Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php on line 195
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 571
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 585
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 578
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 603
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 553
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 186
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 203
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 196
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 212
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 175
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php on line 135
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 234
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php on line 292
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php on line 755
Warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php on line 907
Deprecated: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Pager.php on line 908
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 627
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 629
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 630
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 631
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 633
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 634
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php on line 402
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: 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=Mdill1cpMcClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T22:25:33ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Potluck_Sign-upPotluck Sign-up2009-04-29T13:13:14Z<p>Mdill1cp: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''If only we had some sort of handy tool that we could use to coordinate our potluck lunch... hmmm<br />
'''<br />
<br />
Rebecca -- Pita Bread and Hummus<br />
<br />
Kellye S -- Chocolate Chip Cookies<br />
<br />
Lacey- Apple-Carrot Salad, I will bring forks too :)<br />
<br />
Amanda- Iced Tea/Soda/ Lemonade<br />
<br />
Stephen -- Deliciousness (TBD)<br />
<br />
Sarah- Brownies<br />
<br />
Dr. M -- Napkins/Cups/Plates<br />
<br />
Celia -- Pasta or fruit salad<br />
<br />
Mary Beth -- Chips & salsa</div>Mdill1cphttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_14_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 14 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-04-23T02:34:46Z<p>Mdill1cp: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Change over Time ==<br />
How has the American family changed over time in the 20th century? What distinguishes each decade? How does this work with our notions of "what the ideal family is?" How does each decade compare to the 19th century families we have studied all semester?<br />
<br />
Ok, this question demands a long answer but I'm going to briefly write that gender roles have constantly changed throughout the century, and the economy has affected these family roles. From the "Companionate Family," where husband and wives became friends and lovers and children became friends, to the influx of women entering the workforce and some men becoming "mr. mom," the roles have constantly changed in this one century. The economy always played a role in the family too, whether it was the Depression causing a decline in divorces, marriages and birthrates, or the Fifties creating the "ideal" family, the increase of birthrates, and the suburb family, the changes have been numerous and constant. - Celia<br />
<br />
Changing gender roles, have the most impact on the different definitions of family. Each decade has had a slightly new gender ideal that shaped the way the family unit evolved. As one gender had more "power" in the relationship the other adapted slightly to allow for the influx in control. One thing that we did notice was the overwhelming majority of male dominated society; however, I was very impressed with the amount of power and control that women had a various times. A family's economic status is also key, because if it is financially necessary both husband and wife share dominance. It also seemed that in many cases dominance has some relation to work, and it seems work outside the home. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
While I agree that changing gender roles was a main aspect of change in families over the decades of the 20th century, I think that different ideas concerning children and family size also impacted the nature of the American family. As family size decreased ideas of the "ideal family" changed. Today, everything seems to built around the notion that a family consists of 4 people, 2 parents and 2 children. I think this is a very different notion then people had at the turn of the last century. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
== Today? ==<br />
How is today's American family difference/similar to the ones from Mintz and Kellogg and the article which are 20 and 10 years old respectivly?<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mintz and Kellogg, Chapter 6: The Rise of the Companionate Family, 1900-1930 ==<br />
On page 109, Mintz and Kellogg mentioned that the companionate family is a model and ideal "of family function and behavior, which remains with us today." However, I think that the model of family is changing today because, Kellogg and Mintz metioned people stayed together because of friendship and love but right now, divorce rates are going down with the sited reason that people cannot afford to not be together. So, currently the model is evolving because of the economy with people staying together for financial concerns. -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
There were a lot of parallels to other readings in the 107-201 M&K reading. I was reminded of Riley when reading about divorce and May with childlessness, "shirking duties" and the decline in the birth rate. It was a little frightening how much M&K gloss over the material in order to cover it all, but still very interesting. I am curious about the 1890 "watershed" that was described on page 112. M&K didn't do a good job explaining why that year was so pivotal, or why it might have been. I found the changes in childbirth and child rearing very interesting: to know why most births began to take place in hospitals. Some of the parenting ideas were completely nuts, like not encouraging their kids to laugh or show affection to babies. It's a wonder people from that era turned out at all! When reading about the Great Depression I was thinking a lot about parallels to today. It definitely made me think that things are not nearly as bad as they could be, but that just like M&K say, single parent families, the disabled and the elderly are the hardest hit by rough economic times. In the later periods discussed, I couldn't believe the short marriages that took place during WWII. It was interesting to read also how that time period affected divorce laws, and how frequent unfaithfulness was for GIs. Finally it was nice to see the transition toward the equality movement: with men taking an interest in their homes and families, that began in the 1950s.--Amanda<br />
<br />
The last chapter and epilogue show the radical shift that took place between the early chapters of the book and the end. During the first part of Chapter X I kept thinking of my Pop Culture class, and how we studied Ozzie&Harriet, The Cosbys, and Gilmore Girls as 3 case studies of the American family. It seems to me that the 1960s-80s saw the most marked jump. As M&K discussed, family life may have included more equality between husbands and wives, but this was also the era of Playboy and topless bars. Also, family law because its own industry of cases and lawyers, which set the stage for the Family Court/Divorce Court tv shows of today. It's really amazing to see how much the family transitioned over 200 years.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I too was really amazed with the change from the beginning to the end of Mintz & Kellogg. While the beginning seemed to focuses on the stereotypical family, like we remember from older TV shows. Yet toward the end they shifted to a more equal partner ship among husband and wife. I liked how M&K looked at the impact the changing family had on children in the 60s and 70s. As well as how divorce rates have led to new ways of raising children. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
<br />
I find it really interesting how much families come together during times of need. This was shown during the Great Depression when people relied on each other for food, money, work etc. This is not a new thing created during the depression, but it is a common theme for most of the families we discussed in class. I just think it is really encouraging that even when things are rough, people (for the most part) can turn to their families for support (also a parallel to today, though not to the extreme of the depression). -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
I found it interesting to read on page 240 how the word "family" has been used by both conservative and liberal politicians in the 1980's. Conservatives used the word to mean "traditional social values" to express opposition to big government involvement, while the liberals used the word to mean "compassion" in order to increase government involvement with the poor and so on. The fact that the word "family" was used by both teams over the role of government in American life reestablishes the debate on what is "family" and how does society define it? Is it a small, inclusive unit, or something that the whole community is involved with. We have seen throughout this semester that opinions on this have changed over the nineteenth, and now the twentieth centuries. It is also interesting that conservatives used the word "family" to mean traditional social values. But these values have changed so much over time it is hard to put our finger on what these traditional values are. - Celia<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mintz and Kellogg Chapter 7: American Families Face the Great Depression ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mintz and Kellogg Chapter 8: Families on the Home Front ==<br />
<br />
One section I found particularly interesting was the reaction couples had after WWII. I couldn’t help but think of my grandfather who was a soldier in D-Day and was later injured. Upon returning home he had a similar reaction to the Army Captain on p. 171. His wife and he realized very quickly that too many things had changed and ended up like so many couples getting a divorce. I think it is an interesting stress on families that is not necessarily given the attention it deserves. Not only the stress of war, but of other traumatic events, that ultimately change a marriage and push a couple towards divorce. -Mary Beth <br />
<br />
== Mintz and Kellogg Chapter 9: The Golden Age - Families of the 1950s ==<br />
It's incredible to me how people today still compare families to the families of the 1950s. With everything from "Leave it to Beaver" to "Pleasantville" Americans today continue to romanticize the 1950s and the "perfect family." It's no wonder, though, with the age of marriage at a dramatic low and a birthrate that skyrocketed that there were ideal family households in the middle class. It was a return to "normalcy;" a sense of stability that had been disrupted by WWII. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
== Stacey Article ==<br />
The author's opinions certainly do show in this article. It was interesting to read about the origins of these movements in the 90s, because I think most of us were kids and oblivious to what was going on. Stacey portrayed Pat Moynihan in a very different light than M&K. Stacey clearly feels that gay and lesbian couple have second class options for marriage and child rearing, and that the fights over babies and other legal battles have caused people to preach, fight and protest what she sees as a new reality in the American family.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I had some problems with Stacey's article, mainly because (and it could be from skimming) it seemed like one moment she was all for gay and lesbians coming out and being able to be married and raise a family, and the next I felt like she was against it. However, I liked how in the end she decided that, "[i]n th name of our families, and of democracy, we must move forward, not backward, to address the great social threats that imperil us all." (pg 398-9) Now, whether she means death to gay/bi marriage and families, or that as Americans, we need to move forward with policies and address policies with a changing nation instead of trying to revert to what family and life was decades and centuries ago, I don't know. However, I prefer to think she meant the later. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
<br />
On page 384, Stacey is talking about how legal gay marriage would impact the homosexual community, and one point jumped out at me as really strange. Stacey says that: "conservatives agree that legalizing gay marriage would further marginalize sexual radicals by segregating counter-cultural gays and lesbians from the 'whitebread' gay couples who could then choose to marry their way into Middle America." This sentence really surprised me. "Whitebread" gay couples??? Does our society really make a distinction between "whitebread" gays and "counter-cultural" gays? I think being gay in our society is pretty counter-cultural in and of itself. I am pretty skeptical of this idea that gay couples would be accepted in Middle America just because they were married. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
I agree with you Rebecca, I think that she's going a little too far in defining it. I think that she is talking about some of the more disturbing (not necessarily the best way to put it) things that people dream up about sexual deviants. To their thinking the 'whitebread' gays and lesbians would, I guess, be more acceptable. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I found the introduction about classifying “gay families” by one person’s or one couple’s sexual orientation interesting. She brings up an interesting point. Simply because one member of the family is of another ethnicity or religion, the family itself does not change to meet the definition of its one member. It brings up another aspect of American families in attempting to define them and understand ways to categorize different families. – Mary Beth <br />
<br />
== Domestic Partnerships ==<br />
<br />
Hey guys, I thought you might find this interesting. According to my company's insurance provider, these are the criteria you have to meet in order to have your relationship be considered a domestic partenship. I think it is interesting to see the rules spelled out like this, because it gets at how we define family. (or how we define marriage outside of the institution of marriage)<br />
<br />
Also, using these rules, I was able to get my boyfriend on my health insurance policy as my domestic partner, which was a huge benefit for us. This is an example of something that came up a lot in Stacey's article, that these types of policies, that exist because of the efforts of gay rights advocates, have a big impact on non-gay relationships as well. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
<br />
Domestic partners may be of the same sex or of opposite sexes.<br />
<br />
Domestic partners must:<br><br />
• Be parties to a government-recognized civil union or government-recognized<br />
same sex marriage, or be included in a government domestic partner registry<br><br />
OR<br><br />
• Be least 18 years of age,<br><br />
• Have the legal capacity to contract,<br><br />
• Share a close, committed, and exclusive personal relationship that is meant to be<br />
of lasting duration,<br><br />
• Have shared a common legal residence continuously for at least 3 months,<br><br />
• Be financially interdependent,<br><br />
• Not be parties to a legally recognized marriage either to each other or anyone else,<br><br />
• Not share blood or familial relationship that would be bar marriage under the laws<br />
of the state in which the couple resides, nor be a member of another domestic<br />
partnership or substantially similar relationship, and<br><br />
• Not have been a member of another domestic partnership or substantially similar<br />
relationship within the past 6 months.<br><br />
<br />
<br><br />
Financial interdependence may be established with any of the following documents:<br><br />
• Joint mortgage or lease on place of residence<br><br />
• Joint title on motor vehicle<br><br />
• Agreement establishing joint bank account or credit card account<br><br />
• Agreement with a third party lender for joint repayment of indebtedness<br><br />
• Designation of one partner as the other’s beneficiary for life insurance or<br />
retirement benefits<br><br />
• A joint will, or reciprocal wills in which each partner designates the other as<br />
executor or primary beneficiary<br><br />
• Durable powers of attorney by each partner in favor of the other<br><br />
• Health care directives or living wills in which each partner gives the other the<br />
authority to make health care decisions<br><br />
<br />
Wow, that is really interesting and to some extent not hard to come by, meaning that you can get financial interdependence from the power of attorneys for each other, though it does require some level of commitment. I think its really interesting and slightly ironic that gay rights activisim is the cause for legislation that in fact helps some people who are most adamantly against gay rights. -Lacey</div>Mdill1cphttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_14_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 14 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-04-23T02:28:55Z<p>Mdill1cp: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Change over Time ==<br />
How has the American family changed over time in the 20th century? What distinguishes each decade? How does this work with our notions of "what the ideal family is?" How does each decade compare to the 19th century families we have studied all semester?<br />
<br />
Ok, this question demands a long answer but I'm going to briefly write that gender roles have constantly changed throughout the century, and the economy has affected these family roles. From the "Companionate Family," where husband and wives became friends and lovers and children became friends, to the influx of women entering the workforce and some men becoming "mr. mom," the roles have constantly changed in this one century. The economy always played a role in the family too, whether it was the Depression causing a decline in divorces, marriages and birthrates, or the Fifties creating the "ideal" family, the increase of birthrates, and the suburb family, the changes have been numerous and constant. - Celia<br />
<br />
Changing gender roles, have the most impact on the different definitions of family. Each decade has had a slightly new gender ideal that shaped the way the family unit evolved. As one gender had more "power" in the relationship the other adapted slightly to allow for the influx in control. One thing that we did notice was the overwhelming majority of male dominated society; however, I was very impressed with the amount of power and control that women had a various times. A family's economic status is also key, because if it is financially necessary both husband and wife share dominance. It also seemed that in many cases dominance has some relation to work, and it seems work outside the home. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
While I agree that changing gender roles was a main aspect of change in families over the decades of the 20th century, I think that different ideas concerning children and family size also impacted the nature of the American family. As family size decreased ideas of the "ideal family" changed. Today, everything seems to built around the notion that a family consists of 4 people, 2 parents and 2 children. I think this is a very different notion then people had at the turn of the last century. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
== Today? ==<br />
How is today's American family difference/similar to the ones from Mintz and Kellogg and the article which are 20 and 10 years old respectivly?<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mintz and Kellogg, Chapter 6: The Rise of the Companionate Family, 1900-1930 ==<br />
On page 109, Mintz and Kellogg mentioned that the companionate family is a model and ideal "of family function and behavior, which remains with us today." However, I think that the model of family is changing today because, Kellogg and Mintz metioned people stayed together because of friendship and love but right now, divorce rates are going down with the sited reason that people cannot afford to not be together. So, currently the model is evolving because of the economy with people staying together for financial concerns. -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
There were a lot of parallels to other readings in the 107-201 M&K reading. I was reminded of Riley when reading about divorce and May with childlessness, "shirking duties" and the decline in the birth rate. It was a little frightening how much M&K gloss over the material in order to cover it all, but still very interesting. I am curious about the 1890 "watershed" that was described on page 112. M&K didn't do a good job explaining why that year was so pivotal, or why it might have been. I found the changes in childbirth and child rearing very interesting: to know why most births began to take place in hospitals. Some of the parenting ideas were completely nuts, like not encouraging their kids to laugh or show affection to babies. It's a wonder people from that era turned out at all! When reading about the Great Depression I was thinking a lot about parallels to today. It definitely made me think that things are not nearly as bad as they could be, but that just like M&K say, single parent families, the disabled and the elderly are the hardest hit by rough economic times. In the later periods discussed, I couldn't believe the short marriages that took place during WWII. It was interesting to read also how that time period affected divorce laws, and how frequent unfaithfulness was for GIs. Finally it was nice to see the transition toward the equality movement: with men taking an interest in their homes and families, that began in the 1950s.--Amanda<br />
<br />
The last chapter and epilogue show the radical shift that took place between the early chapters of the book and the end. During the first part of Chapter X I kept thinking of my Pop Culture class, and how we studied Ozzie&Harriet, The Cosbys, and Gilmore Girls as 3 case studies of the American family. It seems to me that the 1960s-80s saw the most marked jump. As M&K discussed, family life may have included more equality between husbands and wives, but this was also the era of Playboy and topless bars. Also, family law because its own industry of cases and lawyers, which set the stage for the Family Court/Divorce Court tv shows of today. It's really amazing to see how much the family transitioned over 200 years.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I too was really amazed with the change from the beginning to the end of Mintz & Kellogg. While the beginning seemed to focuses on the stereotypical family, like we remember from older TV shows. Yet toward the end they shifted to a more equal partner ship among husband and wife. I liked how M&K looked at the impact the changing family had on children in the 60s and 70s. As well as how divorce rates have led to new ways of raising children. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
<br />
I find it really interesting how much families come together during times of need. This was shown during the Great Depression when people relied on each other for food, money, work etc. This is not a new thing created during the depression, but it is a common theme for most of the families we discussed in class. I just think it is really encouraging that even when things are rough, people (for the most part) can turn to their families for support (also a parallel to today, though not to the extreme of the depression). -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
I found it interesting to read on page 240 how the word "family" has been used by both conservative and liberal politicians in the 1980's. Conservatives used the word to mean "traditional social values" to express opposition to big government involvement, while the liberals used the word to mean "compassion" in order to increase government involvement with the poor and so on. The fact that the word "family" was used by both teams over the role of government in American life reestablishes the debate on what is "family" and how does society define it? Is it a small, inclusive unit, or something that the whole community is involved with. We have seen throughout this semester that opinions on this have changed over the nineteenth, and now the twentieth centuries. It is also interesting that conservatives used the word "family" to mean traditional social values. But these values have changed so much over time it is hard to put our finger on what these traditional values are. - Celia<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mintz and Kellogg Chapter 7: American Families Face the Great Depression ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mintz and Kellogg Chapter 8: Families on the Home Front ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mintz and Kellogg Chapter 9: The Golden Age - Families of the 1950s ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Stacey Article ==<br />
The author's opinions certainly do show in this article. It was interesting to read about the origins of these movements in the 90s, because I think most of us were kids and oblivious to what was going on. Stacey portrayed Pat Moynihan in a very different light than M&K. Stacey clearly feels that gay and lesbian couple have second class options for marriage and child rearing, and that the fights over babies and other legal battles have caused people to preach, fight and protest what she sees as a new reality in the American family.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I had some problems with Stacey's article, mainly because (and it could be from skimming) it seemed like one moment she was all for gay and lesbians coming out and being able to be married and raise a family, and the next I felt like she was against it. However, I liked how in the end she decided that, "[i]n th name of our families, and of democracy, we must move forward, not backward, to address the great social threats that imperil us all." (pg 398-9) Now, whether she means death to gay/bi marriage and families, or that as Americans, we need to move forward with policies and address policies with a changing nation instead of trying to revert to what family and life was decades and centuries ago, I don't know. However, I prefer to think she meant the later. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
<br />
On page 384, Stacey is talking about how legal gay marriage would impact the homosexual community, and one point jumped out at me as really strange. Stacey says that: "conservatives agree that legalizing gay marriage would further marginalize sexual radicals by segregating counter-cultural gays and lesbians from the 'whitebread' gay couples who could then choose to marry their way into Middle America." This sentence really surprised me. "Whitebread" gay couples??? Does our society really make a distinction between "whitebread" gays and "counter-cultural" gays? I think being gay in our society is pretty counter-cultural in and of itself. I am pretty skeptical of this idea that gay couples would be accepted in Middle America just because they were married. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
I agree with you Rebecca, I think that she's going a little too far in defining it. I think that she is talking about some of the more disturbing (not necessarily the best way to put it) things that people dream up about sexual deviants. To their thinking the 'whitebread' gays and lesbians would, I guess, be more acceptable. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I found the introduction about classifying “gay families” by one person’s or one couple’s sexual orientation interesting. She brings up an interesting point. Simply because one member of the family is of another ethnicity or religion, the family itself does not change to meet the definition of its one member. It brings up another aspect of American families in attempting to define them and understand ways to categorize different families. – Mary Beth <br />
<br />
== Domestic Partnerships ==<br />
<br />
Hey guys, I thought you might find this interesting. According to my company's insurance provider, these are the criteria you have to meet in order to have your relationship be considered a domestic partenship. I think it is interesting to see the rules spelled out like this, because it gets at how we define family. (or how we define marriage outside of the institution of marriage)<br />
<br />
Also, using these rules, I was able to get my boyfriend on my health insurance policy as my domestic partner, which was a huge benefit for us. This is an example of something that came up a lot in Stacey's article, that these types of policies, that exist because of the efforts of gay rights advocates, have a big impact on non-gay relationships as well. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
<br />
Domestic partners may be of the same sex or of opposite sexes.<br />
<br />
Domestic partners must:<br><br />
• Be parties to a government-recognized civil union or government-recognized<br />
same sex marriage, or be included in a government domestic partner registry<br><br />
OR<br><br />
• Be least 18 years of age,<br><br />
• Have the legal capacity to contract,<br><br />
• Share a close, committed, and exclusive personal relationship that is meant to be<br />
of lasting duration,<br><br />
• Have shared a common legal residence continuously for at least 3 months,<br><br />
• Be financially interdependent,<br><br />
• Not be parties to a legally recognized marriage either to each other or anyone else,<br><br />
• Not share blood or familial relationship that would be bar marriage under the laws<br />
of the state in which the couple resides, nor be a member of another domestic<br />
partnership or substantially similar relationship, and<br><br />
• Not have been a member of another domestic partnership or substantially similar<br />
relationship within the past 6 months.<br><br />
<br />
<br><br />
Financial interdependence may be established with any of the following documents:<br><br />
• Joint mortgage or lease on place of residence<br><br />
• Joint title on motor vehicle<br><br />
• Agreement establishing joint bank account or credit card account<br><br />
• Agreement with a third party lender for joint repayment of indebtedness<br><br />
• Designation of one partner as the other’s beneficiary for life insurance or<br />
retirement benefits<br><br />
• A joint will, or reciprocal wills in which each partner designates the other as<br />
executor or primary beneficiary<br><br />
• Durable powers of attorney by each partner in favor of the other<br><br />
• Health care directives or living wills in which each partner gives the other the<br />
authority to make health care decisions<br><br />
<br />
Wow, that is really interesting and to some extent not hard to come by, meaning that you can get financial interdependence from the power of attorneys for each other, though it does require some level of commitment. I think its really interesting and slightly ironic that gay rights activisim is the cause for legislation that in fact helps some people who are most adamantly against gay rights. -Lacey</div>Mdill1cphttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_13_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 13 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-04-16T10:45:55Z<p>Mdill1cp: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Irish American Family ==<br />
I thought it was interesting how women waited until they were much older to marry than the other groups we have read about. Were there any other groups who waited as long as the Irish or was it just them? --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Diner mentioned other ethnic groups and made it seem like it was only the Irish who waited. I found her discussion of marriage of Irish Americans interesting. Young women were so eager to rush into jobs when they were single, but when they were no longer economic burdens on their families and married, they were eager to stop working and become mothers. I think she painted a pretty bleak picture of their marriages: that at best, the relationships were characterized by irritability and separate spheres.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I find the Irish tradition of late or non marriage impressive. It surprises me that of all traditions that were maintained when coming to America this one stayed. Most women in American were expected to marry young, and the fact that the Irish weren't was very different. While it economically made sense, socially it had to cause problems - Kellye S<br />
<br />
I also thought that it was interesting and somewhat surprising that the Irish men and women married at such a late age or never at all. With the emphasis on having lots of children, I would have expected them to have married sooner. The fact that they were able to maintain this tradition, especially as it was soon new to them, was also surprising. I was impressed that they would with go marriage to provide economic support for their families back in Ireland and in America. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
This article seems odd to me for some reason, maybe because it touches on so many issues but is so short. For example, it states that Irish marriages were characterized by high levels of animosity. Making this kind of statement is really opening a can of worms, but then the article doesn't explore it very much. Compared to our other readings, this one seemed to just skim the surface of Irish immigrant families. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
I also felt that this article threw out numbers and figures at us but didn't go into much depth with explaining this ethinic tendency. It makes sense that many Irish women felt that they needed to be single in order to raise money for their families in Ireland, but it feels like many ethnic groups would have behaved the same way. Diner explains that the Irish married later in life back home, but I seemed to walk away from this article with more questions then before. What exactly was the reason that the people in Ireland married later and why did it differ so much from other nationalites? Were there more troubled marriages in Ireland? - Celia<br />
<br />
Although this article doesn't go into much detail about the issues it raises, I think it does a good job giving a brief survey of what Irish immigrant life was like for women. After reading this article and the article about the Jewish women, it is interesting to note how much immigrant women do not fit into the cult of true womanhood. Since many families were female-headed households, women had to work longer to make money in order to provide for their family if they ended up being deserted by their husbands. --Kari W.<br />
<br />
I'm rather shocked that young men an women were able to hold off marriage for so long (at the time.) An attempt to assimilate and fit in with their new surroundings, you would think, would have pushed them into looking for spouses at a much younger age so I was rather impressed that they were able to keep this bit of their heritage and tradition for so long. I was even more surprised that American born daughters and sons agreed to uphold that tradition. I assumed that being raised in an Italian immigrant family in America would have made that importance of tradition difficult like we saw with some other immigrant cultures, but the author made it seem almost easy for them. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
One concern or point of interest that I wish the article explored more was the Irish daughter. What influence did a mother-centered house have on her and her views of marriage? Since the Irish Americans as a whole were not as concerned with marriage what did that mean for courting practices? Was there a courting method or culture for the Irish Americans and if so what would that look like? – Mary Beth<br />
<br />
== Working Class Families ==<br />
<br />
I've always thought this was interesting, that even though the family needs the money and needs things to get done, they still have strict gender divisions. As quoted on page 103 of Stephanie Coontz article, "World-class families did accept a clear division of labor on the basis of gender, however, and often formulated it in terms of domesticity." However, I also liked that she included (even if a lot later in the article) that when the housewife was sick, the husband or males or children had to take on the 'women's work' because there were no servants or anyone else to do it. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
It's interesting how Coontz made parallels between ethnicities and also classes. Still it seems that ethnic divisions were very prominent even during the labor movement. The working class family ties in with our recent discussions of childlessness and the importance of children in families. The working class families knew that child wage earners were critical and they must have circumvented child labor laws. I was also surprised to read about the conditions of the women: that immigrants were still hauling water in many cases.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that though immigrants mostly only made up the working class, they had their own "middle class" and in some rare cases they would occasionally work their way up to be comparable to what Coontz called the native-born middle class. Those immigrants that managed to do this did so thought manipulation. I found it interesting that once these families became middle class they changed to mirror their neighbors. While it does not surprise me that they wanted to fit in, I just found it surprising that while they maintained cultural identity up until this point they quickly dropped it.- Kellye S<br />
<br />
I thought that Coontz's discussion on black family life was very interesting and addresses some of past class discussions on single parenting in black families. That black women found work easier then black men was also interesting and must have been a source of contention. It is sad that racial discrimination lead to the failure of black marriages and divorce. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I was wondering about the impact of immigration on family and labor history while I was reading this excerpt. Immigration played such a huge factor in the way that families were shaped and how families and people related to each other, as well as how labor laws played out. It really made me think about labor history in other countries where there was, as far as I know, less immigration and how they dealt with the rising need for unskilled factory laborers. Did they have the same difficulties as the US or if not how were they different? I realize that this doesn't fall in the scope of this class but it was something I couldn't <br />
help thinking about. -Lacey<br />
<br />
Something else that really struck me was that in certain places it was the work that they did rather than the ethnicity they were that tied them together in a community. Coontz says that this phenomenon was limited, but I think that it happened at all says something about the relationship between immigration, labor and the control of the higher-ups. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I thought the differences between the middle-class cult of domesticity and the working-class cult of domesticity were interesting. In our previous readings we have read about the middle class imposing its values on other people, but this is an example of how the recipients of this middle class ideal adopted it to some extent, but also changed it to work for them. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
This article was a little tough to get through. The author made many passing references to things I was unfamiliar with: the Centennial Exhibition of 1876, the Great Upheaval of 1886, boosterism, housing stock. There were also things that I was a little familiar with, but still would have liked a more explanation on, like the Gilded Age, Petit-bourgeois, and the Knights of Labor. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
It always makes me sad that women were hired because they were worth less. We learn about this tidbit all the time but it never ceases to kind of shock me whenever we hear it. Men hated women who went into the workplace because they would do their jobs for less. Now, not only did working class men have to fight with immigrant men and emancipated blacks, but they also had to fight with women who needed to work to survive. But in that environment, it's no wonder men were scared to send their wives out to work regardless of how badly they needed the income. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I found the first few pages about movements and the working-class interesting. The diversity among groups including ethnicity, class, race, skilled vs. unskilled, and city vs. small town limited the effectiveness of larger, organized movements. I think as a whole people tend to view immigrants as a class more willing to unite, but these first few pages proved that other factors were stronger than the common experience of immigration. – Mary Beth</div>Mdill1cphttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_13_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 13 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-04-16T10:45:05Z<p>Mdill1cp: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Irish American Family ==<br />
I thought it was interesting how women waited until they were much older to marry than the other groups we have read about. Were there any other groups who waited as long as the Irish or was it just them? --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Diner mentioned other ethnic groups and made it seem like it was only the Irish who waited. I found her discussion of marriage of Irish Americans interesting. Young women were so eager to rush into jobs when they were single, but when they were no longer economic burdens on their families and married, they were eager to stop working and become mothers. I think she painted a pretty bleak picture of their marriages: that at best, the relationships were characterized by irritability and separate spheres.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I find the Irish tradition of late or non marriage impressive. It surprises me that of all traditions that were maintained when coming to America this one stayed. Most women in American were expected to marry young, and the fact that the Irish weren't was very different. While it economically made sense, socially it had to cause problems - Kellye S<br />
