Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php on line 195
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 571
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 585
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 578
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 603
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 553
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 186
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 203
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 196
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 212
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 175
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php on line 135
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 234
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php on line 292
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php on line 755
Warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php on line 907
Deprecated: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Pager.php on line 908
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 627
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 629
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 630
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 631
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 633
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 634
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php on line 402
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38 https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Megan3088McClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T23:06:38ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_14_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 14 Questions/Comments2010-04-21T20:01:08Z<p>Megan3088: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Susan Eisenberg, Hard-Hatted Women ==<br />
<br />
I like the comparison Susan Eisenberg made on page 279 when she says, “Entering construction in the late 1970s was a little like falling in love with someone who you weren’t supposed to.” It seems that the problem for these women was not enjoying the job, but the hostility they faced from men and the fear they had of what the men would think of things such as pregnancy. It is good that these women had each other to lean on and form close bonds. I would guess that the majority of them would not have lasted if they didn’t have these strong connections to other women. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin on her post. It is great that these women had a community of a few other women who were going through the same things to motivate and identify with each other. Many women did not have that in the work place. I found it interesting when Eisenberg talked about working up until being about 6 months pregnant. Her friends outside of work couldn’t conceive (no pun intended) of the notion that people wouldn’t notice that she was pregnant, but as she said “no one expected to see a pregnant woman on a construction site”(280) so they didn’t see it at all under her baggy work cloths. She also presented herself as “she always had” (280) so they really didn’t see a difference. What I found to be sad was her experience on the work-site with the banter that the men had with each other. While they were joking about beating their wives and other assorted misogynistic things, she was quietly crying to herself in private. It is unfortunate because I feel like that still goes on. When I used to work in restaurants that banter was certainly happening behind the scenes which made many female co-workers uncomfortable. The difference now is that we are able to speak out against and potentially have action taken whereas Eisenberg really felt that had no power to do so in her position and industry. -Caryn<br />
<br />
I also agree with Erin and Caryn. It like how the women formed a support network amongst each other when working with the crass men became too much for any one of them to bear alone. However, I also found it interesting how the women didn't just get support from other "hard hatted" women, but from all women in general. Eisenberg talks about how she ran into women who wished they had led the lifestyle she had and who constantly encouraged her to keep going when things got tough. I think this really illustrates the "sisterhood" aspect of the women's lib movement. Women of different backgrounds rallied behind Eisenberg and her peers to make sure they had the support and the opportunity that they needed to keep going. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin, that line describes her passion in being a journeywoman. I found her experiences with combining her position and her pregnancy most moving. Pregnancy is an emotional and delicate process that a woman goes through. Pregnancy combined with feeling that co-workers would look at you differently and change the dynamics of work if they knew of the pregnancy. It is understandable why she didn’t tell them until later in her pregnancy. She did not want her co-workers to think she couldn‘t do her job any less than them. She was dealing with a lot of opposition in a field so new to women. As I read this piece, I got a sense of the enormous pressure she had on her and how it would be natural for her to draw strength from other women in the field. -Mhimes<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin and Mhimes, in respect to the passion Eisenberg felt for her job and her willingness to conceal her pregnancy. The line that grabbed my attention was when she stated, "Not talking about my pregnancy exaggerated the feeling I often have in construction of feeling split in two" (281). I think this piece really shows how women, like Eisenberg, felt as though they had to hide their pregnancy because they feared ridicule, or job loss. I think these are very real, articulated fears, because it was common for women in the past to be let go from jobs when pregnant or married. I enjoyed Eisenberg's perseverance as a working mother and how she was able to form a good relationship with her male co-workers who actually accepted her as a working woman and a mother. