need for income rather than need for sex. It seems very much like a stretch to me that those women would become a prostitutes in order to “gratify the sexual passions”, and am more inclined to believe in the analysis of inclination for an “easy life” which suggests need for income and goods. Sanger himself did not believe this though he refused it because he was of the notion that white women did not want sex, and that he often blamed the men who should be responsible. He was definitely a man of his time. It was however interesting as it looked into other jobs women did besides keeping house and trying to stay virtuous.-- Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
This article was interesting especially the survey at the beginning listing examples as to why these women became prostitutes. One of the answers that had me questioning was “Too ill to work.” These women would be too ill to work but felt fine enough to have sex for money. Dr. Sangers’ analysis was fascinating as well, he was trying to work out why the women would turn to prostitution. He did not seem to believe the answer of “inclination” as the intro to the article states he saw women as passionless. It seems in many of these historical documents men either saw women as passionless perhaps virtuous or they saw them too passionate and needed to be married in order to keep them in their place. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
This might be naive of me but I noticed a lot of the women who became prostitutes said it was because they were seduced and abandoned by lovers, now that is very unfortunate and all but is it necessary to go into prostitution afterwards? I know that losing ones virginity would "ruin" an unmarried girl but why are these girls telling everyone that they were ruined? Maybe these girls were not being discreet about their "torrid" affairs but I feel like it could have been beneficial for them to lie about them! Obviously in cases where they ended up pregnant this would not be possible but there must have been some cases where they could have gone home and no one would be the wiser! -Emma Peck<br />
<br />
== Xin Jin's Contract, 1886 ==<br />
<br />
I just find it very strange that there were contracts for prostitution. It seems short, but rather thorough. They make sure to include what happens if shes sick, pregnant, or runs away. The three most plausible situations I suppose. - Christine<br />
<br />
While this passage was short, it was clear and concise of the punishments women (Xin Jin)would face if they violated their contracts. I did not find it fair that Xin Jin was brought here and owed the family money but was given no means necessary to fulfill her payment other than prostitution. Did Americans find this to be a valid occupation? After reading this contract I wonder if other immigrants faced the same sort of contract or forms of punishment if they did comply? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
After reading this entry, I wondered if all the terms and conditions these girls had to abide by just for passage to America was really worth the risk. If a girl became sick, she had to work longer; or if she became pregnant, the deal was off and she was sent back to China. I feel like sickness and pregnancy were pretty frequent, and to me, its any wonder that these girls actually put themselves through it. It is understandable though, that they only were prostitutes to pay for their passage and afterwards may lead a normal life, but it just seems like such a traumatic thing to go through. ---- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
I really agree with Alex. These contracts reminded me a lot of the contracts that indentured servants were under when they came to the colonies in the 17th and 18th Centuries, right down to the provisions stated for what would happen if they became pregnant, etc.- extra time would be added in both cases. What were the motivations for these women to come to the United States? Were conditions really that bad in their home countries that they would become prostitutes in order to pay for passage to the United States? Maybe prostitution was looked on differently in Asia and China at this time, perhaps even different from how it was viewed in the United States. Perhaps it was a more accepted practice? -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
The language used in the contract made it sound like the customer was renting a car, rather than dealing with a human being: “if a customer asks to take her out” and “she shall be returned within 100 days (239)” come to mind. I’m curious who wrote up the contracts and ran the brothels? Were they whites or other Chinese? Whites hardly considered the Chinese to be human, so it wouldn’t be a surprise if they considered it like renting out property, but you’d hope the Chinese would have slightly more respect for their own people. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I also thought this contract (and the others like it) was very interesting. I would however, have liked to have known the after stories to go with these contracts. The time at first (four and one half years) seems very small, however like Alex stated, I would think sickness and pregnancy would accumulate a lot of extra time for these ladies. I would like to have known the actual amount of time they had to work, whether they received their freedom, or whether they lived to see the end. Were they in the habit of using birth control? How effective was it? These contracts would be very interesting to see in a much larger context to see how the women fared at the end of them. -- Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
I also would have liked to read a personal story about one of these chinese prostitutes. While reading this article as well as the other similar ones dealing with prostitution in the west as well as in New York I found myself wondering about the women who become pregnant. I know they have a specific clause for that in the Chinese Prostitution bill...but would they have the child and continue to raise it? I found myself wondering what the outcome would be for the prostitutes who became pregnant and for their child. -Emma Peck<br />
<br />
It does seem strange to have a contract for prostitution - but if prostitution was going on in their homeland, it would only seem strange to us. Would the women that were prostituted out see this as an opportunity for them, considering they were told they would eventually have freedom? (even though they were lied to and never given their freedom) Another point, it would seem as a no end situation if they got a disease because I would think their chances of getting a disease are so much higher with multiple partners. -Marsha Himes <br />
<br />
After reading, I wonder if these women every achieved freedom, was prostitution really a better way of life? I want to bring up the same questions as Taylor, who started the contracts and who kept them in "safe-keeping"? I am not sure with all of the risks involved if I would be willing to sell myself to the land of the free. I also wonder if Chinese women sent letters describing their experiences in America? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-76 ==<br />
I still think it's crazy that the price of passage/ food for some Chinese women coming to America was prostitution. I guess if things were worse back in China the option to become a prostitute might seem bright, but I don't know. The terms for this "occupation" was usually for a few years. These women must have been in real need; I don't think selling my body would ever be worth coming to America for me. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
To add to what Amy was saying about the length of time a woman would have to serve her term, I find it excessive that if a woman were to "escape and be recovered" (p.238), at least in the case of Yut Kum, then they were asking for a life sentence. I find this extremely excessive. And also, conception is noted as a "sickness" (p. 238); was pregnancy common with concubines? Granted, I doubt that a servant's mistress would be too concerned with the latest birth control methods. -Seth Mintzer<br />
<br />
What was going on in China that made these women come to America to become prostitutes? I agree with Amy I don't think selling my body would be worth it. And getting freedom while sounds like a good plan is not really. What would they do once they were free. They had no skills for working outside of prostitution so how would them live? Where would they go? - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
The wording of these contracts sounded to me more like slavery than several years of servitude. “Yet Kum consents to prostitute her body to receive company…”; “Ah Ho distinctly agrees to give her body to Mr. Yee for services as a prostitute…”; “She makes her body over to the woman Sep Sam, to serve as a prostitute…”. Each of these contracts emphasizes the fact that the Chinese women no longer owned or controlled their own bodies. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
I agree that these contracts seem more like slavery that several years of servitude. I also wonder how often these women became pregnant. What about STDs? I doubt that the "owners" of these women were practicing safe sex. Were disease and pregnancy a big problem for prostitutes at this time? - Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
To respond to Katelyn's post, I think disease and pregnancy were a big problem. The fact that they had to state them in the contract for prostitutes probably meant that the owners expected these things to happen. I think though, that there was no way to prevent disease and pregnancy so the owners just found ways to deal with it. --- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
== Susan Shelby Magoffin in Santa Fe, 1846 ==<br />
Although the writer of this piece was far from the “civilized” East Coast of the United States, I still found that the cult of domesticity still impacted her. She was very proud of her ability to manage her household, including the servants. In her opinion, success was attained when she could “gain one bright smile and sweet kiss, from my good, kind husband.” She was very concerned with making her home a refuge for her husband when he returned from work. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
I found it comical that Susan Shelby Magoffin thought she needed to "be more expert in ... Spanish" (p. 236) so that she could get advice about men. It is not surprising that she would make the effort to interact with other cultures given her interactions with American women were probably limited. For example, she will be the "only traderess" (p. 235) at the American-thrown Spanish ball. - Seth Mintzer<br />
<br />
== Citizen protest of rape of Indian women in California, 1862 ==<br />
I thought that this was a very interesting piece. I was very happy that a citizen would protest the rape of Native Americans even if the ones committing the crime were officers in the US army. I did find it particularly interesting though that the person refers to one officer as possibly being a "pretend Lieut." I would be curious to know if impersonating soldiers was at all typical if the men could get away with it,(or at least think they could get away with it).-Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
I agree with you Kristina that I liked the fact that someone stood up to white men especially soldiers. I wonder the reasons why someone would be a "pretend Lieutenant" if he really was one. Maybe for cases such as this? Knowing that they could do basically whatever they want as a soldier and not get away with it? -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I agree that it was interesting that an American was defending Native American women that were being raped by American soldiers. It would have been easy to just look the other way. I think it's sad that we hear so many stories of soldiers raping civilians. British soldiers did it during the Revolution. American soldiers raped Native Americans. I just think its incredibly wrong for soldiers to treat civilians, even "enemy" civilians, that way. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
I agree with Kristina, Amy, and Katelyn it is interesting that a white citizen is standing up for Indian women. Most white people thought Indians were inferior to them and it is nice to see that someone does care about them. I think the author used the term "pretend Lieut" because they did not want to think people in the Army could be as cruel as any criminal. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
I'm going to argue the opposite and say that it's possible that these citizens weren’t necessarily standing up for the Native Americans, but rather looking out for themselves. A good reputation and a spot in heaven was reserved for moral and self-controlled citizens, and Native Americans weren’t on par with slaves, so rape couldn’t really be excused as exercising control over your property. Thomas Jefferson didn’t like slavery because he felt it was detrimental to white society, not because he felt that blacks were equal to whites. Perhaps these complaining citizens felt that raping Indian women was detrimental to white society and not because they were concerned about the Indians. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
In response to the questions about the “pretend lieutenant” What I think they were hinting at was not that they were civilians pretending to be military, but that they were possibly pretending to be of a higher rank, potentially to have more influence and power to command a situation- such as access to an Indian rancheria. Also, I don’t know if I necessarily agree with Taylor. Yes, Indians were considered much lower to whites and non-citizens, but I would like to believe that there was some human decency to see that rape (no matter to whom) was wrong, and that the military ought to have better control over such situations. When reading this I got that it was a woman writing this and so I hope that this person was standing up for honest reason reasons of humanity. -- Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
I agree that the "pretend lieutenant" possibly referred to someone pretending to be this rank. A couple of things in this letter stood out as a possible reason the writer was so upset. For one, the writer states that these were "peaceful and domesticated Indian residents." The fact that the attack was on peaceful and domesticated Indians could have been a reason for the writer's feelings regarding it. Another point was the purpose for the military being there in the first place--to protect the citizens from the Indians. The actions taken by the soldiers contradict the values the army is supposed to uphold. I think the writer is genuinely concerned about the Indians and also about the misuse of power perpetrated by these men.--Nancy Lee<br />
<br />
== Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884 ==<br />
<br />
This piece made me kind of sad, especially for the mother, who I feel like realizes what her daughter wants to do and knows that getting an education will be good and beneficial for her, but still does not want to let her go. I feel like the mother in many ways perhaps feels cautious towards the "white men" and the missionaries and distrusts them, and yet, despite this, she sees the merits of an education for her daughter, as well as her daughter's excitement, and feels she must let her go. I think this relates a lot to what we talked about in class about possible tensions within families as a result of attempts at assimilation, especially between generations. The daughter is excited for this opportunity and to ride on the "iron horse" and to see the land where there are plenty of red apples to eat for everybody, while the mother is watching her traditional world rapidly change all around her because of the white settlers and missionaries- she has to give up her wigwam and now live in a log house, for example. She is a "foreigner" in her own home. At the same time, I also feel sorry for the daughter, as well. After all her excitement at the opportunity to go East, she watches the "lonely figure" of her mother vanish as she drives away, and then feels as "frightened and bewildered as the captured young of a wild creature." (p.241) I wonder if this was her first time being away from home and all by herself? I feel as if maybe her mother knew exactly what the daughter was getting herself into, but she still let her go- maybe so the daughter could realize it for herself? It is a hard lesson. -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
One of the first things that I noticed when reading this piece was the absence of a father. Her brother Dawee does not seem to be old enough to be part of the decision making process. When faced with the decision, her mother seems very reluctant to let Zitkala-Sa go away but is unable to make a firm decision. Do you think this situation would have been different if there was a father figure? Would he have let Zitkala-Sa go away to the white-run school as easily as the mother did? Would she have been as eager to go? - John Rowley<br />
<br />
With reference to Allison's comment about Zitkala-Sa's mother feeling like a foreigner in her own home, I can only imagine that when Zitkala-Sa returns to her mother, that feeling will strengthen. The assimilation process at these white-run schools were designed to reinvent the children and discouraged any practice of native traditions that might be waiting for her upon her return to her mother. One time I saw pictures of students when they first arrived to a school and after they were "westernized". The differences with astonishing- I bet when Dawee came back to visit, his mother didn't even recognize him! Additionally, the pictures only portrayed physical changes (i.e. a haircut), but I bet these were negligible compared to the spiritual changes of religious conversion. -Seth Mintzer<br />
<br />
Seth, it’s interesting to hear about pictures before and after the children went to these schools. Do you have any links to them? I wonder why precisely whites even bothered to run these schools if there was a widespread belief that the Chinese couldn’t be assimilated. How could they justify that belief if these schools proved that Chinese could be Westernized? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
Actually in response to Seth’s comment about the physical changes being negligible compared to the spiritual changes, the physical changes were a really really large issue. For most tribes, hair was only cut during times of mourning, and it was expressed in practically all the children’s stories coming out of schools like Carlisle that having their hair cut was one of the most tragic things. Hair and clothing expressed identity, which is why the government enforced these things, and why it was so traumatic for kids who were in a sense losing their identity for a white one. To Taylor, just google image Carlisle Indian School. The pictures Seth talks about are numerous and very well known. You should be able to find many examples. -- Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
I agree with Allison, this was a very sad piece, both for the mother and Zitkala-Sa. It was interesting that the mother did not trust the missionaries and stated that they lie, yet she finally decides to let her eight year old child go with them. I also found it interesting that her mother makes the housing changes after Dawee comes back from being "educated." So the influence of the education is indeed working through the children in the efforts to change the way that the Native Americans lived. The fact that even Dawee, having been through the education experience provided by the missionaries, does not think Zitkala-Sa should go makes me wonder why the mother and even Zitkala-Sa did not listen to him. At the end, when Zitkala-Sa gets to the school, her description of how frightened she was was very sad. The men who came to Zitkala-Sa's village are referred to as missionaries. At this point, how large of a role did religious organizations play in taking Native American children to schools for the purpose of assimilation? Or was it a combined religious and educational purpose? Also, what kind of education they received at these schools would be interesting to know? -Nancy Lee<br />
<br />
Reading this piece, I felt very sad for both the mother and the daughter. It must have been such a difficult decision for Zitkala-Sa's mother to make. On one, hand, she already lost three years out of her sons life, and I'm sure he came home as a very different person from what he was like when he left, but on the other hand, the educational opportunities for Zitkala-Sa must have been hard to ignore. I thought the aunt's foresight on the issue was interesting, when she commented that as Zitkala-Sa grew up there would be fewer and fewer real Dakota and more white men. That recognition of the slow decline of her culture just struck me as very sad, and it made me wonder if that was a common viewpoint among the adults of the tribe. Finally, It was interesting to see how the missionaries tempted Zitkala-Sa into going with them, and how little enticement was actually needed before she was willing to go to the missionary school. ~Melissa Patterson<br />
<br />
When I wrote that, I didn't even think about Seth's comment that perhaps the young Indian children would undergo physical changes, as well- but it makes a lot of sense and opens up a lot more questions. I guess I was thinking more about the emotional aspect of things. I can't imagine sending your child off to go to school and then having him or her come home with a new haircut and perhaps different clothes. I can only think that it must have increased the tension and generation differences in the household even more. I think her mother could have felt perhaps a bit helpless by these changes- she is supposed to be the provider and caregiver for her children (along with perhaps the tribal community as a whole), and yet she is watching as the white men and missionaries take her children away and they return changed, both physically and perhaps emotionally. I wonder how the children reacted to these changes- did they welcome them and the process of assimilation, or did they wish they were back with their parents and family, and tribe? I wonder if, like Zitkala-Sa, at first they were excited but then came to realize it was very different than what they expected. -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
I wondered the same thing that Allison did, whether Zitkala-Sa actually accepted the new life that the white men had brought her to. I felt like the story should have gone on, that I needed to know more. But, just to speculate on Allison's question, I don't think that it would all be so black and white as to whether the children hated or liked these schools.It was probably a combination of both. There have been records of Native children who had been forced to go to the the white man's schools and many of them did not like it and they either attempted to or did run away. I feel like this is not exactly the same situation, but it is just something to think about. -Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
== Mrs. A. M. Greene, in Colorado Territory -- Frontier life – 1887 ==<br />
<br />
Mrs. Greene's writing about the life in Colorado was very interesting. She was willing to do anything for her husband, even if it meant sacrificing her own comfort and happiness. She clearly hated where they had moved to, and missed her family greatly. It would seem that she would have picked up and moved if given the chance. But the funny thing is, when she is given the chance by her husband, she refuses and says "Go without you, no, never." (P. 242) I feel as though Mrs. Greene focused on the landscape and other tangible things, instead of looking at the glass half full and realizing she was safe, with her family, etc. But it was probably extrremely hard to leave your home land and move cross country, enduring a rough journey, only to find a place where there was nothing but desert and where you were isolated from everything and everyone. That was probably the hardest part for her. ---- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
I agree that the isolation seems to be the hardest part for Mrs. Greene. It is definetly apparent that she misses her family. She says at one point that "never" sounds in her ears when she thinks of seeing her family again. It does not sound like she has very much interaction with other women either. This piece does not tell us what her life was like before the move west, but since we know most people had to have some money in order to make the trip, it is probably likely that the family lived at least comfortably. The drastic change in living arrangements and the hardships of the climate were definitely taking a toll on her spirit. I think living in a tent that blew over everyday and with sand blowing in and trying to keep it off of a baby would be, to say the least, difficult. Her husband does give her a chance to leave without him, but I wonder where exactly would she have gone and how would she have managed by herself with two small children? --Nancy Lee<br />
<br />
When I reread this with Nancy's question in mind, I had trouble determining if her husband was giving her a chance to leave for home or telling her that she had to. He states "you must go home" but she replies pretty quick that she doesn't want to. I couldn't determine if it was her husband or the disease which made her break her promise and resolution. - John Rowley<br />
<br />
== Violet Cragg requests an Army Pension, 1908 ==<br />
<br />
From her pension, Cragg's life seems long and hard. She struggled as a slave to a free black woman. Her life depended on moving around, finding work, and dependence on others to survive. She recalls her relationship with a white man who became the father of her child. However, she explicitly states that, "I was never supported by him and was never known as his wife and never lived with him as his wife. We were not recongnizes as husband and wife." (MP pg 243). This relationship echoes the ones discussed in class. --Michelle M.</div>Martzmichellehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_11_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 11 Questions/Comments-327 092011-11-09T01:27:48Z<p>Martzmichelle: /* Mary Anne Sadlier's Bessy Conway */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Mary Anne Sadlier's Bessy Conway ==<br />
<br />
I found it really interesting that Bessy, upon leaving Ireland to come to America, said that she was planning on returning to her family in a few years. Was it common for men and women who left Ireland to plan on returning one day? Also, I thought it was cool that Bessy was able to return home and help her family, it seems very ideal, like this is what the typical Irish immigrant woman would strive to do, leave home on her own (getting her burden off her family) and making enough money to turn around and help support her family. So what was Mary Anne Sadlier's goal in writing this story? -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
It was very obvious that Bessy loved Ireland. I also wonder how many Irish immigrants that wanted to return home one day actually did. The trip to America had to be an extremely long trip. For her to come to America, work hard in difficult circumstances, and then make the trip back to Ireland took a lot of strength and courage. I just wonder how often situations like this actually happened. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
I think that Bessy Conway was one of the lucky ones because she was able to go and had a job lined up for her with a place to live. She was one of those who embraced the myth of so much opportunity in a new world. She was a hard worker and expected the same of others around her (especially the other servants in the house.)-Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
I agree that Bessy did embrace the myth of so much opportunity in America. I wonder how much of this was because she was a character in Mary Anne Sadlier's story. Do you think the all immigrants worked hard and expected the same of those around them? How many actually returned home after making money? I find it hard to imagine going to a new country and making money, then going back to poverty and starvation. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
I found the mixed chapters we read of Bessy's story put a sense of reality on the true plight of young Irish women and men. From the early chapters discussing her families struggles and her earnestness to leave her home to help her family made me wonder if all young immigrants cared the same for Ireland and their families as Bessy? Chapters 6 and 15 stood out the most to me with their discussion of religion and how it was so important eventually leading to Bessy's dismissal was this normal in America? Did Americans fear religious takeover from the Irish immigrants? -Megan W. <br />
<br />
I thought the pictures of the starving people was awful and it was hard to read the chapter about Bessy's starving family. They kept their faith in God and kept saying that God would save them. I cannot imagine having enough food. Bessy was definitely a very lucky girl that she had a good job and earned quite a bit of money. It think it is interesting that Mary Anne Sadlier made Bessy out to be a hard worker which and implied that is why she was successful. Bessy just had a better opportunity then most. The author made the other servant out to be lazy which is why they ultimately were lost to poverty. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
I agree with LeAnn that Bessy was lucky to find a good job where she could earn money. I also think it is interesting that Mary Anne Sadlier made Bessy out to be a hard worker, I think this was a piece that was meant to be the goal for female Irish immigrants who came to the United States. I don't know how realistic the story is, but I think that it gives working Irish immigrant women something to strive for. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
In Chapter 1. We see the "push" and "pull," which had lured and forced immigrants to America. On page 6 it shows how Bessy went to America to get work to save her family, which is the push. The pull is that Bessy wanted her dream to come true "to see the world." --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Jannicke Saehle, 1847, Norwegian immigrant’s letters ==<br />
I enjoyed this piece, it provided a lot of information about immigrants (though certainly not the majority of the poor Irish who suffered an awful journey across the Atlantic.) Jannicke Saehle obviously has some money as she was able to site see once arriving in America. I found her statement about sea sickness, “And after five minutes my turn came, also, to contribute my share to the Atlantic Ocean,” quite humorous. <br />
I also found it interesting her mentioning the abundance of food in America and that Americans tended to toss the extra to swine while people in her homeland starved. I certainly hope Johannes, her brother to whom she was writing, was not one of the starving people for I would hate to hear of all the waste if I were to be one of the starving poor. <br />
One question, though, how common were the museums that she described with wild animals? –Megan Mc<br />
<br />
I didn't realize that museuems of the kind she was describing existed at this time period in New York...I wonder if she was mentioning the Museum of Natural History. I have been there but who is the soldier with no head? I don't remember seeing that last time I went to any history museums. Her story was nice to read, because unlike so many others she truly seems to be living a better life in America. Even her passage over seemed to be blessed with good fortune. the tone of Jannickes story was happy and upbeat making her seem like the type of person who would find the silver lining in ever episode. However I wonder if she was trying to play things up a bit to comfort her family that maybe was worried about her well being?--Emma Peck<br />
<br />
I agree with Emma about liking the tone of the piece. Most tales or accounts of people immigrating to the United States around this time usually are filled with bad tales, deaths, sicknesses etc. It was interesting to point out the fact though that maybe she was not being 100% truthful about it to ease her family's worry. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I agree that the tone of these letters were a nice change of pace. However, I also find it hard to believe that immigration was full of happiness and sunshine. Especially since every other story that I have heard was a lot more negative. I think that the immigrants that wrote these letters were lying to try to keep their families from worrying about them. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
It is an interesting, and very sweet, idea to look at this letter as an example of immigrants to relive their families back home that they are doing well. While reading this I did make note that it was exceptionally perky, and as for Amy’s comment I too question the percentage of honesty in this letter, though it very well may be as Emma stated that she was the type to find the silver lining in every situation. -- Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
I've got to agree with the previous comments that Jannicke doesn't appear to be an average immigrant. Although she came to the United States as a servant, I think she had a better financial situation than most other immigrants. Her ability to write supports this conclusion. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
== William Sanger, New York Prostitutes, 1858 ==<br />
I found it interesting that Sanger sympathizes with the prostitutes in his study and that he blamed fathers, husbands, and families for not doing their job. The immorality is from the failures of these figures in women's lives. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
I also found Dr. Sanger's belief that the women he interviewed were victims of their environment (and not necessarily prostitutes because of a moral flaw in character, etc.) very interesting. I think it could be applied in geographical concepts and ideas, too- for example, the belief in "environmental determinism" (or the idea that your environment and surroundings have a major impact on who you are as a person) versus "environmental possibilism", where your environment can place some limits on you, but you are essentially responsible for who you are and what you do. I also found it interesting that, in discussing the reasons why some of the women would have cited "Inclination" as a reason for their becoming a prostitute, Dr. Sanger also mentioned and acknowledged female desires. In most of what we have discussed in class, we have talked about how women were expected to be "pure" and "chaste", while only men could actually have sexual desires and emotions. Dr. Sanger states, "The force of desire can be neither denied nor disputed, but still in the bosoms of most females that force exists in a slumbering state until aroused by some outside influences." Thus, he still, in many ways, is reinforcing the belief that women (while acknowledging that they might actually have "desires"- shocking!)should keep these repressed and private. -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
I agree that it is very interesting that Sanger blamed husbands, fathers, and the environment for these women becoming prostitutes. I think that a lot of that comes from the fact that women were expected to be so "pure" and "chaste". Obviously, they really weren't so pure and chaste. I mean I definitely don't think a woman would become a prostitute just because she likes sex. The women that Sanger studied were young, poor immigrants. They needed to make money and there were not many job opportunities for them. I think there's more to it than just that their husbands and fathers failed them. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
I didn't find the statistics gathered by Sanger to be other than what I expected. Young, immigrants, poor, etc. I did find it amusing that he (as well as everybody else) was convinced women were passionless and just would not be inclined to do such a "profession". - Christine<br />
<br />
The causes for women turning to prostitution were varied but most were centered around what others did to them. Family abandoning them, violated, alcohol were some of the reasons. I thought what was particularly interesting was the number one reason: they voluntarily went into prostitution to gratify their own sexual passions. If the survey is true, why would Sanger feel sympathetic towards the women? The choice was theirs in most cases. -Amy Van Ness <br />
<br />
I do not think that all of those women choose to go into prostitution for sexual gratification. There was such a taboo against women who sold themselves that none of those women would do it if not for necessity. The women were probably lying. I felt awful that they had to resort to this to support their family. I am surprised that there were so many that said their family turned them out. I cannot imagine getting thrown out of my house. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
I agree with LeAnn.... I think the women did not want to admit the true reason for their going into prostitution so they made up these stories to protect someone or something. --- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that a fair number of women seemed to choose “inclination” as the reason they were prostitutes, which basically means they just liked sex. I personally have a hard time understanding why anyone (even people who really like sex) would choose to be a prostitute unless they had no other means to support themselves. So, how many of these women were actually telling the truth? Were they perhaps to proud to admit that they were prostitutes because they were unable to support themselves another way? Wouldn’t it be worse for them to imply that they were lusty and passionate when it was understood that women were uninterested in sex rather than that they were just simply poor and needy? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
To me Dr. Sanger was reinforcing the notion that women were more primative and needy of men, given that many said that they were in the profession to satisfy their own desires and that the powerful impact that men had on their becoming prostitutes. Although it is interesting to see the doctor blaming some of the issue on men. - Will Hechmer<br />
<br />
I also have a problem with the category of inclination. Every one of those examples listed stated that these women became prostitutes due to need for income rather than need for sex. It seems very much like a stretch to me that those women would become a prostitutes in order to “gratify the sexual passions”, and am more inclined to believe in the analysis of inclination for an “easy life” which suggests need for income and goods. Sanger himself did not believe this though he refused it because he was of the notion that white women did not want sex, and that he often blamed the men who should be responsible. He was definitely a man of his time. It was however interesting as it looked into other jobs women did besides keeping house and trying to stay virtuous.-- Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
This article was interesting especially the survey at the beginning listing examples as to why these women became prostitutes. One of the answers that had me questioning was “Too ill to work.” These women would be too ill to work but felt fine enough to have sex for money. Dr. Sangers’ analysis was fascinating as well, he was trying to work out why the women would turn to prostitution. He did not seem to believe the answer of “inclination” as the intro to the article states he saw women as passionless. It seems in many of these historical documents men either saw women as passionless perhaps virtuous or they saw them too passionate and needed to be married in order to keep them in their place. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
This might be naive of me but I noticed a lot of the women who became prostitutes said it was because they were seduced and abandoned by lovers, now that is very unfortunate and all but is it necessary to go into prostitution afterwards? I know that losing ones virginity would "ruin" an unmarried girl but why are these girls telling everyone that they were ruined? Maybe these girls were not being discreet about their "torrid" affairs but I feel like it could have been beneficial for them to lie about them! Obviously in cases where they ended up pregnant this would not be possible but there must have been some cases where they could have gone home and no one would be the wiser! -Emma Peck<br />
<br />
== Xin Jin's Contract, 1886 ==<br />
<br />
I just find it very strange that there were contracts for prostitution. It seems short, but rather thorough. They make sure to include what happens if shes sick, pregnant, or runs away. The three most plausible situations I suppose. - Christine<br />