<br />
I also thought that it was interesting and somewhat surprising that the Irish men and women married at such a late age or never at all. With the emphasis on having lots of children, I would have expected them to have married sooner. The fact that they were able to maintain this tradition, especially as it was soon new to them, was also surprising. I was impressed that they would with go marriage to provide economic support for their families back in Ireland and in America. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
This article seems odd to me for some reason, maybe because it touches on so many issues but is so short. For example, it states that Irish marriages were characterized by high levels of animosity. Making this kind of statement is really opening a can of worms, but then the article doesn't explore it very much. Compared to our other readings, this one seemed to just skim the surface of Irish immigrant families. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
I also felt that this article threw out numbers and figures at us but didn't go into much depth with explaining this ethinic tendency. It makes sense that many Irish women felt that they needed to be single in order to raise money for their families in Ireland, but it feels like many ethnic groups would have behaved the same way. Diner explains that the Irish married later in life back home, but I seemed to walk away from this article with more questions then before. What exactly was the reason that the people in Ireland married later and why did it differ so much from other nationalites? Were there more troubled marriages in Ireland? - Celia<br />
<br />
Although this article doesn't go into much detail about the issues it raises, I think it does a good job giving a brief survey of what Irish immigrant life was like for women. After reading this article and the article about the Jewish women, it is interesting to note how much immigrant women do not fit into the cult of true womanhood. Since many families were female-headed households, women had to work longer to make money in order to provide for their family if they ended up being deserted by their husbands. --Kari W.<br />
<br />
I'm rather shocked that young men an women were able to hold off marriage for so long (at the time.) An attempt to assimilate and fit in with their new surroundings, you would think, would have pushed them into looking for spouses at a much younger age so I was rather impressed that they were able to keep this bit of their heritage and tradition for so long. I was even more surprised that American born daughters and sons agreed to uphold that tradition. I assumed that being raised in an Italian immigrant family in America would have made that importance of tradition difficult like we saw with some other immigrant cultures, but the author made it seem almost easy for them. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
One concern or point of interest that I wish the article explored more was the Irish daughter. What influence did a mother-centered house have on her and her views of marriage? Since the Irish Americans as a whole were not as concerned with marriage what did that mean for courting practices? Was their a courting method or culture for the Irish American and if so what would that look like? – Mary Beth<br />
<br />
== Working Class Families ==<br />
<br />
I've always thought this was interesting, that even though the family needs the money and needs things to get done, they still have strict gender divisions. As quoted on page 103 of Stephanie Coontz article, "World-class families did accept a clear division of labor on the basis of gender, however, and often formulated it in terms of domesticity." However, I also liked that she included (even if a lot later in the article) that when the housewife was sick, the husband or males or children had to take on the 'women's work' because there were no servants or anyone else to do it. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
It's interesting how Coontz made parallels between ethnicities and also classes. Still it seems that ethnic divisions were very prominent even during the labor movement. The working class family ties in with our recent discussions of childlessness and the importance of children in families. The working class families knew that child wage earners were critical and they must have circumvented child labor laws. I was also surprised to read about the conditions of the women: that immigrants were still hauling water in many cases.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that though immigrants mostly only made up the working class, they had their own "middle class" and in some rare cases they would occasionally work their way up to be comparable to what Coontz called the native-born middle class. Those immigrants that managed to do this did so thought manipulation. I found it interesting that once these families became middle class they changed to mirror their neighbors. While it does not surprise me that they wanted to fit in, I just found it surprising that while they maintained cultural identity up until this point they quickly dropped it.- Kellye S<br />
<br />
I thought that Coontz's discussion on black family life was very interesting and addresses some of past class discussions on single parenting in black families. That black women found work easier then black men was also interesting and must have been a source of contention. It is sad that racial discrimination lead to the failure of black marriages and divorce. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I was wondering about the impact of immigration on family and labor history while I was reading this excerpt. Immigration played such a huge factor in the way that families were shaped and how families and people related to each other, as well as how labor laws played out. It really made me think about labor history in other countries where there was, as far as I know, less immigration and how they dealt with the rising need for unskilled factory laborers. Did they have the same difficulties as the US or if not how were they different? I realize that this doesn't fall in the scope of this class but it was something I couldn't <br />
help thinking about. -Lacey<br />
<br />
Something else that really struck me was that in certain places it was the work that they did rather than the ethnicity they were that tied them together in a community. Coontz says that this phenomenon was limited, but I think that it happened at all says something about the relationship between immigration, labor and the control of the higher-ups. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I thought the differences between the middle-class cult of domesticity and the working-class cult of domesticity were interesting. In our previous readings we have read about the middle class imposing its values on other people, but this is an example of how the recipients of this middle class ideal adopted it to some extent, but also changed it to work for them. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
This article was a little tough to get through. The author made many passing references to things I was unfamiliar with: the Centennial Exhibition of 1876, the Great Upheaval of 1886, boosterism, housing stock. There were also things that I was a little familiar with, but still would have liked a more explanation on, like the Gilded Age, Petit-bourgeois, and the Knights of Labor. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
It always makes me sad that women were hired because they were worth less. We learn about this tidbit all the time but it never ceases to kind of shock me whenever we hear it. Men hated women who went into the workplace because they would do their jobs for less. Now, not only did working class men have to fight with immigrant men and emancipated blacks, but they also had to fight with women who needed to work to survive. But in that environment, it's no wonder men were scared to send their wives out to work regardless of how badly they needed the income. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I found the first few pages about movements and the working-class interesting. The diversity among groups including ethnicity, class, race, skilled vs. unskilled, and city vs. small town limited the effectiveness of larger, organized movements. I think as a whole people tend to view immigrants as a class more willing to unite, but these first few pages proved that other factors were stronger than the common experience of immigration. – Mary Beth</div>Mdill1cphttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_13_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 13 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-04-14T03:50:00Z<p>Mdill1cp: </p>
<hr />
<div>== General Comments ==<br />
I found this factoid interesting when I learned about it in my History of Spain class a few semesters back, but the fact that the Jewish community had many women work outside the home so that the men could pray is amazing. It seems like all we've read this semester is the community saw the woman as the pious religious guide, and then here among the Jews its the opposite. The guys are seen as the religious ones. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I agree with Ashley, although it appeared to me that the religious or intellectual occupation of the Jewish man had little bearing to economically advancing the Jewish family. I found it interesting the examples that Glenn uses in her reading that some Jewish fathers who were intellectuals or pious scholars often did not allow their daughters enough opportunity to advance in society. I think it was through these examples where Glenn begins to define how Jewish Zionists and Bundists reacted to socialism and how it effected the Jewish women. --Joe C. <br />
<br />
I also found it interesting that women were respected for working and being the breadwinners as long as their husbands were doing religious things. It especially liked when it said that although the work women were doing now was hard and not fun the women would benefit in the afterlife. It's funny how women would benefit in the afterlife for their hard labor and taking care of their husbands and men would benefit in the afterlife from studying -- seems a little unfair to me. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
I also found the role of women’s work interesting and how their work outside the home provided them with leverage and fluidity. In contrast I found the role of tailors to be particularly interesting, demonstrating the role reversal of gender responsibilities and occupations. It was not acceptable, in fact shameful for men to be tailors, yet it was liberating, economically wise, and brought great pride to families with daughters who were seamstresses or dressmakers. Why do you think so? In what other ethnic groups has this been practiced? – Mary Beth <br />
<br />
I have to say, I still find it depressing to read in articles, books, documents, etc... that females weren't worth as much. That they were seen as lesser beings, burdens, or not much more than a slave to her male family counterparts (father, brothers, husband, etc...). I always feel so sad and sympathetic for them. Although, I also wonder if they felt repressed by the men because that was the life they knew. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this reading. I had never thought about how ethnic/religious groups fit in to the working class history. It was interested to learn about how their religion affected their work. It is also nice to get another religious perspective, specifically the Jewish perspective, about the working class America and gender roles. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
I think it is interesting to look at the Jewish immigrant group in the United States because no matter where they settled they were seen as outsiders. I liked having a chance to look at how they were affected by immigration to America. -Lacey<br />
<br />
As the author briefly notes, so is the case in much of Jewish history.<br />
<br />
I also enjoyed this reading and found the background information very helpful for understanding some of the Jewish reactions to America. For instance, the background on Jewish attitudes towards housekeeping made it easier to understand how insulted they felt by being asked to do household tasks, such as cleaning, in their new American tenements and boarding houses. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I thought the idea of working for one's self as opposed to working for someone else was an interesting notion. It was interesting to see how business was the dominant and most admired profession because it required mental strength and intellect and if a woman could get a job like that she would be held in higher regard. Typically it's domestic work and work around the household that is seen as woman's work and the more respectable position for women. To reward them for their intellect is something new. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I was intrigued by Glenn's comment that "the disparate subfields of social history have not been well integrated." In this case she is looking at immigration history, women's history, and the history of Jewish immigrants in the American garment industry. I agree with Glenn's comment, and I think this is a problem that has come up a lot in this class. Often when we have critiqued a book, the problem seems to be a lack of integration of these subfields in social history. For example, some of us complained that the book on courtship and divorce in the American West was not properly integrated with Native American studies. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
I thought that the different experiences and expectations of Jewish mothers and daughters in the New World were particularly interesting. The fact that working outside the home was considered taboo for wives and mothers but was acceptable and in many cases, even expected, of daughters shows differences in generational standards as well as the impact married life had on a woman's access to the workplace. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
== Women in the Old World ==<br />
I think Glenn's reading makes a clear distinction between Jewish women's lives in the Old World versus their new role in America. Although women received unequal rights and responsibilities, I found it interesting that they were given the opportunity to work in the business sector of the eastern European economy. Whereas in many regions throughout the United States women usually worked domestically, Jewish women in eastern Europe perceived domestic service as the lowest on the hierarchy of female occupations. Yet the business sector for Jewish women was greatly disadvantaged because their Sabbath on saturday rather than sunday forced them to only do business five days of the week. I was also intrigued about their ability to work in artisan shops and their significance to the sewing industry. Yet because of the economic constructs of eastern Europe, they were always subject to shortages of products and machines. --Joe C.<br />
<br />
Like Joe I found the comparison between Jewish women's lives in the Old World in relation to their new role in America to be intresting. I think this ties in really well with Joe's point from above about education/academic expectations. On another note, Does the way women worked in the "old-world" provide one of the reasons for anti-semetic feelings in America? - Stephen<br />
<br />
<br />
== Jewish Women in America ==<br />
I've actually been to Ellis Island and when you visit that place, nowhere do they refer to it as the "Isle of Tears." Bad for publicity, I suppose. What these families had to go through to get into America sounds just horrible and so bothersome. The fact that one wrong answer could prevent you from your final destination for days is just absurd. America was seen as the land of opportunity for a lot of the immigrant groups that came through and being immediately greeted with such a harsh environment must have made these families worry from the start. It is a bit comforting to know, however, that the guards at Ellis Island did their best to look out for the young women traveling alone. That had to be terrifying on a number of levels. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
What were the push/pull factors associated with Jewish emigration to the New World? What ideologies or beliefs continued to influence women in the New World? - Mary Beth</div>Mdill1cphttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_13_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 13 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-04-14T03:06:02Z<p>Mdill1cp: </p>
<hr />
<div>== General Comments ==<br />
I found this factoid interesting when I learned about it in my History of Spain class a few semesters back, but the fact that the Jewish community had many women work outside the home so that the men could pray is amazing. It seems like all we've read this semester is the community saw the woman as the pious religious guide, and then here among the Jews its the opposite. The guys are seen as the religious ones. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I agree with Ashley, although it appeared to me that the religious or intellectual occupation of the Jewish man had little bearing to economically advancing the Jewish family. I found it interesting the examples that Glenn uses in her reading that some Jewish fathers who were intellectuals or pious scholars often did not allow their daughters enough opportunity to advance in society. I think it was through these examples where Glenn begins to define how Jewish Zionists and Bundists reacted to socialism and how it effected the Jewish women. --Joe C. <br />
<br />
I also found it interesting that women were respected for working and being the breadwinners as long as their husbands were doing religious things. It especially liked when it said that although the work women were doing now was hard and not fun the women would benefit in the afterlife. It's funny how women would benefit in the afterlife for their hard labor and taking care of their husbands and men would benefit in the afterlife from studying -- seems a little unfair to me. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
I also found the role of women’s work interesting and how their work outside the home provided them with leverage and fluidity. In contrast I found the role of tailors to be particularly interesting, demonstrating the role reversal of gender responsibilities and occupations. It was not acceptable, in fact shameful for men to be tailors, yet it was liberating, economically wise, and brought great pride to families with daughters who were seamstresses or dressmakers. Why do you think so? In what other ethnic groups has this been practiced? – Mary Beth <br />
<br />
I have to say, I still find it depressing to read in articles, books, documents, etc... that females weren't worth as much. That they were seen as lesser beings, burdens, or not much more than a slave to her male family counterparts (father, brothers, husband, etc...). I always feel so sad and sympathetic for them. Although, I also wonder if they felt repressed by the men because that was the life they knew. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this reading. I had never thought about how ethnic/religious groups fit in to the working class history. It was interested to learn about how their religion affected their work. It is also nice to get another religious perspective, specifically the Jewish perspective, about the working class America and gender roles. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
I think it is interesting to look at the Jewish immigrant group in the United States because no matter where they settled they were seen as outsiders. I liked having a chance to look at how they were affected by immigration to America. -Lacey<br />
<br />
As the author briefly notes, so is the case in much of Jewish history.<br />
<br />
I also enjoyed this reading and found the background information very helpful for understanding some of the Jewish reactions to America. For instance, the background on Jewish attitudes towards housekeeping made it easier to understand how insulted they felt by being asked to do household tasks, such as cleaning, in their new American tenements and boarding houses. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
== Women in the Old World ==<br />
I think Glenn's reading makes a clear distinction between Jewish women's lives in the Old World versus their new role in America. Although women received unequal rights and responsibilities, I found it interesting that they were given the opportunity to work in the business sector of the eastern European economy. Whereas in many regions throughout the United States women usually worked domestically, Jewish women in eastern Europe perceived domestic service as the lowest on the hierarchy of female occupations. Yet the business sector for Jewish women was greatly disadvantaged because their Sabbath on saturday rather than sunday forced them to only do business five days of the week. I was also intrigued about their ability to work in artisan shops and their significance to the sewing industry. Yet because of the economic constructs of eastern Europe, they were always subject to shortages of products and machines. --Joe C.<br />
<br />
Like Joe I found the comparison between Jewish women's lives in the Old World in relation to their new role in America to be intresting. I think this ties in really well with Joe's point from above about education/academic expectations. On another note, Does the way women worked in the "old-world" provide one of the reasons for anti-semetic feelings in America? - Stephen<br />
<br />
<br />
== Jewish Women in America ==</div>Mdill1cphttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_12_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 12 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-04-07T10:48:03Z<p>Mdill1cp: /* Background (Please post!) */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Background (Please post!)==<br />
<b>This is one of the weeks that the group we are reading about is not Anglo-American. Background and context play an important role in shaping our understanding of these two articles. What background do you have of the two main groups discussed (Cherokee and Sioux)? What have you learned about these topics(from other classes, high school, etc.)? Why might our own background knowledge influence how we interpret Native Americans?</b><br />
<br />
I haven't studied Native Americans in any of my college history classes but I remember studying them in high school. We focused on cultural practices (longhouses versus teepees essentially). We also talked about unfair treaties and the encroachment of Anglos on Indian land. We did NOT study anything about boarding schools or the various other attempts made by the Anglos to assimilate, convert, or get rid of the Native Americans. I know that when I approach these readings I am predisposed to be highly sympathetic towards Native Americans because their stories are so sad. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
While I learned about Native Americans in high school, most of my recent knowledge is from Professor Moon's American West class I am taking this semester. We have talked a little about the boarding school experience and Native American life in general. Other than that my Native American knowledge is very limited. I am also very sympathetic towards Native American history but I do also realize that I really don't know much about it. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
While I learned briefly about Native Americans in high school, most of my knowledge and understanding of Native Americans is the result of my college courses, mainly Dr. Devine's Seminar on Native American-White Relations and Dr. Moon's History of the American West class. Both courses touched upon these two Native American groups and the seminar expanded upon the experience of the Cherokee and their removal. I know that these courses have allowed me to have a more well-rounded understanding of Native American life and cultural practices. However, I realize that I have more to learn about Native peoples, particularly understanding American history from their perspective. Media and modern popular culture has undoubtedly also influenced our understanding of these and other Native Americans. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
To be honest I haven't had much background either. There have been snippets of Native American history here and there in a lot of my courses and classes over the years, but there hasn't been one basic group that I've really studied intently enough to remember who was who and where. What I do remember is that Europeans and Natives fought a lot and whites forced their ways on the Natives because they felt the Natives' ways were savage and wrong. It would definitely influence how I interpreted these articles because the boarding school one just pissed me off with the way whites treated the Natives. Honestly, if you don't have the food and clothing to provide the students then don't open the school! Or at least secure the funds to properly feed and clothe them. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I took two classes last semester (17th c. Colonial History and Colonial Biography) that looked briefly at Native Americans, particularly the Tribes in Virginia. I recognized alot of info in the first reading, such as the matrilinear and matrifocal households and the different gender roles (women farming and men hunting.) So while much of what we read for Tuesday seems like old info, I was struck by the fact that men and women weren't necessarily men and women because of biological differences, but by the gender roles they had. So if a man worked in the fields he was considered a woman. I am always interested in Native Americans, I always have been. Reading about the gender roles in the different Native American groups goes to show how different their cultures were and how much of their culture was torn from them.- Celia<br />
<br />
I don't have a whole lot of background with Native Americans, though like Celia I took Hudgin's class on 17th c. Colonial History. I did work at Plimoth Plantation this summer and worked occasionally with the Wampanoags there, their native family structure is not entirely dissimilar from that described of the Cherokees prior to assimilation. Other than that I have little knowledge of Native American culture saving what information is presented in grade school and what can be gleaned from popular media. I think this lack of knowledge contributes to a lack of understanding of their culture in the general public. It makes me feel remiss in some ways for not seeking out the knowledge and preserving it in at least and academical sense. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I also do not have much background with native Americans. Like kari, I owe all of my knowledge about native Americans to a class I took last semester. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
As was discussed in the US History in Film class that Kelly, Kelly, Ashley and I took last semester, I don't really think anyone has very solid background in Native American history. I remember stating this last semester after viewing Pocahontas, but for God's sake, that movie got taught to me in middle school as having valid educational worth. It really wasn't until I took US to 1865 with Spady my freshman year that I got a full understanding of the background of Anglo-Native relations. So much for Fairfax County education. -Cash<br />
<br />
The most recent (and in depth) Native American class I've taken was Dr. Paulett's Southeast North America from 1400-1800 course roughly 2 years ago and even then it was a limited group of Native Americans that were studied (I figured the background on ''Pocahontas'' for US in Film didn't count). Growing up, everything else has been merely brief discussion because there is just so much to cover so there was never anything substantial I studied. It was mostly teepees, the Trail of Tears and forced assimilation. An entire semester long class, I feel, needs to be devoted to a topic like this. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I took Colonial Biography with Andrew and Celia last semester, and we read briefly about Cherokee and Southern Indians, specifically about their matrileneal inheritance lines. I am more familiar with the Cherokee Nation and how the US Government dealt with the tribe after the 1830s and what rights they were given.--Joyce<br />
<br />
I also have limited background with Native American studies, only touching on it in classes when it was necessary. I think not having the appropriate background information on Native Americans may hurt our understanding, but it certainly should not limit it. I was not as familiar with Chinese- American history or the Southwest, but that does not mean that our discussion should be limited by our lack of knowledge on the subject. - Mary Beth<br />
<br />
==Overall Comments on Both Articles==<br />
I find both of these articles, and some of those that we have read in the past, incredibly depressing. I think that, along with many other similar occurrences, that groups of people feel, or felt, the need to make everyone conform to a single ideal, or that individuals and groups had the desire to assimilate entirely into another culture. Each culture and unit of it is unique and can provide a perspective on an aspect of life that one might not consider with out the understanding of the other or juxtaposition with one's own cultural background. Diversity makes us who we are and allows us both to define ourselves and to provide security within a group. Having it quashed would, I think, destroy our very sense of being. Therefore, I find it very sad that nineteenth-century americans, and others many times over, have felt the need to do so. -Lacey<br />
<br />
It's funny how awful Manifest Destiny can seem when we start to really study it, isn't it? The problem with wanting diversity in this time period is that it would interfere with the White Man's idea of America, and such interference could not be tolerated. As we have seen through this semester (and through most of our History studies, as well) the various cultures had plenty to offer to the society they introduced themselves to, but no one really felt interested in playing along. I shudder to think what we would find if we were able to offer up a revisionist view of history. Certainly, things may have played out a little rosier. -Cash<br />
<br />
==Perdue Article==<br />
<br />
Perdue talks a lot about Cherokee women in this article. However I feel that she romanticizes their role in society: talking about how gracious and noble they were to do most of the work. I don't really agree with this. I think the women farmed, did manual labor, made pottery, collected firewood and cared for children because they ''had'' to, not because they were saints. They didn't object because they didn't know any different. Also, other than mentioning that men felt that farming was women's work, she didn't go in depth on how emasculated men were. Did any one notice that she used the explorers' accounts for evidence? She took them at face value, instead of explaining the common point of view of people who interacted with Native Americans in that time period. I felt she also used those accounts to propagate the idea that the Cherokee were sexually promiscuous and licentious. Who's standard is she using? Thomas Jefferson believed the same things, as did most people in the early 18th Century. But it's not what I expected from a modern historian. She didn't question the reliability and accuracy of those sources, and I think she wrote this with rose colored glasses.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I agree with Amanda about the evidence provided in the Perdue article. However, in the event that she was trying to prove her argument that Cherokee women's roles drastically changed between the 18th and 19th centuries was very convincing. The matrilineal oriented family did increase the roles of women, yet it also created more personal power. They were able to choose their husbands, trace their family through their mother's side, determine the fate of war captives, etc. It seemed to me that the role of Cherokee women was diversified, but it also gave them a lot of freedom. --Joe C.<br />
<br />
I thought that this was a very interesting article. I have to agree with Amanda that men, while obviously not the focus of the article, were still not very deeply discussed, particularly in their relation to farming. I also thought it was interesting that prohibitions on the practice of infanticide were seen as isolating women (168). While most of us would agree that women should have some say in or the capacity to control the size of their families, I don't think anyone would be able to condone infanticide. While we can look back and say that Americans had a largely negative affect on Native Americans, the eradication of such practices as infanticide could perhaps be seen as them having a positive effect on Native Americans. However, most of the influences of Americans on Cherokee women, such as their removal from political and economic areas, were clearly negative and detrimental. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
Sarah, I completely agree with you on the infanticide topic. Maybe I'm being ethnocentric or too ethical, but when I read Perdue's statement that women lost their "right" to control the size of their families by infanticide, I thought that that was a good thing. Perdue seemed to feel that it was the opposite; another loss in Native women's rights. I'm going to probably start a pretty controversial Wiki here, but I think Perdue is taking her extreme feminism a little too far. - Celia<br />
<br />
I don't think that you are either ethnocentric or too ethical, Celia. The infanticide bothered me too, but it has not been uncommon in human history, the Spartans were particularly well known for it. And in some respects I think that it is not entirely unrelated to modern birth control or abortions. If you really think about it, they just waited longer to do it. Again, that's not to say that I agreed with it, in fact it really squicked me out. You just have to look at the fact that we haven't really come that far in the last 100-200 years, we just made it seem more "civilized." -Lacey<br />
<br />
I agree with sarah and celia as well regarding infanticide. It reminds me of the modern debate over a woman’s “right” to abortion. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
I was not totally convinced on why the Cherokee could be one of the most matrifocal tribes in the 18th century but be the most enthusiastic to change to Anglo-American ways in the 19th century. She writes it off that the Cherokee changed because they had to survive as a tribe but Pedue really did not go into depth on how this change occurred. I doubt the Cherokee woke up one day, flipped a switch, and decided they would be more Anglo American starting then.--Joyce<br />
<br />
I found the section that Perdue mentions about George Washington and his letter/implementation of “appropriate” gender roles to be particularly interesting. He addressed the letter about farming to the men and provided women with supplies they needed for sewing and spinning. Was this a common practice or do we have evidence to suggest that Washington was not alone in this practice? Perdue goes on to discuss how the women were more “receptive.” These are one of those moments as a historian that I think we all wish we could’ve known the Native Americans’ true reactions to such a practice by Washington. What were their reactions? What role did women play in being “receptive”? How did the Native American men react to their women’s receptiveness? – Mary Beth <br />
<br />
==Adams Article==<br />
<br />
After reading this article, I was wondering what the separation did to Sioux families. I think the structure of their families already drastically changed with the introduction of the reservation system. But especially with the "forced procurement" of children, the traditional culture began to decline rapidly. Because so much of their culture was taught and learned (and I don't mean from books), sending children to a foreign school wiped out chances to instill Sioux (or Navajo, Comanche, Kiowa, Caddo...) identity and caused traditional family structure to fall apart.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading this article. I thought it was very well written and entertaining. I like the added personal stories of the children who attended these schools -- it made it more real. I never knew the details and the extent Anglo Americans went to "civilize" these Native Americans. It really is quite depressing. While I think that the Anglo Americans thought they were doing the "right thing" it really doesn't excuse them for it. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
The two-fold process of civilization, the physically stripping of the identity of the Native American children and the instruction from Anglo teachers, was truly a strong method in “civilizing” these children. The idea of boarding school, not just schools on reservations, was an interesting idea. Physically removing the children prevented them from reverting to old behavior each day when they returned from school as well as provided the school with liberty to instruct and enforce their ideas as freely as they wanted. These schools truly did create the perfect environment for such instruction to flourish, if it was accepted by the children. – Mary Beth <br />
<br />
<b>Question:</b> What do you think about the intentions of the missionaries, teachers, and other policy makers who were behind the boarding schools? Do you think genuinely wanted to help Native Americans? Or they were trying to get rid of them? How much of their policy was about religion? How much was about racism? -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
Before advancing on Rebecca's questions, I wanted to comment on how thoroughly organized this article was. I was able to understand and list the actions boarding schools took to assimilating Native Americans. I think that the intentions of the missionaries and teachers was varied: either both inherently racist and helpful, or one and not the other. In the case of cutting the hair of Native American boys, I was almost positive that this was a racist action toward assimilating their culture. Reading further into the article about changing the names to surnames, and providing the clothes and food, I think that the intentions were more proportional to helping the Native Americans become successful. In the even they made up names, provided poor facilities and were unaccommodating to the Native American children, the teachers and missionaries would have been more racist. But now after looking over all of what I had just written, there had to have been some racist undertone to the assimilating process of "civilizing" Native Americans. --Joe C.<br />
<br />
To answer Rebecca's question, I think the intentions of the missionaries, teachers, and other policy makers were self-centered and ridicuolous. I do not think they wanted to genuinely help the Native Americans, their lives seemed alright without the Anglos interference. All their 'help' did was to break down a lot of tradition and history before it could mostly be recorded somehow. I feel like the policies were really intended to get rid of the Native Americans, I mean come on, they wanted the Native Americans to assimilate into white culture, which meant a radical change in a lot of Natives's way of life. I think some of it was religion because for some reasons the Christians couldn't comprehend the idea of freedom of religion in this country, everyone has to be Christian to them, regardless of the basic right. They felt for Natives to be citizens they also had to be Christian, they couldn't keep their previous religion. I'm not really sure how much was racism... -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
The missionaries, teachers, and policy makers appear to have had mixed motives for their actions towards Native American children in the boarding schools. I believe that many of them genuinely thought their actions were for the benefit of the children. For instance, one official is quoted as saying, in reference to the naming process, that there was "no reason why we should ruthlessly thrust upon him our English names...We want to educate the Indian--lead him on, not stamp him out." (30) That said, a number of them were undoubtedly motivated by racism or an attitude of cultural superiority. Religion also played a large role in boarding school life and clearly motivated at least some of the policies. It seems clear based on the amount of time spent on religion and morality that one of the primary goals of the teachers and missionaries was to promote conversions to Christianity. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
To be completely honest, I knew that Native Americans were forced to assimilate and "become white" but I had NO idea that they were sent to boarding schools to accomplish this task. This may have seemed like a good idea at the time but I think this is completely absurd. It makes me really think about Rebecca's questions in the sense that, I really do wonder whether or not the missionaries and teachers really wanted to help the Native Americans and were doing the right thing or if they were merely trying to get rid of them and their culture entirely because they were "wrong." It also makes me wonder if, to the missionaries and teachers and other whites, these two possibilities were really the same thing; that the only way to help the Native Americans was to remove their culture. -Kelly W.</div>Mdill1cphttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_12_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 12 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-04-07T10:43:09Z<p>Mdill1cp: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Background (Please post!)==<br />
<b>This is one of the weeks that the group we are reading about is not Anglo-American. Background and context play an important role in shaping our understanding of these two articles. What background do you have of the two main groups discussed (Cherokee and Sioux)? What have you learned about these topics(from other classes, high school, etc.)? Why might our own background knowledge influence how we interpret Native Americans?</b><br />
<br />
I haven't studied Native Americans in any of my college history classes but I remember studying them in high school. We focused on cultural practices (longhouses versus teepees essentially). We also talked about unfair treaties and the encroachment of Anglos on Indian land. We did NOT study anything about boarding schools or the various other attempts made by the Anglos to assimilate, convert, or get rid of the Native Americans. I know that when I approach these readings I am predisposed to be highly sympathetic towards Native Americans because their stories are so sad. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