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading this piece about a woman who became an electrician. I thought it was really neat to read about how much she loved her blue-collar job. Working in this type of occupation which was a predominantly male field must have been pretty hard at times. Thankfully women had the support of other women. Pregnancy was definitely an issue for these women especially because of their higher risk of miscarriages. I can't imagine having to do certain tasks and do labor intensive work while being pregnant. The idea of miscarrying must have also led to increase stress. These women were brave and strong women for working these kinds of jobs alongside men and also being pregnant and/or mothers at the same time. -avanness<br />
<br />
I agree with Anna and the “sisterhood” ideal of the women liberation movement. I think that it was really important for women to have each other while they were breaking into something that was seen as entirely male. Anyone doing something out of the ordinary would need that support system, especially from her peers. I doubt that Susan would have done and gone as far as she did without her female supporters. Obviously the men on the job weren’t very supportive, of course there is always the exception, but from what Susan describes it seems like most were unsupportive. “The journeymen were extremely hostile and unwilling to train me,” (279). About the pregnancy I would be really reluctant to speak anything about it as well. Especially after hearing what the men talk about on a day-to-day basis, “jokes about beating up wives, racist and anti-Semitic slurs, degrading remarks about each other’s girlfriends or some women who happened to pass by,” (280). If I heard those remarks every day, even being a strong woman who broke into a new field, I would be worried for myself too. Susan is still a woman and men are still going to be stronger than her no matter what profession she is in. -Morgan<br />
<br />
== Connaught C. Marshner Explains What Social Conservatives Really Want, 1988 ==<br />
<br />
This is great because I have always wanted to know what social conservatives really want =) On a serious note, I think the reason I like this so much is because it was written in 1988 and these are arguments that I have personally heard people make. Honestly, what I really got out of this article was how hard it is to study and interpret history that is so recent because it really is difficult to separate your own feelings from the facts. I think it is important to see where one side is coming from, and even though I hate to admit it, I think that social conservatives, as described in this article, have some valid points (though they are few and far between). For example, women who choose to stay at home should get more credit in forms of tax breaks. <br />
On a side note -- I am curious about whom the audience of this article was intended to be and if they were trying to sway opinions in any particular way. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
== The Real "Norma Rae" Tells Her Story, Crystal Lee Sutton ==<br />
<br />
<br />
The Real “Norma Rae” was interesting. Sutton seemed to fall into union activity, but proved to be quite brave in the end. She really stuck to her guns throughout this piece. I was not entirely surprised when the Mill forbid the copying the “What the Company Will Do for You”. That doesn’t seem legal but it was a brave thing for Sutton to copy that letter for the National Labor Relations Board. I think that this empowerment allowed Sutton to really make a difference at this mill. She would not give up the fight even at the very end when she got fired and removed from the premises, “I was trying to get back in. I was fighting.” (277) It’s amazing how, in such a short time, she was educated and indoctrinated into the labor movement. – Caryn<br />
<br />
This piece almost reminded me of the interview I did for the paper. My interviewee's father did not agree with what Unions were doing at the time and forbade her to join them, just like Suttons mother and sister did. "[They] didn't think I ought to go" (274). However, unlike my interviewee, Sutton eventually fell into the Unions and I think the main reason was opportunity. Sutton did not have too much of this in the south and the workings conditions were not very favorable. Also, the economic status was most likely worse than my interviewee who was upper middle class. Sutton was almost certainly a lower class than this and in the south she had fewer options and was therefore forced into the Unions. This excerpt shows that economic status and location growing up definately contribute to opportunities for women. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I agree with Caryn, I really liked Sutton's determination. She literally did everything she could to get that letter. I also liked how she knew that it was more important to get the plant unionized than for her to keep her job. She gave up her own livelihood for the greater good of the factory workers, which is really admirable. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