<br />
While this passage was short, it was clear and concise of the punishments women (Xin Jin)would face if they violated their contracts. I did not find it fair that Xin Jin was brought here and owed the family money but was given no means necessary to fulfill her payment other than prostitution. Did Americans find this to be a valid occupation? After reading this contract I wonder if other immigrants faced the same sort of contract or forms of punishment if they did comply? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
After reading this entry, I wondered if all the terms and conditions these girls had to abide by just for passage to America was really worth the risk. If a girl became sick, she had to work longer; or if she became pregnant, the deal was off and she was sent back to China. I feel like sickness and pregnancy were pretty frequent, and to me, its any wonder that these girls actually put themselves through it. It is understandable though, that they only were prostitutes to pay for their passage and afterwards may lead a normal life, but it just seems like such a traumatic thing to go through. ---- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
I really agree with Alex. These contracts reminded me a lot of the contracts that indentured servants were under when they came to the colonies in the 17th and 18th Centuries, right down to the provisions stated for what would happen if they became pregnant, etc.- extra time would be added in both cases. What were the motivations for these women to come to the United States? Were conditions really that bad in their home countries that they would become prostitutes in order to pay for passage to the United States? Maybe prostitution was looked on differently in Asia and China at this time, perhaps even different from how it was viewed in the United States. Perhaps it was a more accepted practice? -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
The language used in the contract made it sound like the customer was renting a car, rather than dealing with a human being: “if a customer asks to take her out” and “she shall be returned within 100 days (239)” come to mind. I’m curious who wrote up the contracts and ran the brothels? Were they whites or other Chinese? Whites hardly considered the Chinese to be human, so it wouldn’t be a surprise if they considered it like renting out property, but you’d hope the Chinese would have slightly more respect for their own people. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I also thought this contract (and the others like it) was very interesting. I would however, have liked to have known the after stories to go with these contracts. The time at first (four and one half years) seems very small, however like Alex stated, I would think sickness and pregnancy would accumulate a lot of extra time for these ladies. I would like to have known the actual amount of time they had to work, whether they received their freedom, or whether they lived to see the end. Were they in the habit of using birth control? How effective was it? These contracts would be very interesting to see in a much larger context to see how the women fared at the end of them. -- Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
I also would have liked to read a personal story about one of these chinese prostitutes. While reading this article as well as the other similar ones dealing with prostitution in the west as well as in New York I found myself wondering about the women who become pregnant. I know they have a specific clause for that in the Chinese Prostitution bill...but would they have the child and continue to raise it? I found myself wondering what the outcome would be for the prostitutes who became pregnant and for their child. -Emma Peck<br />
<br />
It does seem strange to have a contract for prostitution - but if prostitution was going on in their homeland, it would only seem strange to us. Would the women that were prostituted out see this as an opportunity for them, considering they were told they would eventually have freedom? (even though they were lied to and never given their freedom) Another point, it would seem as a no end situation if they got a disease because I would think their chances of getting a disease are so much higher with multiple partners. -Marsha Himes <br />
<br />
After reading, I wonder if these women every achieved freedom, was prostitution really a better way of life? I want to bring up the same questions as Taylor, who started the contracts and who kept them in "safe-keeping"? I am not sure with all of the risks involved if I would be willing to sell myself to the land of the free. I also wonder if Chinese women sent letters describing their experiences in America? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-76 ==<br />
I still think it's crazy that the price of passage/ food for some Chinese women coming to America was prostitution. I guess if things were worse back in China the option to become a prostitute might seem bright, but I don't know. The terms for this "occupation" was usually for a few years. These women must have been in real need; I don't think selling my body would ever be worth coming to America for me. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
To add to what Amy was saying about the length of time a woman would have to serve her term, I find it excessive that if a woman were to "escape and be recovered" (p.238), at least in the case of Yut Kum, then they were asking for a life sentence. I find this extremely excessive. And also, conception is noted as a "sickness" (p. 238); was pregnancy common with concubines? Granted, I doubt that a servant's mistress would be too concerned with the latest birth control methods. -Seth Mintzer<br />
<br />
What was going on in China that made these women come to America to become prostitutes? I agree with Amy I don't think selling my body would be worth it. And getting freedom while sounds like a good plan is not really. What would they do once they were free. They had no skills for working outside of prostitution so how would them live? Where would they go? - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
The wording of these contracts sounded to me more like slavery than several years of servitude. “Yet Kum consents to prostitute her body to receive company…”; “Ah Ho distinctly agrees to give her body to Mr. Yee for services as a prostitute…”; “She makes her body over to the woman Sep Sam, to serve as a prostitute…”. Each of these contracts emphasizes the fact that the Chinese women no longer owned or controlled their own bodies. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
I agree that these contracts seem more like slavery that several years of servitude. I also wonder how often these women became pregnant. What about STDs? I doubt that the "owners" of these women were practicing safe sex. Were disease and pregnancy a big problem for prostitutes at this time? - Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
To respond to Katelyn's post, I think disease and pregnancy were a big problem. The fact that they had to state them in the contract for prostitutes probably meant that the owners expected these things to happen. I think though, that there was no way to prevent disease and pregnancy so the owners just found ways to deal with it. --- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
== Susan Shelby Magoffin in Santa Fe, 1846 ==<br />
Although the writer of this piece was far from the “civilized” East Coast of the United States, I still found that the cult of domesticity still impacted her. She was very proud of her ability to manage her household, including the servants. In her opinion, success was attained when she could “gain one bright smile and sweet kiss, from my good, kind husband.” She was very concerned with making her home a refuge for her husband when he returned from work. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
I found it comical that Susan Shelby Magoffin thought she needed to "be more expert in ... Spanish" (p. 236) so that she could get advice about men. It is not surprising that she would make the effort to interact with other cultures given her interactions with American women were probably limited. For example, she will be the "only traderess" (p. 235) at the American-thrown Spanish ball. - Seth Mintzer<br />
<br />
== Citizen protest of rape of Indian women in California, 1862 ==<br />
I thought that this was a very interesting piece. I was very happy that a citizen would protest the rape of Native Americans even if the ones committing the crime were officers in the US army. I did find it particularly interesting though that the person refers to one officer as possibly being a "pretend Lieut." I would be curious to know if impersonating soldiers was at all typical if the men could get away with it,(or at least think they could get away with it).-Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
I agree with you Kristina that I liked the fact that someone stood up to white men especially soldiers. I wonder the reasons why someone would be a "pretend Lieutenant" if he really was one. Maybe for cases such as this? Knowing that they could do basically whatever they want as a soldier and not get away with it? -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I agree that it was interesting that an American was defending Native American women that were being raped by American soldiers. It would have been easy to just look the other way. I think it's sad that we hear so many stories of soldiers raping civilians. British soldiers did it during the Revolution. American soldiers raped Native Americans. I just think its incredibly wrong for soldiers to treat civilians, even "enemy" civilians, that way. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
I agree with Kristina, Amy, and Katelyn it is interesting that a white citizen is standing up for Indian women. Most white people thought Indians were inferior to them and it is nice to see that someone does care about them. I think the author used the term "pretend Lieut" because they did not want to think people in the Army could be as cruel as any criminal. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
I'm going to argue the opposite and say that it's possible that these citizens weren’t necessarily standing up for the Native Americans, but rather looking out for themselves. A good reputation and a spot in heaven was reserved for moral and self-controlled citizens, and Native Americans weren’t on par with slaves, so rape couldn’t really be excused as exercising control over your property. Thomas Jefferson didn’t like slavery because he felt it was detrimental to white society, not because he felt that blacks were equal to whites. Perhaps these complaining citizens felt that raping Indian women was detrimental to white society and not because they were concerned about the Indians. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
In response to the questions about the “pretend lieutenant” What I think they were hinting at was not that they were civilians pretending to be military, but that they were possibly pretending to be of a higher rank, potentially to have more influence and power to command a situation- such as access to an Indian rancheria. Also, I don’t know if I necessarily agree with Taylor. Yes, Indians were considered much lower to whites and non-citizens, but I would like to believe that there was some human decency to see that rape (no matter to whom) was wrong, and that the military ought to have better control over such situations. When reading this I got that it was a woman writing this and so I hope that this person was standing up for honest reason reasons of humanity. -- Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
I agree that the "pretend lieutenant" possibly referred to someone pretending to be this rank. A couple of things in this letter stood out as a possible reason the writer was so upset. For one, the writer states that these were "peaceful and domesticated Indian residents." The fact that the attack was on peaceful and domesticated Indians could have been a reason for the writer's feelings regarding it. Another point was the purpose for the military being there in the first place--to protect the citizens from the Indians. The actions taken by the soldiers contradict the values the army is supposed to uphold. I think the writer is genuinely concerned about the Indians and also about the misuse of power perpetrated by these men.--Nancy Lee<br />
<br />
== Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884 ==<br />
<br />
This piece made me kind of sad, especially for the mother, who I feel like realizes what her daughter wants to do and knows that getting an education will be good and beneficial for her, but still does not want to let her go. I feel like the mother in many ways perhaps feels cautious towards the "white men" and the missionaries and distrusts them, and yet, despite this, she sees the merits of an education for her daughter, as well as her daughter's excitement, and feels she must let her go. I think this relates a lot to what we talked about in class about possible tensions within families as a result of attempts at assimilation, especially between generations. The daughter is excited for this opportunity and to ride on the "iron horse" and to see the land where there are plenty of red apples to eat for everybody, while the mother is watching her traditional world rapidly change all around her because of the white settlers and missionaries- she has to give up her wigwam and now live in a log house, for example. She is a "foreigner" in her own home. At the same time, I also feel sorry for the daughter, as well. After all her excitement at the opportunity to go East, she watches the "lonely figure" of her mother vanish as she drives away, and then feels as "frightened and bewildered as the captured young of a wild creature." (p.241) I wonder if this was her first time being away from home and all by herself? I feel as if maybe her mother knew exactly what the daughter was getting herself into, but she still let her go- maybe so the daughter could realize it for herself? It is a hard lesson. -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
One of the first things that I noticed when reading this piece was the absence of a father. Her brother Dawee does not seem to be old enough to be part of the decision making process. When faced with the decision, her mother seems very reluctant to let Zitkala-Sa go away but is unable to make a firm decision. Do you think this situation would have been different if there was a father figure? Would he have let Zitkala-Sa go away to the white-run school as easily as the mother did? Would she have been as eager to go? - John Rowley<br />
<br />
With reference to Allison's comment about Zitkala-Sa's mother feeling like a foreigner in her own home, I can only imagine that when Zitkala-Sa returns to her mother, that feeling will strengthen. The assimilation process at these white-run schools were designed to reinvent the children and discouraged any practice of native traditions that might be waiting for her upon her return to her mother. One time I saw pictures of students when they first arrived to a school and after they were "westernized". The differences with astonishing- I bet when Dawee came back to visit, his mother didn't even recognize him! Additionally, the pictures only portrayed physical changes (i.e. a haircut), but I bet these were negligible compared to the spiritual changes of religious conversion. -Seth Mintzer<br />
<br />
Seth, it’s interesting to hear about pictures before and after the children went to these schools. Do you have any links to them? I wonder why precisely whites even bothered to run these schools if there was a widespread belief that the Chinese couldn’t be assimilated. How could they justify that belief if these schools proved that Chinese could be Westernized? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
Actually in response to Seth’s comment about the physical changes being negligible compared to the spiritual changes, the physical changes were a really really large issue. For most tribes, hair was only cut during times of mourning, and it was expressed in practically all the children’s stories coming out of schools like Carlisle that having their hair cut was one of the most tragic things. Hair and clothing expressed identity, which is why the government enforced these things, and why it was so traumatic for kids who were in a sense losing their identity for a white one. To Taylor, just google image Carlisle Indian School. The pictures Seth talks about are numerous and very well known. You should be able to find many examples. -- Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
I agree with Allison, this was a very sad piece, both for the mother and Zitkala-Sa. It was interesting that the mother did not trust the missionaries and stated that they lie, yet she finally decides to let her eight year old child go with them. I also found it interesting that her mother makes the housing changes after Dawee comes back from being "educated." So the influence of the education is indeed working through the children in the efforts to change the way that the Native Americans lived. The fact that even Dawee, having been through the education experience provided by the missionaries, does not think Zitkala-Sa should go makes me wonder why the mother and even Zitkala-Sa did not listen to him. At the end, when Zitkala-Sa gets to the school, her description of how frightened she was was very sad. The men who came to Zitkala-Sa's village are referred to as missionaries. At this point, how large of a role did religious organizations play in taking Native American children to schools for the purpose of assimilation? Or was it a combined religious and educational purpose? Also, what kind of education they received at these schools would be interesting to know? -Nancy Lee<br />
<br />
Reading this piece, I felt very sad for both the mother and the daughter. It must have been such a difficult decision for Zitkala-Sa's mother to make. On one, hand, she already lost three years out of her sons life, and I'm sure he came home as a very different person from what he was like when he left, but on the other hand, the educational opportunities for Zitkala-Sa must have been hard to ignore. I thought the aunt's foresight on the issue was interesting, when she commented that as Zitkala-Sa grew up there would be fewer and fewer real Dakota and more white men. That recognition of the slow decline of her culture just struck me as very sad, and it made me wonder if that was a common viewpoint among the adults of the tribe. Finally, It was interesting to see how the missionaries tempted Zitkala-Sa into going with them, and how little enticement was actually needed before she was willing to go to the missionary school. ~Melissa Patterson<br />
<br />
When I wrote that, I didn't even think about Seth's comment that perhaps the young Indian children would undergo physical changes, as well- but it makes a lot of sense and opens up a lot more questions. I guess I was thinking more about the emotional aspect of things. I can't imagine sending your child off to go to school and then having him or her come home with a new haircut and perhaps different clothes. I can only think that it must have increased the tension and generation differences in the household even more. I think her mother could have felt perhaps a bit helpless by these changes- she is supposed to be the provider and caregiver for her children (along with perhaps the tribal community as a whole), and yet she is watching as the white men and missionaries take her children away and they return changed, both physically and perhaps emotionally. I wonder how the children reacted to these changes- did they welcome them and the process of assimilation, or did they wish they were back with their parents and family, and tribe? I wonder if, like Zitkala-Sa, at first they were excited but then came to realize it was very different than what they expected. -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
I wondered the same thing that Allison did, whether Zitkala-Sa actually accepted the new life that the white men had brought her to. I felt like the story should have gone on, that I needed to know more. But, just to speculate on Allison's question, I don't think that it would all be so black and white as to whether the children hated or liked these schools.It was probably a combination of both. There have been records of Native children who had been forced to go to the the white man's schools and many of them did not like it and they either attempted to or did run away. I feel like this is not exactly the same situation, but it is just something to think about. -Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
== Mrs. A. M. Greene, in Colorado Territory -- Frontier life – 1887 ==<br />
<br />
Mrs. Greene's writing about the life in Colorado was very interesting. She was willing to do anything for her husband, even if it meant sacrificing her own comfort and happiness. She clearly hated where they had moved to, and missed her family greatly. It would seem that she would have picked up and moved if given the chance. But the funny thing is, when she is given the chance by her husband, she refuses and says "Go without you, no, never." (P. 242) I feel as though Mrs. Greene focused on the landscape and other tangible things, instead of looking at the glass half full and realizing she was safe, with her family, etc. But it was probably extrremely hard to leave your home land and move cross country, enduring a rough journey, only to find a place where there was nothing but desert and where you were isolated from everything and everyone. That was probably the hardest part for her. ---- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
I agree that the isolation seems to be the hardest part for Mrs. Greene. It is definetly apparent that she misses her family. She says at one point that "never" sounds in her ears when she thinks of seeing her family again. It does not sound like she has very much interaction with other women either. This piece does not tell us what her life was like before the move west, but since we know most people had to have some money in order to make the trip, it is probably likely that the family lived at least comfortably. The drastic change in living arrangements and the hardships of the climate were definitely taking a toll on her spirit. I think living in a tent that blew over everyday and with sand blowing in and trying to keep it off of a baby would be, to say the least, difficult. Her husband does give her a chance to leave without him, but I wonder where exactly would she have gone and how would she have managed by herself with two small children? --Nancy Lee<br />
<br />
When I reread this with Nancy's question in mind, I had trouble determining if her husband was giving her a chance to leave for home or telling her that she had to. He states "you must go home" but she replies pretty quick that she doesn't want to. I couldn't determine if it was her husband or the disease which made her break her promise and resolution. - John Rowley<br />
<br />
== Violet Cragg requests an Army Pension, 1908 ==</div>Martzmichellehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_10_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 10 Questions/Comments-327 112011-11-03T02:04:24Z<p>Martzmichelle: /* Sarah Haynesworth Gayle, “An Alabama Diary,” 1828, 1833 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Sarah Haynesworth Gayle, “An Alabama Diary,” 1828, 1833 ==<br />
<br />
We talk about how a lot of women's history comes from sources written by men. Therefore, it makes sense for African American sources to come form white owners or other white people. Gayle's diary is a perfect example. Even though she is mostly writing about her experiences, she does describe events and relationships with her slaves. Also, this source provides information not on only about African Americans but on the relationships with mistresses, who they most likely interacted the most. -- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Mary Boykin Chestnut’s diary, 1861 ==<br />
<br />
This is an important source because it shows a woman who is part of a large slave-holding family realizing the atrocity of the slave system. One particularly important realization is that "Men and women are punished when their masters and mistresses are brutes and not when they do wrong..." This notion is related to that of "The Cruel Mistress," in which the mistress would punish at her own whim regardless of whether the slaves had erred. Regardless of this insight, Chesnut still closes with "my countrywomen are as pure as angels - tho surrounded by another race who are -- the social evil!" It seems that Chesnut believes the institution of slavery is wrong but not the idea of racism. --Clare O. <br />
<br />
== Rose Williams’s Story in the Federal Writers’ Project Interviews, 1941. ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Lucinda, a free woman, requests reenslavement, 1813 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Connecticut woman asks other free black women to sign anti-slavery petitions, 1839 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mary Still, black abolitionist, along with other Philadelphia free women, forms “Female Publication Society” to promote the moral uplift of free and slave African Americans, 1861 ==<br />
<br />
I find it interesting that Still follows the narrative of slaves being wicked and ignorant - isn't that what the masters said to justify slavery? (And explain mistakes made by slaves.) I can't really tell how she thinks that the moral state of slaves and the institution of slavery are linked. Would slaves (or even many free blacks) have access to a publication like the Christian Recorder anyway? --Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Mrs. Virginia Hayes Shepherd’s memories, 1937 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Thelma Jennings, “Sexual Exploitation of African American Slave Women,” 1990 ==<br />
<br />
There were so many disturbing things in this article that it's hard to know where to start. I guess one thing I found particularly striking was the general ignorance about health - it's okay to beat a pregnant woman as long as you dig a hole for her stomach first? Did they really think that did anything at all to protect the fetus? I was also really surprised by the frequent use of the word "breeders." Was that how slave women would have referred to themselves, or how whites would have referred to them, or was that a later term? -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
== "A Reply to Harriet Beecher Stowe" Louisa S. Cheeves McCord, 1853 ==<br />
<br />
I thought this document was enlightening and so interesting. True, she was writing things that by today's standards are offensive and politically incorrect, but this is what primary sources offer to us, someone who isn't ashamed to admit their beliefs. I want to offer a quote from the reading "To Conclude. We have undertaken the defence of slavery in no temporizing vein. We do NOT say it is a necessary evil. We do NOT allow that it is a temporary make-shift to choke the course of Providence for man's convenience. It is NOT 'a sorrow and a wrong to be lived down.' We proclaim it, on the contrary, a Godlike dispensation, a providential caring for the weak, and a refuge for the portionless." (page 219). Understanding this statement helps one understand the entire patriarchal society. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
== Angelina Grimke Weld ''The Cruel Mistress'' -- 1839 ==<br />
<br />
In this source we hear the horrid stories of slavery. However, it is different because it does not focus on the oppressive white male but on the mistress. It is interesting to see the fault in white women. Also, it is interesting that Weld pushes on the physically abuse. She has to argue that most slave owners act like this cruel mistress. Even though she hints at slaves with souls, she focuses on the physically abuse. Michelle M.<br />
<br />
I think it is important that Angelina Grimke Weld continually emphasizes the the cruel mistress in question is "at the head of the fashionable elite city of Charleston" and more importantly "at the head of the moral and religious female society there." It is astounding that someone who claims to be of moral and pious authority can be so abusive and uncaring. However, the violence against the slaves is justified by slaveholders because slaves are viewed as property and not actual human beings. -- Clare O.<br />
<br />
Going off of what Clare wrote I have to point at that even Grimke ackonledges the belief that "God in his providence had set over them--it was their DUTY to abide in abject submission, and hers to COMPEL them to do so--IT WAS THUS THAT SHE REASONED" (page 216. the Capitalization is in place of italics). This wasn't about cruelty to the woman mistresses, rather a belief that the slave was not a human being (mentioned at the end of the document). i also have to wonder to what extent the women mistresses were so violent and cruel had to do with an inadvert expression of their distaste for their own oppression. The slaves offerred them power so they took full advantage of it. --Sara S.</div>Martzmichellehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_10_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 10 Questions/Comments-327 112011-11-01T02:21:22Z<p>Martzmichelle: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== Angelina Grimke Weld ''The Cruel Mistress'' ==<br />
<br />
In this source we hear the horrid stories of slavery. However, it is different because it does not focus on the oppressive white male but on the mistress. It is interesting to see the fault in white women. Also, it is interesting that Weld pushes on the physically abuse. She has to argue that most slave owners act like this cruel mistress. Even though she hints at slaves with souls, she focuses on the physically abuse. Michelle M. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Yee "Free Black Women in Abolitionist Movement" ==<br />
<br />
This article recounts what most of the primary sources describe, which is slave women's lives were extremely difficult. They had to worry about family, separation, forced sexual relations, sexual abuse, work, being a housekeeper, and so much more. African American slave women dealt with so much under the system of patriarchy because not only were they under the white master, but the white mistress, and her "husband" as well. Her life was always in an imbalance and in survival mode. --Michelle M.</div>Martzmichellehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_10_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 10 Questions/Comments-327 112011-11-01T02:15:30Z<p>Martzmichelle: New page: == Yee "Free Black Women in Abolitionist Movement" == This article recounts what most of the primary sources describe, which is slave women's lives were extremely difficult. They had to ...</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== Yee "Free Black Women in Abolitionist Movement" ==<br />
<br />
This article recounts what most of the primary sources describe, which is slave women's lives were extremely difficult. They had to worry about family, separation, forced sexual relations, sexual abuse, work, being a housekeeper, and so much more. African American slave women dealt with so much under the system of patriarchy because not only were they under the white master, but the white mistress, and her "husband" as well. Her life was always in an imbalance and in survival mode. --Michelle M.</div>Martzmichellehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_9_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 9 Questions/Comments-327 112011-10-29T14:25:30Z<p>Martzmichelle: /* Emma Willard, “Matrimonial Risks,” 1815 */</p>
<hr />
<div>FOR THIS WEEK POST TWO QUESTIONS BY THURSDAY AND CHECK BACK TO RESPOND TO TWO QUESTIONS BY SATURDAY.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== General Questions ==<br />
<br />
I was surprised (although I shouldn't really have been) at the number of these documents which refer to religion as important to their daily lives: from the lowell girls' rules enforcing religious practice to the teachers in the American west to the women on the gold mines everyone was obsessed with the sanctity of their own religion and the lack of religion in their society. Were these women simply becoming teachers to help those less fortunate than them or were they really seeking an attempt at missionary work of people they truly believed to be spiritually beneath them. Although the outcome of their work would still be the same, it would be important to know the background for which their work was done for it would tell more about the woman doing the work. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
In "A Spirit of Protest" (which I didn't see a heading for, for whatever reason that may be), the "Lowell Factory Girl" protests against capitalism and fights for labor rights. Mid-eighteenth century American society does not come off to me as an extremely capitalist society (compared with modern USA). How much did capitalism affect the lives of Americans in this time period. And was this a common viewpoint on the economy of the day? --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
== Emma Willard, “Matrimonial Risks,” 1815 ==<br />
<br />
Willard is concerned with the happiness of marriage. She warns her sister not to get her hopes up, when it comes to her suitor Mr. L because he might be disappointing. I wonder if this is a change to "companionate marriages." Willard sees or wants marriage to be happy, but realizes that marriage could be miserable. Since Willard knows that men can fail at companionate marriages, does that mean the idea of marriage changing? Do women feel they have a choice? --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
In Answer to your question, I do think women feel that they have more a choice in marriage than the previous generations. According to class and the readings, the romantic notions are beginning to come out and women are looking for Men to fulfill that ideal companionate role in a marriage, women would hold off if they felt like they did not find the right partner. Marriage was still valued and more than desired by most women at this time, but they were definitely getting pickier about who they wanted to marry. --Heather T.<br />
<br />
In "Matrimonial Risks," Willard seems to be attempting to warn her sister off of all marriages and all relationships; the advice she gives is so generalized against marriage that it almost seems that she must have been unhappy in her marriage. I started reading this expecting, based on the editors' introduction, for Willard to be essentially warning her sister off of Lincoln. On the contrary, it almost seems that Willard is trying to warn her sister off of any and all marriage. Intriguingly, she then tells her sister she'd love to see Lincoln and visit with him. I got such mixed signals from this letter that I'm really wondering whether Willard disliked Lincoln (if so, why say she'd like to see him?) or the idea of her sister getting married at all (and if that, why? Most women wound up married!) -- Nicole<br />
<br />
This reading was quite depressing how she wrote about how she should question her happiness. This shows how unhappy Emma was herself. I wonder how common this was among most women? --Emma<br />
<br />
Emma Willard was forthright in giving advice to her younger sister Almira in regards to the decision of marriage and finding the proper suitor. In the letter she wrote to Almira, she stated “. . .and we will likewise pass over the possibility of your lover’s seeing some object that he will consider more interesting than you, and likewise that you may hereafter discover some imperfection in his character. We will pass this over, and suppose that the sanction of the law has been passed upon your connection, and you are secured to each other for life” (144). It seems as though Emma is trying to think of every situation that could go wrong in a relationship, and she is attempting to discourage her younger sister for marrying for any reason, including for love or for money. Why was the idea of marriage for love considered such a risk? In today’s society, love is considered the fortifying reason for a couple to enter into matrimony together. Could it be possible that Emma was merely jealous of her younger sister because she had found a wealthy suitor that wanted to marry her, whereas Emma was once happily married and living comfortably until her husband’s finances collapsed? Emma is clearly unhappy in her own life, and in reading this excerpt, I detected a bit of jealousy towards her sisters potential happiness and wealth. -- Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
I think the idea of marrying someone because you loved them was so risky because if the person you loved couldn't provide for you, how would that make you look in society? The purpose of marriage was so that the husband could provide for his wife and children. I think that Emma may have been jealous of her sister for finding a husband, but I also think that she was unhappy because she couldn't marry for love. --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
I think Willard is caught in a time when the idea of marriage is changing. Unfortunately, she is getting stuck between love and marriage for providing. She is having contemplating if love is necessary and also if she even wants love. I also wonder if she knows what kind of love she wants. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Caroline Gilman, “The Deferential Wife,” 1838 ==<br />
<br />
I liked in ''The Deferential Wife'' by Caroline Gilman the quote "Men are not often unreasonable; their difficulties lie in not understanding the moral and physcial structure of our sex. They often wound through ignorance and are surprised at having offended. How clear is it, then, that woman loses by petulance and recrimination! Her first study must be self-control, almost to hypocrisy. A good wife must smile amid a thousand perplexities, and clear her voice to tones of cheerfulness when her frames is drooping with disease, or else languish alone. Man on the contrary, when trials beset him, expects to find her ear and heart a ready receptacle." (page 147) Basically this is the formation of the idea that woman is reponsible for the morality and self-control of the man. It is from this ideologue (which did develop concurrently with Republican Motherhood) that the arguments today about the dress and style of women are based upon. It is interesting to see it in its' original context in The Deferential Wife. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
The Deferential Wife was an interesting piece. A woman that wanted to carter to the audience of women is an interesting concept. This would play into the idea of republican motherhood and that women would want to be more educated. That being said, if the idea of educating women were important, why don’t we see more papers and magazines geared toward the women that are staying on the plantations and raising the children? –Kayle P<br />
<br />
In answer to the above question. I think that in the early 1800s we are starting to see more papers and magazines geared towards women in the homes and plantation. At this time we start to see magazines such as Sarah Hales "Ladies Magazine," and Catharine Beecher's writings on "System and Order". These are just a few of the many self help books that started being published at this time, as well as the development of new magazines for women. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
== Catharine Beecher, “System and Order,” 1841 ==<br />
<br />
Beecher's believes that motherhood/domesticity is the greatest occupation for humanity. She believes that it will create a heaven on earth or a perfect society. This statement brings a true meaning to motherhood and housework. People are happier when they have meaning to their lives. Her belief gives women so much more to live for (not saying it is right or wrong). However, with all ideals, her advice must have stressed most women in case they failed. --- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
In Beecher's "System and Order," she states that "The formation of the moral and intellectual character of the young is committed mainly to the female hand....The proper education of a man decides the welfare of an individual; but educate a woman, and the interests of a whole family are secured." This quote reminded me of "if you teach a man to fish..." because Beecher is saying only one person benefits from the education of a man (the man). However, a woman is responsible for the education of her children as well as a role model of morals for both her children and husband. Therefore, if you educate a woman, everyone in the family will profit. This idea combines the early idea of republican motherhood, in which the mother is the prime educator and moral guide, but combines with emerging middle class ideals in which the woman is the head of the domestic sphere. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