While I learned about Native Americans in high school, most of my recent knowledge is from Professor Moon's American West class I am taking this semester. We have talked a little about the boarding school experience and Native American life in general. Other than that my Native American knowledge is very limited. I am also very sympathetic towards Native American history but I do also realize that I really don't know much about it. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
While I learned briefly about Native Americans in high school, most of my knowledge and understanding of Native Americans is the result of my college courses, mainly Dr. Devine's Seminar on Native American-White Relations and Dr. Moon's History of the American West class. Both courses touched upon these two Native American groups and the seminar expanded upon the experience of the Cherokee and their removal. I know that these courses have allowed me to have a more well-rounded understanding of Native American life and cultural practices. However, I realize that I have more to learn about Native peoples, particularly understanding American history from their perspective. Media and modern popular culture has undoubtedly also influenced our understanding of these and other Native Americans. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
To be honest I haven't had much background either. There have been snippets of Native American history here and there in a lot of my courses and classes over the years, but there hasn't been one basic group that I've really studied intently enough to remember who was who and where. What I do remember is that Europeans and Natives fought a lot and whites forced their ways on the Natives because they felt the Natives' ways were savage and wrong. It would definitely influence how I interpreted these articles because the boarding school one just pissed me off with the way whites treated the Natives. Honestly, if you don't have the food and clothing to provide the students then don't open the school! Or at least secure the funds to properly feed and clothe them. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I took two classes last semester (17th c. Colonial History and Colonial Biography) that looked briefly at Native Americans, particularly the Tribes in Virginia. I recognized alot of info in the first reading, such as the matrilinear and matrifocal households and the different gender roles (women farming and men hunting.) So while much of what we read for Tuesday seems like old info, I was struck by the fact that men and women weren't necessarily men and women because of biological differences, but by the gender roles they had. So if a man worked in the fields he was considered a woman. I am always interested in Native Americans, I always have been. Reading about the gender roles in the different Native American groups goes to show how different their cultures were and how much of their culture was torn from them.- Celia<br />
<br />
I don't have a whole lot of background with Native Americans, though like Celia I took Hudgin's class on 17th c. Colonial History. I did work at Plimoth Plantation this summer and worked occasionally with the Wampanoags there, their native family structure is not entirely dissimilar from that described of the Cherokees prior to assimilation. Other than that I have little knowledge of Native American culture saving what information is presented in grade school and what can be gleaned from popular media. I think this lack of knowledge contributes to a lack of understanding of their culture in the general public. It makes me feel remiss in some ways for not seeking out the knowledge and preserving it in at least and academical sense. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I also do not have much background with native Americans. Like kari, I owe all of my knowledge about native Americans to a class I took last semester. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
As was discussed in the US History in Film class that Kelly, Kelly, Ashley and I took last semester, I don't really think anyone has very solid background in Native American history. I remember stating this last semester after viewing Pocahontas, but for God's sake, that movie got taught to me in middle school as having valid educational worth. It really wasn't until I took US to 1865 with Spady my freshman year that I got a full understanding of the background of Anglo-Native relations. So much for Fairfax County education. -Cash<br />
<br />
The most recent (and in depth) Native American class I've taken was Dr. Paulett's Southeast North America from 1400-1800 course roughly 2 years ago and even then it was a limited group of Native Americans that were studied (I figured the background on ''Pocahontas'' for US in Film didn't count). Growing up, everything else has been merely brief discussion because there is just so much to cover so there was never anything substantial I studied. It was mostly teepees, the Trail of Tears and forced assimilation. An entire semester long class, I feel, needs to be devoted to a topic like this. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I took Colonial Biography with Andrew and Celia last semester, and we read briefly about Cherokee and Southern Indians, specifically about their matrileneal inheritance lines. I am more familiar with the Cherokee Nation and how the US Government dealt with the tribe after the 1830s and what rights they were given.--Joyce<br />
<br />
==Overall Comments on Both Articles==<br />
I find both of these articles, and some of those that we have read in the past, incredibly depressing. I think that, along with many other similar occurrences, that groups of people feel, or felt, the need to make everyone conform to a single ideal, or that individuals and groups had the desire to assimilate entirely into another culture. Each culture and unit of it is unique and can provide a perspective on an aspect of life that one might not consider with out the understanding of the other or juxtaposition with one's own cultural background. Diversity makes us who we are and allows us both to define ourselves and to provide security within a group. Having it quashed would, I think, destroy our very sense of being. Therefore, I find it very sad that nineteenth-century americans, and others many times over, have felt the need to do so. -Lacey<br />
<br />
It's funny how awful Manifest Destiny can seem when we start to really study it, isn't it? The problem with wanting diversity in this time period is that it would interfere with the White Man's idea of America, and such interference could not be tolerated. As we have seen through this semester (and through most of our History studies, as well) the various cultures had plenty to offer to the society they introduced themselves to, but no one really felt interested in playing along. I shudder to think what we would find if we were able to offer up a revisionist view of history. Certainly, things may have played out a little rosier. -Cash<br />
<br />
==Perdue Article==<br />
<br />
Perdue talks a lot about Cherokee women in this article. However I feel that she romanticizes their role in society: talking about how gracious and noble they were to do most of the work. I don't really agree with this. I think the women farmed, did manual labor, made pottery, collected firewood and cared for children because they ''had'' to, not because they were saints. They didn't object because they didn't know any different. Also, other than mentioning that men felt that farming was women's work, she didn't go in depth on how emasculated men were. Did any one notice that she used the explorers' accounts for evidence? She took them at face value, instead of explaining the common point of view of people who interacted with Native Americans in that time period. I felt she also used those accounts to propagate the idea that the Cherokee were sexually promiscuous and licentious. Who's standard is she using? Thomas Jefferson believed the same things, as did most people in the early 18th Century. But it's not what I expected from a modern historian. She didn't question the reliability and accuracy of those sources, and I think she wrote this with rose colored glasses.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I agree with Amanda about the evidence provided in the Perdue article. However, in the event that she was trying to prove her argument that Cherokee women's roles drastically changed between the 18th and 19th centuries was very convincing. The matrilineal oriented family did increase the roles of women, yet it also created more personal power. They were able to choose their husbands, trace their family through their mother's side, determine the fate of war captives, etc. It seemed to me that the role of Cherokee women was diversified, but it also gave them a lot of freedom. --Joe C.<br />
<br />
I thought that this was a very interesting article. I have to agree with Amanda that men, while obviously not the focus of the article, were still not very deeply discussed, particularly in their relation to farming. I also thought it was interesting that prohibitions on the practice of infanticide were seen as isolating women (168). While most of us would agree that women should have some say in or the capacity to control the size of their families, I don't think anyone would be able to condone infanticide. While we can look back and say that Americans had a largely negative affect on Native Americans, the eradication of such practices as infanticide could perhaps be seen as them having a positive effect on Native Americans. However, most of the influences of Americans on Cherokee women, such as their removal from political and economic areas, were clearly negative and detrimental. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
Sarah, I completely agree with you on the infanticide topic. Maybe I'm being ethnocentric or too ethical, but when I read Perdue's statement that women lost their "right" to control the size of their families by infanticide, I thought that that was a good thing. Perdue seemed to feel that it was the opposite; another loss in Native women's rights. I'm going to probably start a pretty controversial Wiki here, but I think Perdue is taking her extreme feminism a little too far. - Celia<br />
<br />
I don't think that you are either ethnocentric or too ethical, Celia. The infanticide bothered me too, but it has not been uncommon in human history, the Spartans were particularly well known for it. And in some respects I think that it is not entirely unrelated to modern birth control or abortions. If you really think about it, they just waited longer to do it. Again, that's not to say that I agreed with it, in fact it really squicked me out. You just have to look at the fact that we haven't really come that far in the last 100-200 years, we just made it seem more "civilized." -Lacey<br />
<br />
I agree with sarah and celia as well regarding infanticide. It reminds me of the modern debate over a woman’s “right” to abortion. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
I was not totally convinced on why the Cherokee could be one of the most matrifocal tribes in the 18th century but be the most enthusiastic to change to Anglo-American ways in the 19th century. She writes it off that the Cherokee changed because they had to survive as a tribe but Pedue really did not go into depth on how this change occurred. I doubt the Cherokee woke up one day, flipped a switch, and decided they would be more Anglo American starting then.--Joyce<br />
<br />
I found the section that Perdue mentions about George Washington and his letter/implementation of “appropriate” gender roles to be particularly interesting. He addressed the letter about farming to the men and provided women with supplies they needed for sewing and spinning. Was this a common practice or do we have evidence to suggest that Washington was not alone in this practice? Perdue goes on to discuss how the women were more “receptive.” These are one of those moments as a historian that I think we all wish we could’ve known the Native Americans’ true reactions to such a practice by Washington. What were their reactions? What role did women play in being “receptive”? How did the Native American men react to their women’s receptiveness? – Mary Beth <br />
<br />
==Adams Article==<br />
<br />
After reading this article, I was wondering what the separation did to Sioux families. I think the structure of their families already drastically changed with the introduction of the reservation system. But especially with the "forced procurement" of children, the traditional culture began to decline rapidly. Because so much of their culture was taught and learned (and I don't mean from books), sending children to a foreign school wiped out chances to instill Sioux (or Navajo, Comanche, Kiowa, Caddo...) identity and caused traditional family structure to fall apart.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading this article. I thought it was very well written and entertaining. I like the added personal stories of the children who attended these schools -- it made it more real. I never knew the details and the extent Anglo Americans went to "civilize" these Native Americans. It really is quite depressing. While I think that the Anglo Americans thought they were doing the "right thing" it really doesn't excuse them for it. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
The two-fold process of civilization, the physically stripping of the identity of the Native American children and the instruction from Anglo teachers, was truly a strong method in “civilizing” these children. The idea of boarding school, not just schools on reservations, was an interesting idea. Physically removing the children prevented them from reverting to old behavior each day when they returned from school as well as provided the school with liberty to instruct and enforce their ideas as freely as they wanted. These schools truly did create the perfect environment for such instruction to flourish, if it was accepted by the children. – Mary Beth <br />
<br />
<b>Question:</b> What do you think about the intentions of the missionaries, teachers, and other policy makers who were behind the boarding schools? Do you think genuinely wanted to help Native Americans? Or they were trying to get rid of them? How much of their policy was about religion? How much was about racism? -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
Before advancing on Rebecca's questions, I wanted to comment on how thoroughly organized this article was. I was able to understand and list the actions boarding schools took to assimilating Native Americans. I think that the intentions of the missionaries and teachers was varied: either both inherently racist and helpful, or one and not the other. In the case of cutting the hair of Native American boys, I was almost positive that this was a racist action toward assimilating their culture. Reading further into the article about changing the names to surnames, and providing the clothes and food, I think that the intentions were more proportional to helping the Native Americans become successful. In the even they made up names, provided poor facilities and were unaccommodating to the Native American children, the teachers and missionaries would have been more racist. But now after looking over all of what I had just written, there had to have been some racist undertone to the assimilating process of "civilizing" Native Americans. --Joe C.<br />
<br />
To answer Rebecca's question, I think the intentions of the missionaries, teachers, and other policy makers were self-centered and ridicuolous. I do not think they wanted to genuinely help the Native Americans, their lives seemed alright without the Anglos interference. All their 'help' did was to break down a lot of tradition and history before it could mostly be recorded somehow. I feel like the policies were really intended to get rid of the Native Americans, I mean come on, they wanted the Native Americans to assimilate into white culture, which meant a radical change in a lot of Natives's way of life. I think some of it was religion because for some reasons the Christians couldn't comprehend the idea of freedom of religion in this country, everyone has to be Christian to them, regardless of the basic right. They felt for Natives to be citizens they also had to be Christian, they couldn't keep their previous religion. I'm not really sure how much was racism... -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
The missionaries, teachers, and policy makers appear to have had mixed motives for their actions towards Native American children in the boarding schools. I believe that many of them genuinely thought their actions were for the benefit of the children. For instance, one official is quoted as saying, in reference to the naming process, that there was "no reason why we should ruthlessly thrust upon him our English names...We want to educate the Indian--lead him on, not stamp him out." (30) That said, a number of them were undoubtedly motivated by racism or an attitude of cultural superiority. Religion also played a large role in boarding school life and clearly motivated at least some of the policies. It seems clear based on the amount of time spent on religion and morality that one of the primary goals of the teachers and missionaries was to promote conversions to Christianity. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
To be completely honest, I knew that Native Americans were forced to assimilate and "become white" but I had NO idea that they were sent to boarding schools to accomplish this task. This may have seemed like a good idea at the time but I think this is completely absurd. It makes me really think about Rebecca's questions in the sense that, I really do wonder whether or not the missionaries and teachers really wanted to help the Native Americans and were doing the right thing or if they were merely trying to get rid of them and their culture entirely because they were "wrong." It also makes me wonder if, to the missionaries and teachers and other whites, these two possibilities were really the same thing; that the only way to help the Native Americans was to remove their culture. -Kelly W.</div>Mdill1cphttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_11_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 11 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-04-02T10:36:30Z<p>Mdill1cp: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Comments about Tuesday's Article ==<br />
<br />
I really found it funny that the guys did not want to plant a little house garden, or even really thought about it because it was 'women's work.' It was also kind of sad that they did not think of it and were malnourished because they weren't eating a good and healthy variety of food. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
<br />
I also thought that part was funny. The men were getting scurvy because they felt like planting gardens was a woman's job. I loved the part about the "domestic triumphs," like when the one guy finally learned how to make good pancakes. This reading gave me the impression that men did not want to do women's work because they didn't know how to do it and they felt like they would suck at it, not because it was demeaning or embarrassing. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
== Chapter 3 ==<br />
What pressures did Intermarried couples face?--Joyce<br />
<br />
Riley listed several pressures facing intermarried couples in the West, most of which were related to the family, the community, or legislation. Some of the more specific pressures were related to religion and differences in cultural values. When each individual ascribed too very different ideas about faith, children, and even methods of communication, problems easily resulted. Yet, I believe that on some level, every couple, intermarried or otherwise, had to make concessions or discuss some issues on which they differed. I don't think one can assume that simply because two people come from the same culture or race they shared the exact same values or customs. To be sure, intermarried couples had more differences and hurdles to overcome but I think that every couple would have faced at least a few of the same pressures and challenges. --Sarah Gardner <br />
<br />
I agree with Sarah. Religion was a major stress factor in interracial families, perhaps the biggest. In a time when religion was all some people had to hold onto, sharing a relationship with someone who did not necessarily hold your religious beliefs must have been hard and started many arguments (what church is the kid going to be baptized in? what church are we going to be married in?) particularly when there are already cultural differences between interracial couples–Andrew B<br />
<br />
<br />
What advantages did intermarried couples have?---Joyce<br />
<br />
Many Native American and Spanish women married Anglo men for economic and social reasons. Anglo men were more economically stable than Native American and Spanish men and the women would therefore have a higher status in society than if they were to marry someone of their own ethnic group. It was also advantageous for Anglo men to marry Native Americans and Spanish because the women knew their native language and culture and therefore was beneficial for trade. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
== Pictures on Pages 102-111==<br />
<br />
I was amused with picture number 18 because I thought the idea that someone would post an item like this, along with a reward for the wife's return. It makes you wonder why she left, if he was able to offer an award their finances might not have been all that bad. Maybe he was abusive, cruel, or something else? -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Like Ashley, the Reward poster is what caught my eye. It took me a glance or two to realize it was a man in search of his wife who had run away. As we talked about on Tuesday, life on the frontier was difficult, but I didn't realize that women would just run away. To me, it would be the man who would give up and run away rather than face the emasculating fact that he couldn't support his family or was a wife-beater. It makes you think about where the women would run be it home (too obvious?) or somewhere much father away and risk not surviving. Crazy situations. -Kelly W. <br />
<br />
I think these photographs really show the diversity that the previous chapters talked about, even more than the last set of pictures. You can also see how Anglo culture was imposed on many of the other residents of the west. Particularly in the clothing that they are wearing in the images which for the most part is not their native costume. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I posted about this on Tuesday thinking that everyone had just looked at every picture in the book. But I really thought picture 18 was odd. It was like a wanted poster. Like the woman was a criminal. “Any information leading to her recovery.” what was he going to do with her after he recovered her? the whole situation seems odd to me. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
== Chapter 4 ==<br />
<br />
I thought that is was an interesting chapter but it didn't seem to fit with the rest of the book. While the other sections seemed to rely more on the notion of cultural layering, this section didn't seem to mention differences in cultural practices except for a few mentions of differing cultural practices at the very beginning. Rather, it seem to focus more on economic influences and differences in gender in relation to rates of divorce. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I was really struck by the first part of this chapter. Riley talks about how the idea of divorce fit really well with ideas of change, western democracy, individualism, and the pursuit of personal happiness, ideas which were all really popular in the West. This is not the first time we have seen really big social ideas shape family structure. It reminds me of how ideas from the Revolution shaped families, and how ideas of Republican motherhood shaped expectations for moms. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
Kind of going off of Sarah's point, I didn't really think this chapter belonged here, or at least should have tied itself in more with the rest of the book. Riley spent a lot of time in the Introduction discussing cultural layering and then developed that point as she progressed through the other chapters discussing different practices and traditions, but this chapter seemed to focus most on one culture. I think if Riley wanted to make cultural layering such a big focus in the book she should have elaborated on the various cultures in terms of divorce and separation as opposed to the economics of divorce and the logistics behind how it was possible for some and not others. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
== Epilogue ==<br />
<br />
I was surprised that the book ended with a petition to fix the problem of divorce in the West today. Are the concentrations of divorce as high there today as they were in the 19th Century? I also understand her call to teachers. But as a future teacher (who understands the need to influence students positively) I don't know how realistic is to have this expectation. She writes that we need to include courtship practices and marriage customs in multicultural education. Well, we don't teach about that for the "American"/Anglo culture. Parents wouldn't like it. It's too personal (with the variety of diverse family backgrounds today) and frankly beyond the scope of curriculum for our schools. How can we teach children, during school, that divorce is wrong, when some of them might come from broken homes? I felt the jump from the last chapter to the epilogue was a little jolting. I don't know how we can stop the western divorce rate, but I think it's a widespread problem. One thing for sure is that it's not a question we can solve easily. After all though, this is America, and you can marry (almost) whoever you want, and the same goes for divorce.--Amanda<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Amanda's comments. This epilogue was a little weird. Riley says that legislation is necessary that would make marriage harder to get (she mentions waiting periods and mandatory counseling). This is a strange idea to me. I don't think it is the place of the government to try to prevent failed marriages. That seems like a personal thing. I guess this gets at one of the reoccurring themes in this class: when is family a purely personal thing, and when is it a social building block that should be regulated and defined for the good of society. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
The epilogue appears extremely out of place and inappropriate for her work. I personally struggled throughout the book to understand her argument about divorce. Within her own work she criticized the sources available particularly census and marriage records pointing to the difficulty of identifying people’s ethnic or religious background as well as the fact that only fragments remain. The lack of this type of information made it more difficult to identify intermarriage divorce as well as divorce rates in general (ch.3). As Amanda and Rebecca said the transition to present issues of divorce was awkward and did not fit in with the rest of the book. Her conclusion unfortunately came off more like a rant than backing up her work. – Mary Beth <br />
<br />
== Mintz and Kellogg ==<br />
I felt that Mintz and Kellogg kind of sensationalized the struggles that these people went to, particularly those moving out west. I feel that if there continued to be people who made the decision to go out west the risks couldn't be as completely insurmountable as Mintz and Kellogg make them out to be. It just goes back to many of our previous statements that they overgeneralize, I guess. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I agree with Lacey that Mintz and Kellogg often speak too broadly and generally in this section. Something that Mintz and Kellogg do not mention in their brief discussion of American families on the western trail is that, in spite of their attempts to "maintain a firm sexual division of labor," they were often unable to do so. Women often drove wagons and men had to cook when their wives were ill or unable to do so. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
This sectioned mentioned how the main thing pioneers relied on while they were traveling westward was their family. Their family had to work together in order to survive. While this focus is on the nuclear family, it is more about a sense of community with their family rather than the growing individualism seen in the east. The environment a family was in determined how that family reacted to each other. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
== Any other Questions/Comments about the readings from Tuesday or Thursday ==<br />
<br />
I like this reading (Riley) because of its straightforwardness. Question: What explains the high divorce rate in the West? Answer: Cultural layering and changing courtship/ marriage practices due to the cultural layering.--Amanda</div>Mdill1cphttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_11_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 11 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-03-31T10:28:47Z<p>Mdill1cp: </p>
<hr />
<div>I thought the ethnic differences in courting were incredible. Spanish courtships was not unlike that pursued by Anglos, with more strictures. The Native American courting rituals where the man sits at the foot of the woman's bed with her grandmother as a chaperone was kind of creepy and seemed really archaic. What would you be thinking if your grandmother woke you up in the middle of the night with a guy sitting there watching you? The creep-factor aside, I thought it and other NA methods of courtship were really interesting. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Lacey on the creep factor. Heh, that would disturb me greatly... more so with my mom's mom than dad's mom... but the thought gives me shivers. I do have to say I liked how Riley incorporated so many different groups into the book, it gave a lot of easy C/C on the spot. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I also would have to agree with both of you on the Native American courtship methods. But I think its also important to remember that the purpose of the book was to introduce the diversity of western marriage and families, and how they are associated today with the highest divorce rates in the nation. I think the courtship chapter makes it clear that the limited contact between male and females of most cultures limited the options for whom they could marry and thus forced relationships. Of course there were other factors as well. I was very intrigued by the common portrayal of women in these cultures. Would a rise in individualism among women in the west result because of strict familial patterns? Or is it their portrayal in the journals, newspapers, forms of media of the day. Example: the woman who put herself as an add in the Waterloo, Iowa paper for courtship and then being compared to a piece of household furniture by an editor in an editorial. --Joe C. <br />
<br />
The first half of this book is interesting. I like Riley's use of the term "cultural layering." I also noticed that she used the phrase "women of color" like the authors from last week. The practices of courtship and marriage certainly varied a lot between groups. Some practices were shocking to me, like the picture brides marrying someone based on correspondence! I had a small problem with Riley's discussion however. I know that she was trying to show the dichotomy with the groups in the West, but I feel like Native Americans need their own assessment. Their traditions may seem weird to us, but that is heightened when you take groups out of their context. I don't feel it's right to lump them together like you can perhaps get away with (like her use of Anglo or Chicana) but the Chippewa can't be examined with tribes of the Southwest. Also, their experience was different because unlike the other groups, they did not emigrate from another country. I like her thesis though, that the interaction among and within families caused conflict.--Amanda <br />
<br />
I think you could say that about a number of the groups. I agree that I thought the same thing about her depiction of Native American rituals and practices, that even her descriptions of the different tribes contrasted each other. But look at the other groups, too. The "Anglos" included English, French, Irish, etc. The practices and rituals of each of these ethnic groups are as varied. Compare them to the Slavs and Jews and we're all over the place. - Celia<br />
<br />
I thought it was really helpful how Riley showed how the different groups of people dealt with issues like courting for example. Having the different groups right next to each other in certain categories really made the similarities and differences easier to notice. Writing it this way made her point a lot easier for me to understand and I felt like I retained a lot more information. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
Riley starts chapter one with an argument that high divorce rates in the West are probably a sign that courtship methods were flawed. She backs this up by saying that it is reasonable to assume that poorly matched spouses are more likely to divorce. I don't agree with Riley's assumption. I can see her logic, but I think that divorce rates are more closely tied to expectations about marriage (emotional fulfillment, compatibility, etc) and the acceptability of divorce than to methods of courtship. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
I thought that this book has been quite fascinating so far. It's just more proof that we can't divide America into the North, South, East, and West and say 'this is how it was.' We bring up movies and books alot in class (ok, I bring up movies and books alot) but the part in Chapter 1 where men looked for women who would be able to work along side them and provide good domestic help reminded me of the movie "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers." Also, the section about mail order brides and the men and women who advertised for spouses and wrote to each other reminded me of an obscure Judy Garland film called "Harvey Girls" where she goes out west to marry a man she had been writing to, only to be disapointed when she arrives. - Celia<br />
<br />
Celia - I love that "Harvey Girls and Seven Brides for Seven Brothers." You're not alone in that. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
The Native American courting rituals were crazy. I don't even understand where some of them came from. Courting and marriage practices seemed to vary drastically amongst the different ethnic groups. I find the difference between the different groups interesting. -- Kellye S<br />
<br />
I agree with Rebecca that poorly matched spouses was not more likely to cause divorce. There have been many cases of arranged marriages that worked out fine and did not end in divorce. People who were in situations like that dealt with the fact that their marriage was arranged and many times actually ended up eventually loving that person. I think that the elements in living and surviving in the West along with the high expectations about marriage were the main causes of divorce. -- Kari <br />
W. <br />
<br />
I feel like Riley romanticizes Native American culture. She keeps making these sweeping, positive generalizations about aspects of Native American culture. Like on the bottom of page 53 she says "Ojibway women and men worked at different duties, yet extended mutual respect to each other and their work." Isn't that a pretty big claim? Another example is on page 18, "Despite the grace and civility of Native American methods of identifying mates..." I would not characterize their courtship methods that way. It seems like too much of a value judgment, which I believe is not super useful in a historical analysis, since value judgments are so much a product of one's own perspective. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
Going off of Celia's comment, as historians we tend to like when things fit into neat little boxes and unfortunately, this book and the Johnson article just elaborates on how impossible that is. The American West is such a broad topic to cover that no two families were truly alike. The American West in the nineteenth century especially since it was such a transitional time for some white families traveling out west and since they were now interacting with Native American families who had a completely different lifestyle in general. Unfortunately for historians, there was no "typical nineteenth century family" and I feel like we keep coming back to this point each week, just more and more disappointed about how true it is. -Kelly W. <br />
<br />
I also really enjoyed reading the first two chapters of Riley's text on Western families. However, the structure of the work was confusing at times. The second chapter in particular, I felt, may have been easier to follow if the pros and cons of each aspect of marriage had been grouped together instead of in two separate sections. I did enjoy the fact that she spoke to the experiences of a variety of races, even though, as Rebecca has pointed out, she does make rather broad generalizations about some of the groups, particularly Native Americans. --Sarah Gardner <br />
<br />
I found this book very interesting. I thought some of the traditions and practices the author discussed were unique, and I enjoyed reading about them. The thing I liked the most about this book was it’s breadth. I like that more than one or two groups or kinds of people were touched on. I feel that all too often, when a book is focused on one particular group of people, the reading gets slow. This was a nice change. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
On the bottom of pg. 25 Riley makes the claim that many courting rituals simply disappeared due to the diverse traditions clashing and then eventually ending. From what we’ve seen so far rituals and practices of marriages and courtships are certainly diversified across the region: ethnically, religiously, and differentiated by class. These rituals and practices also changed. I think it is a tough statement to make. Instead, I would argue that practices simply changed with the times and cultural changes, as does the notion of family, and that this practice happened throughout American society, not just the West. I personally would need more concrete examples to understand Riley’s point about courtship rituals. – Mary Beth <br />
<br />
== Pictures ==<br />
I really liked the pictures provided on pages 33-41. They provided the idealized woman stereotype and what women actually did and wore. The pictures also allowed a glimpse at what people wore to weddings, including the traditional garb and adopted American garb as shown in picture number 12. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I have to agree with you as well Ashley. But the pictures section also reminded me of how men and women sent pictures of each other through letters as a way of courting. Would these be the type of pictures that women would send to men in the west? A few of them seem to show that women's domestic duties included work outside the home, especially pictures taken of the Native American women. --Joe C.<br />
<br />
I don't think these pictures were the kind that women were sending to the men, rather the ones of the native women might have been a part of a photographic study and the others for record keeping purposes or to send home to the photograph. This was the era where photographs took off, as well as the concept of sending "family portraits" to friends and family. I thought the contrast between ethnic modes of dress displayed in the portraits quite interesting. It is also neat that you can see that the people who lived then liked to mix and match their ethnic clothing with American styles of dress. It is quite fascinating looking at that from the viewpoint of assimilation. -Lacey<br />
<br />
The one picture that really stood out to me was the one of Lake Andes in South Dakota. As we grow up we're taught about a stereotypical "western story" with the saloons and the ranches, so seeing that the towns when they were first being settled actually did look like this kind of surprised me. But it was also comforting to know that this typical western town wasn't complete fallacy. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I agree with Ashely about the inclusion of the pictures in Riley's work. I really felt that they added to the text. One picture that struck me was the one of Doctors from Hawaii. The caption states that "married couples often combined cultures in their dress." Did anyone else notice that it was the woman who was maintaining the traditional dress in this image while the man had adopted American clothing? I wonder if this image is also speaking to the fact that men were more likely to adopt American ways then women or if women were more likely to try and hold on to traditional customs? --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
The “wanted” picture of the runaway wife seems a little strange to me. The caption reads, “For the recovery, or information leading to the recovery.” It sounds as if the woman is a murderer or something, or a lost dog. –Andrew B</div>Mdill1cphttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_10_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 10 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-03-26T10:04:08Z<p>Mdill1cp: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Porfiriato ==<br />
Just in case people were wondering... Porfiriato was the name for the period of rule by Porfirio Diaz in Mexico. He basicall controlled Mexico for the last 1/3 of the 19th century. He planned to bring Mexico into the modern world by imposing order ''at any cost'' Long story severely shortened, he did bring lots of modern stuff to Mexico (telephones, railroads, etc...), but for the majority of the population life in Mexico did not get better. Porfirio even used the army to violently put down strikes. Eventually enough people start to rise up against him that he basically goes "I'm done" and hops on a boat in May of 1911 and heads to Europe. His reign was a reign of terror, he killed those opposed to him and used the army to do his bidding. I'd love to take credit for actually remembering all of this, but it came from my notes from Dr. Poska's class this semester of Latin American History. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
One of the things I noticed and was impressed with is how Mexican families were flexible and easily adapted to change. They did a lot of moving due to economic reasons while trying to maintain traditional values. while moving the men would often die and women would take over as heads of the household, because of this they did not a strict gender role system. -- Kellye S<br />
<br />
One part of this article that stuck out to me was interracial marriage between Chicano women and Anglo-Saxon men. This seemed like it was really only a viable option for lighter skinned Mexicans because then their husbands could pass them off as white. Even so, it was a type of independence for these women. I liked the story about the woman who cut her hair because she wanted to show her husband that he could not control her like her father did while she was in Mexico. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