Beecher asserts that "another important item is the apportioning of regular employment to the various members of the family....There is no greater mistake, than in bringing up children to feel that they must be taken care of, and waited on, by others, without any corresponding obligations on their part." I found this interesting because middle class families did not need children to work at the family business (as had been so many years previously, on farms for example) and therefore the mother had more time to focus on her children and the home. I am surprised to find Beecher encouraging mothers to "employ" their children around the house, when I had assumed children did not do any work in their families. Perhaps the change was that children did not need to do actual hard labor anymore, but were still expected to help around the house, as Beecher suggests. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
Beecher lists a series of chores that housewives must accomplish on each day of the week. She states, "''Monday'', with some of the best housekeepers, is devoted to preparing for the labors of the week...''Tuesday'' is devoted to washing, and ''Wednesday'' to ironing. On ''Thursday'', the ironing is finished off, the clothes folded and put away, and all articles which need mending put in the mending basket, and attended to. ''Friday'' is devoted to sweeping and housecleaning. On ''Saturday''...every department is put in order...and everything about the house put in order for ''Sunday''." Such a strict daily schedule may explain why women became so bored and lonely. Their husbands could go out of the house and do business, meet with other people, or attend to different aspects of business at different times of the year. Women, on the other hand, were expected to accomplish the same tasks on the same day no matter the month or week. Do you think this could explain why women, such as Caroline Gilman, discuss the idea of women missing their husbands? Also, do you think that this weekly schedule that Beecher suggests was necessary in maintaining a household? Why or why not? -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
In response to Hannah, this schedule does seem a little strict to modern day women, who are accustomed to having a routine at home. The women that Beecher was writing to had no systems at all (at least none that were acceptable for the new middle class). Whenever you begin a new system or routine, you have to begin by being very strict and regimented, and once they (in this case, Beecher's audience) get the hang of it, people are free to make their own judgment calls and make adjustments as needed. Plus, when laundry takes 4 days in a week, there's only so many ways you can change the schedule. --Stef L.<br />
<br />
The two things that interested me the most in Catharine Beecher's "System and Order" was here description of how to manage work within the week and the mode of "systematizing, [relating] to providing proper supplies of conveniences." The details for arranging a week seem quite logical and in fact are similar to actually accounts I have read that follow a similar outline. It does not seem That Catharine's ideas on this front could have been that new. As for the arranging items in particular places, did women really have the extra rooms just for doing laundry? And why, for the trunks full of extra supplies, were they kept locked? --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
In response to Jennifer S, I think that Beecher asserts that women should have extra rooms solely for laundry so as to make the household even more organized. Her whole document is called "System and Order," so to do laundry in any other place in the home besides the room devoted specifically to it would disrupt the order and cleanliness of the household. Also, perhaps the trunks full of extra supplies were kept locked so that children could not get into them and disrupt the order the wife had put them in. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
But did families at that time actually have rooms devoted to laundry? Were houses built with laundry rooms in mind? Or was this just an ideal that Catharine Beecher writes about? --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
I would assume that most of the women reading the book did not have extra rooms for laundry. I think Beecher is talking about an ideal. But, I think it is interesting that today we have just that a "laundry room" in most houses. --- Michelle .<br />
<br />
== Catharine Sedgwick, “First to None,” 1828 ==<br />
<br />
From our readings we can guess that the main goal in life (for most not all) women was to get married and make babies. But as with the case of Catharine Sedgwick she claims that her "perfectionist" vision of what she wants is the reason that she has stayed single. I feel that this may have been a common theme with others who did not marry but we just don't know about it because unlike her they probably didn't write about it. Does anyone else get the sense that she is completely miserable not being married but wants to put on a brave face in front of everyone around her? --Remy B.<br />
<br />
Remy, yes I also felt that she was pretty unhappy. The last line of the essay stood out to me, "I do hope...to order my house for that better world where self may lose something of its engrossing power." This read to me, "things will be better when I'm dead." Pretty sad. A certain amount of risk accompanies any choice. If women have more freedom to choose their marital partners, they also have to accept the consequences of their decisions. In Sedgwick's case, she rejected a few suitors because they didn't meet her expectations. Because she only has herself to blame (instead of blaming her parents or society, or just accepting an unpleasant marriage without question, as would have happened in the past), it seems like it makes her loneliness more painful. --Stef L.<br />
<br />
Like Emma, Catherine seems unhappy about her life, only she is not married. It was interesting to see how women felt about their decision to not marry. Once again, I wonder how common this unhappiness is. Is it more common to be unhappy as an unmarried woman or a married woman? -- Emma<br />
<br />
In responnse to Emma I feel as though the women writing are pretty bold to be expressing their unhappiness at all. After all, it is rather unlady like to complain about the situation these women were in, and the ones who were writing were obviously educated. It is more common for women even today, regardless of marital status, with educations to be more discontent with societies impositions upon them. I think the fact of marriage or not is irrelevant because both types of women were unhappy. --Sara<br />
<br />
I agree with you, Remy - and with all of you, actually - that it certainly seems that Catharine was pretty unhappy. It really stands out to me that she discusses her writings, and all writings, as a way of being honest. She says that, and seems to have good intentions in terms of being honest, and perhaps either due to shame about being unhappy, or due to the social constraints that Sara mentions against expressing dissatisfaction with one's life. More depressing than her pretty obvious unhappiness is how she tried to mask that--I can't imagine how lonely that must have felt. -- Nicole<br />
<br />
== Sarah Connell Ayer, “The Widowed State,” 1832-33 ==<br />
<br />
It is evident that Sarah Connell Ayer's life consisted of a continual pattern of death surrounding her. Ayer clings to the Lord in these times of trial and demonstrates a remarkable trust, at least in her diary entries. How did death affect Ayer's view of God and influence the role of religion in her life? --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
I feel that religion was the one constant thing in Ayer's life. I think she relied on it greatly to get her through all the deaths that she experienced. I think that through these deaths, if anything, her trust in God increased. Religion was something that she could always rely on no matter where she was and I think she found a little peace in her beliefs. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
For most people religion is a constant in their lives. It is comforting to know that it is usually stable. However, the question of why bad things happen to good people can push away from religion. Ayer did not do that. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Eliza Ann Mulford, “Rules of the School,” 1814 ==<br />
<br />
I wonder how the girls felt about these rules. Were they sincerely considering their excuses for skipping church in light of what they'd tell God at judgement day? Did they consider whether they wanted to read a novel or have a casual conversation in light of whether they were properly using God's time? I want to know what these rules say about the young women they applied to. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
(Reply to Katie): What (it seems to me) the rules say about the girls is that they were not trusted. It seems to me that if everyone at the institution truly believed that each and every young lady at the school were sufficiently Godly that the thought of Judgment Day would be enough to stop them from breaking rules or skipping sabbath, all of their "superiors" would be able to go home and take a nap, certain of the impeccable behavior of all of the girls there. --Nicole<br />
<br />
What stands out about this reading is the fact that the rules designed by the schools constrained every aspect of the girls live all to meet the standards of the ideal middle class woman. It appears that the school was not only there to educate it students but transform them into the moral authority that women were expected to be. Also playing into the image of an a partnership within a marriage, by creating a wife who was not only equal in education but a example to be followed in moral behavior. Like Kate, I wonder what the students thought of these rules, did they see them as necessary for the life they wanted to live or excessive? --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
Eliza Ann Mulford's account of the rules that existed at this school reflected the close watch these girls were kept under. Like Kate and Rachel have pointed out, I wonder if these girls felt oppressed by these rules or whether they truly felt like these rules were necessary to achieve the status of a respectable woman? --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
My feeling is that the girls didn't know they were being "oppresed". I think during this time period, (some) young girls followed the rules because they knew that they had duties to be the moral authority in the household. --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
== Emma Willard, “A Rationale for Female Education,” 1819 ==<br />
What I found interesting in Emma Willard's piece was that it was a seminary for girls. What church/denomination was she a part of? And when did women become more involved in religion in the United States? The major difference between this document and the source before it is that it encourages morality and intellect, while it seemed that Eliza Ann Mulford's promoted piety only. --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
In an answer to your questions, I think that women started becoming more involved with religion in the United States when the ideals of Republican Motherhood came about. Religion was a great source for social morality for these people and since women were taking the moral roles in society, they would want to turn to the church to show both their children and their community that they were upholding moral beliefs.-- Heather T.<br />
<br />
"A more advanced institution than the academy, the antebellum female seminary sought to imitate some features of the male college curriculum. Seminaries required or taught classical languages, eschewed polite accomplishments, and admitted only older students who passed examinations...The very name "seminary," usually associated with the ministry, implied some type of professional training." (Woloch 161) I don't think that these female seminaries were strictly theological schools, like seminaries are today. It appears that religion was integrated more into the fabric of everyday life (see the mill rules)than now, so perhaps the schools were religious in that way, but I don't think that equates to a clergy-training school. --Stef L.<br />
<br />
== Miss Burnham’s Report, “A Choctaw Mission School,” 1824 ==<br />
<br />
I found this reading very interesting. Very young girls were forced to leave their families, and wear European clothing, speak English, and learn the bible. I assume some girls even starved to death because the food was so different than what they were used to. My question is, after returning home from this school, how had the girls' relationships with their native people and families changed? --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
In response to Catherine I think that the relationship between the teachers and the individual natives' relationship would be a strong one, but overall, they would still view "Natives" as savage and ungodly. All of the teachers' documents we read mention the godlessness, lack of churches, lack of interest in pursuing the religion by the natives or lack of honoring of the Sabbath. This means that even if they felt better about the individual girls they taught, they probably felt as though they "saved" them. Not respected them --Sara S.<br />
<br />
This passage was indeed interesting. One section that I found especially interesting was the one about the family who walked 55 miles to bring the girls to the school and then walked them 55 miles back when they heard a rumor about the missionaries taking land. THEN they took them 55 miles back to the school because the girls were unhappy at home. Once sent home, I question whether or not the girls from the schools were bullied or even excommunicated for their new way of life. --Ashley V.<br />
<br />
== Letters from Teachers, “Reports on Western Schools,” 1847 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
These letters are really pitiful, and it's amazing to me that we have a public school system at all, considering its origins. One thing that really stands out to me is the sense of moral duty/religious obligation that keeps these teachers working, even though (much of the time) they weren't being paid. Is this a continuation of the ideals (and responsibilities) of republican motherhood, that women are responsible for the moral uplift of the entire nation? --Stef L.<br />
<br />
I found these letters to be quite interesting. First, the fact that these new teachers were so concerned about the religion and morals of the people in the community. Religion seemed to be one of the biggest concerns of these new teachers. Why was that? Second, it was interesting to see the these two very different experiences. The first teacher seemed to have some real problems with the community excepting her. It almost seemed as if they though education was silly, possibly because they were more concerned about the success of their farms, of surviving, instead of reading and writing. Where as the second teacher seemed to have real success in her bringing her community together. I am quite amazed by what she was able to accomplish.It would be interesting to know exactly where these women went to do this teaching. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
Chatharine Beecher sounded like an inspirational woman. She truly cared about education. One thing I did find weird was her promotion of teaching as a woman's profession. What if a man were to teach and step forward and ask for her help. Was a male teacher completely unheard of? Would she deny him? -- Ashley V.<br />
<br />
== Rules of the Mill from Lowell and Lancaster, 1820-1840 ==<br />
How extensive rules for living in a mill community seem to be very personally invasive for a job. The rules that were applied to the boarders seems equivalent to life under a male figurehead through parental controls or marriage. Mandating when the workers had to be in bed to forcing their attendance in church molded these women into the ideals of the mill managers as well as into the evolving perception of female work roles. What I found to be the most interesting point was that it was more socially acceptable for women to be single longer and have jobs of their own yet it appears that the women who worked in the mill only fell back into patriarchal relationships that these new forms of female freedom seem to oppose. Could it be that women were so eager to embrace the world of employment and financial independence that they were willing to fit into the mold instilled by the mill? Or could it had been from the women workers being attracted into a world that was very familiar to them? -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
== Harriet Farley, “A Letter from Lowell,” 1844 ==<br />
<br />
I wonder how accurately this reflects mill life? It was published in a mill journal, which would have an interest in showing the best side of the mill, but it isn't a completely rosy picture. I thought it was particularly interesting to see a story of a woman off on her own, making her own income, in a way that I don't think we've seen as often before - do you think 'Susan's' story reflects how young women felt about living as single women? --Katie C.<br />
<br />
This letter struck me as being so propagandized, I would not have been surprised if it turned out that it had been written by an overseer. The small complaints ("these rooms are kept very warm, and are disagreeably scented"..."it makes my feet ache and swell") serve to give the letter an air of respectability, and make it seem like a legitimate letter, but the emphasis on the positive and lack of emphasis on negative aspects (If my feet were painful and swelling, I'd factor it much more into my overall sense of happiness!) makes the letter seem utterly false--which of course it is. I can't help but wonder whether Harriet and her compatriots truly felt this was an accurate representation of their lives? -- Nicole<br />
<br />
== The Voice of Industry, “A Spirit of Protest,” 1846 ==<br />
<br />
The movement which is the subject of this article was conducted entirely or almost entirely by women, who recognized a "sisterhood" of workers. How might the tactics used by movement leaders have been influenced by the gender roles of their day? Might they have faced any particular difficulties in negotiating with male management? --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
== Amelia Stewart Knight, “Crossing the Plains,” 1853 ==<br />
<br />
I found this to be very interesting. I had never heard much about the wagon trains, other than “They were going west for a better life.” This added a different element to the train and gave me a whole different perspective. Everyone knows that the wagon train was difficult but when you are reading someone else’s words and to read what they struggled with, it gives the information a new dimension. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
While I was reading Crossing the Plains by Knight, I did not notice anything out of the ordinary. They were on the way to Oregon and made their way through so many difficult things. This includes cold temperatures, hot sun, and many bothersome bugs. To my surprise, at the end of this journal the reader finds out that everything that Knight went through, she did it while she was with child. Can you imagine what she endured while traveling in this manner? I guess during this time even if you were uncomfortable you still had to do what was necessary to survive.--Pam P.<br />
<br />
In response to Pam P, I think that Knight endured the hardships of westward movement so that her child could have a better life. The introduction states that the migrations were "made by people who were neither extremely rich nor extremely poor." Perhaps, since Knight would have been somewhere in the middle, a westward movement could have provided new opportunities for her child. --Clare O<br />
<br />
== Mary Ballou, “A Woman’s View of the Gold Rush,” 1852 ==<br />
<br />
QUESTION:<br />
In the October 21st entry, she tells her son Selden about the days she goes to church. She expresses that she goes whenever she can. However, it is interesting to see that she is the only lady. Why is she the only lady at these church sermons? She is in this work that calls for women with domestic skills, but she is the only one in church? Was she more religious? Did other women not have time? Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
When I read A Woman’s View of the Gold Rush by Mary Ballou, I almost feel bad for her and her situation. She takes it in stride though and while looking for gold she also is running a boarding house. She misses her children terribly and she was not the only one who was feeling this way. She spoke to a couple of different women who were also “homesick” and did not think that the gold rush was what everyone made it out to be. I would assume the reason why they cannot go back to where they came from is because they sold everything to go look for gold? Did her husband feel the same way? – Pam P.<br />
<br />
--in response to Pam's question: I felt the same way, but her husbands part was mentioned very briefly in the story. I almost felt that she did more work? The letter was to her son, not to another friend or someone she would lie too. Although this gold rush did ask for women who specialized in domestic duties, her husband came along. But, he didnt really get much mention. Either he works outside oft he house or he doesn't do much. I don't think he feel the same way. F<br />
<br />
Reading "A Woman's View of the Gold Rush," I almost felt that Ballou was trying to cover up her sadness by discussing all that she was doing for the miners at the boarding house. It seemed that she was upholding that notion of keeping home as a refuge for her husband by doing all of that cooking! I wonder if her discussing her cooking in her letter was her way of keeping herself from badmouthing her poor situation to her son? --Heather T.<br />
<br />
In response to Heather's post, I agree that Ballou seemed to be purposely omitting the sad aspects of her life caring for these miners in the boarding house. This seems to be a common trend in letters from the West back East, overlooking the tough circumstances because they chose to focus on the good aspects. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
== Petitions of the Cherokee Women’s Council on Removal, 1817, 1818 ==<br />
<br />
Throughout this reading, I was confused as to who "our father, the great president" was? The women address that they've done everything the "Father/president" has asked of them: become farmers, manufacture clothes, etc. Who is the father though? And if it really is the president, why do they call him father? --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
Hopefully in answering your question (or trying to at least, because it was a bit confusing to me as well) the Cherokee Nation was actually considered a sovereign nation, which also meant they had their own constitution and their own laws. The leader of their nation or tribe was a man named John Ross, who in fact was not 100% Cherokee, but he was considered the "Moses of the Cherokee Nation." He was a representative for the Cherokee people to the United States government and he would basically be considered their President (or father...I think). "There are some white men among us who have been raised in this country from their youth, are connected with us by marriage, and have considerable families, who are very active in encouraging the emigration of our nation" (201. John Ross would have been in this category, as he was white and married to a Cherokee woman. -- Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
I assumed she meant god. Perhaps some clarification in class would help. --Stef L.<br />
<br />
== Sarah Winnemucca, “Life Among the Paiutes,” 1883 ==<br />
<br />
I think the most important thing I took away from this reading is how children of the Paiutes are taught to be good, and to love everybody. So when the white settlers first arrived, Sarah's grandfather, the chief, tried to make them feel welcome. However, later in her account, Sarah writes of how unhappy her people are. Mothers begin to fear getting pregnant, because they do not think they would be able to provide for their young. Religion plays a large role in this tribe, and war is not a favorable decision when two tribes are in conflict. --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
Towards the end of this reading, Sara Winnemucca comments that "If women could go into your Congress I think justice would soon be done to the Indians." In what ways did her culture encourage this belief? What aspects of her own life supported these egalitarian views? My other question would be, are these views totally separate from the Euro-American belief that women were more spiritually and morally pure? --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
In response to Rebecca's first question, Winnemucca's culture viewed women as a more central part of the dynamics. They exercised greater political power and so Sara's comment would insinuate that she felt women could fix the ill Indian relations that existed. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
== A Sioux Tale, “A Woman Kills Her Daughter” ==<br />
<br />
This has to be one of my favorite readings so far! I knew that Indians were great story tellers and that it was part of their traditions of keeping their history going but I've never heard a story like this. Was this type of story telling common? Was this to warn women of jealousy? --Remy B.<br />
<br />
I agree with Remy! This was a great story. I think it was amazing how when the son-in-law realized something was wrong, he continued to follow the rules and did not become disrespectful or say anything to her directly. The note at the bottom of the page explains that he must address her through his wife; even in a crazy situation like that, he still abides by this rule. --Aqsa Z.yy <br />
<br />
I loved all of the supernatural elements to this tale. I felt that it amplified the morals that the story was trying to convey (don't kill others for your own gain, especially family members). However, since this is technically a part of oral history, despite it being written down, I wonder how much of this story is the original tale? If there is more, which characters would have more of a presence?-- Heather T.<br />
<br />
I would have to agree also with Remy and Aqsa...this was definitely my favorite reading so far! My father's side of the family is actually all Sioux Native Americans and it is intersting to be able to read one of their stories. Typically, most native stories and legends were passed through oral tradition, and it is exciting to be able to read one of their stories. I wonder how old this story actually is, considering the fact that they are passed down over the years and they typically were never written. I would think that most of their stories and legends had some kind of moral value or lesson to be learned from it, and considering this, I wonder if this was a common occurence amongst the tribe. It is unfathomable to me to think that a girl's mother could actually be ruthless enough to commit the atrocites this woman did to her own daughter. It was a great story but it very much resembled a skit one would see on the Jerry Springer show in today's world. -- Lindsey S.</div>Martzmichellehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_9_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 9 Questions/Comments-327 112011-10-29T14:21:42Z<p>Martzmichelle: /* Sarah Connell Ayer, “The Widowed State,” 1832-33 */</p>
<hr />
<div>FOR THIS WEEK POST TWO QUESTIONS BY THURSDAY AND CHECK BACK TO RESPOND TO TWO QUESTIONS BY SATURDAY.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== General Questions ==<br />
<br />
I was surprised (although I shouldn't really have been) at the number of these documents which refer to religion as important to their daily lives: from the lowell girls' rules enforcing religious practice to the teachers in the American west to the women on the gold mines everyone was obsessed with the sanctity of their own religion and the lack of religion in their society. Were these women simply becoming teachers to help those less fortunate than them or were they really seeking an attempt at missionary work of people they truly believed to be spiritually beneath them. Although the outcome of their work would still be the same, it would be important to know the background for which their work was done for it would tell more about the woman doing the work. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
In "A Spirit of Protest" (which I didn't see a heading for, for whatever reason that may be), the "Lowell Factory Girl" protests against capitalism and fights for labor rights. Mid-eighteenth century American society does not come off to me as an extremely capitalist society (compared with modern USA). How much did capitalism affect the lives of Americans in this time period. And was this a common viewpoint on the economy of the day? --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
== Emma Willard, “Matrimonial Risks,” 1815 ==<br />
<br />
Willard is concerned with the happiness of marriage. She warns her sister not to get her hopes up, when it comes to her suitor Mr. L because he might be disappointing. I wonder if this is a change to "companionate marriages." Willard sees or wants marriage to be happy, but realizes that marriage could be miserable. Since Willard knows that men can fail at companionate marriages, does that mean the idea of marriage changing? Do women feel they have a choice? --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
In Answer to your question, I do think women feel that they have more a choice in marriage than the previous generations. According to class and the readings, the romantic notions are beginning to come out and women are looking for Men to fulfill that ideal companionate role in a marriage, women would hold off if they felt like they did not find the right partner. Marriage was still valued and more than desired by most women at this time, but they were definitely getting pickier about who they wanted to marry. --Heather T.<br />
<br />
In "Matrimonial Risks," Willard seems to be attempting to warn her sister off of all marriages and all relationships; the advice she gives is so generalized against marriage that it almost seems that she must have been unhappy in her marriage. I started reading this expecting, based on the editors' introduction, for Willard to be essentially warning her sister off of Lincoln. On the contrary, it almost seems that Willard is trying to warn her sister off of any and all marriage. Intriguingly, she then tells her sister she'd love to see Lincoln and visit with him. I got such mixed signals from this letter that I'm really wondering whether Willard disliked Lincoln (if so, why say she'd like to see him?) or the idea of her sister getting married at all (and if that, why? Most women wound up married!) -- Nicole<br />
<br />
This reading was quite depressing how she wrote about how she should question her happiness. This shows how unhappy Emma was herself. I wonder how common this was among most women? --Emma<br />
<br />
Emma Willard was forthright in giving advice to her younger sister Almira in regards to the decision of marriage and finding the proper suitor. In the letter she wrote to Almira, she stated “. . .and we will likewise pass over the possibility of your lover’s seeing some object that he will consider more interesting than you, and likewise that you may hereafter discover some imperfection in his character. We will pass this over, and suppose that the sanction of the law has been passed upon your connection, and you are secured to each other for life” (144). It seems as though Emma is trying to think of every situation that could go wrong in a relationship, and she is attempting to discourage her younger sister for marrying for any reason, including for love or for money. Why was the idea of marriage for love considered such a risk? In today’s society, love is considered the fortifying reason for a couple to enter into matrimony together. Could it be possible that Emma was merely jealous of her younger sister because she had found a wealthy suitor that wanted to marry her, whereas Emma was once happily married and living comfortably until her husband’s finances collapsed? Emma is clearly unhappy in her own life, and in reading this excerpt, I detected a bit of jealousy towards her sisters potential happiness and wealth. -- Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
I think the idea of marrying someone because you loved them was so risky because if the person you loved couldn't provide for you, how would that make you look in society? The purpose of marriage was so that the husband could provide for his wife and children. I think that Emma may have been jealous of her sister for finding a husband, but I also think that she was unhappy because she couldn't marry for love. --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
== Caroline Gilman, “The Deferential Wife,” 1838 ==<br />
<br />
I liked in ''The Deferential Wife'' by Caroline Gilman the quote "Men are not often unreasonable; their difficulties lie in not understanding the moral and physcial structure of our sex. They often wound through ignorance and are surprised at having offended. How clear is it, then, that woman loses by petulance and recrimination! Her first study must be self-control, almost to hypocrisy. A good wife must smile amid a thousand perplexities, and clear her voice to tones of cheerfulness when her frames is drooping with disease, or else languish alone. Man on the contrary, when trials beset him, expects to find her ear and heart a ready receptacle." (page 147) Basically this is the formation of the idea that woman is reponsible for the morality and self-control of the man. It is from this ideologue (which did develop concurrently with Republican Motherhood) that the arguments today about the dress and style of women are based upon. It is interesting to see it in its' original context in The Deferential Wife. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
The Deferential Wife was an interesting piece. A woman that wanted to carter to the audience of women is an interesting concept. This would play into the idea of republican motherhood and that women would want to be more educated. That being said, if the idea of educating women were important, why don’t we see more papers and magazines geared toward the women that are staying on the plantations and raising the children? –Kayle P<br />
<br />
In answer to the above question. I think that in the early 1800s we are starting to see more papers and magazines geared towards women in the homes and plantation. At this time we start to see magazines such as Sarah Hales "Ladies Magazine," and Catharine Beecher's writings on "System and Order". These are just a few of the many self help books that started being published at this time, as well as the development of new magazines for women. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
== Catharine Beecher, “System and Order,” 1841 ==<br />
<br />
Beecher's believes that motherhood/domesticity is the greatest occupation for humanity. She believes that it will create a heaven on earth or a perfect society. This statement brings a true meaning to motherhood and housework. People are happier when they have meaning to their lives. Her belief gives women so much more to live for (not saying it is right or wrong). However, with all ideals, her advice must have stressed most women in case they failed. --- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
In Beecher's "System and Order," she states that "The formation of the moral and intellectual character of the young is committed mainly to the female hand....The proper education of a man decides the welfare of an individual; but educate a woman, and the interests of a whole family are secured." This quote reminded me of "if you teach a man to fish..." because Beecher is saying only one person benefits from the education of a man (the man). However, a woman is responsible for the education of her children as well as a role model of morals for both her children and husband. Therefore, if you educate a woman, everyone in the family will profit. This idea combines the early idea of republican motherhood, in which the mother is the prime educator and moral guide, but combines with emerging middle class ideals in which the woman is the head of the domestic sphere. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
Beecher asserts that "another important item is the apportioning of regular employment to the various members of the family....There is no greater mistake, than in bringing up children to feel that they must be taken care of, and waited on, by others, without any corresponding obligations on their part." I found this interesting because middle class families did not need children to work at the family business (as had been so many years previously, on farms for example) and therefore the mother had more time to focus on her children and the home. I am surprised to find Beecher encouraging mothers to "employ" their children around the house, when I had assumed children did not do any work in their families. Perhaps the change was that children did not need to do actual hard labor anymore, but were still expected to help around the house, as Beecher suggests. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
Beecher lists a series of chores that housewives must accomplish on each day of the week. She states, "''Monday'', with some of the best housekeepers, is devoted to preparing for the labors of the week...''Tuesday'' is devoted to washing, and ''Wednesday'' to ironing. On ''Thursday'', the ironing is finished off, the clothes folded and put away, and all articles which need mending put in the mending basket, and attended to. ''Friday'' is devoted to sweeping and housecleaning. On ''Saturday''...every department is put in order...and everything about the house put in order for ''Sunday''." Such a strict daily schedule may explain why women became so bored and lonely. Their husbands could go out of the house and do business, meet with other people, or attend to different aspects of business at different times of the year. Women, on the other hand, were expected to accomplish the same tasks on the same day no matter the month or week. Do you think this could explain why women, such as Caroline Gilman, discuss the idea of women missing their husbands? Also, do you think that this weekly schedule that Beecher suggests was necessary in maintaining a household? Why or why not? -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
In response to Hannah, this schedule does seem a little strict to modern day women, who are accustomed to having a routine at home. The women that Beecher was writing to had no systems at all (at least none that were acceptable for the new middle class). Whenever you begin a new system or routine, you have to begin by being very strict and regimented, and once they (in this case, Beecher's audience) get the hang of it, people are free to make their own judgment calls and make adjustments as needed. Plus, when laundry takes 4 days in a week, there's only so many ways you can change the schedule. --Stef L.<br />
<br />
The two things that interested me the most in Catharine Beecher's "System and Order" was here description of how to manage work within the week and the mode of "systematizing, [relating] to providing proper supplies of conveniences." The details for arranging a week seem quite logical and in fact are similar to actually accounts I have read that follow a similar outline. It does not seem That Catharine's ideas on this front could have been that new. As for the arranging items in particular places, did women really have the extra rooms just for doing laundry? And why, for the trunks full of extra supplies, were they kept locked? --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
In response to Jennifer S, I think that Beecher asserts that women should have extra rooms solely for laundry so as to make the household even more organized. Her whole document is called "System and Order," so to do laundry in any other place in the home besides the room devoted specifically to it would disrupt the order and cleanliness of the household. Also, perhaps the trunks full of extra supplies were kept locked so that children could not get into them and disrupt the order the wife had put them in. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
But did families at that time actually have rooms devoted to laundry? Were houses built with laundry rooms in mind? Or was this just an ideal that Catharine Beecher writes about? --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
I would assume that most of the women reading the book did not have extra rooms for laundry. I think Beecher is talking about an ideal. But, I think it is interesting that today we have just that a "laundry room" in most houses. --- Michelle .<br />
<br />
== Catharine Sedgwick, “First to None,” 1828 ==<br />
<br />
From our readings we can guess that the main goal in life (for most not all) women was to get married and make babies. But as with the case of Catharine Sedgwick she claims that her "perfectionist" vision of what she wants is the reason that she has stayed single. I feel that this may have been a common theme with others who did not marry but we just don't know about it because unlike her they probably didn't write about it. Does anyone else get the sense that she is completely miserable not being married but wants to put on a brave face in front of everyone around her? --Remy B.<br />
<br />
Remy, yes I also felt that she was pretty unhappy. The last line of the essay stood out to me, "I do hope...to order my house for that better world where self may lose something of its engrossing power." This read to me, "things will be better when I'm dead." Pretty sad. A certain amount of risk accompanies any choice. If women have more freedom to choose their marital partners, they also have to accept the consequences of their decisions. In Sedgwick's case, she rejected a few suitors because they didn't meet her expectations. Because she only has herself to blame (instead of blaming her parents or society, or just accepting an unpleasant marriage without question, as would have happened in the past), it seems like it makes her loneliness more painful. --Stef L.<br />
<br />
Like Emma, Catherine seems unhappy about her life, only she is not married. It was interesting to see how women felt about their decision to not marry. Once again, I wonder how common this unhappiness is. Is it more common to be unhappy as an unmarried woman or a married woman? -- Emma<br />
<br />
In responnse to Emma I feel as though the women writing are pretty bold to be expressing their unhappiness at all. After all, it is rather unlady like to complain about the situation these women were in, and the ones who were writing were obviously educated. It is more common for women even today, regardless of marital status, with educations to be more discontent with societies impositions upon them. I think the fact of marriage or not is irrelevant because both types of women were unhappy. --Sara<br />
<br />
I agree with you, Remy - and with all of you, actually - that it certainly seems that Catharine was pretty unhappy. It really stands out to me that she discusses her writings, and all writings, as a way of being honest. She says that, and seems to have good intentions in terms of being honest, and perhaps either due to shame about being unhappy, or due to the social constraints that Sara mentions against expressing dissatisfaction with one's life. More depressing than her pretty obvious unhappiness is how she tried to mask that--I can't imagine how lonely that must have felt. -- Nicole<br />
<br />
== Sarah Connell Ayer, “The Widowed State,” 1832-33 ==<br />
<br />
It is evident that Sarah Connell Ayer's life consisted of a continual pattern of death surrounding her. Ayer clings to the Lord in these times of trial and demonstrates a remarkable trust, at least in her diary entries. How did death affect Ayer's view of God and influence the role of religion in her life? --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
I feel that religion was the one constant thing in Ayer's life. I think she relied on it greatly to get her through all the deaths that she experienced. I think that through these deaths, if anything, her trust in God increased. Religion was something that she could always rely on no matter where she was and I think she found a little peace in her beliefs. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
For most people religion is a constant in their lives. It is comforting to know that it is usually stable. However, the question of why bad things happen to good people can push away from religion. Ayer did not do that. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Eliza Ann Mulford, “Rules of the School,” 1814 ==<br />
<br />
I wonder how the girls felt about these rules. Were they sincerely considering their excuses for skipping church in light of what they'd tell God at judgement day? Did they consider whether they wanted to read a novel or have a casual conversation in light of whether they were properly using God's time? I want to know what these rules say about the young women they applied to. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
(Reply to Katie): What (it seems to me) the rules say about the girls is that they were not trusted. It seems to me that if everyone at the institution truly believed that each and every young lady at the school were sufficiently Godly that the thought of Judgment Day would be enough to stop them from breaking rules or skipping sabbath, all of their "superiors" would be able to go home and take a nap, certain of the impeccable behavior of all of the girls there. --Nicole<br />
<br />
What stands out about this reading is the fact that the rules designed by the schools constrained every aspect of the girls live all to meet the standards of the ideal middle class woman. It appears that the school was not only there to educate it students but transform them into the moral authority that women were expected to be. Also playing into the image of an a partnership within a marriage, by creating a wife who was not only equal in education but a example to be followed in moral behavior. Like Kate, I wonder what the students thought of these rules, did they see them as necessary for the life they wanted to live or excessive? --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
Eliza Ann Mulford's account of the rules that existed at this school reflected the close watch these girls were kept under. Like Kate and Rachel have pointed out, I wonder if these girls felt oppressed by these rules or whether they truly felt like these rules were necessary to achieve the status of a respectable woman? --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
My feeling is that the girls didn't know they were being "oppresed". I think during this time period, (some) young girls followed the rules because they knew that they had duties to be the moral authority in the household. --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
== Emma Willard, “A Rationale for Female Education,” 1819 ==<br />
What I found interesting in Emma Willard's piece was that it was a seminary for girls. What church/denomination was she a part of? And when did women become more involved in religion in the United States? The major difference between this document and the source before it is that it encourages morality and intellect, while it seemed that Eliza Ann Mulford's promoted piety only. --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
In an answer to your questions, I think that women started becoming more involved with religion in the United States when the ideals of Republican Motherhood came about. Religion was a great source for social morality for these people and since women were taking the moral roles in society, they would want to turn to the church to show both their children and their community that they were upholding moral beliefs.-- Heather T.<br />
<br />
"A more advanced institution than the academy, the antebellum female seminary sought to imitate some features of the male college curriculum. Seminaries required or taught classical languages, eschewed polite accomplishments, and admitted only older students who passed examinations...The very name "seminary," usually associated with the ministry, implied some type of professional training." (Woloch 161) I don't think that these female seminaries were strictly theological schools, like seminaries are today. It appears that religion was integrated more into the fabric of everyday life (see the mill rules)than now, so perhaps the schools were religious in that way, but I don't think that equates to a clergy-training school. --Stef L.<br />
<br />
== Miss Burnham’s Report, “A Choctaw Mission School,” 1824 ==<br />
<br />
I found this reading very interesting. Very young girls were forced to leave their families, and wear European clothing, speak English, and learn the bible. I assume some girls even starved to death because the food was so different than what they were used to. My question is, after returning home from this school, how had the girls' relationships with their native people and families changed? --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
In response to Catherine I think that the relationship between the teachers and the individual natives' relationship would be a strong one, but overall, they would still view "Natives" as savage and ungodly. All of the teachers' documents we read mention the godlessness, lack of churches, lack of interest in pursuing the religion by the natives or lack of honoring of the Sabbath. This means that even if they felt better about the individual girls they taught, they probably felt as though they "saved" them. Not respected them --Sara S.<br />
<br />
This passage was indeed interesting. One section that I found especially interesting was the one about the family who walked 55 miles to bring the girls to the school and then walked them 55 miles back when they heard a rumor about the missionaries taking land. THEN they took them 55 miles back to the school because the girls were unhappy at home. Once sent home, I question whether or not the girls from the schools were bullied or even excommunicated for their new way of life. --Ashley V.<br />
<br />
== Letters from Teachers, “Reports on Western Schools,” 1847 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
These letters are really pitiful, and it's amazing to me that we have a public school system at all, considering its origins. One thing that really stands out to me is the sense of moral duty/religious obligation that keeps these teachers working, even though (much of the time) they weren't being paid. Is this a continuation of the ideals (and responsibilities) of republican motherhood, that women are responsible for the moral uplift of the entire nation? --Stef L.<br />
<br />
I found these letters to be quite interesting. First, the fact that these new teachers were so concerned about the religion and morals of the people in the community. Religion seemed to be one of the biggest concerns of these new teachers. Why was that? Second, it was interesting to see the these two very different experiences. The first teacher seemed to have some real problems with the community excepting her. It almost seemed as if they though education was silly, possibly because they were more concerned about the success of their farms, of surviving, instead of reading and writing. Where as the second teacher seemed to have real success in her bringing her community together. I am quite amazed by what she was able to accomplish.It would be interesting to know exactly where these women went to do this teaching. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
Chatharine Beecher sounded like an inspirational woman. She truly cared about education. One thing I did find weird was her promotion of teaching as a woman's profession. What if a man were to teach and step forward and ask for her help. Was a male teacher completely unheard of? Would she deny him? -- Ashley V.<br />
<br />
== Rules of the Mill from Lowell and Lancaster, 1820-1840 ==<br />
How extensive rules for living in a mill community seem to be very personally invasive for a job. The rules that were applied to the boarders seems equivalent to life under a male figurehead through parental controls or marriage. Mandating when the workers had to be in bed to forcing their attendance in church molded these women into the ideals of the mill managers as well as into the evolving perception of female work roles. What I found to be the most interesting point was that it was more socially acceptable for women to be single longer and have jobs of their own yet it appears that the women who worked in the mill only fell back into patriarchal relationships that these new forms of female freedom seem to oppose. Could it be that women were so eager to embrace the world of employment and financial independence that they were willing to fit into the mold instilled by the mill? Or could it had been from the women workers being attracted into a world that was very familiar to them? -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
== Harriet Farley, “A Letter from Lowell,” 1844 ==<br />
<br />
I wonder how accurately this reflects mill life? It was published in a mill journal, which would have an interest in showing the best side of the mill, but it isn't a completely rosy picture. I thought it was particularly interesting to see a story of a woman off on her own, making her own income, in a way that I don't think we've seen as often before - do you think 'Susan's' story reflects how young women felt about living as single women? --Katie C.<br />
<br />
This letter struck me as being so propagandized, I would not have been surprised if it turned out that it had been written by an overseer. The small complaints ("these rooms are kept very warm, and are disagreeably scented"..."it makes my feet ache and swell") serve to give the letter an air of respectability, and make it seem like a legitimate letter, but the emphasis on the positive and lack of emphasis on negative aspects (If my feet were painful and swelling, I'd factor it much more into my overall sense of happiness!) makes the letter seem utterly false--which of course it is. I can't help but wonder whether Harriet and her compatriots truly felt this was an accurate representation of their lives? -- Nicole<br />
<br />
== The Voice of Industry, “A Spirit of Protest,” 1846 ==<br />
<br />
The movement which is the subject of this article was conducted entirely or almost entirely by women, who recognized a "sisterhood" of workers. How might the tactics used by movement leaders have been influenced by the gender roles of their day? Might they have faced any particular difficulties in negotiating with male management? --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
== Amelia Stewart Knight, “Crossing the Plains,” 1853 ==<br />
<br />
I found this to be very interesting. I had never heard much about the wagon trains, other than “They were going west for a better life.” This added a different element to the train and gave me a whole different perspective. Everyone knows that the wagon train was difficult but when you are reading someone else’s words and to read what they struggled with, it gives the information a new dimension. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
While I was reading Crossing the Plains by Knight, I did not notice anything out of the ordinary. They were on the way to Oregon and made their way through so many difficult things. This includes cold temperatures, hot sun, and many bothersome bugs. To my surprise, at the end of this journal the reader finds out that everything that Knight went through, she did it while she was with child. Can you imagine what she endured while traveling in this manner? I guess during this time even if you were uncomfortable you still had to do what was necessary to survive.--Pam P.<br />
<br />
In response to Pam P, I think that Knight endured the hardships of westward movement so that her child could have a better life. The introduction states that the migrations were "made by people who were neither extremely rich nor extremely poor." Perhaps, since Knight would have been somewhere in the middle, a westward movement could have provided new opportunities for her child. --Clare O<br />
<br />
== Mary Ballou, “A Woman’s View of the Gold Rush,” 1852 ==<br />
<br />
QUESTION:<br />
In the October 21st entry, she tells her son Selden about the days she goes to church. She expresses that she goes whenever she can. However, it is interesting to see that she is the only lady. Why is she the only lady at these church sermons? She is in this work that calls for women with domestic skills, but she is the only one in church? Was she more religious? Did other women not have time? Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
When I read A Woman’s View of the Gold Rush by Mary Ballou, I almost feel bad for her and her situation. She takes it in stride though and while looking for gold she also is running a boarding house. She misses her children terribly and she was not the only one who was feeling this way. She spoke to a couple of different women who were also “homesick” and did not think that the gold rush was what everyone made it out to be. I would assume the reason why they cannot go back to where they came from is because they sold everything to go look for gold? Did her husband feel the same way? – Pam P.<br />
<br />
--in response to Pam's question: I felt the same way, but her husbands part was mentioned very briefly in the story. I almost felt that she did more work? The letter was to her son, not to another friend or someone she would lie too. Although this gold rush did ask for women who specialized in domestic duties, her husband came along. But, he didnt really get much mention. Either he works outside oft he house or he doesn't do much. I don't think he feel the same way. F<br />
<br />
Reading "A Woman's View of the Gold Rush," I almost felt that Ballou was trying to cover up her sadness by discussing all that she was doing for the miners at the boarding house. It seemed that she was upholding that notion of keeping home as a refuge for her husband by doing all of that cooking! I wonder if her discussing her cooking in her letter was her way of keeping herself from badmouthing her poor situation to her son? --Heather T.<br />
<br />
In response to Heather's post, I agree that Ballou seemed to be purposely omitting the sad aspects of her life caring for these miners in the boarding house. This seems to be a common trend in letters from the West back East, overlooking the tough circumstances because they chose to focus on the good aspects. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
== Petitions of the Cherokee Women’s Council on Removal, 1817, 1818 ==<br />
<br />
Throughout this reading, I was confused as to who "our father, the great president" was? The women address that they've done everything the "Father/president" has asked of them: become farmers, manufacture clothes, etc. Who is the father though? And if it really is the president, why do they call him father? --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
Hopefully in answering your question (or trying to at least, because it was a bit confusing to me as well) the Cherokee Nation was actually considered a sovereign nation, which also meant they had their own constitution and their own laws. The leader of their nation or tribe was a man named John Ross, who in fact was not 100% Cherokee, but he was considered the "Moses of the Cherokee Nation." He was a representative for the Cherokee people to the United States government and he would basically be considered their President (or father...I think). "There are some white men among us who have been raised in this country from their youth, are connected with us by marriage, and have considerable families, who are very active in encouraging the emigration of our nation" (201. John Ross would have been in this category, as he was white and married to a Cherokee woman. -- Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
I assumed she meant god. Perhaps some clarification in class would help. --Stef L.<br />
<br />
== Sarah Winnemucca, “Life Among the Paiutes,” 1883 ==<br />
<br />
I think the most important thing I took away from this reading is how children of the Paiutes are taught to be good, and to love everybody. So when the white settlers first arrived, Sarah's grandfather, the chief, tried to make them feel welcome. However, later in her account, Sarah writes of how unhappy her people are. Mothers begin to fear getting pregnant, because they do not think they would be able to provide for their young. Religion plays a large role in this tribe, and war is not a favorable decision when two tribes are in conflict. --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
Towards the end of this reading, Sara Winnemucca comments that "If women could go into your Congress I think justice would soon be done to the Indians." In what ways did her culture encourage this belief? What aspects of her own life supported these egalitarian views? My other question would be, are these views totally separate from the Euro-American belief that women were more spiritually and morally pure? --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
In response to Rebecca's first question, Winnemucca's culture viewed women as a more central part of the dynamics. They exercised greater political power and so Sara's comment would insinuate that she felt women could fix the ill Indian relations that existed. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
== A Sioux Tale, “A Woman Kills Her Daughter” ==<br />
<br />
This has to be one of my favorite readings so far! I knew that Indians were great story tellers and that it was part of their traditions of keeping their history going but I've never heard a story like this. Was this type of story telling common? Was this to warn women of jealousy? --Remy B.<br />
<br />
I agree with Remy! This was a great story. I think it was amazing how when the son-in-law realized something was wrong, he continued to follow the rules and did not become disrespectful or say anything to her directly. The note at the bottom of the page explains that he must address her through his wife; even in a crazy situation like that, he still abides by this rule. --Aqsa Z.yy <br />
<br />
I loved all of the supernatural elements to this tale. I felt that it amplified the morals that the story was trying to convey (don't kill others for your own gain, especially family members). However, since this is technically a part of oral history, despite it being written down, I wonder how much of this story is the original tale? If there is more, which characters would have more of a presence?-- Heather T.<br />
<br />
I would have to agree also with Remy and Aqsa...this was definitely my favorite reading so far! My father's side of the family is actually all Sioux Native Americans and it is intersting to be able to read one of their stories. Typically, most native stories and legends were passed through oral tradition, and it is exciting to be able to read one of their stories. I wonder how old this story actually is, considering the fact that they are passed down over the years and they typically were never written. I would think that most of their stories and legends had some kind of moral value or lesson to be learned from it, and considering this, I wonder if this was a common occurence amongst the tribe. It is unfathomable to me to think that a girl's mother could actually be ruthless enough to commit the atrocites this woman did to her own daughter. It was a great story but it very much resembled a skit one would see on the Jerry Springer show in today's world. -- Lindsey S.</div>Martzmichellehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_9_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 9 Questions/Comments-327 112011-10-29T14:19:37Z<p>Martzmichelle: /* Catharine Beecher, “System and Order,” 1841 */</p>
<hr />
<div>FOR THIS WEEK POST TWO QUESTIONS BY THURSDAY AND CHECK BACK TO RESPOND TO TWO QUESTIONS BY SATURDAY.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== General Questions ==<br />
<br />
I was surprised (although I shouldn't really have been) at the number of these documents which refer to religion as important to their daily lives: from the lowell girls' rules enforcing religious practice to the teachers in the American west to the women on the gold mines everyone was obsessed with the sanctity of their own religion and the lack of religion in their society. Were these women simply becoming teachers to help those less fortunate than them or were they really seeking an attempt at missionary work of people they truly believed to be spiritually beneath them. Although the outcome of their work would still be the same, it would be important to know the background for which their work was done for it would tell more about the woman doing the work. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
In "A Spirit of Protest" (which I didn't see a heading for, for whatever reason that may be), the "Lowell Factory Girl" protests against capitalism and fights for labor rights. Mid-eighteenth century American society does not come off to me as an extremely capitalist society (compared with modern USA). How much did capitalism affect the lives of Americans in this time period. And was this a common viewpoint on the economy of the day? --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
== Emma Willard, “Matrimonial Risks,” 1815 ==<br />
<br />
Willard is concerned with the happiness of marriage. She warns her sister not to get her hopes up, when it comes to her suitor Mr. L because he might be disappointing. I wonder if this is a change to "companionate marriages." Willard sees or wants marriage to be happy, but realizes that marriage could be miserable. Since Willard knows that men can fail at companionate marriages, does that mean the idea of marriage changing? Do women feel they have a choice? --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
In Answer to your question, I do think women feel that they have more a choice in marriage than the previous generations. According to class and the readings, the romantic notions are beginning to come out and women are looking for Men to fulfill that ideal companionate role in a marriage, women would hold off if they felt like they did not find the right partner. Marriage was still valued and more than desired by most women at this time, but they were definitely getting pickier about who they wanted to marry. --Heather T.<br />
<br />
In "Matrimonial Risks," Willard seems to be attempting to warn her sister off of all marriages and all relationships; the advice she gives is so generalized against marriage that it almost seems that she must have been unhappy in her marriage. I started reading this expecting, based on the editors' introduction, for Willard to be essentially warning her sister off of Lincoln. On the contrary, it almost seems that Willard is trying to warn her sister off of any and all marriage. Intriguingly, she then tells her sister she'd love to see Lincoln and visit with him. I got such mixed signals from this letter that I'm really wondering whether Willard disliked Lincoln (if so, why say she'd like to see him?) or the idea of her sister getting married at all (and if that, why? Most women wound up married!) -- Nicole<br />
<br />
This reading was quite depressing how she wrote about how she should question her happiness. This shows how unhappy Emma was herself. I wonder how common this was among most women? --Emma<br />
<br />
Emma Willard was forthright in giving advice to her younger sister Almira in regards to the decision of marriage and finding the proper suitor. In the letter she wrote to Almira, she stated “. . .and we will likewise pass over the possibility of your lover’s seeing some object that he will consider more interesting than you, and likewise that you may hereafter discover some imperfection in his character. We will pass this over, and suppose that the sanction of the law has been passed upon your connection, and you are secured to each other for life” (144). It seems as though Emma is trying to think of every situation that could go wrong in a relationship, and she is attempting to discourage her younger sister for marrying for any reason, including for love or for money. Why was the idea of marriage for love considered such a risk? In today’s society, love is considered the fortifying reason for a couple to enter into matrimony together. Could it be possible that Emma was merely jealous of her younger sister because she had found a wealthy suitor that wanted to marry her, whereas Emma was once happily married and living comfortably until her husband’s finances collapsed? Emma is clearly unhappy in her own life, and in reading this excerpt, I detected a bit of jealousy towards her sisters potential happiness and wealth. -- Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
I think the idea of marrying someone because you loved them was so risky because if the person you loved couldn't provide for you, how would that make you look in society? The purpose of marriage was so that the husband could provide for his wife and children. I think that Emma may have been jealous of her sister for finding a husband, but I also think that she was unhappy because she couldn't marry for love. --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
== Caroline Gilman, “The Deferential Wife,” 1838 ==<br />
<br />
I liked in ''The Deferential Wife'' by Caroline Gilman the quote "Men are not often unreasonable; their difficulties lie in not understanding the moral and physcial structure of our sex. They often wound through ignorance and are surprised at having offended. How clear is it, then, that woman loses by petulance and recrimination! Her first study must be self-control, almost to hypocrisy. A good wife must smile amid a thousand perplexities, and clear her voice to tones of cheerfulness when her frames is drooping with disease, or else languish alone. Man on the contrary, when trials beset him, expects to find her ear and heart a ready receptacle." (page 147) Basically this is the formation of the idea that woman is reponsible for the morality and self-control of the man. It is from this ideologue (which did develop concurrently with Republican Motherhood) that the arguments today about the dress and style of women are based upon. It is interesting to see it in its' original context in The Deferential Wife. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
The Deferential Wife was an interesting piece. A woman that wanted to carter to the audience of women is an interesting concept. This would play into the idea of republican motherhood and that women would want to be more educated. That being said, if the idea of educating women were important, why don’t we see more papers and magazines geared toward the women that are staying on the plantations and raising the children? –Kayle P<br />
<br />
In answer to the above question. I think that in the early 1800s we are starting to see more papers and magazines geared towards women in the homes and plantation. At this time we start to see magazines such as Sarah Hales "Ladies Magazine," and Catharine Beecher's writings on "System and Order". These are just a few of the many self help books that started being published at this time, as well as the development of new magazines for women. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
== Catharine Beecher, “System and Order,” 1841 ==<br />
<br />
Beecher's believes that motherhood/domesticity is the greatest occupation for humanity. She believes that it will create a heaven on earth or a perfect society. This statement brings a true meaning to motherhood and housework. People are happier when they have meaning to their lives. Her belief gives women so much more to live for (not saying it is right or wrong). However, with all ideals, her advice must have stressed most women in case they failed. --- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
In Beecher's "System and Order," she states that "The formation of the moral and intellectual character of the young is committed mainly to the female hand....The proper education of a man decides the welfare of an individual; but educate a woman, and the interests of a whole family are secured." This quote reminded me of "if you teach a man to fish..." because Beecher is saying only one person benefits from the education of a man (the man). However, a woman is responsible for the education of her children as well as a role model of morals for both her children and husband. Therefore, if you educate a woman, everyone in the family will profit. This idea combines the early idea of republican motherhood, in which the mother is the prime educator and moral guide, but combines with emerging middle class ideals in which the woman is the head of the domestic sphere. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
Beecher asserts that "another important item is the apportioning of regular employment to the various members of the family....There is no greater mistake, than in bringing up children to feel that they must be taken care of, and waited on, by others, without any corresponding obligations on their part." I found this interesting because middle class families did not need children to work at the family business (as had been so many years previously, on farms for example) and therefore the mother had more time to focus on her children and the home. I am surprised to find Beecher encouraging mothers to "employ" their children around the house, when I had assumed children did not do any work in their families. Perhaps the change was that children did not need to do actual hard labor anymore, but were still expected to help around the house, as Beecher suggests. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
Beecher lists a series of chores that housewives must accomplish on each day of the week. She states, "''Monday'', with some of the best housekeepers, is devoted to preparing for the labors of the week...''Tuesday'' is devoted to washing, and ''Wednesday'' to ironing. On ''Thursday'', the ironing is finished off, the clothes folded and put away, and all articles which need mending put in the mending basket, and attended to. ''Friday'' is devoted to sweeping and housecleaning. On ''Saturday''...every department is put in order...and everything about the house put in order for ''Sunday''." Such a strict daily schedule may explain why women became so bored and lonely. Their husbands could go out of the house and do business, meet with other people, or attend to different aspects of business at different times of the year. Women, on the other hand, were expected to accomplish the same tasks on the same day no matter the month or week. Do you think this could explain why women, such as Caroline Gilman, discuss the idea of women missing their husbands? Also, do you think that this weekly schedule that Beecher suggests was necessary in maintaining a household? Why or why not? -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
In response to Hannah, this schedule does seem a little strict to modern day women, who are accustomed to having a routine at home. The women that Beecher was writing to had no systems at all (at least none that were acceptable for the new middle class). Whenever you begin a new system or routine, you have to begin by being very strict and regimented, and once they (in this case, Beecher's audience) get the hang of it, people are free to make their own judgment calls and make adjustments as needed. Plus, when laundry takes 4 days in a week, there's only so many ways you can change the schedule. --Stef L.<br />
<br />
The two things that interested me the most in Catharine Beecher's "System and Order" was here description of how to manage work within the week and the mode of "systematizing, [relating] to providing proper supplies of conveniences." The details for arranging a week seem quite logical and in fact are similar to actually accounts I have read that follow a similar outline. It does not seem That Catharine's ideas on this front could have been that new. As for the arranging items in particular places, did women really have the extra rooms just for doing laundry? And why, for the trunks full of extra supplies, were they kept locked? --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
In response to Jennifer S, I think that Beecher asserts that women should have extra rooms solely for laundry so as to make the household even more organized. Her whole document is called "System and Order," so to do laundry in any other place in the home besides the room devoted specifically to it would disrupt the order and cleanliness of the household. Also, perhaps the trunks full of extra supplies were kept locked so that children could not get into them and disrupt the order the wife had put them in. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
But did families at that time actually have rooms devoted to laundry? Were houses built with laundry rooms in mind? Or was this just an ideal that Catharine Beecher writes about? --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
I would assume that most of the women reading the book did not have extra rooms for laundry. I think Beecher is talking about an ideal. But, I think it is interesting that today we have just that a "laundry room" in most houses. --- Michelle .<br />
<br />
== Catharine Sedgwick, “First to None,” 1828 ==<br />
<br />
From our readings we can guess that the main goal in life (for most not all) women was to get married and make babies. But as with the case of Catharine Sedgwick she claims that her "perfectionist" vision of what she wants is the reason that she has stayed single. I feel that this may have been a common theme with others who did not marry but we just don't know about it because unlike her they probably didn't write about it. Does anyone else get the sense that she is completely miserable not being married but wants to put on a brave face in front of everyone around her? --Remy B.<br />
<br />
Remy, yes I also felt that she was pretty unhappy. The last line of the essay stood out to me, "I do hope...to order my house for that better world where self may lose something of its engrossing power." This read to me, "things will be better when I'm dead." Pretty sad. A certain amount of risk accompanies any choice. If women have more freedom to choose their marital partners, they also have to accept the consequences of their decisions. In Sedgwick's case, she rejected a few suitors because they didn't meet her expectations. Because she only has herself to blame (instead of blaming her parents or society, or just accepting an unpleasant marriage without question, as would have happened in the past), it seems like it makes her loneliness more painful. --Stef L.<br />
<br />
Like Emma, Catherine seems unhappy about her life, only she is not married. It was interesting to see how women felt about their decision to not marry. Once again, I wonder how common this unhappiness is. Is it more common to be unhappy as an unmarried woman or a married woman? -- Emma<br />
<br />
In responnse to Emma I feel as though the women writing are pretty bold to be expressing their unhappiness at all. After all, it is rather unlady like to complain about the situation these women were in, and the ones who were writing were obviously educated. It is more common for women even today, regardless of marital status, with educations to be more discontent with societies impositions upon them. I think the fact of marriage or not is irrelevant because both types of women were unhappy. --Sara<br />
<br />
I agree with you, Remy - and with all of you, actually - that it certainly seems that Catharine was pretty unhappy. It really stands out to me that she discusses her writings, and all writings, as a way of being honest. She says that, and seems to have good intentions in terms of being honest, and perhaps either due to shame about being unhappy, or due to the social constraints that Sara mentions against expressing dissatisfaction with one's life. More depressing than her pretty obvious unhappiness is how she tried to mask that--I can't imagine how lonely that must have felt. -- Nicole<br />
<br />
== Sarah Connell Ayer, “The Widowed State,” 1832-33 ==<br />
<br />
It is evident that Sarah Connell Ayer's life consisted of a continual pattern of death surrounding her. Ayer clings to the Lord in these times of trial and demonstrates a remarkable trust, at least in her diary entries. How did death affect Ayer's view of God and influence the role of religion in her life? --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
I feel that religion was the one constant thing in Ayer's life. I think she relied on it greatly to get her through all the deaths that she experienced. I think that through these deaths, if anything, her trust in God increased. Religion was something that she could always rely on no matter where she was and I think she found a little peace in her beliefs. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
== Eliza Ann Mulford, “Rules of the School,” 1814 ==<br />
<br />
I wonder how the girls felt about these rules. Were they sincerely considering their excuses for skipping church in light of what they'd tell God at judgement day? Did they consider whether they wanted to read a novel or have a casual conversation in light of whether they were properly using God's time? I want to know what these rules say about the young women they applied to. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