Also, I think it was a question of comfort. I think the article said something about alot of Mexican women originally from urban areas married white men because they were more used to a certain lifestyle not involving agriculture. More intermarried couples lived in urban settigns in L.A. Also, whether the girl was from a farm or a city in Mexico, the fact that they could be better off money-wise was tempting. And if marrying a non-Mexican was an adjustment, well, everyone had to adapt to some changes. - Celia<br />
<br />
I found the section on "machismo" to be interesting because it was another environment, like the Anglo American household, the prided itself on male dominance. Typically Anglo American households did not revert to violence to ensure the gender divide (at least I don't think so) but to read the Chicano households saw it as a necessary evil really stuck out to me. I did not expect that coming from any household of the time period, really. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
In reading this article, I was surprised by how gendered the immigration process was from Mexico. It seems clear from this article that younger single men made-up the majority of the initial immigrant population and that women only migrated within the confines of family. Women also seemed to wait for life changing events, such as death and divorce, to emigrate. The role marriage played in breaking family ties while creating new ones was also interesting. I would think that while marriage would realign one's priorities, it might also make them recall the families they left behind in Mexico. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
== Bonnie Thornton Dill ==<br />
I actually really liked this piece because it made lots of different family life experiences in the United States connect. Although, its weird to see the phrase 'women of color' and it mean more than just African American women. I understand it completely... but, and please don't see me as racist for saying this, I've always hated that phrase because I know it means not-white skinned people... but our creamish/peachy color is a color too... I've never really liked the phrase.... however, I really liked the article none-the-less, and how it put into light what family members of each race had to do in order to survive. Although, I'd like to point out that, at least with poor white families, many of them did similar things, but they were not trying to resist culture change and and keep their own traditions like the African-Americans, the Chinese, and Mexicans. Just a little side-note question, was there only Mexicans immigrating to the United States? or were there other Latin Americans immigrating here as well? --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I also really enjoyed reading this article. It really put things into perspective. It showed how although these women came from different cultural backgrounds, they were experiencing some of the same things. Each group had their own way of dealing with the discrimination. I particularly found the concept of "compadrazgos" really interesting. The concept of godparents crossed the racial and class lines. It's interesting to see how children bring people together. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
When reading about slave families I was reminded of the threat we read about before of relocation or sale. It makes it even clearer how white (Anglo) women had a very different experience in this time period than minority women. For all groups, I didn't realize how repressive American people and law were for the formation of families. Also, Ashley, I like your point about "women of color." I never thought about it that way before.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I liked this article because of the author's use of the phrase "women of color." It was nice to see it used to reference more than African American women for once. This article really emphasized the racial differences in terms of women and society and it was rather eye-opening in that sense. In a historical sense we typically think of the racial divide of this time period as black vs. white, and tend to disregard the other racial minorities. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I thought that this article was a nice synthesis of many of our previous discussions concerning gender relations and families. I was also surprised to find Chinese Americans and Chicanos discussed in this article. The comparisons in this article were very interesting. One fact that I noted while reading, was that while African slaves were encouraged to procreate and have families, the Chinese were “explicitly denied the right to form families in the United States.” (8) This article also highlighted for me the impact that American laws had on the lives and family structure of all three groups. –Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
In class on Tuesday Joe brought up the effects of split families or migrant families in the Southwest and how different structures of families influenced how the family functioned and the roles of the family members. Once again, we see how structure strongly dictates the functions and practices of the family. For instance, due to the physical splitting up of slave families slaves relied on extended family or fictive kin to help not only with familial responsibilities, but emotional support. The role of the master also dictated the structure of many families determining the mating practices and whether or not a family would stay together. After emancipation the roles and function of the family once again changed because the structure changed. The comment that only Chinese men with money, not ordinary men, were able to send for their families and bring them over to the United States is another example of structure dictating function. Both U.S. immigration practices and economics resulted in split family households which prevented Chinese families from having traditional familial support. A disproportionate number of males early on in America led to population disparities as well as reliance not on family, but on fictive kin, since family was not physically available. – Mary Beth</div>Mdill1cphttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_10_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 10 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-03-24T03:16:49Z<p>Mdill1cp: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Marriage ==<br />
After reading the two chapters on marriage, mostly in New Mexico, by Ramon Gutierrez I noticed some parallels that still exist in today's American families. Often, children still rely on their parents to agree on a proposed marriage (this is starting to die and in some cases is completely ignored), also people still tend to marry within their race (also dieing down as more people marry whoever they wish regardless of race, ethnicity, etc...), people still tend to marry within their own class, and churches still have a lot of say so, but not absolute anymore. With the church bit, many of them still go through rigourous 'are you right for each other' process and 'should we marry you' process. However, people can now get 'married' in the courthouse where they sign a paper stating they aren't related but by so much (hey, first cousins can marry in VA... so it depends on the state)and/org submit a blood test to show if there are any diseases. I just thought it interesting how some of the traditions still persist today. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
This reading really reminds me of stuff that I read for Spanish history last semester. All the stuff in this article (protecting women's honor, seducing women with false promises of marriage, higher class men sexually exploiting lower class women, themes of the danger of love, etc) was all in the Spanish literature. I think it is interesting to see these elements of Spanish culture transplanted in America. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
I thought the juxtaposition of Hispanic families against the Anglo Family ideal, from Sarah Deutsch's ''No Separate Refuge'' was very interesting. Women were at the center of marriage and the village. Particularly interesting were inheritance rights were women had even over their children. This struck me as particularly unusual as compared to rules of primogeniture followed by most Anglos. -Lacey<br />
-=<br />
<br />
I thought Gutierrez's article was very interesting. Marriage in colonial New Mexico was very different than it is today. I had no idea about all of the formalities, ceremonies and traditions that existed in this part of America while the colonies were fighting for their independence. It's interesting that patrimony was part of the marriage procedure in addition to dowries. The chapters show the importance of childbirth and virginity to a woman's promise for her future and as an asset to her family. Women's roles were very restricted however. I had no idea that a daughter was passed off from a father to her husband (like ownership over an animal). I also found a contradiction between the control of the Catholic church and the discussion of young men scaling walls to sneak into a woman's room. Though the Catholic church ran the community and had to approve marriages, it seems that even this society had its share of scarlet letters.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I thought that the two chapters from Gutierrez's book were very interesting. One of concepts which struck me was how much importance was placed upon the consent of those getting married. I know that in reality it was not also carried out or properly enforced as there was also the consideration of obeying ones parents, but it still surprised me that it was given as much attention as it was. Like Ashely, I also noted several parallels and similarities to today's marriage beliefs and practices. For instance, we still exchange rings, still have witnesses at our weddings to make them valid, make comments about carrying a bride over the threshold, and still have large receptions after weddings. I also know that the Catholic Church still requires engaged couples to provide proof that they are marrying of their own free will and not because of outside pressures. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
Kind of bouncing off Ashley's comment about similarities, I thought the amount of pressure put on young brides about who they marry can still be seen today in some form or another. When I read that threats and sheer force were used to "persuade" someone of a better choice, I couldn't help but think of the nerves in a young girl (or boy for that matter) bringing home their significant other to meet the parents for the first time praying for their acceptance. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
These two chapters were very interesting, but I felt that some of the stories were unnecessary. It seems like the chapters would have been ten pages shorter if some of the stories were taken out. But some of them offered some good examples about what Gutierrez was trying to say. These chapters looked into marriage, but more importantly they offered a peak into society in Spanish New Mexico. Some points in particular were, I thought, very fascinating. The first one was on the parties and fiestas that were a breeeding ground for sinful lust. It kind of reminded me of the Mardi Gras or Carnival. These were public events where people were expected to break away from social norms. In fact, the system set this time apart for people to break norms... but not to go too far. The other interesting point in this chapter was on how priests actually went against parental wishes sometimes in order to marry a couple if the couple wished it. It reminded me of a couple I know who were trying to get married but the bride's parents were not happy about her marrying the guy. After a number of attempts to set up the date and the parents constantly saying they couldn't make it on the days, the priest finally threw his arms up in the air and said 'forget it, it's your marriage, not their's, we're setting up a date and the parents don't have to make it if they don't want to.' Well, the parents didn't want to make it and the couple eloped.- Celia<br />
<br />
I found the section on rituals and holidays as opportunities for sexual impropriety particularly interesting. The atmosphere of celebration, the consumption of alcohol, and the fact that people were distracted created the perfect environment for young people to be sexually inappropriate. Later on Gutierrez discusses the role of the Church in prohibiting and preaching against such social gatherings, particularly dances. I cannot help but think of other conservative Christian groups that even today still ban dancing, drinking, card playing, etc. for the same argument that they breed and provide the perfect environment for sin to flourish. – Mary Beth <br />
<br />
One point I found particularly interesting was the distinction between valid and legitimate matrimony. Prior to the Council of Trent, valid indicated a monogamous, faithful relationship between two people for the rest of their lives, while legitimate was reserved as a description of marriages only ordained by the priest. We see the need for the Church to clarify such a distinction and with the Council of Trent elevate marriage to the status of a sacrament and require consent, witnesses, and a priest for the marriage to be official. I wonder if in other ethnic groups this type of distinction existed? What was the effect of the Council of Trent on marriages in other ethnic groups? – Mary Beth <br />
<br />
== Deutsch ==<br />
These chapters were very different from the other reading. Deutsch provided the context and background for Southwest and how the culture was harder to capture than just the land. From this reading I got that women had more rights than what Gutierrez explained. I also liked this article because it showed the class differences and extended to a the late 1800s.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I agree with Amanda, it did seem like women had more rights. I especially liked how daughters were able to inherit land just like sons, also that they were allowed to continue to hold any property they had upon entering into any marriage. This definitely has an impact of family relations because the mother/wife has more power and therefore more impossibilities. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I liked the use of the stories in this text and I liked how they were used to support her main idea throughout. I also liked that she included the way new jobs opened up (as well as a new form of economy) for the Anglo-Hispanic community as a result of contact with westward travelers and Anglicans. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
== Women ==<br />
I actually enjoyed reading chapter 2 of Sarah Deutsch's ''No Separate Refuge''. Mainly because I admit that I very much believed a lot of the stereotypes, I had no idea that what women did was valued so much and that they had as much do in the community as they did. Although, if I'd thought more about what I learned before with Angelo's moving out West, most of this I would have figured out. What really stuck out at me was the part that they did a lot of plastering for the community, which I would have put at more of men's work or women's work. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I also enjoyed reading about the powerful and influential role women held in Hispanic villages. It makes sense that women were the core of their society and it is nice to see that it was recognized more at the time. Many decisions also appear to have been made jointly between spouses pertaining to children especially. In terms of marriage, I was interested to learn that "age determined one's actions more than sex." (44)Men were not given preferential treatment but both the potential bride and groom had to rely on their relatives to establish the marriage contract. --Sarah Gardner</div>Mdill1cphttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_9_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 9 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-03-19T03:09:26Z<p>Mdill1cp: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Bridging Tues. and Thurs. ==<br />
I think we would have been better off reading Evelyn Glenn's article on Chinese-American families before reading ''China Men''. Reading ''China Men'' cold really set me off kilter, but I think I would have been better prepared for it if we had read the article first. It gives some background into this group of people as a whole which you don't really get in ''China Men'' until you get to the section on laws as relating to Chinese immigrants. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Lacey on this. I felt like I understood ''China Men'' more after reading the article, but on the other hand I had to think more about the reading this way I guess. Still, some background about Chinese-Americans would have made this book better to understand overall. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I was definately seeing parallels between the two and Glenn's article answered alot of questions I had. It kind of connected the dots in ''China Men''. The big issue, I think, in the two readings is the importance of family, as Glenn writes,"filial piety, respect for elders and reverence for tradion" which are the principle teachings of Confucius. I agree with Lacey, I wish we had read this before the other - Celia<br />
<br />
I agree as well, if I hadn't read another Kingston book in HS, I would have had a lot more questions going into the reading. The article gave a lot more background information that might have been helpful in reading China Men. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I think its also important to bridge the two genres of a literature/nonfiction work like Kingston with the historical article of Glenn. I think by reading Kingston's work in a history course rather than an English course, its easier for me to pull out the history of families and Chinese culture. --Joyce<br />
<br />
I definitely feel like the Glenn article was a nice addition to the reading because it really helped to put the Kingston book into context. Like we were discussing in class on Tuesday, we went into this topic with very little knowledge about the subject so reading this article maybe first, would have been helpful. It definitely put the oral histories in context, though, which answered a lot of questions. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I agree with everyone that this would have been nicer to have up front. I was very confused reading for Tuesday but I feel like the class discussion was really helpful. The article confirmed a lot of what we said in class. I guess like Ashley said putting the article at the end made it more challenging, but I still would have preferred background knowledge before getting so involved in a book which was so different from the others we have read. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
== The American Father ==<br />
<br />
Even though the first few pages were confusing at first, it was nice to see the narrator go back to the story about the father who got cheated out of the laundry business and took his wife to California. I did enjoy getting to read more up on that part of the family, but it was still made confusing with the tid bit about the father being born in America after telling us earlier he immigrated to America and that he was in America when he married his wife, only I thought he was in China earlier when he married his wife... @.@ The narrator should stick to one story or simply say I don't know how he got here, it was either A or B, but we're not sure. -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
After reading this story I truly feel bad for the Father and his family. Losing a laundry business by being cheated by your partners, moving across the country to lose another job and two houses must have been truly frustrating. I thought it was interesting how when the father gave-up the mother took on the dual role of caregiver and nagger. She both pampered him and yelled at him to try and get him to find another job. I was happy to see that in the end he was able to start a new business and raise his family in a more comfortable manner. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I really got into this first chapter. It felt like I was reading a novel because I got so involved in this family and their situation. I felt really bad for the parents working for that owner and his crazy wife. No wonder Maxine and her family tried to escape them. One part that I found interesting was when the author was talking to the other children and she felt left out because her parents didn't spank her or kiss her good night. Does anyone know if this was just a family thing or was it common in the Chinese culture to have family relationships like that, you know, kind of withheld.- Celia<br />
<br />
I agree, this chapter really read like a novel. It seemed so hard and sad to come to America only to fail. This story seemed especially sad since the men went in as partners and one cheated the other. I do not think that many Chinese families had the close personal relationships that many American families have. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I felt bad for this family, but it was inspiring to read the lengths the family went to in order to gain success. After their hard work, their children went on to continue the tradition of teaching (the brother in Vietnam) and be successful, financially independent, and acculturated citizens.-Joyce M<br />
<br />
I also thought it was interesting reading about how the Father was treated by his wife after he lost his business. She pretty much insulted him in every way possible and in front of her children. Middle class whites would not approve of this type of relationship. In some ways I think the mother was a little too harsh on the Father, but I can see how she would be frustrated. With the Father not having a job the family was losing most of their income. I can imagine that would be a terrible situation to live in. Though, I don't think that yelling and nagging him was the most productive way to get the Father to work at the time. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
== Glenn, "Split Household..." ==<br />
I think it is interesting how the Chinese found ways to circumvent the laws and regulations placed on them by white Americans. It is both fascinating and deplorable how they could pull the wool over the eyes of these officals who saw them mashed them all together and weren't willing to learn enough about them to be able to tell them apart. Then there is also the fact that so many of these men were willing to separate themselves from their families for so long in order to be able to give them an opportunity at a life better than what they could have in China. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I also felt that the Chinese were very good about working around laws meant to restrict their immigration. Notably, I thought that the idea of "paper sons" was rather clever and shows how they used the laws to their advantage. It was not quite clear to me how they were able to report so many false births in China, it must have been fairly easy to do so. I wonder how many men came over under a false identity to start a new life in America and if their descendants were told who they truly were. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
It is amazing that any Chinese immigrated to the United States at all with so many restrictions place upon them. I realized their situation in China must have been desperate that they even considered traveling to another country, to leave their families and spouses in order to live in a country where they would make menial money and never become citizens until the 40s.---Joyce M<br />
<br />
I found the debate between cultural and institutional approaches to understanding Chinese American families particularly interesting. Perhaps it is the design of the article, but I found the institutional approach particularly strong with reference to Chinese American families. Glenn makes the argument that this family structure and response was not unique to the Chinese American family (p.77), which he outlines in this article, but I was wondering what other families or ethnic groups also portray this response/structure? Are there any families this semester we have already seen that would demonstrate a situational/institutional response instead of a predominantly cultural one? – Mary Beth <br />
<br />
== The Brother in Vietnam ==<br />
I am really confused. We got a good impression of the Chinese impression of the Japanese here, but I thought the chapter would be really different based on the title. I feel, in this chapter more than others, that Kingston's writing is convoluted. I have a hard time understanding her points. Like we discussed before, there are clearly personal influences in her writing that make this not exactly a scholarly source. I don't know what to make of it, and am glad we have an article to supplement.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I thought that this was a very interesting section. I was surprised by the number of ways men created to try and evade the draft. I also thought that the brothers reaction to being in Taiwan was informative. The idea that by stepping back on his ancestors lands made "their whole lives suddenly make sense," indicates that Chinese Americans did maintain a sense of connection with China, even if they had never been there before (291). However, it took him until he was an adult to understand what China really meant to him. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
Um, I'm with Amanda. Based on the title of the section, I was expecting something completely different. I mean, it was an interesting chapter and the involvement in the war was definitely something interesting to learn about, but the book was confusing enough as it is. I didn't really need to be thrown off by another chapter. -Kelly W.</div>Mdill1cphttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_8_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 8 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-03-12T01:54:39Z<p>Mdill1cp: </p>
<hr />
<div>== A bit from Tuesday ==<br />
<br />
So, I was thinking in class on Tuesday with the small discussion bit on horror films. A thought occurred to me and I thought it better to place it in the wiki. Until recently in horror films, everyone who had sex in the film died. Most of the sexual relationships between partners were unmarried teenage couples. In a sense, sex outside of marriage still is viewed as sinful and wrong, and led to death. I thought it was interesting because only now are movies getting away from that stereotype. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
<br />
== The Welcome Child ==<br />
<br />
I found Cowan's comment on how a marriage is not complete nor is a life without having a child. He says, "A married life without children is an unlovable and unsatisfactory life." Men and women have to rear a child to have any self worth in the world. While I don't necessarily agree with his comment, I do feel that raising a child is a noteworthy and important task. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
The majority of this chapter talked about the arguments for and against birth control. It was interesting to read about all the different reasons why people were for or against it. Also, the main sources used to promote birth control were written by John Humphrey Noyes of the Oneidas. I'm not sure how representative that is of the 19th century views for birth control because the Oneidas did not have the biggest following and had very controversial ideas of "complex marriages". -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
I felt this chapter talked a lot about over crowding and over population. When I was reading it I was wondering, was the discussion of sterilization, restraint and birth control really aimed at middle to upper class families? Walters has successfully separated the content from the context in this book, but there were other reasons for population increases. Take immigration, for example. "Excessive child-breaing" was not the only reason the population grew. Perhaps the authors were referring to other classes and people, whose children were less desirable members of society. So what does that mean about who might read these? Did immigrants buy into this stuff? Or were these arguments just code for trying to clean up society?--Amanda<br />
<br />
== Perfecting The Race ==<br />
I found it very interesting how while many Victorian writers felt that sex was something that shouldn't be talked about and was not something to overly participate in, it was also a good thing. Control over sex was a way to make sure that the worthy humans could reproduce while those considered unworthy could not. Based upon the previous readings I was somewhat surprised to see that Kellogg was part of the eugenics movement. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I was very surprised by the eugenics promoted by Victorian men. The idea that "superior varieties of human beings" (150) could be made through higher reproduction amongst the upper class clearly indicates class bias and prejudice, especially against immigrants. Really, they are portraying sex as the duty of these so-called "superior" men and women. I also thought it was interesting that they tied God and religion into the idea that all mean and women are not equal and were never meant to be equal. Rather, they believed that God intended for man to use his sexual powers to produce a superior group of human beings. This leads me to wonder how many Victorians agreed with this way of thinking. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
==Some Nineteenth Century Lives== <br />
<br />
I thought this chapter with the "real life" experiences was ridiculous. I don't know how accurate these stories are, but they seem like very extreme experiences. I feel like adding these stories into the advice manuals made these illnesses appear more real to the readers and was a type of scare tactic to get people to be sexually moral. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
== Epilogue ==<br />
This section just confused me, maybe I read it wrong, but the books seemed to rant on about sex, masturbation, and birth control and then BAM! women's rights in the epilogue. Shouldn't there have been some mention of that elsewhere in the book? This is a very confusing and annoying book.... --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
<br />
== Rotundo: Chapter 6 ==<br />
<br />
I know this is from a book titled ''American Manhood'', so I do understand that it is supposed to be about males. However, this irks me from earlier centuries and still irks me today. There is a sexual double standard that exists that pisses me off. Males get encouraged and praised for having sexual relations with multiple women, it gets it encouraged and they don't get derogatory names for doing so. They get called player and man-whore is a phrase that I've seen guys only take with pride and usually given to them with pride. However, women can't have sexual relations like men do. If women have sex with lots of guys she gets called whore, slut, hoe, prostitute, etc... The double standard is so annoying! I'm not saying men and women should go around and have sex with everything that walks and everything be all hunky dorey, I'm just annoyed with the double standards that have been in place for centuries and are still in place today. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I also found the double standard irritating. Women were expected to be so much more moral and proper than men were and quite frequently they ended up with a ruined reputation for some minor action. I thought that some of that was interesting, however, especially in the section on courtship. Rotundo makes some interesting comments on women who were considered coquettes and the fact that king of behavior might be their only way to grasp control in the situation and they were seen as manipulative or vain and flighty. -Lacey<br />
<br />
As mentioned above the double standard between sexual behaviors of men and women was interesting, but what I found particularly interesting was the class double standard. As we discussed briefly in class on Tuesday, Dr. Blackwell alluded to a double standard based upon prostitution due to class and once again we see this. We see this double standard with prostitution, but also with lower class girls. I think it was very interesting that it was not deemed as impure to have sexual relations with a lower class girl. It was best summed up with the statement, “sex and nice girls should have nothing to do with each other.” – Mary Beth<br />
<br />
Also in the courtship section of the chapter Rotundo talks about the fact that men responded to their beloveds' letters more quickly than women did to their men. I thought this was really funny because the woman that I am writing my paper was almost twice as prolific than her husband in letter writing. This might be that her letters to him survived better than his, or any number of other reasons, but the fact that Edith appears to be an outlier made me giggle. -Lacey<br />
<br />
Lacey has already mentioned the lengthy and more frequent love letters written by men which I also thought was interesting. I was really surprised that these love letters were the typical behavior of men. Since marriage had such a strong emphasis on manhood I would think expressing such emotions, especially in long love letters would be seen as more feminine. I can understand the eagerness of men to get married, but I would think it would be deemed by society as more appropriate for them to express it in their eagerness to find jobs or pressure women to shorter engagements, not in love letters. – Mary Beth <br />
<br />
I thought that is was a very interesting article. The article really portrayed courting as a power struggle between men and women, something which I had never considered before. What surprised me in reading this article was the length of some of the courtships. I understand that men were expected to be capable of financially caring for their wives before they could get married but I can imagine how frustrating it would be to find the right person and wait three and four and five years to marry them. --Sarah Gardner</div>Mdill1cphttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_8_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 8 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-03-10T02:09:14Z<p>Mdill1cp: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching Ideas ==<br />
<br />
So far I do like this read, but I do have one problem with it. I know its just the style or whatever, but the Preface and Intro had a lot of the author and her ideas and whatnot, I loved the story that led to the creation of this work.... and the rest of the chapters are mostly 'here read the source yourself and have very little comment and input from me' and on top of it at first it was hard to distinguish who was the author and what wasn't because the preface and intro had the author's speech in regular print whereas in the chapter the author's speech in italicized... its rather confusing and annoying. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
<br />
I wasn't really sure where to put this because it was mentioned in a few of the chapters, the whole eating thing. I have my own theory on some of their theories, like the guy who said that sexual desires decreased/desisted when a person eats only bread and water. Well, duh. The body is having a hard time subsisting on the mediocre food its getting and, at least with other critters and animals, if the body isn't getting enough nutrients they don't have the desire to mate and reproduce. Well, in the long run we'd have those same instincts, so if our bodies don't have enough nutrients, it would be then possible for our desire to go down because we don't have the nutrients. That, or because we're still hungry and we may think of survival before pleasure >^.^< Just a thought and a rant. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
My opinion of this half of the book is that it's interesting but complete ludicrous. It tells us something (I'm not sure what) that people believed this stuff, wrote about it, read it, and perhaps took some of it to heart. But there was no scientific proof or logical reason for most of the advice given, and I have a hard time understanding the rationale of the time period.--Amanda<br />
<br />
My feelings on this book have been interesting. I have to say this has been the most entertaining book. I have been sharing a couple passages with people and I even laugh out loud at some points. I agree with Amanda that some of this seems ludicrous to us now, but people really believed it then, just like we really believe that eating blueberries will prevent cancer. - Celia<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
I am very glad for the preparation the introduction of this text provides. I felt as if I was stepping into a world that was completely alien to what we see today, that is not to say that I don't see the relation to the modern sense of American modesty and taboo. But they go to such great lengths to have a conversation about they are so hesitant about that they talk in circles around the simplest of concepts. I feel very much akin to Frederick Marryat's take on American prudery. -Lacey<br />
<br />
== Chapter 1 ==<br />
<br />
== Chapter 2 ==<br />
One of the things I found particularly interesting about Ch. 2 was the incorporation of science, specifically medicine, into the understanding of the damaging effects of “sexual excess.” I don’t think any of us were surprised by the relationship between inappropriate sexual acts and sin, but I found the incorporation of science to be very interesting. By listing physical ailments and symptoms as well as using empirical evidence (even if it is cited as weak by Walters) plus the role of physicians, advice manual writers were able to bring a justification to their concerns about sexual excess. I think by giving examples of physical ailments associated with this type of sexual deviance they were not only further pointing out the damages to the person, but even giving physical proof of the sin within these people. Even phrenologists used physical anatomy to attempt to better understand sexual excess, pointing to a larger desire for physical, scientific evidence of sexual deviance. –Mary Beth <br />
<br />
== Chapter 3 ==<br />
<br />
This chapter was the first mention of family. The book discussed the incorporation of nurses and the replacement of mothers. Apparently the advice of the time was to not use them if possible, but if necessary, to watch them very closely. Then Walters goes on to explain how Dr. Kellogg thought sexual corruption was a hereditary trait through "libidinous blood" (p. 52). I found the parts about how masturbation was a main cause of insanity interesting. And, I had no idea about corsets being used to prevent blood from "overloading sexual organs" (58). In terms of the advice about what to eat and not to eat, I was wondering what the heck people could eat. It seems as though safe diets must have consisted of primarily milk. -Amanda<br />
<br />
Chapter 3, entitled "The Path Downward" shows many factors in the corruption of society from certain points of view. It doesn't take the reader long to realize that many of these advise columns, or lectures or treatises were written by men and women from a certain social class with certain idealized ideas about what American sexuality should be. In what ways does Walters demonstrate the middle-class idea that certain classes contributed to the downfall of the nation's youth? - Celia<br />
<br />
I thought it was very interesting that nurses were blamed for the sexual behavior of their charges. While the advice manuals in no way vindicated parents from being responsible for their children, it seems clear that it was the influence of nurses and maids of the poorer classes who were to blame for initially polluting upper and middle class children. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
== Chapter 4 ==<br />
<br />
Just wanted to point out that Walters talks about women& hysterics on page 72. The hysterical woman has been recurrent throughout the periods and topics we've covered so far. --Amanda<br />
<br />
In his introduction Walters points out that there is underrepresentation of women in sex advice columns in the nineteenth century, which is apparently true by the numbers of sources in this book by men and the number of sources by women. Walters states that women were considered less sexual than men, so there was very little informtion on women's sexuality to write on. However, in chapter four the reader learns about the role of women regarding sexuality- at least mostly from men's point of view. How did some of these male writers view women and their sensuality? - Celia<br />
<br />
Women were viewed in a variety of ways by male writers. For example, Beecher wrote, indirectly, about male fears of female seduction. Sanger wrote about women as prostitutes, a topic which seemed to fascinate many of the male writers. I suppose this was largely due to the fact that prostitution was an anomaly to men who viewed women as virtuous creatures with little to no sexual drive. I also have to wonder as to the accuracy of Sanger's survey of prostitutes. How many of them would have been inclined to tell the truth or to speak with him and his investigators at all? --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
== Chapter 5 ==<br />
<br />
== Chapter 6 ==<br />
<br />
I thought that Evrie's discussion of slaves really illustrated how subhuman some individuals believed black slaves to be. His descriptions make them appear no better then animals and his accusations are untrue. For example, as we discussed in class, slaves did attempt to have stable families and were negatively impacted and hurt by separation from those they loved. However, it is by labeling them as incapable of sustaining the same relations as whites that makes slavery permissible to him and other pro-slavery authors. The capability to understand and participate in marriage and family then, were symbols of civilization and superiority and, at least to some, distinguished black from white in Victorian America. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
== Chapter 7 ==</div>Mdill1cphttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_7_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 7 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-02-25T16:14:12Z<p>Mdill1cp: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Chapter 5 ==<br />
<br />
In this chapter, we once again see the role of religion in the South after the Civil War. While, it appears to be less pronounced than in other points of this class, it is still an important factor in these Southern men and women’s lives. In my Religion in America class we just finished discussing the role of religion during the Civil War. My professor emphasized that both sides still viewed the outcomes as the will of God, which we can see in this chapter. Confederates were forced to submit to the will of God and re-evaluate their faithfulness to God, thus crediting their loss not as God being against them, but as a reflection of their lack of submission and faithfulness. We see in the case of the Thomas family, the struggle Southern families faced when trying to understand religion in the context of such great losses. – Mary Beth <br />