(Reply to Katie): What (it seems to me) the rules say about the girls is that they were not trusted. It seems to me that if everyone at the institution truly believed that each and every young lady at the school were sufficiently Godly that the thought of Judgment Day would be enough to stop them from breaking rules or skipping sabbath, all of their "superiors" would be able to go home and take a nap, certain of the impeccable behavior of all of the girls there. --Nicole<br />
<br />
What stands out about this reading is the fact that the rules designed by the schools constrained every aspect of the girls live all to meet the standards of the ideal middle class woman. It appears that the school was not only there to educate it students but transform them into the moral authority that women were expected to be. Also playing into the image of an a partnership within a marriage, by creating a wife who was not only equal in education but a example to be followed in moral behavior. Like Kate, I wonder what the students thought of these rules, did they see them as necessary for the life they wanted to live or excessive? --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
Eliza Ann Mulford's account of the rules that existed at this school reflected the close watch these girls were kept under. Like Kate and Rachel have pointed out, I wonder if these girls felt oppressed by these rules or whether they truly felt like these rules were necessary to achieve the status of a respectable woman? --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
My feeling is that the girls didn't know they were being "oppresed". I think during this time period, (some) young girls followed the rules because they knew that they had duties to be the moral authority in the household. --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
== Emma Willard, “A Rationale for Female Education,” 1819 ==<br />
What I found interesting in Emma Willard's piece was that it was a seminary for girls. What church/denomination was she a part of? And when did women become more involved in religion in the United States? The major difference between this document and the source before it is that it encourages morality and intellect, while it seemed that Eliza Ann Mulford's promoted piety only. --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
In an answer to your questions, I think that women started becoming more involved with religion in the United States when the ideals of Republican Motherhood came about. Religion was a great source for social morality for these people and since women were taking the moral roles in society, they would want to turn to the church to show both their children and their community that they were upholding moral beliefs.-- Heather T.<br />
<br />
"A more advanced institution than the academy, the antebellum female seminary sought to imitate some features of the male college curriculum. Seminaries required or taught classical languages, eschewed polite accomplishments, and admitted only older students who passed examinations...The very name "seminary," usually associated with the ministry, implied some type of professional training." (Woloch 161) I don't think that these female seminaries were strictly theological schools, like seminaries are today. It appears that religion was integrated more into the fabric of everyday life (see the mill rules)than now, so perhaps the schools were religious in that way, but I don't think that equates to a clergy-training school. --Stef L.<br />
<br />
== Miss Burnham’s Report, “A Choctaw Mission School,” 1824 ==<br />
<br />
I found this reading very interesting. Very young girls were forced to leave their families, and wear European clothing, speak English, and learn the bible. I assume some girls even starved to death because the food was so different than what they were used to. My question is, after returning home from this school, how had the girls' relationships with their native people and families changed? --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
In response to Catherine I think that the relationship between the teachers and the individual natives' relationship would be a strong one, but overall, they would still view "Natives" as savage and ungodly. All of the teachers' documents we read mention the godlessness, lack of churches, lack of interest in pursuing the religion by the natives or lack of honoring of the Sabbath. This means that even if they felt better about the individual girls they taught, they probably felt as though they "saved" them. Not respected them --Sara S.<br />
<br />
This passage was indeed interesting. One section that I found especially interesting was the one about the family who walked 55 miles to bring the girls to the school and then walked them 55 miles back when they heard a rumor about the missionaries taking land. THEN they took them 55 miles back to the school because the girls were unhappy at home. Once sent home, I question whether or not the girls from the schools were bullied or even excommunicated for their new way of life. --Ashley V.<br />
<br />
== Letters from Teachers, “Reports on Western Schools,” 1847 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
These letters are really pitiful, and it's amazing to me that we have a public school system at all, considering its origins. One thing that really stands out to me is the sense of moral duty/religious obligation that keeps these teachers working, even though (much of the time) they weren't being paid. Is this a continuation of the ideals (and responsibilities) of republican motherhood, that women are responsible for the moral uplift of the entire nation? --Stef L.<br />
<br />
I found these letters to be quite interesting. First, the fact that these new teachers were so concerned about the religion and morals of the people in the community. Religion seemed to be one of the biggest concerns of these new teachers. Why was that? Second, it was interesting to see the these two very different experiences. The first teacher seemed to have some real problems with the community excepting her. It almost seemed as if they though education was silly, possibly because they were more concerned about the success of their farms, of surviving, instead of reading and writing. Where as the second teacher seemed to have real success in her bringing her community together. I am quite amazed by what she was able to accomplish.It would be interesting to know exactly where these women went to do this teaching. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
Chatharine Beecher sounded like an inspirational woman. She truly cared about education. One thing I did find weird was her promotion of teaching as a woman's profession. What if a man were to teach and step forward and ask for her help. Was a male teacher completely unheard of? Would she deny him? -- Ashley V.<br />
<br />
== Rules of the Mill from Lowell and Lancaster, 1820-1840 ==<br />
How extensive rules for living in a mill community seem to be very personally invasive for a job. The rules that were applied to the boarders seems equivalent to life under a male figurehead through parental controls or marriage. Mandating when the workers had to be in bed to forcing their attendance in church molded these women into the ideals of the mill managers as well as into the evolving perception of female work roles. What I found to be the most interesting point was that it was more socially acceptable for women to be single longer and have jobs of their own yet it appears that the women who worked in the mill only fell back into patriarchal relationships that these new forms of female freedom seem to oppose. Could it be that women were so eager to embrace the world of employment and financial independence that they were willing to fit into the mold instilled by the mill? Or could it had been from the women workers being attracted into a world that was very familiar to them? -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
== Harriet Farley, “A Letter from Lowell,” 1844 ==<br />
<br />
I wonder how accurately this reflects mill life? It was published in a mill journal, which would have an interest in showing the best side of the mill, but it isn't a completely rosy picture. I thought it was particularly interesting to see a story of a woman off on her own, making her own income, in a way that I don't think we've seen as often before - do you think 'Susan's' story reflects how young women felt about living as single women? --Katie C.<br />
<br />
This letter struck me as being so propagandized, I would not have been surprised if it turned out that it had been written by an overseer. The small complaints ("these rooms are kept very warm, and are disagreeably scented"..."it makes my feet ache and swell") serve to give the letter an air of respectability, and make it seem like a legitimate letter, but the emphasis on the positive and lack of emphasis on negative aspects (If my feet were painful and swelling, I'd factor it much more into my overall sense of happiness!) makes the letter seem utterly false--which of course it is. I can't help but wonder whether Harriet and her compatriots truly felt this was an accurate representation of their lives? -- Nicole<br />
<br />
== The Voice of Industry, “A Spirit of Protest,” 1846 ==<br />
<br />
The movement which is the subject of this article was conducted entirely or almost entirely by women, who recognized a "sisterhood" of workers. How might the tactics used by movement leaders have been influenced by the gender roles of their day? Might they have faced any particular difficulties in negotiating with male management? --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
== Amelia Stewart Knight, “Crossing the Plains,” 1853 ==<br />
<br />
I found this to be very interesting. I had never heard much about the wagon trains, other than “They were going west for a better life.” This added a different element to the train and gave me a whole different perspective. Everyone knows that the wagon train was difficult but when you are reading someone else’s words and to read what they struggled with, it gives the information a new dimension. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
While I was reading Crossing the Plains by Knight, I did not notice anything out of the ordinary. They were on the way to Oregon and made their way through so many difficult things. This includes cold temperatures, hot sun, and many bothersome bugs. To my surprise, at the end of this journal the reader finds out that everything that Knight went through, she did it while she was with child. Can you imagine what she endured while traveling in this manner? I guess during this time even if you were uncomfortable you still had to do what was necessary to survive.--Pam P.<br />
<br />
In response to Pam P, I think that Knight endured the hardships of westward movement so that her child could have a better life. The introduction states that the migrations were "made by people who were neither extremely rich nor extremely poor." Perhaps, since Knight would have been somewhere in the middle, a westward movement could have provided new opportunities for her child. --Clare O<br />
<br />
== Mary Ballou, “A Woman’s View of the Gold Rush,” 1852 ==<br />
<br />
QUESTION:<br />
In the October 21st entry, she tells her son Selden about the days she goes to church. She expresses that she goes whenever she can. However, it is interesting to see that she is the only lady. Why is she the only lady at these church sermons? She is in this work that calls for women with domestic skills, but she is the only one in church? Was she more religious? Did other women not have time? Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
When I read A Woman’s View of the Gold Rush by Mary Ballou, I almost feel bad for her and her situation. She takes it in stride though and while looking for gold she also is running a boarding house. She misses her children terribly and she was not the only one who was feeling this way. She spoke to a couple of different women who were also “homesick” and did not think that the gold rush was what everyone made it out to be. I would assume the reason why they cannot go back to where they came from is because they sold everything to go look for gold? Did her husband feel the same way? – Pam P.<br />
<br />
--in response to Pam's question: I felt the same way, but her husbands part was mentioned very briefly in the story. I almost felt that she did more work? The letter was to her son, not to another friend or someone she would lie too. Although this gold rush did ask for women who specialized in domestic duties, her husband came along. But, he didnt really get much mention. Either he works outside oft he house or he doesn't do much. I don't think he feel the same way. F<br />
<br />
Reading "A Woman's View of the Gold Rush," I almost felt that Ballou was trying to cover up her sadness by discussing all that she was doing for the miners at the boarding house. It seemed that she was upholding that notion of keeping home as a refuge for her husband by doing all of that cooking! I wonder if her discussing her cooking in her letter was her way of keeping herself from badmouthing her poor situation to her son? --Heather T.<br />
<br />
In response to Heather's post, I agree that Ballou seemed to be purposely omitting the sad aspects of her life caring for these miners in the boarding house. This seems to be a common trend in letters from the West back East, overlooking the tough circumstances because they chose to focus on the good aspects. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
== Petitions of the Cherokee Women’s Council on Removal, 1817, 1818 ==<br />
<br />
Throughout this reading, I was confused as to who "our father, the great president" was? The women address that they've done everything the "Father/president" has asked of them: become farmers, manufacture clothes, etc. Who is the father though? And if it really is the president, why do they call him father? --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
Hopefully in answering your question (or trying to at least, because it was a bit confusing to me as well) the Cherokee Nation was actually considered a sovereign nation, which also meant they had their own constitution and their own laws. The leader of their nation or tribe was a man named John Ross, who in fact was not 100% Cherokee, but he was considered the "Moses of the Cherokee Nation." He was a representative for the Cherokee people to the United States government and he would basically be considered their President (or father...I think). "There are some white men among us who have been raised in this country from their youth, are connected with us by marriage, and have considerable families, who are very active in encouraging the emigration of our nation" (201. John Ross would have been in this category, as he was white and married to a Cherokee woman. -- Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
I assumed she meant god. Perhaps some clarification in class would help. --Stef L.<br />
<br />
== Sarah Winnemucca, “Life Among the Paiutes,” 1883 ==<br />
<br />
I think the most important thing I took away from this reading is how children of the Paiutes are taught to be good, and to love everybody. So when the white settlers first arrived, Sarah's grandfather, the chief, tried to make them feel welcome. However, later in her account, Sarah writes of how unhappy her people are. Mothers begin to fear getting pregnant, because they do not think they would be able to provide for their young. Religion plays a large role in this tribe, and war is not a favorable decision when two tribes are in conflict. --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
Towards the end of this reading, Sara Winnemucca comments that "If women could go into your Congress I think justice would soon be done to the Indians." In what ways did her culture encourage this belief? What aspects of her own life supported these egalitarian views? My other question would be, are these views totally separate from the Euro-American belief that women were more spiritually and morally pure? --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
In response to Rebecca's first question, Winnemucca's culture viewed women as a more central part of the dynamics. They exercised greater political power and so Sara's comment would insinuate that she felt women could fix the ill Indian relations that existed. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
== A Sioux Tale, “A Woman Kills Her Daughter” ==<br />
<br />
This has to be one of my favorite readings so far! I knew that Indians were great story tellers and that it was part of their traditions of keeping their history going but I've never heard a story like this. Was this type of story telling common? Was this to warn women of jealousy? --Remy B.<br />
<br />
I agree with Remy! This was a great story. I think it was amazing how when the son-in-law realized something was wrong, he continued to follow the rules and did not become disrespectful or say anything to her directly. The note at the bottom of the page explains that he must address her through his wife; even in a crazy situation like that, he still abides by this rule. --Aqsa Z.yy <br />
<br />
I loved all of the supernatural elements to this tale. I felt that it amplified the morals that the story was trying to convey (don't kill others for your own gain, especially family members). However, since this is technically a part of oral history, despite it being written down, I wonder how much of this story is the original tale? If there is more, which characters would have more of a presence?-- Heather T.<br />
<br />
I would have to agree also with Remy and Aqsa...this was definitely my favorite reading so far! My father's side of the family is actually all Sioux Native Americans and it is intersting to be able to read one of their stories. Typically, most native stories and legends were passed through oral tradition, and it is exciting to be able to read one of their stories. I wonder how old this story actually is, considering the fact that they are passed down over the years and they typically were never written. I would think that most of their stories and legends had some kind of moral value or lesson to be learned from it, and considering this, I wonder if this was a common occurence amongst the tribe. It is unfathomable to me to think that a girl's mother could actually be ruthless enough to commit the atrocites this woman did to her own daughter. It was a great story but it very much resembled a skit one would see on the Jerry Springer show in today's world. -- Lindsey S.</div>Martzmichellehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_9_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 9 Questions/Comments-327 112011-10-26T01:32:03Z<p>Martzmichelle: /* Catharine Beecher, “System and Order,” 1841 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== General Questions ==<br />
<br />
I was surprised (although I shouldn't really have been) at the number of these documents which refer to religion as important to their daily lives: from the lowell girls' rules enforcing religious practice to the teachers in the American west to the women on the gold mines everyone was obsessed with the sanctity of their own religion and the lack of religion in their society. Were these women simply becoming teachers to help those less fortunate than them or were they really seeking an attempt at missionary work of people they truly believed to be spiritually beneath them. Although the outcome of their work would still be the same, it would be important to know the background for which their work was done for it would tell more about the woman doing the work. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Emma Willard, “Matrimonial Risks,” 1815 ==<br />
<br />
Willard is concerned with the happiness of marriage. She warns her sister not to get her hopes up, when it comes to her suitor Mr. L because he might be disappointing. I wonder if this is a change to "companionate marriages." Willard sees or wants marriage to be happy, but realizes that marriage could be miserable. Since Willard knows that men can fail at companionate marriages, does that mean the idea of marriage changing? Do women feel they have a choice? --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Caroline Gilman, “The Deferential Wife,” 1838 ==<br />
<br />
I liked in ''The Deferential Wife'' by Caroline Gilman the quote "Men are not often unreasonable; their difficulties lie in not understanding the moral and physcial structure of our sex. They often wound through ignorance and are surprised at having offended. How clear is it, then, that woman loses by petulance and recrimination! Her first study must be self-control, almost to hypocrisy. A good wife must smile amid a thousand perplexities, and clear her voice to tones of cheerfulness when her frames is drooping with disease, or else languish alone. Man on the contrary, when trials beset him, expects to find her ear and heart a ready receptacle." (page 147) Basically this is the formation of the idea that woman is reponsible for the morality and self-control of the man. It is from this ideologue (which did develop concurrently with Republican Motherhood) that the arguments today about the dress and style of women are based upon. It is interesting to see it in its' original context in The Deferential Wife. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Catharine Beecher, “System and Order,” 1841 ==<br />
<br />
Beecher's believes that motherhood/domesticity is the greatest occupation for humanity. She believes that it will create a heaven on earth or a perfect society. This statement brings a true meaning to motherhood and housework. People are happier when they have meaning to their lives. Her belief gives women so much more to live for (not saying it is right or wrong). However, with all ideals, her advice must have stressed most women in case they failed. --- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Catharine Sedgwick, “First to None,” 1828 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sarah Connell Ayer, “The Widowed State,” 1832-33 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Eliza Ann Mulford, “Rules of the School,” 1814 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Emma Willard, “A Rationale for Female Education,” 1819 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Miss Burnham’s Report, “A Choctaw Mission School,” 1824 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Letters from Teachers, “Reports on Western Schools,” 1847 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Rules of the Mill from Lowell and Lancaster, 1820-1840 ==<br />
How extensive rules for living in a mill community seem to be very personally invasive for a job. The rules that were applied to the boarders seems equivalent to life under a male figurehead through parental controls or marriage. Mandating when the workers had to be in bed to forcing their attendance in church molded these women into the ideals of the mill managers as well as into the evolving perception of female work roles. What I found to be the most interesting point was that it was more socially acceptable for women to be single longer and have jobs of their own yet it appears that the women who worked in the mill only fell back into patriarchal relationships that these new forms of female freedom seem to oppose. Could it be that women were so eager to embrace the world of employment and financial independence that they were willing to fit into the mold instilled by the mill? Or could it had been from the women workers being attracted into a world that was very familiar to them? -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
== Harriet Farley, “A Letter from Lowell,” 1844 ==<br />
<br />
== The Voice of Industry, “A Spirit of Protest,” 1846 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Amelia Stewart Knight, “Crossing the Plains,” 1853 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mary Ballou, “A Woman’s View of the Gold Rush,” 1852 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Petitions of the Cherokee Women’s Council on Removal, 1817, 1818 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sarah Winnemucca, “Life Among the Paiutes,” 1883 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== A Sioux Tale, “A Woman Kills Her Daughter” ==</div>Martzmichellehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_9_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 9 Questions/Comments-327 112011-10-26T01:00:33Z<p>Martzmichelle: /* Emma Willard, “Matrimonial Risks,” 1815 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== General Questions ==<br />
<br />
I was surprised (although I shouldn't really have been) at the number of these documents which refer to religion as important to their daily lives: from the lowell girls' rules enforcing religious practice to the teachers in the American west to the women on the gold mines everyone was obsessed with the sanctity of their own religion and the lack of religion in their society. Were these women simply becoming teachers to help those less fortunate than them or were they really seeking an attempt at missionary work of people they truly believed to be spiritually beneath them. Although the outcome of their work would still be the same, it would be important to know the background for which their work was done for it would tell more about the woman doing the work. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Emma Willard, “Matrimonial Risks,” 1815 ==<br />
<br />
Willard is concerned with the happiness of marriage. She warns her sister not to get her hopes up, when it comes to her suitor Mr. L because he might be disappointing. I wonder if this is a change to "companionate marriages." Willard sees or wants marriage to be happy, but realizes that marriage could be miserable. Since Willard knows that men can fail at companionate marriages, does that mean the idea of marriage changing? Do women feel they have a choice? --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Caroline Gilman, “The Deferential Wife,” 1838 ==<br />
<br />
I liked in ''The Deferential Wife'' by Caroline Gilman the quote "Men are not often unreasonable; their difficulties lie in not understanding the moral and physcial structure of our sex. They often wound through ignorance and are surprised at having offended. How clear is it, then, that woman loses by petulance and recrimination! Her first study must be self-control, almost to hypocrisy. A good wife must smile amid a thousand perplexities, and clear her voice to tones of cheerfulness when her frames is drooping with disease, or else languish alone. Man on the contrary, when trials beset him, expects to find her ear and heart a ready receptacle." (page 147) Basically this is the formation of the idea that woman is reponsible for the morality and self-control of the man. It is from this ideologue (which did develop concurrently with Republican Motherhood) that the arguments today about the dress and style of women are based upon. It is interesting to see it in its' original context in The Deferential Wife. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Catharine Beecher, “System and Order,” 1841 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Catharine Sedgwick, “First to None,” 1828 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sarah Connell Ayer, “The Widowed State,” 1832-33 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Eliza Ann Mulford, “Rules of the School,” 1814 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Emma Willard, “A Rationale for Female Education,” 1819 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Miss Burnham’s Report, “A Choctaw Mission School,” 1824 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Letters from Teachers, “Reports on Western Schools,” 1847 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Rules of the Mill from Lowell and Lancaster, 1820-1840 ==<br />
How extensive rules for living in a mill community seem to be very personally invasive for a job. The rules that were applied to the boarders seems equivalent to life under a male figurehead through parental controls or marriage. Mandating when the workers had to be in bed to forcing their attendance in church molded these women into the ideals of the mill managers as well as into the evolving perception of female work roles. What I found to be the most interesting point was that it was more socially acceptable for women to be single longer and have jobs of their own yet it appears that the women who worked in the mill only fell back into patriarchal relationships that these new forms of female freedom seem to oppose. Could it be that women were so eager to embrace the world of employment and financial independence that they were willing to fit into the mold instilled by the mill? Or could it had been from the women workers being attracted into a world that was very familiar to them? -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
== Harriet Farley, “A Letter from Lowell,” 1844 ==<br />
<br />
== The Voice of Industry, “A Spirit of Protest,” 1846 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Amelia Stewart Knight, “Crossing the Plains,” 1853 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mary Ballou, “A Woman’s View of the Gold Rush,” 1852 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Petitions of the Cherokee Women’s Council on Removal, 1817, 1818 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sarah Winnemucca, “Life Among the Paiutes,” 1883 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== A Sioux Tale, “A Woman Kills Her Daughter” ==</div>Martzmichellehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_8_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 8 Questions/Comments-327 112011-10-20T00:02:04Z<p>Martzmichelle: /* Suzanne Lebsock, The Free Women of Petersburg */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching Questions ==<br />
<br />
In many of the readings, I was surprised to read that women tended to leave possessions in unequal amounts to their heirs whereas men tended to split up what was theirs equally. I would have assumed that men would favor their sons over their daughters, but they tended to leave their offspring relatively equal shares (although in the form of land for sons and movable things for daughters). It is interesting that women favored their daughters in wills. Perhaps this is because women did not have many rights of ownership so the women wanted to aid their female relatives in any way possible. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Antenuptial contract, Mass, 1653 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== New England Divorce, CT, 1655-1678; MD, 1680 ==<br />
<br />
When reading the divorce laws of Connecticut, I expected the reasons for granting of divorces to be things such as adultery or desertion. What I did not expect was the long periods of time a spouse has to be away before the law considers the absence desertion. Three years with a total neglect of duty or seven years of providential absence seems like an extremely long amount of time, particularly for the wife being deserted. Especially since the woman cannot get married to another before the period is up and the divorce is granted, likely leaving the woman in very poor economical standing. In the case of Bridget Baxter, after the divorce was granted, the court allowed her to sell her husbands estate to pay off debts but I can imagine this would not be enough in the case of many women, especially if they were becoming indebted for the years their husbands were gone. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
In the divorce laws, I was surprised at how much they made marriage sound like slavery. The laws included words like "sett her free from her said husband," or "be free from her conjugall bonds." Even in the case of Robert Wade, the law said that he was "free from Joanne Wade." At first I thought that it was a negative portrayal of marriage, but I have reconsidered the possibility that they mean "bonds" in the best way, as marriage was a bond between people. --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
<br />
I read the New England Divorce notices and was really surprised and appalled by the 1662 "whereas the estate that her husband Baxter left with her is sold to pay debts, all excepting a bed and her wearing aparell" meaning they took EVERYTHING BUT THE SHIRT OFF HER BACK. I thought this was just an expression, but apparently it was not. So strange that they would be so harsh to a woman when the debt was her husbands and not her owns. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
I found it ironic that women in New England were the only ones permitted a full divorce as compared to the rest of the colonies. Even though the women were granted divorces on very valid reasons it seems contradictory to the other laws would allow for severe punishments for premarital sex or coming to church dirty. How is it a woman could exercise enough power to end a marriage but could be reprimanded for offenses that seem trivial to divorce? For a relationship that was based in the church it seems that it should be much harder to break it and especially by the woman who was viewed as morally and spiritually weaker than her husband. --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
== SC feme sole trader acts, 1712, 1744 ==<br />
<br />
I was really surprised by the Feme Sole Trader Acts in South Carolina. Obviously these women still had to have permission from their hubsands to be labeled as Feme Sole, but once they got that label they were free to do as they wished as far as their business went. It seems far outside of "progressive" for the time period. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mass, 1675-1680 – Women in county courts ==<br />
<br />
So, pre-marital sex was a big no-no. I'd imagine that the only way the courts found out would be if a) you had a "bastard child" (Mary Chelson) or b) actually told the courts (William and Mary Backway)? So they were both whipped and fined. However, when Rebecca Auborne admits to having a child with Samuel Kemble, she is whipped and he is just ordered to pay child support - why wouldn't he have been whipped like William Backway? - Matt<br />
<br />
== Virginia, 1642, NY 1721-1759 – Widows, Wills and Dower Rights ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Women’s Estates, Mass, 1664, NY 1747-1759 ==<br />
<br />
This will stuck out to me more then the others. After reading a few, I am sitting here thinking about how their wills were written, compared to how wills are written today. They were literally leaving everything they owned to someone. A dozen napkins? Nowadays if that was left to you, I feel it would be more of an insult and/or a cruel joke. It really just shows you how much stock they put into what they owned. - Matt<br />
<br />
== Suzanne Lebsock, The Free Women of Petersburg ==<br />
<br />
I find it interesting that being an administrator/executor of a will would jump-start a business career for women. Lebsock describes that "as the executors of administrators of their deceased husbands' estates. . .the administrator was obliged to dissolve partnerships, to collect and pay debts, to pursue litigation, to distribute the estate to the proper heirs, and to manage it in the meantime." It seems that women more or less got a crash-course in conducting business and would find some prosperity in their loss. --Heather T.<br />
<br />
It seems women's roles in the church and charity pushed them to make decisions to give their wealth to people in need. Women usually gave to other women, which makes sense because many poor people were widows and orphans. However, women did choose favorites when sharing their good fortune. Women had favorite slaves, daughters, or other women. For women dividing wills was rarely equal. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
Women used their wealth and good fortune based on their own value systems that differed from men's values. Lebsock calls this "persistent personalism."And, this "persistent personalism" drove women to give to charity and the church. Also, to use their money for themselves or to certain individuals. --Michelle M.</div>Martzmichellehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_8_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 8 Questions/Comments-327 112011-10-19T23:58:47Z<p>Martzmichelle: /* Suzanne Lebsock, The Free Women of Petersburg */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching Questions ==<br />
<br />
In many of the readings, I was surprised to read that women tended to leave possessions in unequal amounts to their heirs whereas men tended to split up what was theirs equally. I would have assumed that men would favor their sons over their daughters, but they tended to leave their offspring relatively equal shares (although in the form of land for sons and movable things for daughters). It is interesting that women favored their daughters in wills. Perhaps this is because women did not have many rights of ownership so the women wanted to aid their female relatives in any way possible. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Antenuptial contract, Mass, 1653 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== New England Divorce, CT, 1655-1678; MD, 1680 ==<br />
<br />
When reading the divorce laws of Connecticut, I expected the reasons for granting of divorces to be things such as adultery or desertion. What I did not expect was the long periods of time a spouse has to be away before the law considers the absence desertion. Three years with a total neglect of duty or seven years of providential absence seems like an extremely long amount of time, particularly for the wife being deserted. Especially since the woman cannot get married to another before the period is up and the divorce is granted, likely leaving the woman in very poor economical standing. In the case of Bridget Baxter, after the divorce was granted, the court allowed her to sell her husbands estate to pay off debts but I can imagine this would not be enough in the case of many women, especially if they were becoming indebted for the years their husbands were gone. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
In the divorce laws, I was surprised at how much they made marriage sound like slavery. The laws included words like "sett her free from her said husband," or "be free from her conjugall bonds." Even in the case of Robert Wade, the law said that he was "free from Joanne Wade." At first I thought that it was a negative portrayal of marriage, but I have reconsidered the possibility that they mean "bonds" in the best way, as marriage was a bond between people. --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
<br />
I read the New England Divorce notices and was really surprised and appalled by the 1662 "whereas the estate that her husband Baxter left with her is sold to pay debts, all excepting a bed and her wearing aparell" meaning they took EVERYTHING BUT THE SHIRT OFF HER BACK. I thought this was just an expression, but apparently it was not. So strange that they would be so harsh to a woman when the debt was her husbands and not her owns. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
I found it ironic that women in New England were the only ones permitted a full divorce as compared to the rest of the colonies. Even though the women were granted divorces on very valid reasons it seems contradictory to the other laws would allow for severe punishments for premarital sex or coming to church dirty. How is it a woman could exercise enough power to end a marriage but could be reprimanded for offenses that seem trivial to divorce? For a relationship that was based in the church it seems that it should be much harder to break it and especially by the woman who was viewed as morally and spiritually weaker than her husband. --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
== SC feme sole trader acts, 1712, 1744 ==<br />
<br />
I was really surprised by the Feme Sole Trader Acts in South Carolina. Obviously these women still had to have permission from their hubsands to be labeled as Feme Sole, but once they got that label they were free to do as they wished as far as their business went. It seems far outside of "progressive" for the time period. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mass, 1675-1680 – Women in county courts ==<br />
<br />
So, pre-marital sex was a big no-no. I'd imagine that the only way the courts found out would be if a) you had a "bastard child" (Mary Chelson) or b) actually told the courts (William and Mary Backway)? So they were both whipped and fined. However, when Rebecca Auborne admits to having a child with Samuel Kemble, she is whipped and he is just ordered to pay child support - why wouldn't he have been whipped like William Backway? - Matt<br />
<br />
== Virginia, 1642, NY 1721-1759 – Widows, Wills and Dower Rights ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Women’s Estates, Mass, 1664, NY 1747-1759 ==<br />
<br />
This will stuck out to me more then the others. After reading a few, I am sitting here thinking about how their wills were written, compared to how wills are written today. They were literally leaving everything they owned to someone. A dozen napkins? Nowadays if that was left to you, I feel it would be more of an insult and/or a cruel joke. It really just shows you how much stock they put into what they owned. - Matt<br />
<br />
== Suzanne Lebsock, The Free Women of Petersburg ==<br />
<br />
I find it interesting that being an administrator/executor of a will would jump-start a business career for women. Lebsock describes that "as the executors of administrators of their deceased husbands' estates. . .the administrator was obliged to dissolve partnerships, to collect and pay debts, to pursue litigation, to distribute the estate to the proper heirs, and to manage it in the meantime." It seems that women more or less got a crash-course in conducting business and would find some prosperity in their loss. --Heather T.<br />
<br />
It seems women's roles in the church and charity pushed them to make decisions to give their wealth to people in need. Women usually gave to other women, which makes sense because many poor people were widows and orphans. However, women did choose favorites when sharing their good fortune. Women had favorite slaves, daughters, or other women. For women dividing wills was rarely equal. --Michelle M.</div>Martzmichellehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_7_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 7 Questions/Comments-327 112011-10-13T01:19:59Z<p>Martzmichelle: </p>
<hr />
<div>The diary of Martha Ballard was an insightful view into the world of midwifery by helping to clarify the deep connection women had to this responsibility. In last week's readings there was discussion of male doctors replacing the role of midwifes during child delivery and the resentment that was harbored by these women because of it. By reading Martha's diary, it becomes clear that being a midwife was much more than just a job but to women like her it was a way of life. Martha constantly discusses delivering babies and attending to the mothers in a very passionate way, displaying her own personal drive to help her community. Being a midwife appears to be what defines Ballard as a person, more so than her husband or religion, helping to clarify how dramatic the lifestyle change was for these women who were forced out of the delivery room by medical professionals. Being a midwife is what gave women power and social standing, and Martha appears to use her abilities as a successful midwife to obtain just that. --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
<br />
I think Martha Ballard had a terrible life. I also did my document paper on part of her diary and it seems like all she ever did was take care of other people and her family. That is just awful. She also spent a week or so in the portion of her diary that I worked with ill because of all the sick people she takes care of. It made me really sad. I do have to agree with Rachel, however, that she was defined by her status as a midwife. Probably because that is all she ever did, but still, at least it is a defining trait. Most women didn't have that. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
When reading Martha Ballard's diary, I was surprised by how many times she was called to help with births as well as care for the sick. At the end of the diary in Woloch, she states that shes assisted in twenty eight births for the past year. This seems like a high number from our perspective, but this was relatively normal in the late 1700s as women tended to have larger families, especially in New England. Furthermore, I thought it was interesting that she clarified seventeen of the children were daughters. I would have thought she would be more likely to state how many were sons, but perhaps this shows the beginning of a shift. -- Clare O.<br />
<br />
I also was struck by the manner in which Martha Ballard recorded the events in her life. It is evident that her role as a midwife was her identity and that becomes evident by looking at the amount of time she spends relaying information concerning this matter. Like Rachel said, the life of a midwife gave Ballard a sense of purpose and status within the community. Her ability to constantly be helping others and sacrificing her own sleep ("I have lost 42 nights' sleep this year past") is an admirable trait. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
The Purrington Murders entires read like CSI: 18th Century New England, complete with lots of people coming to see the scene and the bodies - she writes that a hundred people came to see the corpses laid out, and it sounds like several different families responded at the scene! It sounded like it was both a very large community and a very close-knit one, or perhaps Martha just knew everyone because it seemed someone was sick nearly every day and they always came to her for help. She mentions later around the same time that another man had nearly killed his wife, and that didn't receive nearly so much concern or comment as the Purrington family's situation did; I wonder how much she or her community were influenced by the changing views of domestic violence among wealthier urban people. (Where would they have fallen in terms of location and class, anyway? It certainly sounds like it wasn't always easy to make ends meet.) I also wish she'd given more hint as to his motive; she only mentions that his wife had been quite ill, which hardly seems to be a good reason to murder her and his children. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
I also did part of my last paper on her, and I too agree with Clare that it seemed like she had a terrible life. She was always home, always taking care of everyone and everything and just seemed sad in her writings. While I understand she was a midwife and this was part of her responsibility, it just seems like she was unhappy. - Matt<br />
<br />
The premarital pregnancy shows how Ballard's society felt about it. When Martha asks who the father is, it is law to ask a woman during labor because she will tell the truth at that time. I find it interesting that women "can't" lie while in labor. This was their testimony. Also, most of the women married the father's of their children. If not, then they stayed with their parents and married someone else. I believe there had to be some stigma, but in some parts of society today women are shunned for pregnancies outside of marriage. --Michelle M.</div>Martzmichellehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_6_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 6 Questions/Comments-327 112011-10-03T22:39:45Z<p>Martzmichelle: /* SUSANNA HASWELL ROWSON */</p>
<hr />
<div>== JUDITH SARGENT MURRAY ==<br />
<br />
It is particularly strange to me that a book excerpt written by a woman pretending to be a man about a woman was a best seller. Especially one so subtly in support of women's education, at the very least for the sake of the children whom she was raising. I think that had this been written by less eloquent and well-versed of a writer, it would have been blatant in its' authors' sex and vulgar in its' attempt at constructing a fake family. Since Judith Sargent Murray was atypical to her society (and would probably be atypical in today's society) in both sex roles and in intelligence levels, this fake story passed off as a true story succeeds. Even I would've thought this was a man writing if I had not reminded myself of such. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
What is most interesting is the fact that Murray was writing as a man about a young woman. To write the description of a good young women from male perspective shows that Murray must have heard or discussed with the men in her life about what characteristics a respectable young woman should own. Are these characteristics important to women? And, if so are they important in the same way their are important to men? --Michelle Martz<br />
<br />
== SUSANNA HASWELL ROWSON ==<br />
<br />
''"While the tear of compassion still trembled in my eye for the fate<br />
of the unhappy Charlotte, I may have children of my own, said I, to<br />
whom this recital may be of use, and if to your own children, said<br />
Benevolence, why not to the many daughters of Misfortune who, deprived<br />
of natural friends, or spoilt by a mistaken education, are thrown<br />
on an unfeeling world without the least power to defend themselves<br />
from the snares not only of the other sex, but from the more dangerous<br />
arts of the profligate of their own."'' (page 190). <br />
I include this quote because I really think that this is a concept that so many activist leaders could relate to... the dream of wanting a better world, not for themself, but for their CHILDREN. It also is significant because the person for whom Susanna Rowson feels had a bad life was not that of her own, but of Charlotte. Maybe it is that oppression is seen more extensively in those around the oppressed than in the oppressed themself, or maybe Susanna felt her life was NOT oppressed after hearing that of Charlottes. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
The message is the ''honor'' of women is very important. If a women acts against her honor or goodwill, then ultimately she will end in death. I have a question for this story? Were men or women reading this story, or both? Or who was the intended audience? These questions could shed some light on how women were perceived to act. --Michelle M.</div>Martzmichellehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_6_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 6 Questions/Comments-327 112011-10-03T22:31:03Z<p>Martzmichelle: /* JUDITH SARGENT MURRAY */</p>
<hr />
<div>== JUDITH SARGENT MURRAY ==<br />
<br />
It is particularly strange to me that a book excerpt written by a woman pretending to be a man about a woman was a best seller. Especially one so subtly in support of women's education, at the very least for the sake of the children whom she was raising. I think that had this been written by less eloquent and well-versed of a writer, it would have been blatant in its' authors' sex and vulgar in its' attempt at constructing a fake family. Since Judith Sargent Murray was atypical to her society (and would probably be atypical in today's society) in both sex roles and in intelligence levels, this fake story passed off as a true story succeeds. Even I would've thought this was a man writing if I had not reminded myself of such. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
What is most interesting is the fact that Murray was writing as a man about a young woman. To write the description of a good young women from male perspective shows that Murray must have heard or discussed with the men in her life about what characteristics a respectable young woman should own. Are these characteristics important to women? And, if so are they important in the same way their are important to men? --Michelle Martz<br />
<br />
== SUSANNA HASWELL ROWSON ==<br />
<br />
''"While the tear of compassion still trembled in my eye for the fate<br />
of the unhappy Charlotte, I may have children of my own, said I, to<br />
whom this recital may be of use, and if to your own children, said<br />
Benevolence, why not to the many daughters of Misfortune who, deprived<br />
of natural friends, or spoilt by a mistaken education, are thrown<br />
on an unfeeling world without the least power to defend themselves<br />
from the snares not only of the other sex, but from the more dangerous<br />
arts of the profligate of their own."'' (page 190). <br />
I include this quote because I really think that this is a concept that so many activist leaders could relate to... the dream of wanting a better world, not for themself, but for their CHILDREN. It also is significant because the person for whom Susanna Rowson feels had a bad life was not that of her own, but of Charlotte. Maybe it is that oppression is seen more extensively in those around the oppressed than in the oppressed themself, or maybe Susanna felt her life was NOT oppressed after hearing that of Charlottes. --Sara S.</div>Martzmichellehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_5_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 5 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-28T00:29:49Z<p>Martzmichelle: /* Thomas Paine Admits Women Have Some Rights */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Thomas Paine Admits Women Have Some Rights ==<br />
<br />
Paine discusses the conflict within the lives of women. The conflict of being "adored and oppressed." He, also, states that men cannot control themselves as tyrants over women and slaves to them. Women's only protection froms, "They can then only hope for protection from the humiliating claims of pity, or the feeble voice of gratitude." Paine looks at other cultures and discovers that all over the world women are treated less than men. It is interesting that he states, "Our duties are different from yours, but they are not therefore less difficult to fulfil, or of less consequence to society." This statement is very interesting because in history it seems that men's achievements are almost always highlighted over women's. ---Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Excellency in Our Sex by Judith Sargent Murray, 1790 ==<br />
<br />
I really liked the line "was this activity properly directed, what beneficial effects would follow. Is the needle and kitchen sufficient to employ the operations of a soul thus organized? I should conceive not. Nay, it is a truth that those very departments leave the intelligent principle vacant, and at liberty for speculation. Are we deficient in reason?" (page 135) because it exhibited that women thought about the same things that we, as women, today think about them. Really, it is a lot nicer to think about women wondering about their status than to accept it unwillingly or on religious basis. I know this is probably not the case for most women, but probably for educated ones this was the case. Too bad not every woman was Judith Sargent Murray or Abigail Adams. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
== A Carolina Patriot by Eliza Wilkinson, 1782 ==<br />
<br />
"What contemptible earth worms these authors make us! they won't even allow us the liberty of thought, and that is all i want. I would not wish that we should meddle in what is unbecoming female delicacy, but surely we may have sense enough to give our opinions" (page124). I really like this quote because unlike that of Judith Sargent Murray, Eliza Wilkinson seems less anachronistic in her expression of female empowerment. Still it is nice to read --Sara S.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In Mary Jemison’s account of the “War for Independence through Seneca Eyes,” it is extremely apparent at how little the English think of the Seneca. When the Native Americans were sent for to discuss the impending revolution with people of the colonies, they decided to observe a strict neutrality. This was perfectly fine with the colonial people. However, the British soon requested the help of the natives and in order to secure their assistance, the British offered many gifts and rewards. Furthermore, they “merited all the punishment that it was possible for the white man and Indians to inflict upon” the colonials. These offerings proved too seductive, and the Indians were swayed. However, once the support of the natives was agreed, the English took advantage of them. This is particularly apparent when the British invite the natives to watch the rebels being whipped, but are instead tricked into fighting for their lives, which many did not escape with. This manipulation by the British, to use the natives for their own means and essentially lie to them about great rewards shows that they believed anything would be justified, so long as they won the war. --Clare O<br />
<br />
Many of our readings discuss the growing patriotism of women in reaction to the revolutionary war. Sarah Osborn’s account particularly stood out because of her active role in helping the troops fighting. She helped the men by washing, sewing, and cooking for them. Most interesting is when General Washington himself asked her if she “was not afraid of the cannonballs?” to which she replied “No, the bullets would not cheat the gallows” and that “it would not do for the men to fight and starve too.” This bold response shows the manner in which patriotism affected women, that they would put aside their fears and pull their own weight in the war for the land of liberty. --Clare O</div>Martzmichellehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_5_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 5 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-28T00:17:53Z<p>Martzmichelle: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== Thomas Paine Admits Women Have Some Rights ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Excellency in Our Sex by Judith Sargent Murray, 1790 ==<br />
<br />
I really liked the line "was this activity properly directed, what beneficial effects would follow. Is the needle and kitchen sufficient to employ the operations of a soul thus organized? I should conceive not. Nay, it is a truth that those very departments leave the intelligent principle vacant, and at liberty for speculation. Are we deficient in reason?" (page 135) because it exhibited that women thought about the same things that we, as women, today think about them. Really, it is a lot nicer to think about women wondering about their status than to accept it unwillingly or on religious basis. I know this is probably not the case for most women, but probably for educated ones this was the case. Too bad not every woman was Judith Sargent Murray or Abigail Adams. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
== A Carolina Patriot by Eliza Wilkinson, 1782 ==<br />
<br />
"What contemptible earth worms these authors make us! they won't even allow us the liberty of thought, and that is all i want. I would not wish that we should meddle in what is unbecoming female delicacy, but surely we may have sense enough to give our opinions" (page124). I really like this quote because unlike that of Judith Sargent Murray, Eliza Wilkinson seems less anachronistic in her expression of female empowerment. Still it is nice to read --Sara S.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In Mary Jemison’s account of the “War for Independence through Seneca Eyes,” it is extremely apparent at how little the English think of the Seneca. When the Native Americans were sent for to discuss the impending revolution with people of the colonies, they decided to observe a strict neutrality. This was perfectly fine with the colonial people. However, the British soon requested the help of the natives and in order to secure their assistance, the British offered many gifts and rewards. Furthermore, they “merited all the punishment that it was possible for the white man and Indians to inflict upon” the colonials. These offerings proved too seductive, and the Indians were swayed. However, once the support of the natives was agreed, the English took advantage of them. This is particularly apparent when the British invite the natives to watch the rebels being whipped, but are instead tricked into fighting for their lives, which many did not escape with. This manipulation by the British, to use the natives for their own means and essentially lie to them about great rewards shows that they believed anything would be justified, so long as they won the war. --Clare O<br />
<br />
Many of our readings discuss the growing patriotism of women in reaction to the revolutionary war. Sarah Osborn’s account particularly stood out because of her active role in helping the troops fighting. She helped the men by washing, sewing, and cooking for them. Most interesting is when General Washington himself asked her if she “was not afraid of the cannonballs?” to which she replied “No, the bullets would not cheat the gallows” and that “it would not do for the men to fight and starve too.” This bold response shows the manner in which patriotism affected women, that they would put aside their fears and pull their own weight in the war for the land of liberty. --Clare O</div>Martzmichellehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_4_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 4 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-22T03:18:52Z<p>Martzmichelle: /* George Washington's slave list (1786) and slave work assignments (1786-88) */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Cross-source questions/comments ==<br />
<br />
I found the distinctions between Puritan and Quaker women fascinating. First, Anne Hutchinson was banished for leading meetings; yet, Quaker women are encouraged to lead (other women). Second, Anne Bradstreet acknowledges that she has no power to bring her children to God, yet Quaker women recognize their strong influence over the faith of their children. How could two such opposite groups have a faith based on the same book? -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
What I found interesting about Sarah Fiske's Conversion was its connection to Susanna Wesley's parenting techniques. Fiske, right or wrong , had to bend her will to the congregation and to god in order to be accepted. Wesley taught that bending the child's will is one of the most important tasks, so that the child will bend to god's will. ---Michelle Martz<br />
<br />
== Anne Bradstreet, “A Spiritual Autobiography,” ~1670 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Anne Hutchinson’s trial, 1637 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Lancashire, England Women’s Meeting structure, Quaker women in 1675 ==<br />
<br />
These all female meetings show a safe place for women to confide in each other. Not that these women are going to start a revolution, but to vent about the troubles of marriage, raising children and following god's will. It reminds me of Esther Burr's letters to her friend. Also, it is similar to Victorian era women's strong bonds in friendship. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== David Brainerd, 1746, account of the Great Awakening ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In “A Remarkable Instance of Awakening,” David Brainard discusses two “awakenings” of two Native Americans. The reliability of this source is extremely questionable. Brainard claims to have convinced a Native American woman of having a soul and she cries out for her soul’s salvation. However, Brainard states he “perceived the burden of her prayer to be [in Indian language] i.e. have mercy on me.” Brainard himself uses the word “perceived” which means he interpreted what the Indian woman was saying, which is not always reliable. Furthermore, it is questionable whether Brainard truly had a grasp on in Indian language and therefore it is possible that he misinterpreted what she said or even made things up. The information before the text stated that Brainard was expelled from Yale and was only later made a minister. It is possible he embellished or fabricated his missionary work to improve his reputation. -Clare O<br />
<br />
== Narrative of Old Elizabeth, published in 1863 when she was 97, about her religious conversion in the 1770s. ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Elizabeth Godman lawsuit (1653); Elizabeth Godman tried for witchcraft, 1655 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Nothing is more of a testament to the power of words than the Salem witch trials. I find it astounding that accusations from neighbors can completely cost people their reputation and even their life, when widely believed. Furthermore, even if the accused takes the accusers to trial for slander, as in the case of Elizabeth Godman, it is likely that it will have no effect. It is shocking that people could lose their lives based on coincidences, such as Elizabeth, who was near when a child got sick, and supposed witchlike behavior, such as grinning in a “strange manner.” Perhaps this shows that there still was ties between religion and the courts, because fear of witchcraft is closely tied to religion, and the courts were likely to convict an accused witch. - Clare O<br />
<br />
== Bridget Bishop convicted of witchcraft 1692; “Casco Girls” accuse George Burroughs, 1692 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Elizabeth Sandwith Drinker, wealthy Philadelphia woman, diary – 1758-1794 ==<br />
<br />
As someone who knits and sews myself, I have to say - wow, this woman's list of finished pieces is impressive. I'm curious about the change of format about a page into the diary, from a list of pieces worked on to more comments on her social relations. I wonder why she changed her focus in what she deemed important to write about. The list seems to come mostly before she was married, so maybe developing her skills as a housewife was important to her? She mentions a gift for her future husband among her products. Whereas after she married, maybe her role in the community became more important? I wonder why that would be? -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Landon Carter complains about his female slaves (1771-1773) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== George Washington's slave list (1786) and slave work assignments (1786-88) ==<br />
<br />
I have seen inventories from the colonial time period much like this one. For someone in 2011, it is sad to see human beings in a list like livestock. The list does provide us with information on how slaves were used or what skills slaves had. George Washington had his owns self sufficient village at Mont Vernon. --Michelle<br />
<br />
== Eulalia Perez Recalls her work in a mission in Spanish CA in early 19th Century (1877) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Karin Wulf, “Women’s Work in Colonial Philadelphia,” 2000 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Within the Karin Wulf's entry "Womens Work in Colonial Philadelphia" I found the portion pertaining to the widows and their inheritance to be very enlightening. Wulf is able to clarify the assumptions that widows were solely dependent on the wealth left to them by their spouses. By explaining that women and men were interdependent upon each other with household income being a dual effort. It led me to wonder why widowed women were looked as so helpless and dependent on their deceased partners by society when it well known that it was far from the case? Even when citing prominent Benjamin Franklin and George Washington as inheritors to wealth the stereotype of the helpless widow was carried on. --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
<br />
One thing I found striking was the pay difference between men and women doing the same work - women earned between 1/4th and 1/2th of what men did. After talking about the economics of changing from indentured servants to slaves last class, I wondered... wouldn't hiring women or supporting women's businesses then become the more economically viable option, since they worked for so much less? Did that encourage female business owners at all? I was also surprised that mortuary work was considered a woman's job; I wonder what sort of tasks were involved in that, and how the transition was made from women as mortuary workers to the modern image of a creepy male undertaker. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
What I found interesting about "Womens Work in Colonial Philadelphia" is the apparent difference in societal circumstances for women in this region than from other areas. Even though it took widowhood or an inheritance of some other sort for women to go into business, it appears that this was a pretty accessible option for women to make a living for themselves. I wonder if women in the other regions would be able to easily go into this work like these Philadelphia women did (even though it was not a terribly easy thing to do for them either).--Heather T.</div>Martzmichellehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_4_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 4 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-22T03:08:23Z<p>Martzmichelle: /* Lancashire, England Women’s Meeting structure, Quaker women in 1675 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Cross-source questions/comments ==<br />
<br />
I found the distinctions between Puritan and Quaker women fascinating. First, Anne Hutchinson was banished for leading meetings; yet, Quaker women are encouraged to lead (other women). Second, Anne Bradstreet acknowledges that she has no power to bring her children to God, yet Quaker women recognize their strong influence over the faith of their children. How could two such opposite groups have a faith based on the same book? -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
What I found interesting about Sarah Fiske's Conversion was its connection to Susanna Wesley's parenting techniques. Fiske, right or wrong , had to bend her will to the congregation and to god in order to be accepted. Wesley taught that bending the child's will is one of the most important tasks, so that the child will bend to god's will. ---Michelle Martz<br />
<br />
== Anne Bradstreet, “A Spiritual Autobiography,” ~1670 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Anne Hutchinson’s trial, 1637 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Lancashire, England Women’s Meeting structure, Quaker women in 1675 ==<br />
<br />
These all female meetings show a safe place for women to confide in each other. Not that these women are going to start a revolution, but to vent about the troubles of marriage, raising children and following god's will. It reminds me of Esther Burr's letters to her friend. Also, it is similar to Victorian era women's strong bonds in friendship. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== David Brainerd, 1746, account of the Great Awakening ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In “A Remarkable Instance of Awakening,” David Brainard discusses two “awakenings” of two Native Americans. The reliability of this source is extremely questionable. Brainard claims to have convinced a Native American woman of having a soul and she cries out for her soul’s salvation. However, Brainard states he “perceived the burden of her prayer to be [in Indian language] i.e. have mercy on me.” Brainard himself uses the word “perceived” which means he interpreted what the Indian woman was saying, which is not always reliable. Furthermore, it is questionable whether Brainard truly had a grasp on in Indian language and therefore it is possible that he misinterpreted what she said or even made things up. The information before the text stated that Brainard was expelled from Yale and was only later made a minister. It is possible he embellished or fabricated his missionary work to improve his reputation. -Clare O<br />
<br />
== Narrative of Old Elizabeth, published in 1863 when she was 97, about her religious conversion in the 1770s. ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Elizabeth Godman lawsuit (1653); Elizabeth Godman tried for witchcraft, 1655 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Nothing is more of a testament to the power of words than the Salem witch trials. I find it astounding that accusations from neighbors can completely cost people their reputation and even their life, when widely believed. Furthermore, even if the accused takes the accusers to trial for slander, as in the case of Elizabeth Godman, it is likely that it will have no effect. It is shocking that people could lose their lives based on coincidences, such as Elizabeth, who was near when a child got sick, and supposed witchlike behavior, such as grinning in a “strange manner.” Perhaps this shows that there still was ties between religion and the courts, because fear of witchcraft is closely tied to religion, and the courts were likely to convict an accused witch. - Clare O<br />
<br />
== Bridget Bishop convicted of witchcraft 1692; “Casco Girls” accuse George Burroughs, 1692 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Elizabeth Sandwith Drinker, wealthy Philadelphia woman, diary – 1758-1794 ==<br />
<br />
As someone who knits and sews myself, I have to say - wow, this woman's list of finished pieces is impressive. I'm curious about the change of format about a page into the diary, from a list of pieces worked on to more comments on her social relations. I wonder why she changed her focus in what she deemed important to write about. The list seems to come mostly before she was married, so maybe developing her skills as a housewife was important to her? She mentions a gift for her future husband among her products. Whereas after she married, maybe her role in the community became more important? I wonder why that would be? -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Landon Carter complains about his female slaves (1771-1773) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== George Washington's slave list (1786) and slave work assignments (1786-88) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Eulalia Perez Recalls her work in a mission in Spanish CA in early 19th Century (1877) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Karin Wulf, “Women’s Work in Colonial Philadelphia,” 2000 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Within the Karin Wulf's entry "Womens Work in Colonial Philadelphia" I found the portion pertaining to the widows and their inheritance to be very enlightening. Wulf is able to clarify the assumptions that widows were solely dependent on the wealth left to them by their spouses. By explaining that women and men were interdependent upon each other with household income being a dual effort. It led me to wonder why widowed women were looked as so helpless and dependent on their deceased partners by society when it well known that it was far from the case? Even when citing prominent Benjamin Franklin and George Washington as inheritors to wealth the stereotype of the helpless widow was carried on. --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
<br />
One thing I found striking was the pay difference between men and women doing the same work - women earned between 1/4th and 1/2th of what men did. After talking about the economics of changing from indentured servants to slaves last class, I wondered... wouldn't hiring women or supporting women's businesses then become the more economically viable option, since they worked for so much less? Did that encourage female business owners at all? I was also surprised that mortuary work was considered a woman's job; I wonder what sort of tasks were involved in that, and how the transition was made from women as mortuary workers to the modern image of a creepy male undertaker. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
What I found interesting about "Womens Work in Colonial Philadelphia" is the apparent difference in societal circumstances for women in this region than from other areas. Even though it took widowhood or an inheritance of some other sort for women to go into business, it appears that this was a pretty accessible option for women to make a living for themselves. I wonder if women in the other regions would be able to easily go into this work like these Philadelphia women did (even though it was not a terribly easy thing to do for them either).--Heather T.</div>Martzmichellehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_4_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 4 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-22T03:05:22Z<p>Martzmichelle: /* Cross-source questions/comments */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Cross-source questions/comments ==<br />
<br />
I found the distinctions between Puritan and Quaker women fascinating. First, Anne Hutchinson was banished for leading meetings; yet, Quaker women are encouraged to lead (other women). Second, Anne Bradstreet acknowledges that she has no power to bring her children to God, yet Quaker women recognize their strong influence over the faith of their children. How could two such opposite groups have a faith based on the same book? -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
What I found interesting about Sarah Fiske's Conversion was its connection to Susanna Wesley's parenting techniques. Fiske, right or wrong , had to bend her will to the congregation and to god in order to be accepted. Wesley taught that bending the child's will is one of the most important tasks, so that the child will bend to god's will. ---Michelle Martz<br />
<br />
== Anne Bradstreet, “A Spiritual Autobiography,” ~1670 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Anne Hutchinson’s trial, 1637 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Lancashire, England Women’s Meeting structure, Quaker women in 1675 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== David Brainerd, 1746, account of the Great Awakening ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In “A Remarkable Instance of Awakening,” David Brainard discusses two “awakenings” of two Native Americans. The reliability of this source is extremely questionable. Brainard claims to have convinced a Native American woman of having a soul and she cries out for her soul’s salvation. However, Brainard states he “perceived the burden of her prayer to be [in Indian language] i.e. have mercy on me.” Brainard himself uses the word “perceived” which means he interpreted what the Indian woman was saying, which is not always reliable. Furthermore, it is questionable whether Brainard truly had a grasp on in Indian language and therefore it is possible that he misinterpreted what she said or even made things up. The information before the text stated that Brainard was expelled from Yale and was only later made a minister. It is possible he embellished or fabricated his missionary work to improve his reputation. -Clare O<br />
<br />
== Narrative of Old Elizabeth, published in 1863 when she was 97, about her religious conversion in the 1770s. ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Elizabeth Godman lawsuit (1653); Elizabeth Godman tried for witchcraft, 1655 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Nothing is more of a testament to the power of words than the Salem witch trials. I find it astounding that accusations from neighbors can completely cost people their reputation and even their life, when widely believed. Furthermore, even if the accused takes the accusers to trial for slander, as in the case of Elizabeth Godman, it is likely that it will have no effect. It is shocking that people could lose their lives based on coincidences, such as Elizabeth, who was near when a child got sick, and supposed witchlike behavior, such as grinning in a “strange manner.” Perhaps this shows that there still was ties between religion and the courts, because fear of witchcraft is closely tied to religion, and the courts were likely to convict an accused witch. - Clare O<br />
<br />
== Bridget Bishop convicted of witchcraft 1692; “Casco Girls” accuse George Burroughs, 1692 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Elizabeth Sandwith Drinker, wealthy Philadelphia woman, diary – 1758-1794 ==<br />
<br />
As someone who knits and sews myself, I have to say - wow, this woman's list of finished pieces is impressive. I'm curious about the change of format about a page into the diary, from a list of pieces worked on to more comments on her social relations. I wonder why she changed her focus in what she deemed important to write about. The list seems to come mostly before she was married, so maybe developing her skills as a housewife was important to her? She mentions a gift for her future husband among her products. Whereas after she married, maybe her role in the community became more important? I wonder why that would be? -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Landon Carter complains about his female slaves (1771-1773) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== George Washington's slave list (1786) and slave work assignments (1786-88) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Eulalia Perez Recalls her work in a mission in Spanish CA in early 19th Century (1877) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Karin Wulf, “Women’s Work in Colonial Philadelphia,” 2000 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Within the Karin Wulf's entry "Womens Work in Colonial Philadelphia" I found the portion pertaining to the widows and their inheritance to be very enlightening. Wulf is able to clarify the assumptions that widows were solely dependent on the wealth left to them by their spouses. By explaining that women and men were interdependent upon each other with household income being a dual effort. It led me to wonder why widowed women were looked as so helpless and dependent on their deceased partners by society when it well known that it was far from the case? Even when citing prominent Benjamin Franklin and George Washington as inheritors to wealth the stereotype of the helpless widow was carried on. --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