<br />
== Chapter 6 ==<br />
<br />
In this chapter, we see another form of “social mothering.” Women were able to appropriately and publicly participate in the memorials of Confederate soldiers. We see women tending to the graves and creating associations specifically responsible for the creation and upkeep of memorials to confederate soldiers. I found it particularly interesting the point Whites made that it was easier for women to homogenize deceased soldiers than the actual soldiers they cared for. We see again the extension of “social mothering” with the example of the woman who placed a wreath on the grave of a boy whose mother could not visit, giving the impression that women felt this need and this desire to care for all the deceased soldiers because they knew these men were someone’s father, brother, son, or uncle. – Mary Beth</div>Mdill1cphttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_7_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 7 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-02-25T16:13:03Z<p>Mdill1cp: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== '''Chapter 5''' ==<br />
<br />
In this chapter, we once again see the role of religion in the South after the Civil War. While, it appears to be less pronounced than in other points of this class, it is still an important factor in these Southern men and women’s lives. In my Religion in America class we just finished discussing the role of religion during the Civil War. My professor emphasized that both sides still viewed the outcomes as the will of God, which we can see in this chapter. Confederates were forced to submit to the will of God and re-evaluate their faithfulness to God, thus crediting their loss not as God being against them, but as a reflection of their lack of submission and faithfulness. We see in the case of the Thomas family, the struggle Southern families faced when trying to understand religion in the context of such great losses. – Mary Beth <br />
<br />
<br />
== '''Chapter 6''' ==<br />
<br />
In this chapter, we see another form of “social mothering.” Women were able to appropriately and publicly participate in the memorials of Confederate soldiers. We see women tending to the graves and creating associations specifically responsible for the creation and upkeep of memorials to confederate soldiers. I found it particularly interesting the point Whites made that it was easier for women to homogenize deceased soldiers than the actual soldiers they cared for. We see again the extension of “social mothering” with the example of the woman who placed a wreath on the grave of a boy whose mother could not visit, giving the impression that women felt this need and this desire to care for all the deceased soldiers because they knew these men were someone’s father, brother, son, or uncle. – Mary Beth</div>Mdill1cphttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_7_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 7 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-02-25T16:12:41Z<p>Mdill1cp: New page: '''Chapter 5''' In this chapter, we once again see the role of religion in the South after the Civil War. While, it appears to be less pronounced than in other points of this class, it is ...</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Chapter 5'''<br />
In this chapter, we once again see the role of religion in the South after the Civil War. While, it appears to be less pronounced than in other points of this class, it is still an important factor in these Southern men and women’s lives. In my Religion in America class we just finished discussing the role of religion during the Civil War. My professor emphasized that both sides still viewed the outcomes as the will of God, which we can see in this chapter. Confederates were forced to submit to the will of God and re-evaluate their faithfulness to God, thus crediting their loss not as God being against them, but as a reflection of their lack of submission and faithfulness. We see in the case of the Thomas family, the struggle Southern families faced when trying to understand religion in the context of such great losses. – Mary Beth <br />
<br />
'''Chapter 6'''<br />
In this chapter, we see another form of “social mothering.” Women were able to appropriately and publicly participate in the memorials of Confederate soldiers. We see women tending to the graves and creating associations specifically responsible for the creation and upkeep of memorials to confederate soldiers. I found it particularly interesting the point Whites made that it was easier for women to homogenize deceased soldiers than the actual soldiers they cared for. We see again the extension of “social mothering” with the example of the woman who placed a wreath on the grave of a boy whose mother could not visit, giving the impression that women felt this need and this desire to care for all the deceased soldiers because they knew these men were someone’s father, brother, son, or uncle. – Mary Beth</div>Mdill1cphttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_7_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 7 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-02-24T02:32:35Z<p>Mdill1cp: </p>
<hr />
<div>== The Book in General ==<br />
<br />
So I know, I tend to gripe and complain about something in each reading we do. However, I feel its part of the discussion of the work. So this time, my complaint is that the book is very repetitive. I feel like I'm reading the same thing over and over. I guess that's the point though, to show how Confederate white men were made to feel a little less masculine here and a little less there. And how women entered into the public sphere here and there, and then how the emergence of free blacks blurred the Confederate white man mansculinity head of household line even more. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I have to admit, it was kind of interesting to have Mrs. Thomas's journal thoughts in the Whites's work. I say this because I read part of her journal for another class and it was nice to see some familiarity in the work. It took a while to remember why it was familiar until I was cleaning up the house earlier today and found a piece of paper being used as a bookmark in the phone book and it was the cover page to the journal exert of Mrs. Thomas's journal that I had read in a previous class. I have no idea where the rest went, probably in the recycling bin, but it was like a light being switched on moment. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
One of the main themes I noticed throughout the first four chapters was the reliance on religion. The women realize they can not control what is going on in the front and have to rely on their faith to get them through it. Confederate women also believe that God will bring them justice against the Yankees, even when the Confederates are losing. It was interesting to see how much their faith was a part of their life. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
I also noticed the women’s reliance on religion. Perhaps they developed this reliance in the pre-war years. Given the male-dominated society they belonged to, a women's relationship with God may have been one of the only things they had control over. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
<br />
Sorry, had to add another heading because I wanted to make a comment about the Introduction. Whites line about the "great southern slaveholding planters" really struck me because it is something that is notable in the divisions of American history. In the normal scope of conversation we talk about Washington, Jefferson and Madison as these great men who did great things for our country and yet we ignore, for the most part, the fact that they participated in an institution that we find morally repugnant. All of these other slaveholders are viewed as distasteful because a majority of what we know about them is that they were planters and slaveholders. Perhaps this lack of knowledge about these men leads us to make many of the assumptions that the author enumerates about the reasons we think that the South made the decision to secede from the Union. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I found the definition of “free manhood” particularly interesting in Whites’ introduction. The idea that both Northern and Southern men believed they were defending “free manhood” points directly to how heavily masculinity was tied to the Civil War. Northerners were arguing that Southerners undermined the notion of free manhood by the enslavement of black men, while Southerners argued that to defend slave owning men was only the beginning of truly understanding their defense of an entire system of patriarchal leadership and control. – Mary Beth<br />
<br />
==Chapter 1==<br />
<br />
I found it incredibly fascinating the loyalty and devotion these women had to their husbands. I still find it hard really understand a world where women did not have even the right to decide what use their own body would be put to. These women had none of that choice that we have today, and some of them knew that their husbands were unfaithful to them with their slaves. And yet, they were almost entirely supportive of their husbands going off to war to fight for their independence and seemed to have genuinely missed their prescence. They wrote all of these shortcomings off as being a part of a man's perogative. There is no way on earth I would stand for any of it besides the going off to war in most cases. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I agree it is amazing, I don't think I could have the same devotion and know that my husband was unfaithful to me. Most of these woman did not know anything different, they had no choice to miss they life they had prior to the war since that was all they knew to be good in the world. When their men left they missed the life where they were supposed to be taken care of, where there husbands were there to protect them. Yet at the same time I can imagine that most of these women were proud of their men. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I found Whites’ emphasis on the threat of northern invasion on Southern masculinity and “liberty” to be particularly interesting. As one writer put it, “the forcible denial of the South’s right to regional autonomy would lead directly to reducing the free southern man to a position lower than the lowest member of the southern social order, the black slave.” White goes on to pose the significance of this northern threat to southern, non-slaving holding whites to argue that such a threat not only challenged slavery, but all male households, thus creating a unity amongst southern men against northern threat. I think it was extremely important for White to mention non-slave holding men in order to emphasize that the threat from the north was not only about slavery, but about an entire system of patriarchy. – Mary Beth <br />
<br />
==Chapter 2==<br />
I think one of the most interesting culture shifts of the Civil War is the focus from Northern or Southern survival in terms of what they produce economically to a focus on how much one can produce to aid the war effort. Especially in the South, I think that this shift to internal mobilization had a large impact on the way the culture progressed as the war dragged on. Men of influence could no longer focus on making money, plantation owners and small farm owners were off fighting and women were now, not only running farms and plantations, but they were involved in wartime production as well. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
==Chapter 3== <br />
<br />
I found it interesting that although all these women now had the power to be the head of the household while their husband was fighting, they chose to remain subordinate to men. It was almost like they couldn't imagine living any other way. While some women jumped at the opportunity to become independent, most just criticized the men who stayed behind, or "town fathers", for not taking care of them like their husbands did. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
Why change the only life you know? It was very difficult for these women to change their way of thinking and take over as head of the household. It was almost easier to just remain subordinate. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
Yes, it must have been hard for the women and for everyone in general to imagine a life in which women were not subordinate. It would have been like speaking a new language. It is always easier to revert back to your first language. The dominance of men was the foundation for everything in their society. The family, the community, their economy, everything functioned around this idea. Those women given more independence didn’t recognize this as an opportunity; it stood against everything they had known their entire life. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
==Chapter 4==</div>Mdill1cphttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_6_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 6 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-02-19T02:40:41Z<p>Mdill1cp: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching Topics ==<br />
<br />
After reading last week's monograph and this week's monograph, I have a curiosity question. In my Latin America studies class, there were court cases where white men tried to seduce and have sex with black male slaves. Is there any evidence that white men tried/did have sex with black men (free or slave)? And, is there any evidence for the white female and black female (free or slave)? I'm not trying to be gross, I'm just wondering if it also happened in America. I'm not sure if this is something people would have brought to court in America because not only would it be sex across the color line, but also homosexual which was just as bad if not worse. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Chapter 4 ==<br />
<br />
During Tuesday's class, we discussed what we thought white women might do if their husbands had extramarital sex (fancy word for cheating if you ask me...). Well, on page 134, Rothman discussed this, if ever so briefly, and I quote, "White women responded to the extramarital affairs of their spouses with a combination of resignation, denial, and displaced hostility and vidictiveness toward their slaves." I figured since we talked about it, I'd go ahead and put it up on the wiki. Also, later on in the reading it discussed how some women filed for divorced based on their husbands 'extramarital sex,' but they had to also prove that the reason their husband was having these affairs was not because she was not pious, submissive, etc.. I just thought that was interesting in its own way. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
One thing I found interesting was the reason behind sexual violence. "Interracial sexual abuse reminded enslaved black women that their bodies were never their own. It placed black men on notice that their families were insignificant and their pretenses to protecting their wives, daughters, mothers, and sisters from harm ultimately futile." (134) White men raped their slave women to prove their power. In response to Ashley, their wives wanted to prove their power over their slaves, and that it didn't matter what their husbands were doing. These women wanted to make sure their slaves did not look at them differently just because of their husband's indiscretions. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
It seems to me that there was a little bit of irony in this chapter. It discusses at the beginning of the chapter that although the state of Virginia demanded that death sentence be placed on a slave who murdered a white or black male or female. Rothman then goes on to state that Virginia communities did not always agree with that sort of punishment without all the evidence and particular circumstances considered. After reading the cases of the chapter, it appears to me that the majority of cases went straight to the death penalty, especially in Manuel's case. Therefore, the argument should be that a male slave who acted alone in murdering a white male, regardless of the crime the white male committed, the black slave would be on a one way street to the gallows. --Joe C.<br />
<br />
Rothman certainly had more sources for this chapter and made his points well. The cases were fascinating but I was frankly shocked by some of the circumstances (Ben, the wife and Gooding come to mind). And actually, I have to disagree with Joe. While some slaves such as Manuel and Henry were hanged, many were acquitted or the sentence was lessened to "transportation." I was really surprised by this. This chapter exposed many facets of white&black relations that are not usually taught. I had no idea the extent to which whites tried and often succeeded in intervening on the behalf of slaves. Even the fact that some slaves had attorneys and their cases were brought into courts surprised me. After reading this chapter, I felt that slave women had one choice in life: between rape or death.--Amanda<br />
<br />
In reading this chapter, I was struck by how much personal relationships and situations influenced the sentences of slaves accused of murdering white men. Like Amanda, I did not expect to read that white men often petitioned the governor on the behalf of a slave. Granted, as Rothman discusses, slaves were viewed as "valuable" and so many men wanted to save them for work, yet many of the petitioners were neighbors who seem to legitimately have had some feeling for the victims. I also was unaware of the frequency with which slaves were able to testify in court. Ultimately though, this chapter really illustrated the social hierarchy to me. That white men would stand up for a black man who clearly raped a white woman, because she was poor, really surprised me and shows that gender and class were, at least occasionally, as important as race in court cases and public opinion. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I agree with Amanda. When I first started to read this chapter, I thought it would be all about black slaves receiving the death penalty for killing white people. But I was surprised at the number of sentences that were not death penalties. I was also surprised that when black men had sex with white women of sordid reputation, no male protection or were poor, they (the slaves) often gained the sympathy of white men. This is mostly because the black slaves were considered more valuable and less contemptible to society. This and, as Amanda wrote above, some of the cases where white men were lenient towards blacks were surprising. - Celia<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Joe here. As Joe points out the state of Virginia demanded that death sentence be placed on a slave who murdered a white or black male or female yet there are contradictions in terms of how/if/what punishment was carried out. However, Sarah too raises a very important point about value. -Stephen<br />
<br />
== Chapter 5 ==<br />
<br />
Reading through the chapter, a question kept running through my mind. Did men or women ever lie about interracial adultery, or was it always proven to be the case that the offending party was in fact sleeping with someone that was not only not the husband/wife, but of a different race? It just seems to me like this is a claim that could just be thrown out there no matter what and because of the scandal attached, there wouldn't be much in the way of defense for the offending party. -Cash<br />
<br />
To answer Cash's first question, I would say of course they lied. The only proof of adultery only came from being caught in the act, or having a child. In southern American society, especially within the legal constructs of Virginia, males were the more convincing because they were only guilty if they were caught in the act. Both scenarios for proof of adulterous activity were possible for women and in a gender polarized society, white males generally had the upper hand and were more convincing. I laughed after reading on page 175 at the list of men from Nansemond County that had told the legislature they acted responsibly. Although it is possible, the white slave owning males' word was their only proof of innocence. --Joe C.<br />
<br />
While I think we are inclined to speculate that people lied about interracial marriages (and it is definitely possible that it did happen) I think we need to keep in mind the shame associated with making a public claim. Rotham goes to great length to describe the shame that both men and women felt. If a man was cheating it was not only embarrassing to the man, but in some way the woman was unable to fulfill her role as a proper women, including sexually pleasing the man. If a woman was cheating it was embarrassing for her, but even more embarrassing for a man who had loss control of his wife, particularly her sexual life, which attacked not only his role as husband, but his masculinity. While it is an interesting point to consider I think we must remember the public shame associated with all of these accusations. – Mary Beth<br />
<br />
I think it's interesting that Rothman explained that whites felt it wasn't white supremacy on the line, but rather the sanctity of marriage. Clearly just as Stevenson said it was much easier for men to get divorces. I am really perplexed by the case of Sarah and Richard Hall on p. 178-179. Why the heck did Sarah get married if she was already involved with a black man? I thought perhaps it was about property and legal status, but did she just expect to keep having the black man's children and live with her husband? What ''was'' she thinking?!--Amanda<br />
<br />
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Chapter 4 Rothman was talking about how when white men were having sex with black women it was more a power thing, something to emasculate the black male slaves. But in Chapter 5, when white women had sex with black men it was a violation of their marriage vows. I am not a fan of either man or wife cheating, but I thought that this situation was very off balanced. Anyone else agree? -Celia<br />
<br />
== Chapter 6 ==<br />
<br />
I was amazed that there was 61 different ways to describe the skin tone of blacks. I also found it sad that even if someone was legally white as well as looked white, the community did not always accept the fact that they were white. The most important the community viewed after physical and legal conditions was who the person associated with. Community standing was probably the most significant factor when determining a persons whiteness. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I think Rothman's point about racial ambiguity was well argued. None of the cases were clear cut and although ancestry was the legal determining factor, physical characteristics often played a role as well.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I agree with Amanda and Kellye. The dicatomy for charaterizing slaves was intresting, but also valueable in seeking a better understanding of the legal factors of the day. - Stephen<br />
<br />
== Epilogue ==</div>Mdill1cphttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_6_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 6 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-02-17T02:48:35Z<p>Mdill1cp: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching Topics ==<br />
<br />
I do not know if this is a good topic for the wiki... but I have to admit, I do not like this book. I'm not sure why though, it just seemed really dry and boring to me. I guess because I felt like, especially in the first chapter, that it was a "oh look at whose having sex with who and are they cheating in the celebrity world." --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I have to say that I disagree with Ashley, I thought the book was very interesting. Yeah, the first chapter read kind of like a tabloid, but it was interesting to see how far-reaching the interracial relations went. Look at that crazy genealogy in the interlude. Then you also get to see how shortsighted and contradictory these people really were. I find it incredibly fascinating. -Lacey<br />
<br />
This week is supposed to be interracial sex and all that jazz... however, with my own view points I have problems with the whole "Those two people can't be together and have a family because of the color of their skin." So... articles and monographs that touch of the subject usually make me moody, upset, or annoyed. I know its the difference in opinions of people then and now, but why couldn't people just leave others alone? If you don't like what 2 other people are doing, don't look at them. If people did like Mrs. White Jane Doe having sex with Mr. Black Joe Smith, then don't pay attention to them. Let them live their lives and ignore them. If they want to have a kid, who cares. The people in the 1800s needed to be honest with themselves, people were already having sex 'across the color line,' but no one seemed to care much until blacks were free, honestly, does it matter that the blacks were free? Oy.... --Ashely Wilkins<br />
<br />
<br />
I find it strange that it was not necessarily frowned upon for people to have interracial relationships before the civil war in Virginia. I feel as if society has always looked down, to some degree, on interracial relationships, particularly in the south. When did this shift occur, from a don’t ask don’t tell view, to a viewpoint that clearly frowned upon interracial relationships? -Andrew B<br />
<br />
I too was very surprised. I have grown up in VA and have almost always felt that it was an overarching view that interracial relationships were frowned upon, especially in southern VA. At the same time, I think that in many parts of VA you would be able to get away with an interracial marriage if there was enough else going on that people were mainly only concerned about themselves. -- Kellye S<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Andrew and Kellye. I was a bit confused when I was reading this about the fact that it was more okay before the Civil War? What was the difference or change in attuitudes caused by? - Stephen<br />
<br />
I am just venturing a guess, but perhaps it has to to with power. Having sex with a black female slave gave a white man a sense of power, either over the woman herself or over her loved ones. It may have just been an expected role of a white slave-holder. After the emancipation proclamation, the black people were no longer under direct control of the whites. Sexual relations between a black person and a white person was no longer primarily about power, but about something that was unthinkable... intimacy and love. - Celia<br />
<br />
== Chapter 1 - Tom and Sally ==<br />
<br />
The relationship between Thomas Jefferson and James Callender is what interested me the most. I guess this was just my naive "The Founding Fathers are Gods" education but I didn't realize how manipulative Thomas Jefferson was. I found it kind of funny, actually (and I know this probably makes me a horrible person) that as soon as Jefferson won the presidential election he tossed Callender to the side. Poor guy worked so hard to bash the other party for Jefferson and their relationship ends instantly. However, I am not surprised that Callender died by falling into a river drunk causing him to drown. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
Kelly, I totally agree with you. I felt much of the same way. It seems to me that a lot of people do what Jefferson did, that is cast someone aside that is no longer of value to them. Callender was really there just to meet Jefferson's needs. -- Kellye S<br />
<br />
I have read so many accounts and so many interpretations of the Thomas Jefferson / Sally Hemings saga that I could barely make it through chapter 1. One thing, however, did stick out to me. I felt as if Rothman was discounting the fact that Jefferson was a racist slave owner. I felt as if Rothman gave Jefferson too much credit, as if… “yea he owns slaves, but, he was a founding father, so it is OK.” -Andrew B<br />
<br />
Andrew, I feel this is similar to what we were discussing in class. We have a tendency to find behavior which as a whole we find wrong, somehow less wrong in considering the founders. I feel that Rothman continues this trend to an extent regardign Hemings, but not regarding Callender. Sexism?<br />
<br />
I thought the negotiation powers that Sally had while in France were very interesting. It seemed like slaves in that position really had no choice but to believe their masters would keep their word. In France, she had very little opportunity and was away from their families and if she went to Virginia she could stay with her family and have some more freedoms. Was this going to France thing a common occurrence or was this just a Thomas Jefferson/wealthy elite thing? -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
As in all eras, there is a proper and improper way to do things. It was not considered improper to have interracial relationships; however, it was if you publically flaunted it. Jefferson's relationship with Sally wasn't considered imporper because he didn't publically acknwledge it, even though many knew about it. However, Callender was considered more dishonorable for publicizng a gentleman's sexual relationship with his slave. Does anyone think that reactions have changed since then on people's sexual behavior and the people who expose them? - Celia<br />
<br />
== Chapter 2 - David and Nancy ==<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that the marriage of Issac and West was not as socially unacceptable because Issac was a Jew. White Protestants viewed Jews as inferior and therefore could somewhat justify the black/white relationship. It wasn’t one of “them” who was having sexual relations with a black woman. They would really look for anything to try and not put a blemish on the supreme white society. - Kari W. <br />
<br />
I also found it very interesting that somehow David’s faith prevented him from being held to such a high standard of morality. It was almost as though since he was Jewish that he could not be technically held to the same Christian standards, yet he could still be held to society’s standards, which touches upon a major idea of the role of community. We discussed last week the role of community in influencing social interactions between blacks and whites in Stevenson’s work and we see that again this week looking at how the law and how society determined race, social status, and interactions between the two. – Mary Beth <br />
<br />
== Chapter 3 - Brothels and Prostitution ==<br />
Did anyone else catch that most of the women being hauled into court for prostitution were generally being charged with anything but that? -Lacey<br />
<br />
Lacey, I think this was an issue of what prostitution brought to Richmond's economy. If you start prosecuting one of the city's main economic draws, then the tourism, if you will, is going to suffer. By punishing "around" the actual crime, you can bring it down to a point where people may stop complaining for a while, but it will still bring people to the city. You know, it's almost like a tourism pamphlet. "RICHMOND! COME FOR THE WOMEN, STAY FOR THE SEAFOOD." -Cash</div>Mdill1cphttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_5_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 5 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-02-12T02:10:04Z<p>Mdill1cp: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Slave Family ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I always knew it happened, but it was still sad to read about the cases where slaves would marry (with or without permission from their 'masters') and then one of the spouses be sold off, or their children get sold off. Compared to the whites, slave family was vastly different, especially the most households being headed by a female member. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Stevenson spends quite some time discussing the matrifocal family. I found it particularly interesting the link between matrifocal structured families and Virginia law as well as a reference to family structures back in Africa. While I can see how the law dictating the status of a child via the mother would create a matrifocally structured family, I struggle to understand how slaves might have preferred this family structure (p.223). While it may have been familiar it was certainly not ideal and I think it is a stretch to make such a claim that since matrifocally structured families were popular in West Africa that families might even prefer this set up in Virginia. Granted, Stevenson has not painted the picture of stability for those families that were able or willing to have nuclear families, but matrifocal families placed such a burden of protection and sole caretaker on the woman, that it seems far from a preference for matrifocal families, but more likely a necessity of the situation. – Mary Beth <br />
<br />
== Slave Children ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In some ways, the slave children can be compared to the children of the slums in the NY. Only sorta mind you. The comparison is that they both had to start working from a really early age. I know we didn't get an age for the kids in NY, but the slave children were working at the age of 6... which means some of them probably got beat for 'misbehaving' at the age of 6... or even younger. :-( --Ashley Wilkins</div>Mdill1cphttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_5_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 5 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-02-10T01:51:59Z<p>Mdill1cp: </p>
<hr />
<div>Please add comments under a current group or create a new group. Thanks<br />
<br />
<br />
== Preface ==<br />
<br />
Having read the first part of Stevenson's work, do you agree with her statement in the preface that Loudoun County was "a practical research site for this kind of study"? She states that the area is both "exceptional and typical" of the Upper South, do you agree with her, based on your reading thus far? (xi) Do you think the prevalence of prominent families in Loudoun impacts her interpretations of southern life or is it a fair representation of most communities? --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
== Henrietta ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I can't remember where I had read Henrietta's story before Chapter 4's ''Parenting'', but just like the first time I cringed at the story because of how horrifying it really is. I know parents taught their young to think of themselves as the superior race at that was the point of the example was to show some of the ways parents did this... however, I also cringe and feel a little sad for poor Henrietta. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
== NewlyWeds ==<br />
<br />
I found one part kind of interesting in that it hasn't changed all that much today either. When two people get married, well, two younger people, they can't always afford a separate residence from parents all that easily. Its seen more today I guess, where people can afford something, but not all the time, like family helps them get into a new place, or the parents wont agree to the marriage until there is an apartment or house of some sort that one of them has... What I'm getting at, is like in the 19th century, not all couples have a place to move in to right away without leaning on someone or something to help them out. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I think a distinction can be made between chapters two and three about newlyweds and that is based on their roles before and after they are married. For instance, in the second chapter, the male held the pressures of being financially stable and maintaining an occupation that would hold the newlyweds family. The worries of the female were more based on her family's dowry and how it would support the newlyweds after marriage. The third chapter reflects the matrimony between the two and reflects more of today's society's marriage celebrations (ex. wife's family pays for the wedding celebration). I found it interesting how Quakers culture had a way of toning down the actual ceremony to a formal dinner for fear that the celebration would stray towards "unbecoming behavior." (page 65) --Joe Cirenza<br />
<br />
== Courtship ==<br />
<br />
There were certain places that were considered acceptable for meeting and seeing potential suitors. After church, picnics and parent's parlors were the most frequent places. Long relationships were seen as the most appropriate. It was a way for parents to ensure the potential husband would be able to support their daughter. Letter writing was also an important part of this process. Why was letter etiquette so important? -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I thought the letter writing was very interesting as well. I thought that they were very interesting in the conventions they used to make their intentions known. From a modern perspective I find it baffling to follow such a strict guideline. I also spent last Friday skimming through letters, from later in the century mind, and I had a hard time realizing when the authors actually got married, they continued to write in much the same way. By turns it was incredibly stilted and others just as passionate. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I found it pretty clear through Stevenson's reading that the informal meeting between men and women of the lower classes was much more "meaningful" than the 'formal debuts' of the upper crust. Instead of the ballroom environment where women tried to impress the men of nobility status, the informal meeting between men and women after church, at Sunday socials and walks in the park characterize a much more liberating experience. Therefore the question that popped into my head was whether the meeting between men and women in the Southern lower classes between 1820-1840 took on much more meaningful life-long relationships than the courtship based on each other's class resume. --Joe Cirenza<br />
<br />
I think those meetings at Church, social events and walks in the parks were still based on a social resume. We need to take into consideration the idea of meeting in “appropriate” places. For wealthier individuals that meeting might take place at a debut or the parlor of a wealthy family, but a church yard would also be deemed an appropriate place to meet someone. It implies that both individuals are members of a church, members of the same denomination, and bodes well for the woman being pious and able to guide her family spiritually. Burr Harrison’s advice in the beginning of chapter 2 about choosing a woman who was “a good girl of good health, good temper, good habits and good appearance” and his final warning to choose wisely touches upon both the gender roles we have already discussed in class and the role of courtship in marriages. Even in the courtship stage men were expected to be responsible for the woman, financially responsible, and dominant in the relationship. Women were expected to be physically attractive, pure and submissive. Stevenson points to how damaging it could be if either the man or woman could not live up to these expectations. A man unable to financially support a woman was in some ways not masculine and could be denied approval to marry a girl. A woman unable to remain pure not only embarrassed herself but her entire family and the issue of pregnancy out of wedlock led to shame and the breaking apart of families. We see how societal expectations placed pressures on the family and the consequences of not living up to these expectations just like in marriage. – Mary Beth <br />
<br />
== Parenting ==<br />
<br />
The significance of raising a child and the process of weening was particularly important to these families. Women were raising their sons to be good citizens. The idea of self-control was a key part of this process. "All children, for example, had to learn basic physical, motor, and social skills- how to sit up, crawl, walk, talk, master their bowel and bladder functions, and how, what and when to eat- usually before their second birthday." page 109. This concept amazes me. Most children today are not potty trained before they are 2 let alone, know how, what and when to eat. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Divorce ==<br />
<br />
I thought that the chapter on divorce in the South was very interesting and different then I would have expected. I was struck by the concept that there were legally different levels of divorce, such as an absolute divorce versus ''a mensa et thora'', the divorce which ended marital relations but did not allow remarriage. The role money played in the divorce proceedings also surprised me as did the large amount of community involvement and input throughout the process. It was sad to me that some individuals who wanted to make their marriages work felt obliged to get a divorce because of community expectations and judgment. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
<br />
== Health and Illness ==<br />
<br />
Stevenson repeatedly mentions the role that health and illness played in the lives of Southerners, particularly families. While many of our readings have touched on infant and early childhood illness and disease, I felt that this work emphasized the presence of illness and disease throughout the lives of individuals. Stevenson portrayed most individuals as constantly concerned about their health and cleanliness, especially that of their children of all ages. For instance, parents would write to their children telling them not to study too hard if it would impair their health. Was anyone else struck by how much ones health governed the actions of a person? I also found it interesting that it was in discussing the health of their children that couples "found enormous common ground to build a companionable relationship" (107). --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I couldn't help but notice a similarity with past readings. This was particularly that men were allowed fits of distemper while women were thought to be troublesome and lazy if they complained of being overworked. One of the quotes that really struck me was when Robert Conrad wrote to his wife "The worst habit...which anyone can contract is the habit of being sick..."(77). He says it in such a matter of fact way that it seems being sick or melancholic is her fault. -Lacey</div>Mdill1cphttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_4_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 4 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-02-05T03:57:40Z<p>Mdill1cp: </p>
<hr />
<div>In Chapter 3 it talked about child labor in urban areas. I found this very interesting to look at the differences between child labor in the midwest like we talked about earlier and child labor in urban areas. This was very different from the urban family "ideal." Not only were children working in factories to help "earn their keep", but older children were raising younger children so their mothers could work longer hours. This once again proves that the ideal was never the norm. It's really interesting to read how different living situations affected family life. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading Chapter 8 about Domestic Service. It was interesting to read about the shift to immigrant workers and how women used immigrant workers to gain status in society. Previously, mistresses were used to help the lady of the house out with domestic chores. However, when issues of status came into effect, women started making their mistresses do everything. Also, it was more respected to have an immigrant worker do everything so the lady of the house could do things such as read and other leizure activities. It sounds like women are trying to gain some independence and superiority by ordering around their servants. --Kari W.<br />
<br />
'''Children''' It just struck home again as to how vital children were to the working class economy. They were errand-runners, scavengers, domestic workers and wage earners. Without them, many working class families would not have, or did not, survive in urban areas like New York. If the mother was able to stay home children were emissaries to the outside world, running errands to buy things, or scavenging them to save their family a few pennies, perhaps they were even sent outside the home to earn money for the family. And yet, the middle class and upper class residents of the city did not deign to see that without these children the working class family would have collapsed and their lives of relative comfort and security would not have been possible. Even working class families were not always able to appreciate their children because they did not meet their standards of production, thus the House of Refuge. There are an incredible number of dynamics that affect the lives of children in such a place, so many that it seems a number of them were lost to the people who were there for the experience. -Lacey<br />
<br />
'''Domestic Service.'''I have to say, that Chapter 8 gave me some new insights that I didn't know beforehand. One of the main things that was new to me was that even though there were so many new immigrants, and so much overcrowding, according to ''City of Women'', young women who worked in domestic service had enough leverage to negotiate their terms of service because demand for them was so high. This amazed me with the types of negotiations mentioned, and threats they used to get their way. Granted, I doubt it worked every time, but it must have been nice having some say in what they would and would not do. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
'''Children.''' The part of the excerpt from ''City of Women'' that discussed what the children's roles in family were actually kind of amazed me. I mean I always figured those old enough to walk around, but too young to do wage worked helped somewhere, I just never really thought of how. The scavenging that some of them did is just amazing. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
'''Scavenging''' The bits in chapter 3 about scavenging really blew me away. Throughout this entire section, I kept picturing The Kid from Dick Tracy (yes, The Kid in capital letters. I checked it on IMDB to be sure) before he gets rescued. I think we tend to take the immense responsibility of the parents for granted in these situations, assuming that the children involved would not have to contribute at the same level. It really brought home the idea of family as a community, and not just the parents bringing in supplies and income. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
'''Thesis''' What is the main argument of Stansell's work?<br />
<br />
'''Connection''' How do the sections of reading today connect to the understand we established yesterday between the diffrence between the ideal and the practical family system?<br />
<br />
'''Neighborhood''' The concept of the neighborhood and its effect on working class women was a concept in Chapter 3 that I found extremely important. The argument of Stansell is that working-class neighborhoods gave women leverage in their dealings with men and was the "court system" of urban working class society. Although there was no glorifying physical aspect of the neighborhood, the idea that '''aid to neighbors structured expectations of reciprocal help''' was the accepted tradition among the working class. -Joe C.<br />
<br />
'''Thesis''' I think the thesis of Stansell's work is that although the role and class structure of women in 19th century urban society varied, they all shared an accepted inequality to men. I think the argument also breaks down the class structure of all men and women in urban society and it describes how the lifestyle of working class women contrasted with those of the middle class. Clearly there was much more freedom for women living in the upper echelon of urban society, yet they were also still subjected to a defined and accepted role that was unequal to their male counterparts. -Joe C.<br />
<br />
'''Standards''' It seemed to me that the women in these chapters were dealing with standards they would never be able to achieve. How would it be possible for these women to scrounge for enough money to try and make ends meet for themselves and their families, while also finding it necessary to wear the CLOTHES to seem acceptable in society's eyes? I realize I've been saying this a lot lately in these wiki entries, but I dunno if I would even have it in me to get out of bed in the morning with that kind of pressure on me. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
'''Domestic Service''' I think chapter 8 touches on a very big transition for women and the family, namely the strong shift towards domestic service. With an influx of immigrants there was an abundance of domestic servants. As it became fashionable to have servants, the family experienced a change. I think that this is a big transition for the family because middle class families now included an extra member or members, the servants. This certainly changed the role of women in relation to household duties and child care. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
'''Children''' I am still amazed at how important the role of children was in working class families. I understand that they needed to work in order to help provide support for the family but it never really occurred to me to what extent or how hard they had to work to help their families. They had to put in just as much effort and work as their parents. I guess part of me didn't want to believe that these children would be put in that situation. It is kind of depressing, but it really shows how close it could pull the family together. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
'''Domestic Service''' I feel that if anything having domestic servants would cause families to grow apart. Now children could look to the domestic servant for care instead of their mother, creating a new motherly figure. As these women became closer to a family it changed to role of family and redefined it as well. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
'''Domestic Service''' I found the chapter on servants to be very interesting. Like Ashley, I was surprised by the amount of leverage immigrant Irish women had in setting their terms of service. Initially, I was also surprised that women would sometimes rather work in a factory then in a household. After reading all of the expectations a mistress had of her servants, in addition to being subjected to censure and moral judgment, I can see how being a servant, while a secure position, was often seen as less then desirable. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
'''Marriage''' The nature of marriage among poor urban laborers was rather surprising to me. While I never thought it was without problems, I was amazed at the level, frequency, and relative acceptance of marital abuse that occurred in these poor neighborhoods. The role that the neighborhood played in settling these domestic disputes also surprised me. It is sad that at a time when women of the middle-classes were able to forge a new image demanding more respect as symbols of morality, their poorer counterparts were being beaten by their often drunken spouses for poor housework or indulging in drink themselves. I thought the double standard between the genders was really expressed in the interactions and expectations of married couples. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
'''Religion''' Chapter Four's discussion of the role that evangelicalism played in the changing nature of philanthropy really shocked me. I believe that the warped nature of the middle classes charity to the poor is best expressed in the women's refusal to help a women who was 9 months pregnant, simply because she could not verify that she was married. People genuinely in need of help died because the did not live up to the moral criteria of those who were in a position to assist them. While I am sure that there were genuinely chartable men and women working to help the urban poor at that time, it seems that most reformers were looking to help a class of people which truly did not exist. Their good works appear to be aimed more at assuring themselves of their moral superiority then their Christian duty to lend a helping hand. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
'''Evangelicals:''' In Chapter 4 we see the emergence of an evangelical movement within the cities to eradicate sin and save souls. In particular the idea of home visits emerge, where evangelical Christians would visit homes of poor, working-class families to check in, evaluate the conditions, and possibly provide religious information or support in the form of Bibles or pamphlets. We also see that men in particular were interested in visiting the poor and eradicating sins such as drunkenness, sins that directly affected their workers in order to increase the work that poor men could complete. Home visits and evangelical outreach into the community was also a means for women to appropriately act charitable towards poor women. I found it particularly interesting that there were standards (i.e. character references and marriage certificates) that helped to limit which poor women were helped. We still see the bourgeois’ views of the role of women within the family and household as standards to which to measure all women. Childrearing, housekeeping, paid work done by women and other factors were issues scrutinized and in some cases used to eliminate potential women candidates for aid. – Mary Beth <br />
<br />
'''Necessity''' Although the ideal way of life for a women in this time period was to be the "stay-at-home, reclusive mother," sometimes that's not the way life worked. As we talked about some on Tuesday, the situation the family was in determined whether or not a family could uphold that bourgeois ideal. The absence of a husband or the husband's job in and of itself sometimes did not provide enough income for the mother to be able to stay at home and make sure the kids got to school and were doing their homework and that the meal was on the table, etc. Sometimes it was necessary for the woman of the house to not only uphold that expectation, but also work outside the home and also contribute to the familial income. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
'''Class Domination''' Stansell makes it clear that Middle-class women who worked for social reform were as conscious about class as they were about religion. It was the duty of the rich to take care of and convert the poor. They deepened the gap between the classes as they were attempting to care for those less fortunate. It was evident that they saw themselves as more virtuous then those of the working classes and therefore they were given this "heavy burden"- similar to "the white man's burden" made famous by Kipling. The fact that they only accepted women of reputable background and those who could provide references as recipients of their care is a sign that they saw themselves as morally superior to those less fortunate as well as avoiding any scandel that could weaken their image as "virtuous middle-class." -- Celia</div>Mdill1cphttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_4_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 4 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-02-03T00:43:47Z<p>Mdill1cp: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Cross-Document Questions/Comments ==<br />
'''Do me a favor and at the begining of each set of comments, write and bold ONE WORD which decribes your view/question/comment/or thought about the reading.'''<br />
<br />
'''Comparison''' I thought the differences in the use of sources was very interesting. Boydston used a lot of numerical data and analysis thereof to formulate an understanding of the meaning of being a poor woman in American cities. Stansell on the other hand seems to be using other sorts of records, including first hand accounts of people who were living in New York at the time. I found it fascinating to look at the similar outcomes that came from these two different methods of study.<br />
<br />
'''“Family Wage”''': All three readings for Tuesday in some form dealt with the notion of a family wage. Boydston defined it as the ability for the male, head of household to be able to provide enough income for his family to survive as well as prevent women in the family from working outside the home. Mintz and Kellogg also discussed it as the father’s responsibility to provide a sufficient income for the entire family. All three readings deal with this ideal that was established by the middle-class that women were expected to remain at home and work within the sphere of domesticity, while fathers were the sole economic provider for the entire family. Boydston discussed how women were responsible for stretching the income of their husbands by buying items in bulk, utilizing food from a garden, and working outside the home either helping husbands or being a domestic servant. Stansell spent a significant time discussing that the cult of domesticity was class specific and created by a bourgeois self-consciousness. The notion of “poor” changed substantially from ideas of elder, handicapped or widowed individuals to those people simply struggling to survive in a new system of manufacturing. Stansell also alludes to the notion of charity extended by genteel women to working-class women. We see again the struggle to meet an ideal based upon religion and the home as appropriate spheres for women, yet these spheres are unrealistic for working-class women who cannot work just within their homes or participate fully in religious clubs or activities. In all three readings we see the working-class family struggle to live up to an ideal that is simply unrealistic and out of reach. We also see how this ideal family causes stress and tension on the working-class family as they struggle to meet this ideal, but more importantly as they struggle to survive. – Mary Beth <br />
== Boydston ==<br />
<br />
'''Do me a favor and at the begining of each set of comments, write and bold ONE WORD which decribes your view/question/comment/or thought about the reading.''' <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Invisibility:''' Boydston talks about how the woman's contribution to the household became increasingly invisible as wages became equated with family subsistence. I think that is even more true today than in the mid 1800s. For example, a man reported in 1830 that "Lynn shoemakers were full time wage earners with no important means of support other than their income from shoemaking." Today we would not even think to comment on this. For instance, if a guy is a banker, we just assume that all of his income comes from banking. So, I would guess that this notion of 'wage equals family subsistence' is even stronger today than it was in the 1800s. Does that mean that a non-wage-earning woman's contribution to the working class household is even more invisible now than it was then? -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
'''Inequality:''' Boydston talks about the impact of a worker's wage being equated to his family subsistence. He mentions that employers would often talk about paying employees a certain amount because that is what they needed to support their families. This made me think about how women are typically paid less than men to do the same jobs. I suspect that the reasoning behind this is that women are either single, which means they probably have no kids and therefore don't need to make as much, or they are married, in which case they can partially rely on their husbands' incomes and therefore don't need to make as much. Men, on the other hand, can justify needing to be paid more because they are, ostensibly, supporting a family, or are saving up money to do so in future. I think that the issues that Boydston explores are still very relevant for women today, because the belief that men are supposed to be the primary, if not the sole, providers for families, and the belief that wages equate to subsistence, are beliefs that still hurt women's earning potential today. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
I wanted to add to Rebecca's first comment on the non-wage-earning woman because I think that there are other factors that play in. To some extent the housewife's role is more appreciated, because it means that their family is well-enough off to be able to afford to have a family member who does not earn an external income. Also, there is the factor that the wife is willing to not work in order to take care of the household and any young children. In both cases, I think the work of the homemaker is appreciated, but at the same time I think they are overlooked or dismissed because women now have the option of working outside the home and not being seen as amoral or pretending above their station. I think many of these women would be passed off as not being able to stand up for themselves or able to support themselves outside of the nuclear family structure. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I think the role of none-wage-earning women is hard to compare to today. Gender equality was not nearly as evolved as it is today and equality in the workplace is something women in the 1800s did not experience. The contributions women made then and make today are very different as well. I don't think as many working-class wives and mothers today need to scavenge the docks for shoes or scrape flour out of an old barrel. However this essay tells us of where women fit in with the transition to family wages and we know how important they were. What I don't understand is how men in some families could witness women's contributions and still think they spent "more time trifling than a baby"? -Amanda<br />
<br />
To also comment on the non-wage-earning women, I also feel that there is growing acceptance now that housewives do work as well, that its not all fun and games. Taking care of a household (cooking, cleaning, maintaining), taking care of any pet(s) there are/maybe in the household, along with taking care of her husband is actually a lot of work. Its usually unpaid work, but I've heard of some husbands who give their wife part of his wages to spend as she wants (for little trifles she may want) that don't come out of the normal family budget. From reading Boydston's article, I think its made clear that even though the housewife's work was becoming more invisible it was still very important for her to do what she did because it saved the family money here and there, or in some cases also earned a little extra money. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
'''Obligation''' To what extent does Boydston provide evidence that the tasks performed by wifes were seen as obligations? What evidence does she give? - Stephen<br />
<br />
'''Marx''' I find Boydston's crtique of Marxism as fundemental to her understanding of the role and definition of subsistence in a family. Does Boydston do a fair job in showing that housewives' labor was distinctive enough to be reconized outside of the typical Marxist analysis? - Stephen<br />
<br />
I the statement that the made the most sense to me was that the reason industrial capitalism grew was because of the denial of the economic value of housework. This really seemed to make a lot of sense to me. It seemed that as long as men had control over the family's income women would never truly be considered able to contribute to the family's economic growth. While they do accept the fact that women do work at home, such as, caring for the children or cooking and cleaning, they still hold the belief that their work had little to no economic value. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
== Mintz & Kellogg ==<br />
<br />
'''Do me a favor and at the begining of each set of comments, write and bold ONE WORD which decribes your view/question/comment/or thought about the reading.'''<br />
<br />
'''Homestead''' How does the Homestead example used by Mintz and Kellogg provide a good/bad example of the work life, hours, wages, lifestyle, and living standards of American working families at this time in history? - Stephen<br />
<br />
'''Destruction''' Do you agree with Carroll Wright (pg. 85) who maintained that the factory system destroys family life? - Stephen<br />
<br />
'''Immigration''' What are the fundemental diffrences outlined by Mintz and Kellogg regarding immigrant families and those who were already established in this country? - Stephen<br />
<br />
== Stansell ==<br />
'''Do me a favor and at the begining of each set of comments, write and bold ONE WORD which decribes your view/question/comment/or thought about the reading.''' <br />
<br />
<br />
The exert from Stansell's book brings up a lot of the same point that I recall reading in Boydston's article. First of all, the poor section of the city was overcrowded, with filthy housing and living conditions, and bad sanitary problems. Both also spoke of the disease epidemics that hit and spread in these areas from the bad sanitation conditions. However, Boydston's article seemed to exalt and shine light onto the lives of the non-wage-earner woman, while Stansell's book exert made it sound like women were help to be pieces of crap that were evil and sinful and men could do whatever they wanted to women because women provided little to nothing for the household, even if they did manage to earn some kind of wage... at least that's how I felt after reading it... --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
'''Republic''' How did "Republican ideas of government, authority, and power," support already familiar justifications of sexual hierarchies? That is to say "in a republican culture which placed the independence of the male citizen at its zenith," how did the dependent status of women effect this era in understanding the family? - Stephen<br />
<br />
'''Debauchery''' In the Bedlow/Sawyer rape trial it is argued that the girl should have been better attuned to the "etiquette of debauchery." Is this not both an example of the gender gap but also the inherent flaw of that gap? - Stephen<br />
<br />
'''Republican Motherhood:''' Stansell points out other factors that related to the changing family situation. The influx of immigrants, post-Revolution conditions, rise of the city, and economic and gender expectations all played a role in the change in family structure. It seems though that "republican motherhood" did not apply to women outside the middle class, and in fact, lower-class women were looked down upon for not being able to be educators. Also, as we discussed in class, the advent of American patriotism coincided with a new American family. Stansell mentions how women craftworkers banded together to stop the importation of British goods.--Amanda</div>Mdill1cphttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_4_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 4 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-02-03T00:43:34Z<p>Mdill1cp: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Cross-Document Questions/Comments ==<br />
'''Do me a favor and at the begining of each set of comments, write and bold ONE WORD which decribes your view/question/comment/or thought about the reading.'''<br />
<br />
'''Comparison''' I thought the differences in the use of sources was very interesting. Boydston used a lot of numerical data and analysis thereof to formulate an understanding of the meaning of being a poor woman in American cities. Stansell on the other hand seems to be using other sorts of records, including first hand accounts of people who were living in New York at the time. I found it fascinating to look at the similar outcomes that came from these two different methods of study.<br />
<br />
“Family Wage”: All three readings for Tuesday in some form dealt with the notion of a family wage. Boydston defined it as the ability for the male, head of household to be able to provide enough income for his family to survive as well as prevent women in the family from working outside the home. Mintz and Kellogg also discussed it as the father’s responsibility to provide a sufficient income for the entire family. All three readings deal with this ideal that was established by the middle-class that women were expected to remain at home and work within the sphere of domesticity, while fathers were the sole economic provider for the entire family. Boydston discussed how women were responsible for stretching the income of their husbands by buying items in bulk, utilizing food from a garden, and working outside the home either helping husbands or being a domestic servant. Stansell spent a significant time discussing that the cult of domesticity was class specific and created by a bourgeois self-consciousness. The notion of “poor” changed substantially from ideas of elder, handicapped or widowed individuals to those people simply struggling to survive in a new system of manufacturing. Stansell also alludes to the notion of charity extended by genteel women to working-class women. We see again the struggle to meet an ideal based upon religion and the home as appropriate spheres for women, yet these spheres are unrealistic for working-class women who cannot work just within their homes or participate fully in religious clubs or activities. In all three readings we see the working-class family struggle to live up to an ideal that is simply unrealistic and out of reach. We also see how this ideal family causes stress and tension on the working-class family as they struggle to meet this ideal, but more importantly as they struggle to survive. – Mary Beth <br />
== Boydston ==<br />
<br />
'''Do me a favor and at the begining of each set of comments, write and bold ONE WORD which decribes your view/question/comment/or thought about the reading.''' <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Invisibility:''' Boydston talks about how the woman's contribution to the household became increasingly invisible as wages became equated with family subsistence. I think that is even more true today than in the mid 1800s. For example, a man reported in 1830 that "Lynn shoemakers were full time wage earners with no important means of support other than their income from shoemaking." Today we would not even think to comment on this. For instance, if a guy is a banker, we just assume that all of his income comes from banking. So, I would guess that this notion of 'wage equals family subsistence' is even stronger today than it was in the 1800s. Does that mean that a non-wage-earning woman's contribution to the working class household is even more invisible now than it was then? -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
'''Inequality:''' Boydston talks about the impact of a worker's wage being equated to his family subsistence. He mentions that employers would often talk about paying employees a certain amount because that is what they needed to support their families. This made me think about how women are typically paid less than men to do the same jobs. I suspect that the reasoning behind this is that women are either single, which means they probably have no kids and therefore don't need to make as much, or they are married, in which case they can partially rely on their husbands' incomes and therefore don't need to make as much. Men, on the other hand, can justify needing to be paid more because they are, ostensibly, supporting a family, or are saving up money to do so in future. I think that the issues that Boydston explores are still very relevant for women today, because the belief that men are supposed to be the primary, if not the sole, providers for families, and the belief that wages equate to subsistence, are beliefs that still hurt women's earning potential today. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
I wanted to add to Rebecca's first comment on the non-wage-earning woman because I think that there are other factors that play in. To some extent the housewife's role is more appreciated, because it means that their family is well-enough off to be able to afford to have a family member who does not earn an external income. Also, there is the factor that the wife is willing to not work in order to take care of the household and any young children. In both cases, I think the work of the homemaker is appreciated, but at the same time I think they are overlooked or dismissed because women now have the option of working outside the home and not being seen as amoral or pretending above their station. I think many of these women would be passed off as not being able to stand up for themselves or able to support themselves outside of the nuclear family structure. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I think the role of none-wage-earning women is hard to compare to today. Gender equality was not nearly as evolved as it is today and equality in the workplace is something women in the 1800s did not experience. The contributions women made then and make today are very different as well. I don't think as many working-class wives and mothers today need to scavenge the docks for shoes or scrape flour out of an old barrel. However this essay tells us of where women fit in with the transition to family wages and we know how important they were. What I don't understand is how men in some families could witness women's contributions and still think they spent "more time trifling than a baby"? -Amanda<br />
<br />
To also comment on the non-wage-earning women, I also feel that there is growing acceptance now that housewives do work as well, that its not all fun and games. Taking care of a household (cooking, cleaning, maintaining), taking care of any pet(s) there are/maybe in the household, along with taking care of her husband is actually a lot of work. Its usually unpaid work, but I've heard of some husbands who give their wife part of his wages to spend as she wants (for little trifles she may want) that don't come out of the normal family budget. From reading Boydston's article, I think its made clear that even though the housewife's work was becoming more invisible it was still very important for her to do what she did because it saved the family money here and there, or in some cases also earned a little extra money. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
'''Obligation''' To what extent does Boydston provide evidence that the tasks performed by wifes were seen as obligations? What evidence does she give? - Stephen<br />
<br />
'''Marx''' I find Boydston's crtique of Marxism as fundemental to her understanding of the role and definition of subsistence in a family. Does Boydston do a fair job in showing that housewives' labor was distinctive enough to be reconized outside of the typical Marxist analysis? - Stephen<br />
<br />
I the statement that the made the most sense to me was that the reason industrial capitalism grew was because of the denial of the economic value of housework. This really seemed to make a lot of sense to me. It seemed that as long as men had control over the family's income women would never truly be considered able to contribute to the family's economic growth. While they do accept the fact that women do work at home, such as, caring for the children or cooking and cleaning, they still hold the belief that their work had little to no economic value. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
== Mintz & Kellogg ==<br />
<br />
'''Do me a favor and at the begining of each set of comments, write and bold ONE WORD which decribes your view/question/comment/or thought about the reading.'''<br />
<br />
'''Homestead''' How does the Homestead example used by Mintz and Kellogg provide a good/bad example of the work life, hours, wages, lifestyle, and living standards of American working families at this time in history? - Stephen<br />
<br />
'''Destruction''' Do you agree with Carroll Wright (pg. 85) who maintained that the factory system destroys family life? - Stephen<br />
<br />
'''Immigration''' What are the fundemental diffrences outlined by Mintz and Kellogg regarding immigrant families and those who were already established in this country? - Stephen<br />
<br />
== Stansell ==<br />
'''Do me a favor and at the begining of each set of comments, write and bold ONE WORD which decribes your view/question/comment/or thought about the reading.''' <br />
<br />
<br />
The exert from Stansell's book brings up a lot of the same point that I recall reading in Boydston's article. First of all, the poor section of the city was overcrowded, with filthy housing and living conditions, and bad sanitary problems. Both also spoke of the disease epidemics that hit and spread in these areas from the bad sanitation conditions. However, Boydston's article seemed to exalt and shine light onto the lives of the non-wage-earner woman, while Stansell's book exert made it sound like women were help to be pieces of crap that were evil and sinful and men could do whatever they wanted to women because women provided little to nothing for the household, even if they did manage to earn some kind of wage... at least that's how I felt after reading it... --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
'''Republic''' How did "Republican ideas of government, authority, and power," support already familiar justifications of sexual hierarchies? That is to say "in a republican culture which placed the independence of the male citizen at its zenith," how did the dependent status of women effect this era in understanding the family? - Stephen<br />
<br />
'''Debauchery''' In the Bedlow/Sawyer rape trial it is argued that the girl should have been better attuned to the "etiquette of debauchery." Is this not both an example of the gender gap but also the inherent flaw of that gap? - Stephen<br />
<br />
'''Republican Motherhood:''' Stansell points out other factors that related to the changing family situation. The influx of immigrants, post-Revolution conditions, rise of the city, and economic and gender expectations all played a role in the change in family structure. It seems though that "republican motherhood" did not apply to women outside the middle class, and in fact, lower-class women were looked down upon for not being able to be educators. Also, as we discussed in class, the advent of American patriotism coincided with a new American family. Stansell mentions how women craftworkers banded together to stop the importation of British goods.--Amanda</div>Mdill1cphttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_3_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 3 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-01-28T18:14:02Z<p>Mdill1cp: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Faragher ==<br />
<br />
Faragher says that the “Notion of born self-sufficiency should not conjure up images of isolated, impoverished farmers…” yet he created this image as well. Where is the clarity? - Stephen<br />
<br />
Maybe not impoverished because they were self-sufficient, so impoverished may not have entered their minds. However, they seemed fairly isolated during the spring-fall time, except maybe in the winter they saw people as there was less work to do than in the planting, taking care of, and harvesting the crops. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I think a very intresting point Faragher brought up is the role childbareing played in the female farmer's role on the farm. How is this similar/different to an understanding of work before and after childbirth elseware in location and history? - Stephen<br />
<br />
I have to say that I did like this article because it did paint women as having to be this picture perfect ideal woman, it was what real women did in the midwest to help support the family. Which is awesome compared to Mintz and Kellogg who consider basically urban middle-class New Englanders the way the US was at the time. It drives me nuts because its obvious that places in the United States was vastly different and this article is a perfect example, the women are planting crops, milking cows, feeding livestock, butchering, cooking, sewing, weaving, mending, etc. This article I feel provides an awesome incite into what families did do to survive. They all bucked up and did their share, however tiresome to get by, to live, to survive. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I found the economic aspect of this article to be particularly interesting. Faragher briefly discusses the Market Revolution, which we touched upon in class, explaining the changes in farming due to market opportunity as well as market competition. I think this is one of the first times we have really have been able to see how technology has directly influenced the family. The introduction of farm tools, particularly an evolution away from hand tools, plus the introduction of improved and more widespread transportation allowed farmers to produce and sell more to a wider population, thus changing the role and responsibility of a farming family. I think it is important to remember that these farmers first relied on a local market for goods exchange and the opportunity to move beyond sustenance farming and then to a wider market as it became available. I believe that is where Faragher challenged the idea of farm self-sufficiency as isolated and impoverished since there was a significant change within local communities as well as local and larger markets, thus forcing farmers to interact socially and economically as well as view farming as a way to obtain other goods or money, not simply survive. – Mary Beth <br />
<br />
== Dublin ==<br />
I thought it was interesting how the women at Lowell created a sort of familial relationship with other women at the mill. There are examples of a relationship between new workers and those more experienced that toes the line between sisterly and motherly. The more experienced workers teach the newer ones how to perform the day-to-day tasks in the mill in a kind of elder sister fashion. It appears also that they formed a community outside of the workplace and became moral support for their sister workers. I imagine this sort of sorority was what made it possible for them to think it possible that they could achieve something by going on strike. -Lacey<br />
<br />
Lowell was intended to be different than the factory towns of Europe. It was to be an example of a community that was more wholesome and healthful than the industrial cities of Europe. Was it succesful? Or was it more of the same? - Stephen<br />
<br />
I only kind of liked this article, it was mostly a boring read for me. :-( However, I did find the sense of such a strong community a little interesting and was wondering if this was just a Lowell, MA thing, or if it happened at other places around the US? --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I found the emphasis on economic security and the role of their “Yankee heritage” as interesting driving factors for this particular group of women to protest working conditions and wages. Dublin argues that these women were capable of returning to the farm to work and therefore did not necessarily have to completely depend upon the work at the mill. He notes that during times of economic depressions that protesting diminished or ceased completely, thus marking a relationship between economic security and their job at the mills. I think it also points to a trend of using immigrant workers or workers from poorer families later on who would be dependent upon their wages from the mill and consequently be less likely to strike. I also found it interesting that Dublin noted their “Yankee heritage” and revolutionary rhetoric as driving forces for an idea that these women deserved certain rights. I wonder if we would be able to find non-Yankee women of this time that felt and demanded what they deemed were their rights in the mills. – Mary Beth <br />
<br />
== Comparative comments/questions ==</div>Mdill1cphttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_3_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 3 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-01-27T04:36:41Z<p>Mdill1cp: </p>
<hr />
<div>The first section of chapter seven of the ''American Manhood'' reading struck me as really interesting. I had known that there was a change in the way the actual marriage ceremony took place, but I admit I was largely unaware of the scope and significance of the changes. There were some particularly obvious things, such as the fact that wedding dresses previous to this change could be the nicest dress that the bride already own, or if a new one was made it usually was not today's standard white, at least on the information we have today about known or attributed wedding gowns. It was interesting to begin to understand the changes that took place in regards to community interaction and the focus on the two individuals being wed. I also found the modern sense of the feeling of intimacy, on all counts, increased in the nineteenth century. That we get more sense that men and women thus united found themselves knowing, if not every last detail, but a great deal more of the personal aspects of their spouse is very interesting. Of course there are other aspects to marriages, such as divorce and alienation of the partners, that counterbalance this ideal and give history the character it deserves. -Lacey<br />
<br />
Just continuing what Lacey was mentioning about with the dresses, I know my grandmother didn't have a white dress or a big wedding or anything of that sort in the early 1900s... erm, I think it was in the mid 1940s that she married her husband. They went down to the church, no one went with them and she wore what she had at the house. None of the family went to her wedding except her brother who passed by the church while he was out hunting. (They lived in the hollows of West Virginia). My mother on the other hand borrow a pink cocktail dress from a friend and married my dad in the priest's office of the church, I think mom said that 2 other people were there as witnesses and they married in the 1960s. So weddings and things may have begun to change in the 19th century, I believe this was probably more or less for the urban area wealthier people. Some rural areas probably had some of the bigger type of wedding, but it still wasn't universal for the couple in the center of it all surrounded by friends and family in the 1960s, who knows if it is yet. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Most of the changes in the family that Mintz and Kellogg describe in this chapter (the home became a sanctuary, family members were supposed to give emotional support to one another, women took on purely domestic roles rather than productive roles, etc) they attribute to the fact that men were working outside of the home. Instead of producing everything they needed from within the household, they were working elsewhere, making a salary, and buying what they needed. So what about more rural families? They were still living on largely self-sufficient farms, so did they not undergo these changes? I would guess that the advice manuals, magazine articles, and other bits of literature about the new ideal family were reaching them (at least to some extent). So I wonder if they felt pressure to conform to this new ideal of the family even though their lifestyle was not really conducive to it. I think it would be hard for some woman on a farm, who has to work alongside her husband producing everything the household needed, to also conform to the ideal mother who is totally focused on domestic tasks and sensitive child rearing. It reminds me of "Little House on the Prairie." Laura's mom would do something like build a barn or drive hostile indians off of her land, and then she would put on a nice dress and act very feminine and delicate and totally dependent on her husband. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