<br />
One thing I found striking was the pay difference between men and women doing the same work - women earned between 1/4th and 1/2th of what men did. After talking about the economics of changing from indentured servants to slaves last class, I wondered... wouldn't hiring women or supporting women's businesses then become the more economically viable option, since they worked for so much less? Did that encourage female business owners at all? I was also surprised that mortuary work was considered a woman's job; I wonder what sort of tasks were involved in that, and how the transition was made from women as mortuary workers to the modern image of a creepy male undertaker. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
What I found interesting about "Womens Work in Colonial Philadelphia" is the apparent difference in societal circumstances for women in this region than from other areas. Even though it took widowhood or an inheritance of some other sort for women to go into business, it appears that this was a pretty accessible option for women to make a living for themselves. I wonder if women in the other regions would be able to easily go into this work like these Philadelphia women did (even though it was not a terribly easy thing to do for them either).--Heather T.</div>Martzmichellehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_3_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 3 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-15T03:48:33Z<p>Martzmichelle: /* Katherine Kish Sklar article, “To Use her as His Wife” */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching/comparative comments ==<br />
<br />
"To Use Her as His Wife" and the memoir of Abigail Bailey helped to define where women fell during this time in regards to the law. What I found interesting about both situations, even with their vast differences, they both were about women whose lives were left to be determined by the men that surrounded them. It is never clear what Martha Root wanted for her life as she was the one who in the end was responsible for raising the child. Root's opinion never appeared to come up for debate as it was overshadowed by the cultural and societal norms set by the male members of the community. The more drastic example of this legal inequality can be felt in Abigail Bailey's confession of her husband and daughters incest driven relationship. She is clearly broken that this immoral and sinful activity is taking place within her own home and she cannot even protect her own child. She continually comments that she "knew not that I could make legal proof" and even when she was able to bring her husband in front of the law it was by the help of her brothers and over a property settlement, not the rape of his daughter. It leaves the question if men were considered more morally upright than women as the choices they made guided the entire community? --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Katherine Kish Sklar article, “To Use her as His Wife” ==<br />
<br />
I found “To Use Her As His Wife” to be a very interesting read. I had no idea that a fundamental feature of an 18th century marriage was bridal pregnancy. Why don’t we hear stories about bridal pregnancy more often (Martha Root’s story)? It is also intriguing that these women were not chastised for their pregnancies out of wedlock, mainly because their children were not seen as bastards. How did these premarital pregnancies affect the family life after the couple was married? --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
<br />
This article also changed my view of women's place in colonial society. I had imagined a much more strict adherence to the taboo on premarital sex, and a much harsher criticism of women who engaged in it. Instead, the phenomenon of "bridal pregnancy" suggests to me that society had come up with a way to handle apparently inevitable cases, and both the man and woman could, through marriage, retain their place in society and their dignity. It was this fact, that pregnancy before marriage did not necessarily ruin the woman, which surprised me. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the excerpt “To Use Her as His Wife”, I was surprised by the fact that Elisha and Joseph Hawley’s mother had a very privileged position in the community, regardless of the fact that her husband had committed suicide. I would have thought that fact would have tainted her reputation in society, I supposed her good connections with the rest of her family helped her in society. Another thing that surprised me about this excerpt was the age of marriage. The ages were all much older than I was expecting: the women were getting married at 25, 27, and 34. -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
I found the wording in the document on page 81 to be very interesting. Elisha is called a "gentleman" as Martha is called a "spinster." Both are gendered, but Martha's status as an unmarried woman is more important than what family she came from. - Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Benjamin Wadsworth, 1712 – Well-Ordered Family ==<br />
<br />
In Benjamin Wadsworth’s sermon discussing “A Well Ordered Family,” he describes that the ideal family is one in which the wife is submissive to the husband, but that they should be loving and affectionate to one another. He also describes a quarrel or disagreement as “the Devil’s work.” On one hand, he states that if a wife is not “so young, beautiful, healthy…” etc, God still requires the husband to love her and be not bitter. This sounds like a fairly positive position for women. However, Wadsworth goes on to say that if a husband is not “well-tempered,” the wife still is required to love and particularly obey him. In my view, this would allow husbands to be abusive or ill-tempered without repercussion because women must be submissive and obey them no matter what. This model ultimately failed and the stratification between men and women grew further. <br />
--Clare O.<br />
<br />
I found the way Wadsworth talks about love striking. It's a "duty" to be "performed," as is "plainly commanded by God." That's quite different from how we talk about love now, as an ethereal thing which people fall in or out of. It's discussed as less of an emotion and more of a character trait, to strive for despite the many potential flaws in one spouse that he lists. It's interesting how his list for women differs from his list for men - he tells them to love and obey their husbands even if he has less "abilities of mind" or is of a "more common birth" - I wonder if more-educated or wealthier women marrying lower-status men was common enough to merit such a comment?<br />
<br />
To use her as a Wife: Paternity Suit brought to life the shift in family structures. The change from pre-modern to modern family structures happened much earlier than I expected. The paternity suits in this period made progress towards answering religious and social questions that we have today including the issue of child support, whether or not a man should have to marry a woman bearing his child out of wedlock and what the issue is with marrying a different social class. --kris<br />
<br />
Aside from Wadsworth's assertion that the husband is the "head of the woman," this assesment of marriage seems dead-on. He says that although your spouse may not be the embodiment of all your romantic fantasies, responsibility and duty should overcome. This is still a relevant message (at least to me!). What caught my attention most was a quotation in the introduction. Wadworth says, "Tho tyranny is burdensome and hateful, yet it's counted a smaller evil that meer anarchy, and confusion." The English civil war had recently happened, the attempt at instituting a large-scale puritan utopia had failed. Is this (and without its context, it's tough to tell) a glossing over, or a justification for more secular government? --Stefanie<br />
<br />
== Susanna Wesley, 1732, Evangelical Child-Rearing ==<br />
<br />
I'm finding it difficult to work out what we can understand from this about "typical" child-rearing. She discusses her children going into less-strict homes than hers and learning songs and playing and such awful things, so presumably other households weren't this strict. She also talks about how her girls didn't learn to sew until they could read well, and comments that few women read well because they learned to sew first - so did most families not let their girls study reading so much? Or is she talking about her own generation, and now girls are getting more education? Is her desire for her girls to know how to read and speak well religiously motivated like the rest of her theory of child-rearing seems to be, in which case it might be more common, or is it a personal thing? - Katie C.<br />
<br />
I agree with Katie. Wesley seems to be special kind of mother. She reminds me of a Tiger Mom. She believes that "self-will is the root of all sin and misery" (p. 41), which drives her parenting ideals. Everything from prayers to eating is strictly controlled in Wesley's home. As Katie said, Wesley does not to see the norm. I would be interested in knowing her husband's views and doctrines on child rearing. - Michelle M.<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the letter from Susanna Wesley to her son to be very interesting. Many of her child-rearing practices seemed harsh and extreme by today’s standards, yet I saw many things in her letter that I can relate to my own experiences with babysitting. That “cowardice and fear of punishment often lead children into lying…”; lying and disobedience “must never pass unpunished…” and if a child does something unacceptable but with good intentions, “the obedience and intention be kindly accepted, and the child with sweetness directed how to better for the future.” -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
== Eliza Pinckney, 1750s, To Improve in Every Virtue ==<br />
<br />
I was an immediate fan of Eliza Pinckney who wrote out her resolutions each year on her birthday, I could easily relate to her fears and wishes in living her life. She simply wanted to be a good person: “not regard the frowns of the world”, “subdue every vice and improve in every virtue”. The most amazing thing about Eliza was how in depth she wrote about her “Servants” and how she wanted so badly to be a good Mistress to them: “to make their lives as comfortable as I can.” -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
== New Spain’s (New Mexico’s) moral code as dictated by the Spanish Crown in 1752 ==<br />
<br />
I'm surprised there was such concern about class in New Spain, since it doesn't seem to have existed in quite the same way in the English colonies. I'd also love to read a more precise definition of seduction. The most interesting part of this law is that NOT marrying a woman is a serious offense - if someone has seduced someone and then doesn't marry her, then that apparently does her serious injury, though not him. (I guess he's the one not embarrassed by being turned down, just as her lineage or reputation won't be hurt by marrying someone above her?) I wonder, did lower-class women ever seduce Dukes and Counts? It certainly doesn't seem to have happened enough to be mentioned here, but I guess those native girls were just all over the nobility. - Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Laws on Slave Descent in VA and MD, 1662, 1664, 1691, 1692 ==<br />
<br />
It seems as if the laws in Virginia got harsher from 1662-1691 in regards to children being born to an Englishman/woman and a slave. In 1662, the child was free if the mother was free, but the child was a slave if the mother was a slave. The Christian Englishman/woman parent has to pay double the fines for committing the act. In 1991 if an English woman were to have a baby with a black man, she had to pay a fine one month after the child were born. The mother was taken into possession of the church for 5 years, but the child was taken for 30 years. I found that to be interesting. Why would a supposed Christian punish the child, especially worse than the mother was punished? -- Ashley V.<br />
<br />
== Skilled slaves in Maryland, 1748-1763, Maryland Gazette ==<br />
<br />
This essay says, "Because the crafts open to men far outnumbered those open to women, fewer female than male slaves had the opportunity to escape field labor." <br />
It kind of surprises me that they would have women working in the field so much. Were there not many opportunities for domestic work, even in the mid-eighteenth century? In addition to that quote, shortly after in the same passage is an ad posted for a female slave that says, "A brisk likely Country-born Negro Wench about 18 or 19 years of Age, who is a good Spinner; with a Child, about 18 months Old."<br />
This quote suggests that it was common for women to partake in domestic work. Which is true?<br />
--Mary Beth M<br />
<br />
== Complaint of Elizabeth Sprigs, indentured servant, 1756 ==<br />
<br />
I was shocked when I read that letter from the girl to her father. I know that not all people came over to the New World willingly but I thought that most of them enjoyed being here once they got here. I would have never guessed that this girl was treated like, if not worse, than a slave and then started to beg her father who threw her out, for more. It makes me wonder what rights indentured servants had since they were not technically property, or were they? – Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Apprenticeship in PA, 1771-1773, Record of Indentures ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Advertisements, Gazettes of VA, PA, SC, NY – 1751-1776 ==<br />
<br />
While reading through the various gazettes, I noticed in the 1750's, girls were more or less being offered lessons in needle work and other types of crafts, where as the boys were being taught the reading, writing and arithmetic. They appeared to have been kept the sexes separate as well. Fast forward twenty years and it seems the girls are being offered the same craft work, but they are also able to learn the reading, writing and arithmetic, plus various other areas of interest (music being a common theme). - Matt<br />
<br />
== AN ABOMINABLE WICKEDNESS ''Abigail Bailey, 1815'' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I really was directed to the passage "Though all the conduct of Mr. B. from day to day, seemed to demonstrate my apprehension that he was determined, and was continually plotting, to ruin this poor young daughter, yet it was so intolerably crossing to every feeling of my soul to admit such a thought, that I strove with all my might to banish it from my mind and to disbelieve the possibility of such a thing(43)" because it made her daughter a passive, not conscientious, partner to her father, which would make it at the very least sexual assault, which is not at all what she is worried about. So much for being a good mother. I think it'd be interesting to see the story from the father's viewpoint or the daughters to figure out if it was consensual or not. Regardless, sexual predator=okay; incest=grounds for divorce. --Sara<br />
<br />
In Abigail Bailey’s memoirs, “An Abominable Wickedness,” she describes how her husband had begun an incestuous relationship with one of their daughters. This particular account illuminates the lack of power of women during this time period in two distinct ways. First, Abigail Bailey was only able to have her husband arrested with the help of her brothers. It is astounding that women lacked rights to the extent that the law would ignore the fact that her husband was abusing their daughter, simply because a woman reported it. Secondly, the daughter who was being abused denied the opportunity to testify against her father. While her reasoning for this is unclear, it is possible that she was so afraid of the power the male authority of the household had over her that she refused to testify. <br />
--Clare O. <br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== TIED HAND AND FOOT -- ''Esther Burr, 1756-1757'' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
First of all, I love that this is from Aaron Burr's mother (which is not important, I just like Aaron Burr). More importantly the line by Mr. Ewing which states that women should talk about "things that they understood. He did not think women knew what Friendship was. They were hardly capable fo anything so cool and rational as friendship (41)." First I had to wonder, was he talking about the Quakers when she captialized the word "Friendship" or was that just making it a proper noun instead of the contemporary usage of the word. I have to wonder. Second, funny that after reading how busy and tedious her life is in this journal I am saddened by the lack of respect for her sex (if not for herself) she deals with. Obviously he had to have viewed her as somewhat of a companion (not unusual for a woman of her status when you consider the Adams, Adams and Jefferson correspondence of the same time period) or he would not have discussed "women" with her as though she was not one of them, but still an insult to ALL women is an insult to particular women. --Sara<br />
<br />
What I found interesting in the Esther Burr letters:<br />
-The push for women to be married came from women just as much as it did from male ministers (excusing the fact that she was married to a minister).<br />
-Not marrying was considered a "murder of self." (Page 39, Woloch)<br />
-Did women in this era always refer to their husbands as "Mr Burr?"<br />
--Mary Beth M<br />
<br />
What I found interesting was that she was able to keep a diary. Most of the time we are taught that women are not suppose to be taught to write and you even see that in some of the later readings that young girls had been taught to read the bible and nothing else. And in reference to what Mary Beth said, I don’t think that it is only their husbands they refer too. I think that that she refers to everyone with a title. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
What I enjoyed about these letters is the glimpse of life in the early 18th century. Esther Burr's diary is a particularly rich resource for historians trying to understand better the daily lives of upper-class colonial women. I liked her descriptions of her recovery from childbirth, her conversations with her husbands and guests, and her day to day occurrences. I thought it was interesting how she still did spinning and spent a day with other ladies doing this task even though she was well off as a minister's wife. I also found her anger at her friend when she discovers that she turned down a proposal very telling. She is angry at her because she feels that their was no reason to turn him down, he was even a minister like her husband. It makes me wonder how many women settled to marry men they did not particularly like because of pressure from family and friends. Was spinster-hood something to be truly afraid of?--Heather Thompson</div>Martzmichellehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_3_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 3 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-15T03:02:14Z<p>Martzmichelle: /* Susanna Wesley, 1732, Evangelical Child-Rearing */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching/comparative comments ==<br />
<br />
"To Use Her as His Wife" and the memoir of Abigail Bailey helped to define where women fell during this time in regards to the law. What I found interesting about both situations, even with their vast differences, they both were about women whose lives were left to be determined by the men that surrounded them. It is never clear what Martha Root wanted for her life as she was the one who in the end was responsible for raising the child. Root's opinion never appeared to come up for debate as it was overshadowed by the cultural and societal norms set by the male members of the community. The more drastic example of this legal inequality can be felt in Abigail Bailey's confession of her husband and daughters incest driven relationship. She is clearly broken that this immoral and sinful activity is taking place within her own home and she cannot even protect her own child. She continually comments that she "knew not that I could make legal proof" and even when she was able to bring her husband in front of the law it was by the help of her brothers and over a property settlement, not the rape of his daughter. It leaves the question if men were considered more morally upright than women as the choices they made guided the entire community? --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Katherine Kish Sklar article, “To Use her as His Wife” ==<br />
<br />
I found “To Use Her As His Wife” to be a very interesting read. I had no idea that a fundamental feature of an 18th century marriage was bridal pregnancy. Why don’t we hear stories about bridal pregnancy more often (Martha Root’s story)? It is also intriguing that these women were not chastised for their pregnancies out of wedlock, mainly because their children were not seen as bastards. How did these premarital pregnancies affect the family life after the couple was married? --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
<br />
This article also changed my view of women's place in colonial society. I had imagined a much more strict adherence to the taboo on premarital sex, and a much harsher criticism of women who engaged in it. Instead, the phenomenon of "bridal pregnancy" suggests to me that society had come up with a way to handle apparently inevitable cases, and both the man and woman could, through marriage, retain their place in society and their dignity. It was this fact, that pregnancy before marriage did not necessarily ruin the woman, which surprised me. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
== Benjamin Wadsworth, 1712 – Well-Ordered Family ==<br />
<br />
In Benjamin Wadsworth’s sermon discussing “A Well Ordered Family,” he describes that the ideal family is one in which the wife is submissive to the husband, but that they should be loving and affectionate to one another. He also describes a quarrel or disagreement as “the Devil’s work.” On one hand, he states that if a wife is not “so young, beautiful, healthy…” etc, God still requires the husband to love her and be not bitter. This sounds like a fairly positive position for women. However, Wadsworth goes on to say that if a husband is not “well-tempered,” the wife still is required to love and particularly obey him. In my view, this would allow husbands to be abusive or ill-tempered without repercussion because women must be submissive and obey them no matter what. This model ultimately failed and the stratification between men and women grew further. <br />
--Clare O.<br />
<br />
I found the way Wadsworth talks about love striking. It's a "duty" to be "performed," as is "plainly commanded by God." That's quite different from how we talk about love now, as an ethereal thing which people fall in or out of. It's discussed as less of an emotion and more of a character trait, to strive for despite the many potential flaws in one spouse that he lists. It's interesting how his list for women differs from his list for men - he tells them to love and obey their husbands even if he has less "abilities of mind" or is of a "more common birth" - I wonder if more-educated or wealthier women marrying lower-status men was common enough to merit such a comment?<br />
<br />
To use her as a Wife: Paternity Suit brought to life the shift in family structures. The change from pre-modern to modern family structures happened much earlier than I expected. The paternity suits in this period made progress towards answering religious and social questions that we have today including the issue of child support, whether or not a man should have to marry a woman bearing his child out of wedlock and what the issue is with marrying a different social class. --kris<br />
<br />
== Susanna Wesley, 1732, Evangelical Child-Rearing ==<br />
<br />
I'm finding it difficult to work out what we can understand from this about "typical" child-rearing. She discusses her children going into less-strict homes than hers and learning songs and playing and such awful things, so presumably other households weren't this strict. She also talks about how her girls didn't learn to sew until they could read well, and comments that few women read well because they learned to sew first - so did most families not let their girls study reading so much? Or is she talking about her own generation, and now girls are getting more education? Is her desire for her girls to know how to read and speak well religiously motivated like the rest of her theory of child-rearing seems to be, in which case it might be more common, or is it a personal thing? - Katie C.<br />
<br />
I agree with Katie. Wesley seems to be special kind of mother. She reminds me of a Tiger Mom. She believes that "self-will is the root of all sin and misery" (p. 41), which drives her parenting ideals. Everything from prayers to eating is strictly controlled in Wesley's home. As Katie said, Wesley does not to see the norm. I would be interested in knowing her husband's views and doctrines on child rearing. - Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Eliza Pinckney, 1750s, To Improve in Every Virtue ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== New Spain’s (New Mexico’s) moral code as dictated by the Spanish Crown in 1752 ==<br />
<br />
I'm surprised there was such concern about class in New Spain, since it doesn't seem to have existed in quite the same way in the English colonies. I'd also love to read a more precise definition of seduction. The most interesting part of this law is that NOT marrying a woman is a serious offense - if someone has seduced someone and then doesn't marry her, then that apparently does her serious injury, though not him. (I guess he's the one not embarrassed by being turned down, just as her lineage or reputation won't be hurt by marrying someone above her?) I wonder, did lower-class women ever seduce Dukes and Counts? It certainly doesn't seem to have happened enough to be mentioned here, but I guess those native girls were just all over the nobility. - Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Laws on Slave Descent in VA and MD, 1662, 1664, 1691, 1692 ==<br />
<br />
It seems as if the laws in Virginia got harsher from 1662-1691 in regards to children being born to an Englishman/woman and a slave. In 1662, the child was free if the mother was free, but the child was a slave if the mother was a slave. The Christian Englishman/woman parent has to pay double the fines for committing the act. In 1991 if an English woman were to have a baby with a black man, she had to pay a fine one month after the child were born. The mother was taken into possession of the church for 5 years, but the child was taken for 30 years. I found that to be interesting. Why would a supposed Christian punish the child, especially worse than the mother was punished? -- Ashley V.<br />
<br />
== Skilled slaves in Maryland, 1748-1763, Maryland Gazette ==<br />
<br />
This essay says, "Because the crafts open to men far outnumbered those open to women, fewer female than male slaves had the opportunity to escape field labor." <br />
It kind of surprises me that they would have women working in the field so much. Were there not many opportunities for domestic work, even in the mid-eighteenth century? In addition to that quote, shortly after in the same passage is an ad posted for a female slave that says, "A brisk likely Country-born Negro Wench about 18 or 19 years of Age, who is a good Spinner; with a Child, about 18 months Old."<br />
This quote suggests that it was common for women to partake in domestic work. Which is true?<br />
--Mary Beth M<br />
<br />
== Complaint of Elizabeth Sprigs, indentured servant, 1756 ==<br />
<br />
I was shocked when I read that letter from the girl to her father. I know that not all people came over to the New World willingly but I thought that most of them enjoyed being here once they got here. I would have never guessed that this girl was treated like, if not worse, than a slave and then started to beg her father who threw her out, for more. It makes me wonder what rights indentured servants had since they were not technically property, or were they? – Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Apprenticeship in PA, 1771-1773, Record of Indentures ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Advertisements, Gazettes of VA, PA, SC, NY – 1751-1776 ==<br />
<br />
While reading through the various gazettes, I noticed in the 1750's, girls were more or less being offered lessons in needle work and other types of crafts, where as the boys were being taught the reading, writing and arithmetic. They appeared to have been kept the sexes separate as well. Fast forward twenty years and it seems the girls are being offered the same craft work, but they are also able to learn the reading, writing and arithmetic, plus various other areas of interest (music being a common theme). - Matt<br />
<br />
== AN ABOMINABLE WICKEDNESS ''Abigail Bailey, 1815'' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I really was directed to the passage "Though all the conduct of Mr. B. from day to day, seemed to demonstrate my apprehension that he was determined, and was continually plotting, to ruin this poor young daughter, yet it was so intolerably crossing to every feeling of my soul to admit such a thought, that I strove with all my might to banish it from my mind and to disbelieve the possibility of such a thing(43)" because it made her daughter a passive, not conscientious, partner to her father, which would make it at the very least sexual assault, which is not at all what she is worried about. So much for being a good mother. I think it'd be interesting to see the story from the father's viewpoint or the daughters to figure out if it was consensual or not. Regardless, sexual predator=okay; incest=grounds for divorce. --Sara<br />
<br />
In Abigail Bailey’s memoirs, “An Abominable Wickedness,” she describes how her husband had begun an incestuous relationship with one of their daughters. This particular account illuminates the lack of power of women during this time period in two distinct ways. First, Abigail Bailey was only able to have her husband arrested with the help of her brothers. It is astounding that women lacked rights to the extent that the law would ignore the fact that her husband was abusing their daughter, simply because a woman reported it. Secondly, the daughter who was being abused denied the opportunity to testify against her father. While her reasoning for this is unclear, it is possible that she was so afraid of the power the male authority of the household had over her that she refused to testify. <br />
--Clare O. <br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== TIED HAND AND FOOT -- ''Esther Burr, 1756-1757'' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
First of all, I love that this is from Aaron Burr's mother (which is not important, I just like Aaron Burr). More importantly the line by Mr. Ewing which states that women should talk about "things that they understood. He did not think women knew what Friendship was. They were hardly capable fo anything so cool and rational as friendship (41)." First I had to wonder, was he talking about the Quakers when she captialized the word "Friendship" or was that just making it a proper noun instead of the contemporary usage of the word. I have to wonder. Second, funny that after reading how busy and tedious her life is in this journal I am saddened by the lack of respect for her sex (if not for herself) she deals with. Obviously he had to have viewed her as somewhat of a companion (not unusual for a woman of her status when you consider the Adams, Adams and Jefferson correspondence of the same time period) or he would not have discussed "women" with her as though she was not one of them, but still an insult to ALL women is an insult to particular women. --Sara<br />
<br />
What I found interesting in the Esther Burr letters:<br />
-The push for women to be married came from women just as much as it did from male ministers (excusing the fact that she was married to a minister).<br />
-Not marrying was considered a "murder of self." (Page 39, Woloch)<br />
-Did women in this era always refer to their husbands as "Mr Burr?"<br />
--Mary Beth M<br />
<br />
What I found interesting was that she was able to keep a diary. Most of the time we are taught that women are not suppose to be taught to write and you even see that in some of the later readings that young girls had been taught to read the bible and nothing else. And in reference to what Mary Beth said, I don’t think that it is only their husbands they refer too. I think that that she refers to everyone with a title. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
What I enjoyed about these letters is the glimpse of life in the early 18th century. Esther Burr's diary is a particularly rich resource for historians trying to understand better the daily lives of upper-class colonial women. I liked her descriptions of her recovery from childbirth, her conversations with her husbands and guests, and her day to day occurrences. I thought it was interesting how she still did spinning and spent a day with other ladies doing this task even though she was well off as a minister's wife. I also found her anger at her friend when she discovers that she turned down a proposal very telling. She is angry at her because she feels that their was no reason to turn him down, he was even a minister like her husband. It makes me wonder how many women settled to marry men they did not particularly like because of pressure from family and friends. Was spinster-hood something to be truly afraid of?--Heather Thompson</div>Martzmichellehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_2_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 2 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-07T20:26:43Z<p>Martzmichelle: /* Mary Rowlandson’s account (1681) and Mary Jemison’s account (1824) */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching questions ==<br />
<br />
What do these primary sources reveal about the nature of women's experiences in colonial-era interactions?<br />
<br />
The arrival of Europeans can truly mark the end of one people's way of life through conforming to a foreign model of religion and social structure demonstrated through changing gender roles. Through many of these early encounters as well as from ''The First Ship'' reading that both parties view of each other was completely alien. As told my Mary Rowlandson and Mary Jemison, it is evident the social structure that they were forced into was foreign with gender roles carried out in a nontraditional sense. These contrasts, in ways of life sharply decline, as seen in the story of Sarah Ahhaton were she was made to feel remorseful for her adulterous actions. Actions that some fifty years early would have "incur no ill repute or insult" according to Champlain. It is clear that when Europeans arrived in America they encountered a people whose female members shared a mutual respect with male members, maintaining positions of power in both the public and private world. Although, documentation throughout this time was heavily biased, the permanent shift in culture and life ways for the Native Americans is abundantly clear. -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
<br />
Woloch says that all tribes had a gendered division of labor, but doesn't Brooks' essay claim that, at least in Navajo tribes, a lot of labor was gender-integrated? I wonder how much different divisions of labor impacted captive women's experiences. I also found the idea of "ransomed" captives curious. Did the captors see it as "ransoming" too, or was it just selling for them? -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I also found the accounts of the two women taken captive interesting. Since most Native American stories and traditions were passed down orally rather than written I think it's important to use these accounts to add to Native American History. I think that you can neither believe all, some or none with what you read with these accounts. I would be more skeptical of the male accounts since they were observing based on their beliefs of what women's roles should be. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
European culture coming to the "new" world did destroy in part the Native American way of life and structure. This group of people had a system of justice (chiefs and councils) and the men and women had a working relationship that is so rarely seen in other cultures that was basically demoralized by these new settlers. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
I think it is important to note that a culture will not change if one attempts to force that change upon the people of that culture (unless you kill them, then they give in pretty easily to your new customs). The men in these tribal systems had to have some predisposed ability to get rid of their way of life or they would have been killed or been fighting against it (which did happen, plenty were killed and plenty fault simply because of a difference of cultural beliefs). --Sara S.<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the first chapter of Woloch’s book quite interesting, and it seems to shed some light on the varying social structures between the American natives and the European colonists. In many native tribes, it was customary for the women to not only play the wife, mother and housekeeper role, but they were the main agriculturists for the tribes as well. Viewed as being savage by the colonists, these native women were only doing what they considered to be their “fair share” of the duties. Although their work was considered hard and strenuous just as well as the men’s, they were still accustomed to performing those duties and they were still responsible for everything else involving family life. They were not forced into slave labor, nor were they forced to remain in their relationships or marriages when they became unhappy. In comparison to the white women settlers, I feel as if the native women had more rights and freedoms than they did. In some cases, native women were even allowed to serve as council members. It’s amazing to see how much culture and environment has an effect on an overall perspective and way of life. --Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
<br />
It is extremely important to remember that the majority of resources available concerning the lives of Native American women are written by European men. The reason is that the Native American tribes did not have their own written language which I found extremely surprising. Some of the sources written by the Europeans are better than others. For example, it is interesting how Samuel de Champlain describes the Huron women as doing most of the work and serving as "mules" for their husbands, while their husbands simply hunt and go to war. However, John Heckewelder observed Delaware Indian families and came to a different conclusion, that women were in fact "cheerfully" accepting their fair share of labor and were not in a manner being treated as slaves. It is interesting to note that Champlain wrote his account in 1616 while Heckewelder wrote his in the mid eighteenth century. I wonder if this passage of time had an effect on the perceptions of the English, or if the two simply had different points of view. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
In the introduction to "First Encounters" in Woloch's book, she mentions that "During the era of colonization, Europeans at home and abroad had an insatiable curiosity about the New World." Perhaps it is possible that the sources we do have on Native American women are exaggerated in order to appeal to this rabid public. For example, John Smith's third account in which Pocahontas saves him from being killed is much more interesting to readers than his first account describing diplomacy. Another example would be Mary Rowlandson, who completely demonized the Native Americans and disregards any act of kindness. She describes them as a "scourge" and as having "inhumane, and many times devilish cruelty to the English." These incredibly harsh words would surely pique the interest of the European public as well. -- Clare O.<br />
<br />
== Mary Rowlandson’s account (1681) and Mary Jemison’s account (1824) ==<br />
<br />
So little is known about the complex and diverse group of Native American women. How much should we trust the accounts of literate white men and women? How can we be sure that we recieve an unaltered and unbiased view of these women's lives? We cannot, thus, it is imperative that we take an objective eye when reading others narritives on a people without a clear voice in our history books. Although it is interesting and beneficial to compare the differing accounts of Mary Jemison and Mary Rowlandson we do not have the accounts from their captors. -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