I think that as they have in the past, Mintz and Kellogg are making generalizations about society in America. It seems that their argument for this chapter is focused very much on urban areas, like Scholten's argument on obstetrics for last week. It seems that in more rural areas it would take time for this new "Democratic Family" to articulate itself. They were still relatively independent and self-sufficient to the extent that they could be. Again, I think that these changes would have taken time and not come entirely to fruition until travel and the intermingling of the rural and urban became possible. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Lacey here, Mitz and Kellogg seem to be focusing on just urban and mostly New England area. They then apply this to the rest of the nation, which is absurd because the rest of the nation is vastly different from New England. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Lacey and Ashley in this regard. Despite being from New England myself, I can say the whole notion of community there is very different then anyplace else I have ever been. There is a correlation between family and these notions I beleive and thus, using Urban and industrializing New England as the American model is unfair to the rest of the nation. -Stephen<br />
<br />
I am curious as to how the rural families adapt to the changes that those in cities were facing? Did they change to where the family was mainly supported by the husband as they did in urban areas? I think that part of the reason the family became so private was the rapid growth of cities. It was easier to have a close family from the community in small towns but as they grew this became harder. --Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
Even with the men working outside the home, why would the need for the family to provide emotional support change? It seems that no matter where the husband/father worked, the home should have been a place where you could receive emotional support. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
Did anyone else notice in chapter 7 of "American Manhood" the paragraph that stated that a woman's fortune, social standing and reputation depended on that of her husband's? My mind went immediately to Abigail and Greenleaf Patch. Their story seems to be a perfect example of this. No matter what Abigail did to try to improve her family's station in life after she divorced Greenleaf, she could never climb out of the hole her husband dug for her. According to Rotundo this power that belonged to the man gave him the authority to make decisions regarding the family's welfare even if, as in the example of Henry Poor's poor financial decisions, they weren't the most rational. But Rotundo admits later that this wasn't the case in all marriages and some couples appointed one person or the other to make certain decisions depending on their individual strengths and needs. Thank goodness for that! Celia M.<br />
<br />
I agree that this chapter deals only with newly urbanized areas. Was this development of a more individualized, nurturing family the norm once the other parts of the country became industrialized or was this solely a New England thing? --Kari <br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading this chapter in Mintz and Kellogg. It was interesting reading about the roles of women. This time period showed a significant increase in women's responsibilities from only being submissive to their husbands to actually being able to be in control of property and their own wages. Also, I found it interesting that men wanted women to raise the next generation of patriots. Its fascinating that throughout history, wars always bring more rights to women. Although a lot of those, like jobs, are taken away when the men come home, it always leaves a lasting effect. -- Kari<br />
<br />
I have a question that perhaps Dr. McClurken (or anyone else for that matter) could answer. In Mintz and Kellogg's book on page 59, the authors wrote that children were kept at home for a longer time, past puberty, in order to guide them through an age that is "a period of rapid physical growth and moral, sexual, and physiological upheaval" during which teens were vulnerable to the "corruptions" of the adult world. I was wondering, did this prolonged dependence on parents and sheltering cause a decrease in pregnancies out of wedlock? They didn't say and I was curious. I know birth control was more widely used so perhaps it is hard to get an accurate number. Celia<br />
<br />
The chapters from American Manhood highlight gender differences through marriage and work. It made me very glad to be living today, not in the 19th Century. Women were subject to their husband's demands and needs, though some were lucky to enjoy loving relationships and "flourishing intimacy" with their husbands. I enjoyed reading about the degrees of a marriage in this time. Some were merely a union of persons, and some were partnerships and a system of helpmates. Charles and Persis are the perfect example of the latter. The fact that Charles used his health to seek nurture shows that he may have been dependent on his wife, but didn't want to outwardly reveal it. In addition, men retreated to work to provide for their families and escape "unwelcome thoughts". Men were scared of failure and bankruptcy was seen as failure (not a sometimes too-convenient option like today). Again with the conceptions of gender: men experienced "neurasthenia" from too much work, while women experienced "hysterics". Clearly men and women were on unequal footing.--Amanda<br />
<br />
Admittedly I am only about 10 pages in, but in American Manhood, the focus on men needing to uphold their masculinity really struck me as a bizarre reason to make sure a marriage remained successful. The idea of "proper gender norms" being the most vital part of a relationship just seems counter-intuitive in today's culture where the most important part of (most) marriages is the assurance that both parties are very much in love with each other. My question, however, is thus: were there ever divorces in the 19th century that, while still being the wife's idea, were less about the husband being a generally vice-driven jerk and more about the fact that the wife just flat-out didn't love him anymore? I get the feeling this is a more modern construct, but did it happen "back then" as well? -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
Honestly, the whole first chapter of the online reading just made me uncomfortable. As they explained the husband's necessity to get away from the household as much as possible, I kept being reminded of the lyrics to Tracy Chapman's "Fast Car," as she chides her husband for "stay[ing] out drinking late at the bar," and "see[ing] more of your friends than you do you of your kids." While I believe that we have progressed far past what marriage USED to be, there is apparently a lot that never really changed. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I'm wondering, is the lack of discussion on rural and farming families because of a lack of sources? I feel like there wouldn't be as much on those families as in urban areas because of how differently the societies were ran. Or are Mintz and Kellogg really just infatuated with urban New England families? - Kelly W<br />
<br />
<br />
I was interested to read that marriages began to focus more on love and compatibility in the early 19th Century. Mintz& Kellogg do acknowledge the large percentage of families that lived on farms, but their generalizations seem not to apply to this majority. Kelly might be right. I doubt that rural women had much access to women's magazines or novels and experienced different transformations post-Revolution.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I found Mintz and Kellogg's brief discussion of the development of polygamy during the early 1840s intriguing and unexpected. While the "democratic family" emphasized the establishment of solid moral values and attempted to strengthen the affectionate bonds between family members through a system of mutual support, the Mormon families sought to reestablish a sense of patriarchy and traditional male dominance. The middle class family saw the rise of such practices as "deviant and disorganized," and well as an institution that 'degrades womanhood, motherhood, and family (p. 65.)" In the midst of the rising sense of duty to instill notions of purity into the hearts and minds of their children, the "democratic family" apparently faced issues of conformity and acceptance of diverse notions of family structure and sexuality<br />
-Augusta<br />
<br />
Chapter 8 of American Identity was kind of intense. I find it scary how much a man's well, manliness, depended on not only his social standing but his job as well. I know that we freak out today about at least finding a job. These men were not only worried about that, but what kind of job they would end up in. It just seems intense that a man's true identity depended fully on his occupation. Even more so, this affected the way his family members were treated as well. If you were married to someone in a lower position, you were automatically going to be seen as lower in status just because of him. Crazy. -Kelly W<br />
<br />
American Manhood reveals how the ideal vision of marriage underwent a significant change during the nineteenth century, emphasizing the importance of intimacy and affection between a couple; however, the majority of American families did not conform to this concept of marriage. Although men held the pervading influence on his family's social role and status in society, both of the sexes held a fundamental emotional commitment to the intimate relationship of marriage. The letters between spouses during the last third of the nineteenth century illustrate the increased emphasis on intimacy as a method maintaining the family's long-term stability. <br />
-Augusta<br />
<br />
The first section of chapter seven of the American Manhood about the marriage ceremony was interesting to me as well. I had always assumed that the procedures were pretty standardized, but this is obviously not the case. I like how the chapter shifted focus that the analysis of how weddings and marriage affect the rest of society. -Stephen<br />
<br />
Just commenting on Lacey’s first remark. I read an interesting article not long ago about the influence media has on relationships. Apparently, women have increasingly unreal expectations for their husbands b/c of romantic comedies (they think every man should be like Mathew McConaughey). I wonder how much t.v., movies, and print really played a role in the transformation of wedding ceremonies. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
I think the weakness of these chapters from "Domestic Revolutions" was the vagueness in explaining the familial changes throughout the 17th-19th centuries. The authors approach the transformation between a public economically driven family to a private and loving marriage as the rule, not the exception. They seem to ignore the fact that probably many marriages throughout and until the 19th century were full of love for spouses and affection for children-this probability does not work into the author's explanation of the familial changes, so they just leave it out. Also, many pages were dedicated to the progressive changes of female expectations as wife and mother, but they do not emphasize enough on the persistent negative attitudes society had for women. --Joyce<br />
<br />
Commenting on Cash and adding to what I just said; I wonder how many divorces can be attributed to the media. I assume increased divorce rates have something to do with failed expectations. But when did these expectations begin to play a role in relationships? --Andrew B.<br />
<br />
Throughout Tuesday’s readings we see the American family struggle with the paradox between individualism and intimacy that relied on others. The emergence of marriages based on love bred intimacy yet as outlined in American Manhood, marriage was a union of two individuals who struggled to live as two and not as one. With the introduction of expectations of intimacy and changing roles in marriages men found refuge outside the home in men’s clubs and women struggled to become comfortable in their assigned roles of domesticity as a married woman. The family was not exempt from this struggle. Mintz and Kellogg came to define the family of the 1830s as “a private place, distinct from the public sphere of life. It was a shelter and a refuge, a contrast to the outside world, (p. 44).” And while job specialization, industrialization, and changes in child rearing shifted the focus on the individual, a focus on intimate, personal relationships between husband and wife and parent and child emerged to create a focus on intimacy within the family. The emotional and psychological emphasis on relationships and child development, while yes focusing on the needs of the individual, could not ignore the fact that the family still heavily depended upon intimacy and ultimately others to function. – Mary Beth</div>Mdill1cphttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_2_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 2 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-01-22T05:36:57Z<p>Mdill1cp: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Readings ==<br />
<br />
== Catherine Scholten ==<br />
<br />
Wow, I never realized that was when they started making women lay down on their backs to give birth. That is like, the absolute worse way to give birth (Except perhaps trying to do it on your stomach...). So because men wanted to break into that field and take over it, midwives were kicked out the door for the most part. To be honest, this is something I've researched a little in the past (the hubby and I have been talking about pregnancies the past year), and lying on your back is the hard way to give birth because of the way your trying to push the baby out, however, with walking around and standing/squatting/sitting gravity works with the body and the baby goes straight out instead of having to do a bit of a curve. At least from what I have read and what my friend who is a doula has explained to me. Then, at that time (and I understand the whole humility/embarassment thing), making women lay down on their back and covered up just seems more dangerous because the person can't see what the hell is going on, so how can you deliver the baby safely when you can't even see, thats just stupidity. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Ok, maybe I missed it in the reading, but at what point did society have that epiphany and realize that women and their children were worth saving during childbirth and that women deserved to have the most pain-free birthing (an oxymoron, I know)? Also, I thought it was kind of ridiculous that men wouldn't allow women to enter the medical practice because they lacked the "power of action" and the "active power of mind," yet they were the original midwives and primary caregivers. Celia M.<br />
<br />
Celia, let's remember that American women have only been allowed to vote since 1920. Is their patronizingly small role in medicine really that big of a stretch? -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
After reading Scholten's essay, I found it very surprising that childbearing after the American Revolution and into the early 20th century became dominated by male physicians. Scholten argues in her essay that the replacement of female midwives were preferred by most women than male physicians. I also found it interesting and bizarre that American midwifery which had dominated childbearing before the American Revolution nearly disappeared at the advent of new discoveries in medical science. Wouldn't it make sense to allow women to enroll in early 20th century medical schools and participate in childbearing, when they previously were the dominant participants before the American Revolution. All the excuses by male doctors of women making them nervous in the room or their ability to be a distraction was extremely bizarre. -Joseph C.<br />
<br />
<br />
I have to say that I was incredibly excited about reading this essay because medicine and midwifery in the fourth quarter of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth incredibly fascinating. (It probably doesn't help that I do first-person interpretation of medicine in this time period.) So that brings me to Ashley's comment about women starting to give birth on their backs rather than in squatting or sitting positions, and Joseph's comment on the fact that they were suddenly letting men into the "lying-in." Scholten doesn't mention this until halfway through the piece, but it wasn't until the end of the eighteenth century that obstetric forceps came into widespread use, nearly a century after their initial conception. Such instruments fell into the realm of the doctor rather than the midwife, and women were seen as less able to understand and facilitate the same things that men were, thus women were pushed out of the birthing room. Subsequently, women were made to lie on their backs to allow their male physician to use equipment to examine them, of which the forceps are an example. Personally, I think that such changes were nearly useless at the time, because other than extreme cases the physicians could only do a little more than the midwives. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading this essay. It was rather interesting to read about the start of our customs regarding childbirth. I was amazed to find that males quickly took over this profession and women soon preferred to switch over to the more modern practices as medicine improved. It is strange that now many women turn to older practices and choose a midwife over conventional methods of childbirth. - Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
It was interesting to see the transformation childbirth customs through the years, and I have to say, I had no idea that midwives took such a backseat once the physician became a bigger part of childbirth. It almost seems as though they were viewed as superfluous or as an archaic, outdated custom. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
It was also interesting to read that the use of alcohol in birthing reached as far back as it did. My mom (a registered nurse) and I have discussed on multiple occasions that while she was taught the methods of dispensing intravenous alcohol in childbirth, it is a vastly outdated practice, and her delivery of my oldest brother in 1981 was probably one of the last times that IV alcohol was used in such a manner. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I agree that this was a very interesting article. While I agree that it is unfortunate that midwives and female relations were largely removed from the childbirth process, there were some positive aspects of the move to male physicians such as the belief that it should be made less painful, as Celia already mentioned. Scholten also notes this "implied a new social appreciation of women." I believe that the former practice of referring to pregnant women as "breeding" or "teeming" makes them sound more like cattle then human beings and while it is unfortunate that women were displaced in midwifery, women may have gained some greater appreciation from at least some of the male gender as a result. That said, it doesn't appear that women gained physically from the change, swapping potentially ill-informed midwives with doctors too socially conscious to treat them as proper medicine would dictate. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I agree with some of Sarah’s comments. I don’t think that the shift to doctors was a bad thing at all. At some point, a process as serious as childbirth would have come under scientific scrutiny. It is unfortunate, however, that the norms of the time excluded women from the practice. Their hands on experience and knowledge, coupled with scientific advances, could have served as a major catalyst for advancement in the field. Similarly, if society had been ready for male doctors to visually experience the process, advancement may have been more rapid. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
In response to Celia and Cash's comments: I think the essay stated that it was the early 1800s when attempts were made to make childbirth a less painful experience. This coincided with a religious movement and relieving women of suffering related to scripture. I also was surprised to know that women essentially were kicked out of the field. Considering how involved women ''have'' been in medicine, from early nurses through the postbellum era, it seems counterintuitive to exclude women from a field that pertains only to their gender. I agree with Andrew (and Sarah): the knowledge and training men were able to receive coupled with women's experience and acceptance by other women would have would have advanced the field.--Amanda<br />
<br />
What were the roles of Midwives? How did they vary both within the colonies and in comparison to European counterparts? - Stephen<br />
<br />
I think the role of midwives is actually quite fascinating. The amount of reliance and trust women put in them to safely deliver their children is just remarkable, almost like the same amount of faith women put in doctors and medicine (and heavy drugs) today. They were there for more than birth too, which I think is often overlooked, in that they were seen as the person to go to when you had an illness or a disease because they had such an incredible knowledge of herbs and recipes. Whether they knew it or not, they were vital to a society during their "prime" for lack of a better word. I think it's neat that, even though times have changed remarkably in terms of medicine and childbirth go, midwives are still around today. They are still trusted with childbirth today and it's interesting that it's an alternative that never seemed to go away for some people. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I feel like the shift from midwives and a communal birth to a more private birth with a physician is another way of showing the shift to a more personalized and independent lifestyle. I also think that this was another area that men had to be superior over women even though the midwife had been the norm for ages. I do think that these physicians were obviously beneficial to the world of medicine and to saving women and childrens' lives. It is just unfortunate that the women who had been helping other women give birth since, well, pretty much the beginning of time had to take a back seat to men and science. But really, what else is new? - Kari <br />
<br />
I cannot help but think of Mintz and Kellogg’s jab at modern American families with their desire to be isolated from the society at large when thinking of the changes in childbirth as presented by Scholten. We witness a gradual, but significant change for women and men as obstetrics was a field opened to trained, male physicians instead of the role of a midwife and other females. We see a shift from communal to more individual as fewer women were needed for medical advice or general support of birthing women. It is interesting to note that women tended to disappear when a physician arrived and that physicians were grateful since women tended to talk too much, gossip, and be overall very distracting. We see birth as a more private matter confined to a quiet, dimly lit room with very few visitors or female company. One can already notice a shift from communal to individual that Kellogg and Mintz like to frequently point out as a plague of the modern family just simply examining the change in child birthing practices. – Mary Beth<br />
<br />
In response to Andrew's comment on the possibility of combining the valuable and diverse traits of both Midwives and male practitioners, I would say that although females were certainly deprived of emotional support during childbirth when men became dominant in the field, this period most likely proved crucial towards the development of an appreciation for a multiplicity of skills provided by both sexes. The advancement of knowledge on childbirth seemed to have benefited from witnessing the limitations of resorting to solely medical expertise to guide the process or strictly empathetic skills (and the commonality of experience) offered by midwives. Consequently, I would argue that the expanded recognition of the necessity of skills offered by both men and women resulted from this tenuous, revolutionary period. -Augusta C.<br />
<br />
== Paul Johnson ==<br />
Well, I have to say this was an interesting read indeed. Greenleaf just made me angry throughout the reading and I couldn't help but feel sorry for Abigail and the kids, I was actually happy to read that the daughters changed their names. In a sense this could be an example of women taking control of the household in the end and being a single-parent household (to show that divorces happened and that women still maintained custody of children in some cases). I know the reading said that the case was fairly unique, but I wonder how unique it really was, like... how much of this actually happened but just wasn't recorded anywhere? --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I completely agree with you about Greenleaf. The whole time I was reading about it my particular dislike for him grew. I was curious, as well, about how many households were in similar situations. It is interesting to note that Abigal was, initially, very subordinate and wanted a good friend as a husband, something like a companion. But when Greenleaf cast aside his family duties, or responsibilities, she pretty much rolled up her sleeves and became more decisive and domineering. It doesn't seem unlikely that many women took up the family responsibilities when their partner didn't. It was a means of survival- financially, emotionally, socially, etc. It is what being a family is all about. Celia M<br />
<br />
I agree, I really found myself not liking Greenleaf while reading this article. I think that many women might have been in similar situations, having to take control of their family when their husband failed to do so. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
Yet another agreement about Greenleaf. However, I have to say that it appears that Greenleaf didn't have much of an example to go upon to be able to become a useful, productive citizen. From what little we see of his father it seems that they were very similar in their inability to take care of their family. Would not such a dysfunctional family provide a poor role model for the children? It's no wonder that Abigail had to take up the duties that would normally have fallen to her partner. -Lacey<br />
<br />
While I agree with everyone that Greenleaf was far from a model citizen or husband, he was subject to several disadvantages. I think that this narrative illustrates the implications of social pressures and norms of the time period in New England. If you did not own your own land you were at a distinct disadvantage and being the youngest son of 10 children in a splintered family would not have allowed him many opportunities or positive examples, as Lacey mentioned. That said, I do not think that that justifies his actions and his treatment of his family. Also, was anyone else surprised by the statistic that 1 in 3 women were pregnant on their wedding day? I think a lot of people have a false image of very straitlaced, pious New England families, when in fact people were dealing with many of the same issues that are still relevant today. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I, too, agree with everyone about disliking Greenleaf. I think that the situation Abigail was in must have been somewhat common because it mentions in the article that during the late 18th and early 19th century there was a "decline of patriarchal authority". It sounds to me like women wanted to show their husbands they could survive without them by creating their own separate domestic sphere. I really enjoyed reading about how these women were able to adapt to these awful situations and growing from them to become independent. - Kari<br />
<br />
As the first male student in the class to post on this particular essay, I did not feel the same dislike for Greenleaf until after reading that Greenleaf Patch became a drunkard and stole money earned from his wife in children. I think a couple points have not been introduced in these blog entries that may alter one's opinion of Greenleaf. In the introduction Paul Johnson indicates that the story is reconstructed from distant impersonal and fragmentary sources, the majority being government documents. It's interesting that there was no indication of written diaries from either of the family members or local people about Greenleaf and Abigail Patch. Paul Johnson also indicates that increasing numbers of men owned no land in the New England area. Is it possible that the economic instability of Greenleaf's family may have shaped his personality and his future actions? -Joseph C.<br />
<br />
I think that Greenleaf was a loser. The significance of this lies in its parallels to modern society. Mintz & Kellog spoke of the model family, one with strong moral convictions and community ties. However, they failed to comment on unconventional families in NE. In today’s society, there are hundreds of family templates. Nuclear, single parent, extended live-in, etc. The same went for colonial NE. Although M&K forgot about unconventional family types, it does not mean they did not exist. NE, like modern society, was not a fairy-tale. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
To Joseph's question: yes, definitely, it's possible and likely. I didn't react in the same way to Greenleaf, but found this essay as a supplement to the Mintz& Kellogg readings. Their ideas of family so far seem to be shaped by the middle of the road or exceptional (in terms of wealth and standing) families. Here's something that discusses early pregnancies, debt, alcoholism and divorce! This essay makes up for something missing thus far from our textbook. I noted though that debt of Greenleaf's era was passed in the family. Today we find debt still a problem, but more the presence of debt in one's own life, not from that of his father. The Patch family also shows us the idea of lineage and marring the "good family name." I think this is why this class starts where it does, in the late 1700s. Before families were settled and assumed identities in their communities, the idea of the "good family name" was nonexistent.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I also have to defend Joe a little here. We have to consider Greenleaf in the context of the era and how problems espeically financial in nature become generational. However, I too can understand the concern about Greenleaf's actions. - Stephen<br />
<br />
First of all, "Mayo Greenleaf Patch?" Really? I almost feel bad for him with a name like that. However, I have a hard time getting past the fact that he was a failed patriarch, essentially. It was a time when the father was in charge of the family and was the provider and he had a difficult time doing that job. Although it could be a total "girl power" moment because this situation allowed Abigail and the others like her to become independent and wear the pants, unfortunately that's not how things were done in the 18th and 19th century. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I was really impressed by Johnson's methodology. The way he used records of censuses, taxes, and court cases to figure out the story of these people's lives is very cool. One part that jumped out at me is when Greenleaf's mother-in-law said that her "children" were taking all of her furniture, Johnson was able to figure out that she could ONLY be talking about Greenleaf and Abigail. Another part I was impressed with was how Johnson used the tax record of Greenleaf housing the school teacher as proof that he was a trusted member of the community. I mean, that makes sense and doesn't seem like a huge leap, but when you think that all that this guy had in front of him were a bunch of government records, I think it is very impressive that he was able to infer so much about Greenleaf's character and personal life. I guess historians like Johnson have to get creative in how they use their sources. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
== Extra Credit: What did the President's inaugural address say (directly or indirectly) about American families and individuals? ==<br />
<br />
He said that past generations have faced much difficulty and sacrificed things to ensure that future generations could live happily with more freedom. Specifically he mentioned the American Revolution, Civil War, westward expansion and immigrating to America. He also said that parents need to continue to nurture children and instill the values of honesty, loyalty and patriotism so that our country can become an even better place. Families are definitely a key part of correcting society's problems. --Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
It was definitely a speech using family as an allegory for the entire nation. Government was painted as a head of the family, willing to help and reach out to those it cares for, as long as those who need caring for are willing to work for what they receive. He mentioned the importance of ancestry and recognizing our immigrant heritage, as well as ensuring that our values are not lost. Most importantly, I thought, was his inclusion of both beliefs and NON-beliefs. I am not sure if Obama was the first President to overtly mention atheism, but I think it sent a great message that regardless of what you do or do not believe in, you will not be discriminated against. It was truly a powerful speech. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
He talked about the progression of American society through the lens of the family. He specifically discussed generational progression. In so many words, Obama said that the hard work and sacrifice of past generations have made possible the radical change our country is experiencing. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
President Obama's speech also reinforced Mintz and Kellogg's point that the American family, once a self-sufficient unit, is now dependent on social programs. For instance, in his speech, Obama mentioned the need to improve health care, better our schools and colleges, and provide for retirees, all things that were once responsibilities of families. He also, as others have previously mentioned, spoke of the importance our actions have on future generations. Lastly, he applauded the self-sacrifice of future generations of Americans which have allowed us, their descendants, to live in a great and free nation. His speech clearly made the case that the family is still very important to society. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
President Obama spoke directly about the generation Kennedy appealed to for service to their country, reminding us that this country was built on the backs of the different groups he mentioned. I think he alluded to the sense of "family" in a bigger sense, that if everyone pitches in and unites and helps one another, our common goals will be met.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I think one of the most specific examples of President Obama's speech that spoke directly to families was that a parents willingness to nurture a child that finally decides our fate. I think that this particularly reflects the argument of Mintz and Kellogg that New England families after the American Revolution took a more caring approach to children that would mold their lives in the direction they preferred. -Joseph C.<br />
<br />
"At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because we the people have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears, and true to our founding documents. So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans." i think the concept of considering these matters in the realm of another generation of the AMERICAN family, is intresting. However I think another family theme can be found in considering how our concepts of American style living/governing is pased through our families. - Stephen<br />
<br />
It seemed that he discussed the responsibility one holds towards his country as very similar to the relationship of a child to his parents. The government, or nation in this case, is the giving parent that, when in need of help from the child in times of sickness or dispair would expect the same to be given willingly. These are the duties that "we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly". He is saying perhaps the American family should feel this very sense of pride towards responsibility. Wait, I'm not in this class. Where's the Technology wiki? - Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
President Obama talked a lot about key values that make America the nation that it is today and that will make America a better nation in the future. These values are things that comes from the family. If children are not taught these values at home with their families, how will they ever fully learn and experience them? Obviously our nation's problems will not be fixed overnight. However, if we educate the future generations on how to properly act, with honesty and integrity, in certain situations, then this country will be able to grow and prosper. -Kari<br />
<br />
President Obama discussed specifically a sense of work ethic that we must return to. It is a call for a work ethic that demands every individual and every family to pull its own weight. I think when he said, “They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions,” that he is calling for a unity that Mintz and Kellogg would argue does not reflect the modern family, but according to President Obama must exist now. Similar to other comments the idea of “family” is alluded to indirectly when he discusses the need for a change in work ethic as well as a focus on future generations building and producing the “family” we have now. Obama also directly addresses the issue of what responsibilities the family has and what responsibility the state has with regards to family and childrearing, considering which government programs have been effective, which is an idea we will have to consider all semester. Who’s responsibility is it to educate children? Who’s responsibility is it to care for the elderly? And how have these responsibilities shifted and changed throughout time? It is also interesting to note that while President Obama acknowledged the need to evaluate the effectiveness of government programs that directly affect the family he also acknowledged what the government cannot do such as nurturing a child. – Mary Beth</div>Mdill1cphttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_2_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 2 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-01-22T05:21:27Z<p>Mdill1cp: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Readings ==<br />
<br />
== Catherine Scholten ==<br />
<br />
Wow, I never realized that was when they started making women lay down on their backs to give birth. That is like, the absolute worse way to give birth (Except perhaps trying to do it on your stomach...). So because men wanted to break into that field and take over it, midwives were kicked out the door for the most part. To be honest, this is something I've researched a little in the past (the hubby and I have been talking about pregnancies the past year), and lying on your back is the hard way to give birth because of the way your trying to push the baby out, however, with walking around and standing/squatting/sitting gravity works with the body and the baby goes straight out instead of having to do a bit of a curve. At least from what I have read and what my friend who is a doula has explained to me. Then, at that time (and I understand the whole humility/embarassment thing), making women lay down on their back and covered up just seems more dangerous because the person can't see what the hell is going on, so how can you deliver the baby safely when you can't even see, thats just stupidity. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Ok, maybe I missed it in the reading, but at what point did society have that epiphany and realize that women and their children were worth saving during childbirth and that women deserved to have the most pain-free birthing (an oxymoron, I know)? Also, I thought it was kind of ridiculous that men wouldn't allow women to enter the medical practice because they lacked the "power of action" and the "active power of mind," yet they were the original midwives and primary caregivers. Celia M.<br />
<br />
Celia, let's remember that American women have only been allowed to vote since 1920. Is their patronizingly small role in medicine really that big of a stretch? -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
After reading Scholten's essay, I found it very surprising that childbearing after the American Revolution and into the early 20th century became dominated by male physicians. Scholten argues in her essay that the replacement of female midwives were preferred by most women than male physicians. I also found it interesting and bizarre that American midwifery which had dominated childbearing before the American Revolution nearly disappeared at the advent of new discoveries in medical science. Wouldn't it make sense to allow women to enroll in early 20th century medical schools and participate in childbearing, when they previously were the dominant participants before the American Revolution. All the excuses by male doctors of women making them nervous in the room or their ability to be a distraction was extremely bizarre. -Joseph C.<br />
<br />
<br />
I have to say that I was incredibly excited about reading this essay because medicine and midwifery in the fourth quarter of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth incredibly fascinating. (It probably doesn't help that I do first-person interpretation of medicine in this time period.) So that brings me to Ashley's comment about women starting to give birth on their backs rather than in squatting or sitting positions, and Joseph's comment on the fact that they were suddenly letting men into the "lying-in." Scholten doesn't mention this until halfway through the piece, but it wasn't until the end of the eighteenth century that obstetric forceps came into widespread use, nearly a century after their initial conception. Such instruments fell into the realm of the doctor rather than the midwife, and women were seen as less able to understand and facilitate the same things that men were, thus women were pushed out of the birthing room. Subsequently, women were made to lie on their backs to allow their male physician to use equipment to examine them, of which the forceps are an example. Personally, I think that such changes were nearly useless at the time, because other than extreme cases the physicians could only do a little more than the midwives. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading this essay. It was rather interesting to read about the start of our customs regarding childbirth. I was amazed to find that males quickly took over this profession and women soon preferred to switch over to the more modern practices as medicine improved. It is strange that now many women turn to older practices and choose a midwife over conventional methods of childbirth. - Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
It was interesting to see the transformation childbirth customs through the years, and I have to say, I had no idea that midwives took such a backseat once the physician became a bigger part of childbirth. It almost seems as though they were viewed as superfluous or as an archaic, outdated custom. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
It was also interesting to read that the use of alcohol in birthing reached as far back as it did. My mom (a registered nurse) and I have discussed on multiple occasions that while she was taught the methods of dispensing intravenous alcohol in childbirth, it is a vastly outdated practice, and her delivery of my oldest brother in 1981 was probably one of the last times that IV alcohol was used in such a manner. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I agree that this was a very interesting article. While I agree that it is unfortunate that midwives and female relations were largely removed from the childbirth process, there were some positive aspects of the move to male physicians such as the belief that it should be made less painful, as Celia already mentioned. Scholten also notes this "implied a new social appreciation of women." I believe that the former practice of referring to pregnant women as "breeding" or "teeming" makes them sound more like cattle then human beings and while it is unfortunate that women were displaced in midwifery, women may have gained some greater appreciation from at least some of the male gender as a result. That said, it doesn't appear that women gained physically from the change, swapping potentially ill-informed midwives with doctors too socially conscious to treat them as proper medicine would dictate. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I agree with some of Sarah’s comments. I don’t think that the shift to doctors was a bad thing at all. At some point, a process as serious as childbirth would have come under scientific scrutiny. It is unfortunate, however, that the norms of the time excluded women from the practice. Their hands on experience and knowledge, coupled with scientific advances, could have served as a major catalyst for advancement in the field. Similarly, if society had been ready for male doctors to visually experience the process, advancement may have been more rapid. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
In response to Celia and Cash's comments: I think the essay stated that it was the early 1800s when attempts were made to make childbirth a less painful experience. This coincided with a religious movement and relieving women of suffering related to scripture. I also was surprised to know that women essentially were kicked out of the field. Considering how involved women ''have'' been in medicine, from early nurses through the postbellum era, it seems counterintuitive to exclude women from a field that pertains only to their gender. I agree with Andrew (and Sarah): the knowledge and training men were able to receive coupled with women's experience and acceptance by other women would have would have advanced the field.--Amanda<br />
<br />
What were the roles of Midwives? How did they vary both within the colonies and in comparison to European counterparts? - Stephen<br />
<br />
I think the role of midwives is actually quite fascinating. The amount of reliance and trust women put in them to safely deliver their children is just remarkable, almost like the same amount of faith women put in doctors and medicine (and heavy drugs) today. They were there for more than birth too, which I think is often overlooked, in that they were seen as the person to go to when you had an illness or a disease because they had such an incredible knowledge of herbs and recipes. Whether they knew it or not, they were vital to a society during their "prime" for lack of a better word. I think it's neat that, even though times have changed remarkably in terms of medicine and childbirth go, midwives are still around today. They are still trusted with childbirth today and it's interesting that it's an alternative that never seemed to go away for some people. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I feel like the shift from midwives and a communal birth to a more private birth with a physician is another way of showing the shift to a more personalized and independent lifestyle. I also think that this was another area that men had to be superior over women even though the midwife had been the norm for ages. I do think that these physicians were obviously beneficial to the world of medicine and to saving women and childrens' lives. It is just unfortunate that the women who had been helping other women give birth since, well, pretty much the beginning of time had to take a back seat to men and science. But really, what else is new? - Kari <br />
<br />
I cannot help but think of Mintz and Kellogg’s jab at modern American families with their desire to be isolated from the society at large when thinking of the changes in childbirth as presented by Scholten. We witness a gradual, but significant change for women and men as obstetrics was a field opened to trained, male physicians instead of the role of a midwife and other females. We see a shift from communal to more individual as fewer women were needed for medical advice or general support of birthing women. It is interesting to note that women tended to disappear when a physician arrived and that physicians were grateful since women tended to talk too much, gossip, and be overall very distracting. We see birth as a more private matter confined to a quiet, dimly lit room with very few visitors or female company. One can already notice a shift from communal to individual that Kellogg and Mintz like to frequently point out as a plague of the modern family just simply examining the change in child birthing practices. – Mary Beth <br />
<br />
== Paul Johnson ==<br />
Well, I have to say this was an interesting read indeed. Greenleaf just made me angry throughout the reading and I couldn't help but feel sorry for Abigail and the kids, I was actually happy to read that the daughters changed their names. In a sense this could be an example of women taking control of the household in the end and being a single-parent household (to show that divorces happened and that women still maintained custody of children in some cases). I know the reading said that the case was fairly unique, but I wonder how unique it really was, like... how much of this actually happened but just wasn't recorded anywhere? --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I completely agree with you about Greenleaf. The whole time I was reading about it my particular dislike for him grew. I was curious, as well, about how many households were in similar situations. It is interesting to note that Abigal was, initially, very subordinate and wanted a good friend as a husband, something like a companion. But when Greenleaf cast aside his family duties, or responsibilities, she pretty much rolled up her sleeves and became more decisive and domineering. It doesn't seem unlikely that many women took up the family responsibilities when their partner didn't. It was a means of survival- financially, emotionally, socially, etc. It is what being a family is all about. Celia M<br />
<br />
I agree, I really found myself not liking Greenleaf while reading this article. I think that many women might have been in similar situations, having to take control of their family when their husband failed to do so. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
Yet another agreement about Greenleaf. However, I have to say that it appears that Greenleaf didn't have much of an example to go upon to be able to become a useful, productive citizen. From what little we see of his father it seems that they were very similar in their inability to take care of their family. Would not such a dysfunctional family provide a poor role model for the children? It's no wonder that Abigail had to take up the duties that would normally have fallen to her partner. -Lacey<br />
<br />
While I agree with everyone that Greenleaf was far from a model citizen or husband, he was subject to several disadvantages. I think that this narrative illustrates the implications of social pressures and norms of the time period in New England. If you did not own your own land you were at a distinct disadvantage and being the youngest son of 10 children in a splintered family would not have allowed him many opportunities or positive examples, as Lacey mentioned. That said, I do not think that that justifies his actions and his treatment of his family. Also, was anyone else surprised by the statistic that 1 in 3 women were pregnant on their wedding day? I think a lot of people have a false image of very straitlaced, pious New England families, when in fact people were dealing with many of the same issues that are still relevant today. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I, too, agree with everyone about disliking Greenleaf. I think that the situation Abigail was in must have been somewhat common because it mentions in the article that during the late 18th and early 19th century there was a "decline of patriarchal authority". It sounds to me like women wanted to show their husbands they could survive without them by creating their own separate domestic sphere. I really enjoyed reading about how these women were able to adapt to these awful situations and growing from them to become independent. - Kari<br />
<br />
As the first male student in the class to post on this particular essay, I did not feel the same dislike for Greenleaf until after reading that Greenleaf Patch became a drunkard and stole money earned from his wife in children. I think a couple points have not been introduced in these blog entries that may alter one's opinion of Greenleaf. In the introduction Paul Johnson indicates that the story is reconstructed from distant impersonal and fragmentary sources, the majority being government documents. It's interesting that there was no indication of written diaries from either of the family members or local people about Greenleaf and Abigail Patch. Paul Johnson also indicates that increasing numbers of men owned no land in the New England area. Is it possible that the economic instability of Greenleaf's family may have shaped his personality and his future actions? -Joseph C.<br />
<br />
I think that Greenleaf was a loser. The significance of this lies in its parallels to modern society. Mintz & Kellog spoke of the model family, one with strong moral convictions and community ties. However, they failed to comment on unconventional families in NE. In today’s society, there are hundreds of family templates. Nuclear, single parent, extended live-in, etc. The same went for colonial NE. Although M&K forgot about unconventional family types, it does not mean they did not exist. NE, like modern society, was not a fairy-tale. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
To Joseph's question: yes, definitely, it's possible and likely. I didn't react in the same way to Greenleaf, but found this essay as a supplement to the Mintz& Kellogg readings. Their ideas of family so far seem to be shaped by the middle of the road or exceptional (in terms of wealth and standing) families. Here's something that discusses early pregnancies, debt, alcoholism and divorce! This essay makes up for something missing thus far from our textbook. I noted though that debt of Greenleaf's era was passed in the family. Today we find debt still a problem, but more the presence of debt in one's own life, not from that of his father. The Patch family also shows us the idea of lineage and marring the "good family name." I think this is why this class starts where it does, in the late 1700s. Before families were settled and assumed identities in their communities, the idea of the "good family name" was nonexistent.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I also have to defend Joe a little here. We have to consider Greenleaf in the context of the era and how problems espeically financial in nature become generational. However, I too can understand the concern about Greenleaf's actions. - Stephen<br />
<br />
First of all, "Mayo Greenleaf Patch?" Really? I almost feel bad for him with a name like that. However, I have a hard time getting past the fact that he was a failed patriarch, essentially. It was a time when the father was in charge of the family and was the provider and he had a difficult time doing that job. Although it could be a total "girl power" moment because this situation allowed Abigail and the others like her to become independent and wear the pants, unfortunately that's not how things were done in the 18th and 19th century. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I was really impressed by Johnson's methodology. The way he used records of censuses, taxes, and court cases to figure out the story of these people's lives is very cool. One part that jumped out at me is when Greenleaf's mother-in-law said that her "children" were taking all of her furniture, Johnson was able to figure out that she could ONLY be talking about Greenleaf and Abigail. Another part I was impressed with was how Johnson used the tax record of Greenleaf housing the school teacher as proof that he was a trusted member of the community. I mean, that makes sense and doesn't seem like a huge leap, but when you think that all that this guy had in front of him were a bunch of government records, I think it is very impressive that he was able to infer so much about Greenleaf's character and personal life. I guess historians like Johnson have to get creative in how they use their sources. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
== Extra Credit: What did the President's inaugural address say (directly or indirectly) about American families and individuals? ==<br />
<br />
He said that past generations have faced much difficulty and sacrificed things to ensure that future generations could live happily with more freedom. Specifically he mentioned the American Revolution, Civil War, westward expansion and immigrating to America. He also said that parents need to continue to nurture children and instill the values of honesty, loyalty and patriotism so that our country can become an even better place. Families are definitely a key part of correcting society's problems. --Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
It was definitely a speech using family as an allegory for the entire nation. Government was painted as a head of the family, willing to help and reach out to those it cares for, as long as those who need caring for are willing to work for what they receive. He mentioned the importance of ancestry and recognizing our immigrant heritage, as well as ensuring that our values are not lost. Most importantly, I thought, was his inclusion of both beliefs and NON-beliefs. I am not sure if Obama was the first President to overtly mention atheism, but I think it sent a great message that regardless of what you do or do not believe in, you will not be discriminated against. It was truly a powerful speech. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
He talked about the progression of American society through the lens of the family. He specifically discussed generational progression. In so many words, Obama said that the hard work and sacrifice of past generations have made possible the radical change our country is experiencing. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
President Obama's speech also reinforced Mintz and Kellogg's point that the American family, once a self-sufficient unit, is now dependent on social programs. For instance, in his speech, Obama mentioned the need to improve health care, better our schools and colleges, and provide for retirees, all things that were once responsibilities of families. He also, as others have previously mentioned, spoke of the importance our actions have on future generations. Lastly, he applauded the self-sacrifice of future generations of Americans which have allowed us, their descendants, to live in a great and free nation. His speech clearly made the case that the family is still very important to society. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
President Obama spoke directly about the generation Kennedy appealed to for service to their country, reminding us that this country was built on the backs of the different groups he mentioned. I think he alluded to the sense of "family" in a bigger sense, that if everyone pitches in and unites and helps one another, our common goals will be met.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I think one of the most specific examples of President Obama's speech that spoke directly to families was that a parents willingness to nurture a child that finally decides our fate. I think that this particularly reflects the argument of Mintz and Kellogg that New England families after the American Revolution took a more caring approach to children that would mold their lives in the direction they preferred. -Joseph C.<br />
<br />
"At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because we the people have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears, and true to our founding documents. So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans." i think the concept of considering these matters in the realm of another generation of the AMERICAN family, is intresting. However I think another family theme can be found in considering how our concepts of American style living/governing is pased through our families. - Stephen<br />
<br />
It seemed that he discussed the responsibility one holds towards his country as very similar to the relationship of a child to his parents. The government, or nation in this case, is the giving parent that, when in need of help from the child in times of sickness or dispair would expect the same to be given willingly. These are the duties that "we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly". He is saying perhaps the American family should feel this very sense of pride towards responsibility. Wait, I'm not in this class. Where's the Technology wiki? - Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
President Obama talked a lot about key values that make America the nation that it is today and that will make America a better nation in the future. These values are things that comes from the family. If children are not taught these values at home with their families, how will they ever fully learn and experience them? Obviously our nation's problems will not be fixed overnight. However, if we educate the future generations on how to properly act, with honesty and integrity, in certain situations, then this country will be able to grow and prosper. -Kari</div>Mdill1cphttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_2_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 2 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-01-20T06:01:50Z<p>Mdill1cp: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Chapter 1--Domestic Revolutions ==<br />
<br />
In Chapter One of ''Domestic Revolutions'', Mintz and Kellogg mentioned the changes in family between the colonial time period and the late 1980s. They wrote that now spousal ties are emotional, which for the most part I do agree with (some people do still marry for property and money though), and that obligation to kin is now voluntary and selective. While yes I do agree that it is voluntary, I have to argue that it was always voluntary, it is just now with technologies improvements on food/clothes production and distribution, overall health care, etc.. there is less of an incentive than before when people relied on their family and kin more for their food, clothes, health (being taken care of by kin when sick), pregnancy and baby stuff, etc. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
<br />
We talked about the fact that Mintz and Kellogg give the impression that New England was the model for all of the American colonies in class the other day, and that fact came back to me while I was reading chapter one. It seems that they intentionally ignore the other colonies because they don't represent that "early American family" that they are describing. Families in other colonies, especially those on the Chesapeake, would largely have resembled the English model of the family at the time. I think this is an gross oversight on their part that leaves a number of questions about non-New England, colonial families unanswered. I find that to be very annoying. -Lacey<br />
<br />
<br />
It really bothered me that Mintz and Kellogg spent so much time looking at New England families and did not seem to devote anytime to those in other colonies. The New England colonies covered just a small portion of all the colonies and I feel that more should be dedicated to the other groups. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I agree Kellye. Despite being from New England, it seems that Mintz and Kellogg spent too much of their precious pages on not a standard bearer in considering families in the New England colonies, but rather a very different scheme than found most places. - Stephen<br />
<br />
I think it may be the general consensus that, as Dr. McClurken pointed out in class last week, the Puritan family structure is not the typical colonial American family. But, as Mintz and Kellogg point out in Chapter 2, the Puritan families in New England "had already become a society with roots" (36) while the European Immigrants in the Chesapeake area were initially settling in as pioneers who left families behind in the old country. While we all know that there were many families with diverse social, cultural and racial backgrounds living and working in other regions in America, maybe Mintz and Kellogg are trying to emphasize the fact that it was families that settled New England, for the most part, while other regions were occupied mostly by adventurers. So I can kind of see where they are coming from (ok, so I'm just trying to cut the authors a break. Oh well, just looking at it from a couple sides)- Celia M<br />
<br />
<br />
Like everyone else, I believe that Mintz and Kellog focus too much on the New England family. The average New England family was not representative of the average family in other colonies. For one, the scheme of population distribution was not the same in New England as it was in other colonies. Mintz and Kellog touch on a ‘community family.’ Differences in population distribution make a ‘community family’ almost impossible in places dominated by agriculture. – Andrew B<br />
<br />
I found several interesting points in Mintz& Kellogg's first chapter. I noted that they wrote the "household" (instead of "family") "not the individual was the fundamental unit of society." I suppose that's a fair assessment though as they pointed out that sons often did not move further than 16 miles away from their parents. Still is household more appropriate than family? They mentioned how the male head-of-the-house voted for all, which is interesting because it's a recent trend that politicians have targeted individual voters, not the unit of a "household" or marriage. In the last election, when I was phonebanking and canvassing for a campaign, we were given strict orders to take note of who we spoke to, and would make efforts to call back for a spouse even if we had spoken to another member of that family. In other words, campaigns now value each vote and make an effort to talk to the individual, not head of house. The first chapter also dealt with discipline and Puritan religion. It's interesting to see today how the many "Nanny 911" shows are publicized today, and how the inner-workings of the once serious issue of discipline is now public entertainment (how many people really watch that for advice?). --Amanda<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Ashley W, the obligation to kin has always been voluntary. There are numerous historically significant instances of broken family ties. The voluntary aspect of family has just been accentuated by modern society. Not only b/c of technological advances, but also because of the transition to an individualistic society. Simply stated, people just care more about themselves and less about others (even family) than they did 200 years ago. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
It is very obvious in the first chapter that Mintz & Kellogg's analysis of the American family in the 17th century was founded under New England Puritanical culture. I wanted to point out that in a 300-level American studies course (America in the 17th Century) I took my sophomore year, Dr. Tracy took a multi-dimensional study of American families by focusing on both New England, and Chesapeake societies. It is interesting to find that family culture was different because it was shaped from their different environments. This argument is very similar to that of Andrew B. in which agriculture in the early Chesapeake colony created less importance on 'community family'. -Joseph Cirenza<br />
<br />
This is a really minor point, but it kind of stood out to me. Mintz and Kellogg discussed at one point the lack of a family life for some members of society, in particular servants, apprentices and university lecturers. Now, I can understand servants, but what was it about university lecturers that they were denied a spouse? It seems silly to me that they weren't allowed to begin their own family in a society that believed the family was the central unit. -Kelly W<br />
<br />
The immediate need to remarry struck me as troublesome for the Puritan society, especially when considered in regards to the alarmingly high level of domestic violence at the time. I wonder what the rates of abuse were in the couples that were rushed into re-marriage in order to maintain status. Level of attraction and the sheer moral fiber of those involved were obviously ignored in these nuptials, and I have to wonder if the rate of abuse was actually HIGHER in second marriages than it may have been the first time around. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
Also, the reference to marriages being "corporate" between Puritanical and Revolutionary times seems dead on to me. Marriages at the time honestly seemed to resemble sports teams before the free agency market. Players (wives/husbands) were bought and sold at the whims of their owners (heads of family) and it wasn't until the introduction of rampant free agency (divorce) that the "players involved," really got a chance to live their own lives. Steinbrenner would be proud. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
A point that Mintz & Kellogg only mentioned in passing that really struck me was their opinion on the modern family on pg. 6. They wrote, “Unlike the contemporary American family, which is distinguished by its isolation from the world of work and the surrounding society, the Puritan family was deeply embedded in public life.” I find it very interesting that so early in their book Mintz and Kellogg have established this contrasting view of the current family (i.e. the Puritan family) and the “modern family.” I also found it interesting that they described the modern family as isolated. I think both Mintz and Kellogg have proven in their first chapter that the typical Puritan family was deeply rooted in public life, but can’t that be said about the modern family? What examples can we find of the Puritan family being isolated? – Mary Beth <br />
<br />
== Chapter 2--Domestic Revolutions ==<br />
<br />
I have to say that I didn't really care for Chapter two, it made too many generalities for my liking, but I guess it got the point across that there were at least 3 important groups in America that had different views of family and had unstable/rocky beginnings but seemed to get more stable and changed with time. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
If anything, Puritans did not have a "normal" family structure. Families in the other colonies had much more in common than the Puritans did with any other colony. Everyone in small New England towns were related by blood or marriage in someway, causing family and community ties to connect. In many small towns, today, these connections still exist. - Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I agree with Ashley that the material from Mintz and Kellogg, especially in Chapter 2, was very generalized. The three ethnic groups that they identify do not seem very cohesive in their family structure. There are several variations in the groups based on location, environment, and economic standing, among other factors. For instance, the discussion of the Native Americans seemed to briefly gloss over the 7 designated geographical areas and then focused on a few seemingly random groups, such as the Iroquois, which were not representative of all Native American families. In fact, did anyone else feel that their example of the Iroquois did not support their argument? They contend that the Iroquois were "largely able to maintain their culture, values, and rituals," and yet to reach this point of supposed stability they had to give up their practice of matrilineal descent and men had to learn the occupation of farming, resulting in a re-working of the traditional power structure and prescribed gender roles. It seems that obtaining a "stable" nuclear family resulted in the dissolution of the Iroquoian kinship network upon which their society had been based. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
<br />
Mintz and Kellogg also use the "typical" New England family as a means of comparison for all other groups in the colonial period. I found this to be rather strange as they were, as Mintz and Kellogg point out, very different from the families of the Chesapeake as well as the other family groups they discuss. There were a few common themes though that transcended all of the different ethnicities, one of which was the use of names. I found it very interesting that naming children was one of the few consistent ways of maintaining traditions between generations and was used as a way to maintain family continuity. Even in the very volatile world of the slave families, as Mintz and Kellogg point out, children of African slaves were named "for a parent or other blood kin." The naming of one's children appears to be something that people could control despite their families level of stability. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
However, I completely agree with what Sarah said above about the Iroquois adapting a European culture and being able to successfully maintain their own culture. I almost scoffed at that passage as I read it. How could the Native Americans cast aside their traditions and lifestyle so drastically and adopt those aspects of European culture and still maintain their traditions and values? But it also made me think briefly about how I think our own culture today may be in a similar situation. Are we not casting aside our old traditions and values at what seems like a daily rate? Our world is ever changing and we along with it. It will not be long before we are completely devoid of our values and traditions. I guess we, like the Iroquois, according to Mintz and Kellogg, will just have to adapt- but hopefully not too much. Celia M<br />
<br />
I agree with Sarah and Celia's comments about Chapter 2. Mintz& Kellogg spend lots of time explaining the geographic differences in tribes (like out of the Virginia SOL 2nd grade handbook), then lump all tribes together in the discussion of family units. They also failed to mention the valuable source of captivity narratives, from early colonists who spent time with certain tribes. Often as captives but sometimes choosing to stay, the authors provide insight about the link between colonial families and family structures of Native Americans.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I understand that it would be very difficult to discuss every family type in depth and that generalizations are necessary, but Mintz and Kellogg use sweeping generalizations far too much for my liking. However, their section on the African American families I think is an important one because they are often overlooked in earlier time periods. Usually when studying the colonial period the focus is on the whites in the Chesapeake and in New England so a discussion, even if a more general overview, on their style of family living I think is very important. -Kelly W<br />
<br />
I notice a lot of criticism for Mintz and Kellogg’s “generalized” presentation of three types of colonial families, but I would argue that we cannot stop at this criticism and must look instead for the similarities and differences amongst the three groups based upon our deeper reading of the text. Take the example of children, their role within the family, how they were raised/disciplined, inheritance, marriages and dowries, even how children were expected to act with their parents can be noted throughout the Puritan family example in Chapter 1 and then compared to the three family types established in Chapter 2 to give us a better understanding of how class, region, and ethnicity altered families of the seventeenth century. – Mary Beth <br />
<br />
== Linda Kerber, "Politicizing the Household" ==<br />
<br />
I liked the essay entitled "Politicizing the Household," it was nice to see that there were women who made political and patriotic statements of themselves beyond the old standbys. It was also interesting to see that while women were not thought much of their responsibilities gave them ways to be just as much of a hero to people as the men getting shot on the battlefield. They also humanize the history, showing the reader that one does not necessarily have to be spectacular, like Deborah Sampson, to make a difference. -Lacey<br />
<br />
On a different note, this essay also brings to mind WWII, because the women are suddenly in charge of all of these tasks which are usually those in the domain of men. Interestingly enough it doesn't seem to cause as much of a ruckus when the men come back from the war. -Lacey<br />
<br />
Kerber's essay on women and households in the American Revolution was very interesting. I had never really considered how it would be assumed that women and families of the time would have the same allegiances as their husbands and fathers. To me this really emphasizes the subordinate role women were seen to have in families of the time. I also found it interesting that women could take advantage of their roles as nurses and housekeepers to spy on their enemy and use the war as a means of political mobilization. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
With a great deal of my woefully inadequate understanding of American Revolution era families coming from movies like “The Patriot,” I too found the article to be enlightening and thought provoking about the role women played. Stephen<br />
<br />
== General Questions ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that the authors compared families of the 17th and 18th centuries of different demographics but also felt it was too generalized. So much of the chapters were dedicated to the Puritan families, that the rest of the colonists and Native Americans got lost within the book. Generalizations aside, what commonalities are the authors using to describe and compare families of slaves, Native Americans, and white colonists of the North and South colonies of the 17th and 18th centuries? Do these descriptions and themes of households hold up for a family of 2009?-Joyce</div>Mdill1cphttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_1_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 1 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-01-15T02:48:02Z<p>Mdill1cp: </p>
<hr />
<div>Maybe it is just how I read the introduction, or the mood I was in when I read it, but it seemed like Mintz and Kellogg were almost cynical or upset at the changes in family from the husband and wife with some kids with the wife subservient to the husband type of stuff. I know some people are definitely like that, even if that wasn't how Mintz and Kellogg meant to come across, one of my grandma's is absolute in her belief that females are to stay home, constantly have babies, not go to school, cook, clean, and be practically a slave to her husband. Needless to say, she doesn't like the fact that I continue my education and have no babies, and she makes it known to everyone that she believes today's world is hell on earth and that if women don't go back to their place the world will end. Yes, she blames it mostly on women not being in the home. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
More of a discussion topic than a comment: The introduction lists Mintz and Kellogg's 3 main reasons for changes in the family: changes in the economy, demography, and changes in the roles of women. Does anyone think there is any other reasons for changes in family from the husband, wife, and kids outlook of family set up in the introduction of ''Domestic Revolutions''? About 21 years after the book was published, I think technology has changed family. For some families, I think there is more isolation, but with others I feel (so far) that since members of a family can/do move far away (be it because of military, job, or whatever) that technology has also created a type of 'glue' that can help families stay together, or connected, in the world we live in now. Even though the definition of family has changed, I think some families are staying in better contact not with just their immediate family (parents, siblings) but with extended family (relatives, and friends). --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I agree on the second point. While those three would constitute a large part of the changes in family life, I think that there are other factors. Technology is one of them. I think that the decline of religion, particularly the Christian denominations, and the separation of church and state are factors in the change of family structure and responsibility. Had the founding fathers not created that division between law and religion, families may have retained a lot more of that cohesive autonomy that marked the previous centuries. -Lacey<br />
<br />
From a personal standpoint, I have to agree with Kellogg and Mintz. My sense of family has never been that "proper" barefoot and pregnant archetype. My mother had been in the military for sixteen years before I was born, she retired when I was four and went back to work less than six months later. Even today she is still the bread-winner in my family, as my dad retired from civil service in 1999. Because of this I think that Kellogg and Mintz are all too right in their idea that the nuclear family is irrevocably altered from the ideal. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I definately agree that the idea of family has completely changed since the seventeenth century. Most of this change is for good, and I think that it is caused by new beliefs in gender roles. Technology has played a large part in this change as well. It has definately allowed families to stay more connected under difficult situations. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
The change in the family structure is not all good. Because of the changes in roles and technology it has allowed the family to lose its previous close bond. Many families are not able to have dinner together due to different activities and in a world where text messaging and email are so popular at times that is the only contact family members have. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
We are so used to the modern social and familial norms that we often times forget that the family was a community in itself once upon a time. The institute of the family used to provide child and elderly care, education, and spiritual and economic growth and stability. After reading this introduction, I thought about how the family has changed so drastically, we almost (generally) never provide any of the above. And even though technology has brought us closer to a degree, at the same time we can say that it has also widened the gap. And not only was the family a community in itself, but it was molded, regulated and practically held together by the all seeing "eye" of the wider community in which the family belonged. It seems that families in our culture today rarely concern themselves with what the community at large think. - Celia<br />
<br />
After rambling on in the paragraph above, I realized that I was generalizing, as were Mintz and Kellogg in their intro. Though the authors bring up some good points on the pros and cons of the modern family, they only describe many but not all families. MAybe back in the 80's family life was crumbling as the baby-boomers started families of their own, but I know that many contemporary families, including my own, are very firmly rooted in traditional values. The authors also speak of a decrease in personal responsibilty and a rising wave of selfishness in our society, which I believe is true for the most part, but some families, and I am happy to say my own family as well, are given a bad and false rap in the generalizations of the authors.- Celia<br />
<br />
The opening quote of the book by Bronislaw Malinowski I think best introduces some of the ideas touched upon by Mintz and Kellogg. It reads, “Marriage and the family are undergoing a change, nay, passing through a crisis. To close your eyes to it, to say that all is for the best in the best of matrimonial worlds, would be as shallow and as unscientific as to prophesy the downfall of the family. Some changes are necessary, but these will not affect the essential constitution of the family.” I think Mintz and Kellogg would agree that the families of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s as well as present-day families and families as far back as the 17th century have suffered a crisis. The family described as the “accepted family” which they establish as their norm is certainly not the “accepted family” of the 21st century. As described by Kellogg and Mintz the family is not a static structure, but a “fragile institution.” Yet, the idea of family still exists and while continuously changing has been and will arguably always be a component of society, particularly American society. – Mary Beth</div>Mdill1cp 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