I would say we are probably getting a very biased account of the lives of Native American women, when our impression is filtered through the culture of white Americans. In the case of these two readings, I think we can try to determine how strong the bias was, and what kind of bias the authors held, by looking at their individual circumstances. These two writers had very different experiences, which shaped their view of the Native Americans with whom they lived. I think, in general, Mary Jemison's account is probably more historically reliable because she was taken captive at a younger age, when her impressions of the world were still being formed and maybe still malleable. She also learned the local language and came to respect the people with whom she lived. Mary Rowlandson did not assimilate this way, or make the same connections with her captors. -- Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
I found Mary Rowlandson account to be very interesting because most of the accounts about Native American captures have the captives not wanting to return to white society like Mary Jemison’s account. Most people never wanted to leave the community that they became a part of but Mary Rowlandson had the opposite experience. It’s interesting to see both sides. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
I found the two views of Rowlandson and Jemison very interesting because both seemed so different. I believe these differences come from the unique experiences of the women and their individual backgrounds. Rowlandson used her faith in Christianity to deal with her capture. She used religion because she is a wife of a preacher, and therefore religious. Jemison does not talk about faith the same way as Rowlandson. Jemison does talk about her captors as family and friends. I believe she does this because she has lost all her living relatives. She has to turn to the Native Americans and join their culture. Rowlandson still has family alive, therefore she does not accept living with the Native Americans. -- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
I also found it very interesting that Jemison blames Europeans for the Native Americans for acting violent. She blames the European education of Native Americans as robbing "them of many of their virtues, and will ultimately produce their extermination." (pg30) -- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== John Heckewelder’s 1819, Women’s Lives among the Delaware ==<br />
<br />
In chapter one of Woloch, it is said that “all tribes adhered to a gendered division of the labor.” This division of labor was very interesting to the Europeans who wrote about Indian life, as women had many responsibilities that required hard labor. John Heckewelder didn’t seem to have much respect for the Native American women or of “savage life” in general. He talks of the women harshly saying: their “labours… are hard, compared with the tasks that are imposed upon females in civilized society; but they are no more than their fair share…” This opinion is opposed by Samuel de Champlain who is harsher on the Native American men saying they “do nothing but hunt for deer and other animals…make cabins and go to war.” This seems a healthy list of duties to me, but compared to the long list Champlain provided of the women’s duties, it seems small and of little consequence. Some European accounts of Indian life seem to think that these tasks seem fair and are often shared among the men and women out of respect to each other. This respect between the two sexes seems to be somewhat universal in many of the essays. Both women and men alike have a say in the government, particularly among the Iroquois. I was surprised that this seemed less shocking to the Europeans than the amount of work the Native American women did. -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
<br />
In reading Heckewelder's account of the division of labor and responsibility within Delaware Indian families, I was struck by the parallels and differences between the narrative of an American non-Native American woman and that of a Native American woman. While Native American men performed the majority of the more intense physical labor, women also had responsibilities that took them out of the house and allowed them to play a key role in the foodgathering. Additionally, the fact that the parents of both interested parties would bring food that had been caught/grown by their child fascinated me, because unlike the European/early US model of women's worth, a woman in Native American societies brought to the marriage her skill sets as related to food growth and scavenging, and those skills played an important role in finding a partner. In European tradition, a woman would bring to a marriage the dowry that her father/family could afford, bringing to the table on her own behalf only her character and looks. In assessing a potential daughter-in-law's farming and cooking skills, parents could consider more than charm. -- Nicole Steck<br />
<br />
I was particularly intrigued by the account of John Heckewelder and the way in which he described the gender roles of the Delaware Indian Families. Heckewelder was thorough in his descriptions about the work of the women. However, he was always quick to compare their labor with that of the men and made it clear that the women's work was inferior. Because the men were out hunting, they were doing work in which "their existence depend[ed]" (32). It is evident by looking at this text that Heckewelder was assessing the Native Americans through the lens of the static European gender roles that existed at the time. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Samuel de Champlain, 1616 ==<br />
<br />
The European accounts of the Native American marriages, I found very interesting. Samuel de Champlain describes it as “a sort of marriage” while Heckelwelder looks down upon it: “Marriages among the Indians are not, as with us, contracted for life; it is understood…that the parties are not to live together any longer than they shall be pleased with each other.” It seems that there was a lot of, for lack of a better term, “sleeping around” and that children could “not be sure of being legitimate. What I found more interesting than anything else were the personal accounts of the two women who had been taken captive. I found myself asking myself what I would have done in that situation. Mary Rowlandson obviously disliked her captors, though her opinion of them may have changes slightly in their moments of kindness. Rowlandson had a husband and other family members waiting for her at a home she had already formed roots in. Her captors were her enemies and she naturally thought poorly of them. Mary Jemison’s scenario is more unique. She was young when she was taken and when given the chance to be free, she chose to stay with her adopted Indian family. Did she stay out of convenience because she had nothing to go home to? -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
I, as well, thought the impression of marriage was of importance. I mean, what even were Native American marriages like? I don't know, but I can assume they didn't entail the sort of things we post-Victorian romantics assign to them. I especially thought it was of importance to note the article which discussed jumping from hut to hut with the acquiesce of ones' spouse. Although it was probably meant to detail just how barbaric and promiscious the Natives were, it also reinfornces my point that even the European's marriages were not what we are naturally inclined to think of them as. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
I thought that their marriage traditions were very complex. They have all of the traditions that go along with marriage and I think that they are very remarkable that all of their traditions were upheld. These traditions are more intricate than the English and it is quite remarkable. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Pierre de Charlevoix, 1721, “Iroquois Women in Government” ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Roger Williams Remarks on Narragansett women – 1643 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mary Musgrove assists the Georgians in Dealing with the Choctaws, 1734 & Mary Musgrove Seeks aid for past service from GA, 1747 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Captive John Tanner in 1830 ==<br />
<br />
I found it interesting (and a little humorous) that John Tanner was purchased for whiskey, blankets, tobacco and "other articles of great value". It seems to have been customary during this time, for a mother that had lost a child, to go out and be able to trade items for "new" children. Times have definitely changed.. -- Matt<br />
<br />
== Father Le Jeune on necessity of teaching native women, 1633 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Native women resist Jesuits, 1640 ==<br />
<br />
The Native American men wanted the women to become baptized. From what we've read, the women for the most part, seemed to have a good bit of power and did almost everything to keep everything running and well kept, yet the men are blaming the women for all of their misfortunes? - Matt<br />
<br />
In the beginning of the passage “Native Women Resist the Jesuits, 1640,” it begins by saying that “They [Native American men] resolved to call together the women, to urge them to be instructed and to receive holy Baptism.” One of my questions is: Why was it that the men were more receptive to the Jesuit’s Christianity than women? And more importantly, did that have anything to do with the difference in gender expectations of Christian and Native American culture? --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
What I found interesting about "Native Women Resist the Jesuits, 1640," was the woman at the end of the passage who leaves the tribe to protest against conversion. I also found it interesting how the English went after her and after they could not find her allowed her to punish herself by going four days without food because some of my readings for my Early Colonial History course suggest that Native Americans were perfectly fine without food for a few days. Also, knowing how the men of the tribe respected their women and treated them about equally, I wonder why these men would still insist upon conversion to Christianity if the women were so against it?--Heather Thompson<br />
<br />
== Wamponoag women of Martha’s Vineyard, 1727 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sarah Ahhaton’s trial, 1668 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Ann Marie Plane's essay ==</div>Martzmichellehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_2_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 2 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-07T20:24:07Z<p>Martzmichelle: /* Mary Rowlandson’s account (1681) and Mary Jemison’s account (1824) */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching questions ==<br />
<br />
What do these primary sources reveal about the nature of women's experiences in colonial-era interactions?<br />
<br />
The arrival of Europeans can truly mark the end of one people's way of life through conforming to a foreign model of religion and social structure demonstrated through changing gender roles. Through many of these early encounters as well as from ''The First Ship'' reading that both parties view of each other was completely alien. As told my Mary Rowlandson and Mary Jemison, it is evident the social structure that they were forced into was foreign with gender roles carried out in a nontraditional sense. These contrasts, in ways of life sharply decline, as seen in the story of Sarah Ahhaton were she was made to feel remorseful for her adulterous actions. Actions that some fifty years early would have "incur no ill repute or insult" according to Champlain. It is clear that when Europeans arrived in America they encountered a people whose female members shared a mutual respect with male members, maintaining positions of power in both the public and private world. Although, documentation throughout this time was heavily biased, the permanent shift in culture and life ways for the Native Americans is abundantly clear. -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
<br />
Woloch says that all tribes had a gendered division of labor, but doesn't Brooks' essay claim that, at least in Navajo tribes, a lot of labor was gender-integrated? I wonder how much different divisions of labor impacted captive women's experiences. I also found the idea of "ransomed" captives curious. Did the captors see it as "ransoming" too, or was it just selling for them? -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I also found the accounts of the two women taken captive interesting. Since most Native American stories and traditions were passed down orally rather than written I think it's important to use these accounts to add to Native American History. I think that you can neither believe all, some or none with what you read with these accounts. I would be more skeptical of the male accounts since they were observing based on their beliefs of what women's roles should be. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
European culture coming to the "new" world did destroy in part the Native American way of life and structure. This group of people had a system of justice (chiefs and councils) and the men and women had a working relationship that is so rarely seen in other cultures that was basically demoralized by these new settlers. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
I think it is important to note that a culture will not change if one attempts to force that change upon the people of that culture (unless you kill them, then they give in pretty easily to your new customs). The men in these tribal systems had to have some predisposed ability to get rid of their way of life or they would have been killed or been fighting against it (which did happen, plenty were killed and plenty fault simply because of a difference of cultural beliefs). --Sara S.<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the first chapter of Woloch’s book quite interesting, and it seems to shed some light on the varying social structures between the American natives and the European colonists. In many native tribes, it was customary for the women to not only play the wife, mother and housekeeper role, but they were the main agriculturists for the tribes as well. Viewed as being savage by the colonists, these native women were only doing what they considered to be their “fair share” of the duties. Although their work was considered hard and strenuous just as well as the men’s, they were still accustomed to performing those duties and they were still responsible for everything else involving family life. They were not forced into slave labor, nor were they forced to remain in their relationships or marriages when they became unhappy. In comparison to the white women settlers, I feel as if the native women had more rights and freedoms than they did. In some cases, native women were even allowed to serve as council members. It’s amazing to see how much culture and environment has an effect on an overall perspective and way of life. --Lindsey S.<br />
<br />
<br />
It is extremely important to remember that the majority of resources available concerning the lives of Native American women are written by European men. The reason is that the Native American tribes did not have their own written language which I found extremely surprising. Some of the sources written by the Europeans are better than others. For example, it is interesting how Samuel de Champlain describes the Huron women as doing most of the work and serving as "mules" for their husbands, while their husbands simply hunt and go to war. However, John Heckewelder observed Delaware Indian families and came to a different conclusion, that women were in fact "cheerfully" accepting their fair share of labor and were not in a manner being treated as slaves. It is interesting to note that Champlain wrote his account in 1616 while Heckewelder wrote his in the mid eighteenth century. I wonder if this passage of time had an effect on the perceptions of the English, or if the two simply had different points of view. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
In the introduction to "First Encounters" in Woloch's book, she mentions that "During the era of colonization, Europeans at home and abroad had an insatiable curiosity about the New World." Perhaps it is possible that the sources we do have on Native American women are exaggerated in order to appeal to this rabid public. For example, John Smith's third account in which Pocahontas saves him from being killed is much more interesting to readers than his first account describing diplomacy. Another example would be Mary Rowlandson, who completely demonized the Native Americans and disregards any act of kindness. She describes them as a "scourge" and as having "inhumane, and many times devilish cruelty to the English." These incredibly harsh words would surely pique the interest of the European public as well. -- Clare O.<br />
<br />
== Mary Rowlandson’s account (1681) and Mary Jemison’s account (1824) ==<br />
<br />
So little is known about the complex and diverse group of Native American women. How much should we trust the accounts of literate white men and women? How can we be sure that we recieve an unaltered and unbiased view of these women's lives? We cannot, thus, it is imperative that we take an objective eye when reading others narritives on a people without a clear voice in our history books. Although it is interesting and beneficial to compare the differing accounts of Mary Jemison and Mary Rowlandson we do not have the accounts from their captors. -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
I would say we are probably getting a very biased account of the lives of Native American women, when our impression is filtered through the culture of white Americans. In the case of these two readings, I think we can try to determine how strong the bias was, and what kind of bias the authors held, by looking at their individual circumstances. These two writers had very different experiences, which shaped their view of the Native Americans with whom they lived. I think, in general, Mary Jemison's account is probably more historically reliable because she was taken captive at a younger age, when her impressions of the world were still being formed and maybe still malleable. She also learned the local language and came to respect the people with whom she lived. Mary Rowlandson did not assimilate this way, or make the same connections with her captors. -- Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
I found Mary Rowlandson account to be very interesting because most of the accounts about Native American captures have the captives not wanting to return to white society like Mary Jemison’s account. Most people never wanted to leave the community that they became a part of but Mary Rowlandson had the opposite experience. It’s interesting to see both sides. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
I found the two views of Rowlandson and Jemison very interesting because both seemed so different. I believe these differences come from the unique experiences of the women and their individual backgrounds. Rowlandson used her faith in Christianity to deal with her capture. She used religion because she is a wife of a preacher, and therefore religious. Jemison does not talk about faith the same way as Rowlandson. Jemison does talk about her captors as family and friends. I believe she does this because she has lost all her living relatives. She has to turn to the Native Americans and join their culture. Rowlandson still has family alive, therefore she does not accept living with the Native Americans. -- Michelle Martz<br />
<br />
== John Heckewelder’s 1819, Women’s Lives among the Delaware ==<br />
<br />
In chapter one of Woloch, it is said that “all tribes adhered to a gendered division of the labor.” This division of labor was very interesting to the Europeans who wrote about Indian life, as women had many responsibilities that required hard labor. John Heckewelder didn’t seem to have much respect for the Native American women or of “savage life” in general. He talks of the women harshly saying: their “labours… are hard, compared with the tasks that are imposed upon females in civilized society; but they are no more than their fair share…” This opinion is opposed by Samuel de Champlain who is harsher on the Native American men saying they “do nothing but hunt for deer and other animals…make cabins and go to war.” This seems a healthy list of duties to me, but compared to the long list Champlain provided of the women’s duties, it seems small and of little consequence. Some European accounts of Indian life seem to think that these tasks seem fair and are often shared among the men and women out of respect to each other. This respect between the two sexes seems to be somewhat universal in many of the essays. Both women and men alike have a say in the government, particularly among the Iroquois. I was surprised that this seemed less shocking to the Europeans than the amount of work the Native American women did. -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
<br />
In reading Heckewelder's account of the division of labor and responsibility within Delaware Indian families, I was struck by the parallels and differences between the narrative of an American non-Native American woman and that of a Native American woman. While Native American men performed the majority of the more intense physical labor, women also had responsibilities that took them out of the house and allowed them to play a key role in the foodgathering. Additionally, the fact that the parents of both interested parties would bring food that had been caught/grown by their child fascinated me, because unlike the European/early US model of women's worth, a woman in Native American societies brought to the marriage her skill sets as related to food growth and scavenging, and those skills played an important role in finding a partner. In European tradition, a woman would bring to a marriage the dowry that her father/family could afford, bringing to the table on her own behalf only her character and looks. In assessing a potential daughter-in-law's farming and cooking skills, parents could consider more than charm. -- Nicole Steck<br />
<br />
I was particularly intrigued by the account of John Heckewelder and the way in which he described the gender roles of the Delaware Indian Families. Heckewelder was thorough in his descriptions about the work of the women. However, he was always quick to compare their labor with that of the men and made it clear that the women's work was inferior. Because the men were out hunting, they were doing work in which "their existence depend[ed]" (32). It is evident by looking at this text that Heckewelder was assessing the Native Americans through the lens of the static European gender roles that existed at the time. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Samuel de Champlain, 1616 ==<br />
<br />
The European accounts of the Native American marriages, I found very interesting. Samuel de Champlain describes it as “a sort of marriage” while Heckelwelder looks down upon it: “Marriages among the Indians are not, as with us, contracted for life; it is understood…that the parties are not to live together any longer than they shall be pleased with each other.” It seems that there was a lot of, for lack of a better term, “sleeping around” and that children could “not be sure of being legitimate. What I found more interesting than anything else were the personal accounts of the two women who had been taken captive. I found myself asking myself what I would have done in that situation. Mary Rowlandson obviously disliked her captors, though her opinion of them may have changes slightly in their moments of kindness. Rowlandson had a husband and other family members waiting for her at a home she had already formed roots in. Her captors were her enemies and she naturally thought poorly of them. Mary Jemison’s scenario is more unique. She was young when she was taken and when given the chance to be free, she chose to stay with her adopted Indian family. Did she stay out of convenience because she had nothing to go home to? -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
I, as well, thought the impression of marriage was of importance. I mean, what even were Native American marriages like? I don't know, but I can assume they didn't entail the sort of things we post-Victorian romantics assign to them. I especially thought it was of importance to note the article which discussed jumping from hut to hut with the acquiesce of ones' spouse. Although it was probably meant to detail just how barbaric and promiscious the Natives were, it also reinfornces my point that even the European's marriages were not what we are naturally inclined to think of them as. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
I thought that their marriage traditions were very complex. They have all of the traditions that go along with marriage and I think that they are very remarkable that all of their traditions were upheld. These traditions are more intricate than the English and it is quite remarkable. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Pierre de Charlevoix, 1721, “Iroquois Women in Government” ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Roger Williams Remarks on Narragansett women – 1643 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mary Musgrove assists the Georgians in Dealing with the Choctaws, 1734 & Mary Musgrove Seeks aid for past service from GA, 1747 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Captive John Tanner in 1830 ==<br />
<br />
I found it interesting (and a little humorous) that John Tanner was purchased for whiskey, blankets, tobacco and "other articles of great value". It seems to have been customary during this time, for a mother that had lost a child, to go out and be able to trade items for "new" children. Times have definitely changed.. -- Matt<br />
<br />
== Father Le Jeune on necessity of teaching native women, 1633 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Native women resist Jesuits, 1640 ==<br />
<br />
The Native American men wanted the women to become baptized. From what we've read, the women for the most part, seemed to have a good bit of power and did almost everything to keep everything running and well kept, yet the men are blaming the women for all of their misfortunes? - Matt<br />
<br />
In the beginning of the passage “Native Women Resist the Jesuits, 1640,” it begins by saying that “They [Native American men] resolved to call together the women, to urge them to be instructed and to receive holy Baptism.” One of my questions is: Why was it that the men were more receptive to the Jesuit’s Christianity than women? And more importantly, did that have anything to do with the difference in gender expectations of Christian and Native American culture? --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
What I found interesting about "Native Women Resist the Jesuits, 1640," was the woman at the end of the passage who leaves the tribe to protest against conversion. I also found it interesting how the English went after her and after they could not find her allowed her to punish herself by going four days without food because some of my readings for my Early Colonial History course suggest that Native Americans were perfectly fine without food for a few days. Also, knowing how the men of the tribe respected their women and treated them about equally, I wonder why these men would still insist upon conversion to Christianity if the women were so against it?--Heather Thompson<br />
<br />
== Wamponoag women of Martha’s Vineyard, 1727 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sarah Ahhaton’s trial, 1668 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Ann Marie Plane's essay ==</div>Martzmichellehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_1_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 1 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-01T00:55:48Z<p>Martzmichelle: </p>
<hr />
<div>Being the second time I have been required to read this section (which is why I was so quick about posting) I have to comment on the fact that the concept of social history and its restraints have a larger meaning to me now, further in my education, than they did the first time I read this. Being primarily a Religion major, it is easy to see how different perspectives and different outlooks on gender, race, socioeconomic class, culture and community play a huge role in the shape of the story of history. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
On page 11 in "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" by Gisela Bock the author mentions "The concept 'gender' has been introduced into women's history and women's studies in the 1970s as a social, cultural, political and historical category, in order to express the insight that women's subordination, inferiroity and powerlessness are not dictated by nature, but are social cultural, politcal and historical constructions." To me, this can be expanded to inlcude all other categories of identities (i.e. race, sexuality, culture, etc.) and is behind the complexity found in historical study. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
I found the differences between the early written records (pre 1975) of white and black woman's histories fascinating. By comparing the different articles it can be ascertained that historically histories written about white women focus on child rearing, giving birth and homemaking; whereas histories written about black woman focus on sexuality and their "role" as whores and vehicles for sex. Interestingly, although different, both histories focus on woman's relationship with and influence on white men proving that woman’s significance and history was synonymous with the history of white men. -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
All the texts within the reading seem to have this common bond of striving to rise from oppression in order to reach this goal of acceptance within a scholarly world dominated by white males. Interestingly enough, once white women find this acceptance they are reluctant to fully encompass all women through race and culture. It seems to me that the once oppressed (white women) have now become the oppressor in an attempt to maintain their position of power with their male counterparts. By the end of it all where do black women fit in? For the are treated like second class citizens by their fellow females as well as in their culture define by a public "world" and domestic "sphere" that is exclusively male dominated. --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
The first thing that really jumped out at me in reading was on page 10 under Public versus private. "Male workers, male politicians and male scholars perform their tasks only because they are born, reared and cared for my women's labour". This is entirely true, even in most cases today. Personally speaking as one of the few males in this class, I know that the person I've become, is almost entirely because of my mother and her availability to me growing up. -- Matt<br />
<br />
<br />
A repeated theme in these essays was the need to move beyond a dichotomous framework for understanding women's history (women are more than just non-males, whiteness and maleness should not be considered the norm). The Castaneda essay was a little thorny for me because, while encouraging historians to seek cultural roots in precolonial norms, she refers several times to "third-world nations." Isn't this phrase in itself reinforcing a dichotomy? --Stefanie L.<br />
<br />
What really struck me about these readings is the conflict between gender history, women's history, and their subdivisions. It seems that none of these disciplines can never satisfy the historical audience because of the attention, or lack of attention, given to a specific person or groups of persons. I was also struck by how women's history had to work to stand alone from general history, but then lacked the consideration of women of different races and cultures. Is this issue still prevalent today? Or has the topic of women's history evolved beyond this issue?--Heather Thompson<br />
<br />
I found many things in the first essay, by Kate Haulman, to be very interesting. I had never before questioned or even considered the definition of “woman” or “female”. On page four when she comments on Lerner’s suggestion of assessing male and female cultures at the intersection of said cultures. She says the approach of “add women and stir” would keep women marginalized from history rather than part of the whole. Haulman also touches upon the fact that one woman does not represent the whole. When including women in the study of history we must take into account factors such as race, religion, income, etc. On page five, Haulman makes a very interesting reference to an essay by Joan Wallach Scott in which she calls for “…the consideration of “woman”, “female”, and “feminine” as concepts shaped by the societies in which they existed, rather than static realities.” I found this reference to be very interesting as well as completely true. --Emma C.<br />
<br />
In the intro the editor asks the question: “is it possible to take the same approach to writing a comprehensive history of all of America’s women, or must historians employ different categories of analysis for different groups while simultaneously avoiding dichotomous thinking?” After reading the four articles, I believe the field is still not sure how to answer the question. In the first essay Haulman explains the history of women’s history, and how the study of women opened more research on other subjects. While creating a new way to look at the past, women’s history also invited other areas to be explored, like, race and class. While race and class contribute to the study, they also complicate women’s history. It is interesting to look at women’s history is at the same time unifying and dividing. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
In Alexander’s article she states, “Early studies of race and gender failed to recognize that race does not only operate as an additional oppressive force but it also forms the foundation of how Black women live their daily lives, and what kinds of liberation strategies they embrace (pg.20)” This quote stands out because it emphasizes that race is not an oppressive force but an identity. The strong ties Black women have to their race affect them just as much as being women. Their race sets their experiences apart from other women. --Michelle M.</div>Martzmichellehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_1_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 1 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-01T00:50:35Z<p>Martzmichelle: </p>
<hr />
<div>Being the second time I have been required to read this section (which is why I was so quick about posting) I have to comment on the fact that the concept of social history and its restraints have a larger meaning to me now, further in my education, than they did the first time I read this. Being primarily a Religion major, it is easy to see how different perspectives and different outlooks on gender, race, socioeconomic class, culture and community play a huge role in the shape of the story of history. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
On page 11 in "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" by Gisela Bock the author mentions "The concept 'gender' has been introduced into women's history and women's studies in the 1970s as a social, cultural, political and historical category, in order to express the insight that women's subordination, inferiroity and powerlessness are not dictated by nature, but are social cultural, politcal and historical constructions." To me, this can be expanded to inlcude all other categories of identities (i.e. race, sexuality, culture, etc.) and is behind the complexity found in historical study. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
I found the differences between the early written records (pre 1975) of white and black woman's histories fascinating. By comparing the different articles it can be ascertained that historically histories written about white women focus on child rearing, giving birth and homemaking; whereas histories written about black woman focus on sexuality and their "role" as whores and vehicles for sex. Interestingly, although different, both histories focus on woman's relationship with and influence on white men proving that woman’s significance and history was synonymous with the history of white men. -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
All the texts within the reading seem to have this common bond of striving to rise from oppression in order to reach this goal of acceptance within a scholarly world dominated by white males. Interestingly enough, once white women find this acceptance they are reluctant to fully encompass all women through race and culture. It seems to me that the once oppressed (white women) have now become the oppressor in an attempt to maintain their position of power with their male counterparts. By the end of it all where do black women fit in? For the are treated like second class citizens by their fellow females as well as in their culture define by a public "world" and domestic "sphere" that is exclusively male dominated. --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
The first thing that really jumped out at me in reading was on page 10 under Public versus private. "Male workers, male politicians and male scholars perform their tasks only because they are born, reared and cared for my women's labour". This is entirely true, even in most cases today. Personally speaking as one of the few males in this class, I know that the person I've become, is almost entirely because of my mother and her availability to me growing up. -- Matt<br />
<br />
<br />
A repeated theme in these essays was the need to move beyond a dichotomous framework for understanding women's history (women are more than just non-males, whiteness and maleness should not be considered the norm). The Castaneda essay was a little thorny for me because, while encouraging historians to seek cultural roots in precolonial norms, she refers several times to "third-world nations." Isn't this phrase in itself reinforcing a dichotomy? --Stefanie L.<br />
<br />
What really struck me about these readings is the conflict between gender history, women's history, and their subdivisions. It seems that none of these disciplines can never satisfy the historical audience because of the attention, or lack of attention, given to a specific person or groups of persons. I was also struck by how women's history had to work to stand alone from general history, but then lacked the consideration of women of different races and cultures. Is this issue still prevalent today? Or has the topic of women's history evolved beyond this issue?--Heather Thompson<br />
<br />
I found many things in the first essay, by Kate Haulman, to be very interesting. I had never before questioned or even considered the definition of “woman” or “female”. On page four when she comments on Lerner’s suggestion of assessing male and female cultures at the intersection of said cultures. She says the approach of “add women and stir” would keep women marginalized from history rather than part of the whole. Haulman also touches upon the fact that one woman does not represent the whole. When including women in the study of history we must take into account factors such as race, religion, income, etc. On page five, Haulman makes a very interesting reference to an essay by Joan Wallach Scott in which she calls for “…the consideration of “woman”, “female”, and “feminine” as concepts shaped by the societies in which they existed, rather than static realities.” I found this reference to be very interesting as well as completely true. --Emma C.<br />
<br />
In the intro the editor asks the question: “is it possible to take the same approach to writing a comprehensive history of all of America’s women, or must historians employ different categories of analysis for different groups while simultaneously avoiding dichotomous thinking?” After reading the four articles, I believe the field is still not sure how to answer the question. In the first essay Haulman explains the history of women’s history, and how the study of women opened more research on other subjects. While creating a new way to look at the past, women’s history also invited other areas to be explored, like, race and class. While race and class contribute to the study, they also complicate women’s history. It is interesting to look at women’s history is at the same time unifying and dividing. --Michelle M.</div>Martzmichelle 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