Norma Rae was an interesting piece. Most intriguing was when she looked around and thought to herself as the boss was lying about what she’d been doing trying to find reasons to fire her [talking on the phone, hanging out in the bathroom, etc] that no one stood up for her, not even ones that had picnics together. Of course these people were afraid of loosing their jobs but that’s what the boss men expected -to use that fear to prevent them from creating or joining unions. Norma Rae stood up even though her knees were shaky and it wasn’t in her plan for the day, she did it. A lot of the readings this week were about women standing up. When they stood up, they set a precedent… if she made it, so can I! -MHimes<br />
<br />
<br />
Crystal Lee Sutton was a very brave and determined woman. She took risks because she knew what was right. Two things that I thought was interesting in this piece were the fact that after she was fired in 1973, no one would hire her until 1978. That is a long time she went without work and it shows how much employers and businesses really disliked unions and union activity. The other thing that was interesting was the fact that the plant didn't sign the union contract until 1989, almost six years after the union won an election at the plant. Again, people were very determined to keep unions out of plants and their businesses. -Avanness<br />
<br />
Crystal Lee Sutton was a powerful woman for her time and wanted to challenge the norms of male/corporate superiority. The line that struck was when Sutton was at the factory for dinner and the union organizer was pressuring her to get the letter off the bulletin board. When Eli said, "Look, Crystal, you can afford to lose a few pounds and I need that letter."(275). Was this a normal tactic used by men to get women to help the union effort? I am pretty sure it is an unwritten rule that you never call a woman fat, yet did it accomplish what Eli wanted? I think he may have said that to get the rise out of her, it would out of me but probably in retailiation against him, and it ultimately led to her being released from the company but it was a powerful move to challenge the head of corporations and I commend her for it. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
==Women on Welfare, Johnnie Tillmon, 1972==<br />
<br />
First, let me just say that I love Mrs. Tillmon. Second, I would hate to be on welfare and I hope I will never have to deal with it and by reading this piece I really felt for Mrs. Tillmon. It really helped me to see a different side of being on welfare. I see that we as a society have always looked down on those who resort to the use of welfare because we tend to think of them as inhuman. “In this country, if your any one of those things-poor, black, fat, female, middle-aged, on welfare-you count less as a human being,” (268). We see such people as taking our money because they are too lazy to work, but who are we to place such stereotypes upon these people? We just assume things having never experienced them and I see that we tend to believe what the politicians say as welfare being a “cancer eating at our vitals,” (287). We never see the people as mothers or children, just poor people taking away more of our money, aliens to the little world we live in. I’ll admit that I thought that same before because I’ve never had to deal with it. I like that Mrs. Tillmon comes up with a solution though and a smart one at that: “I’d start paying women a living wage for doing the work we are already doing-child-raising and housekeeping,” (289). This way the welfare crisis would be over and housewives wouldn’t be looked down upon either. We’ve spoken of working women as being more outgoing and not seen as “true women” either. Wouldn’t that all fix itself as women got paid for their domestic work in their house? I think we would be respected more and have more opportunities. I would definitely be rich by now. =) -Morgan<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with what Morgan has stated. It is clear from this piece that being on welfare automatically labels a person with a negative stereotype. I think that this piece shows the difficulty that women have raising a family as a single mother, especially since the A.F.D.C, in most cases, prohibited a male in the household in order to qualify. The part that stuck out to me was Tillmon's distinction between ''a'' man and ''the'' man. She showed how the government was, in essence, controlling women who accepted this welfare. Her line, "The truth is that A.F.D.C is like a supersexist marriage. You trade in ''a'' man for ''the'' man" (287). It seems like these women who have no other options, but to be on welfare because they do not make enough money to support themselves and their children, have to loose a part of their sexuality as a consequence. This statement really grabbed me when Tillmon states, "There's one good thing about welfare. It kills your illusions about yourself, and about where this society is really at...You have to learn to fight, to be aggressive, or you just don't make it. If you can survive being on welfare, you can survive anything" (289). If this doesn't read like empowerment, I'm not sure what else does. -abratchi<br />
<br />
==The Voice of the an Anorexic, Abra Fortune Chernik, 1995==<br />
<br />
This article scared and gave hope to me. Of course I’ve heard of anorexic and I’ve seen it, but I’ve never felt the pain like I did in reading Mrs. Chernik’s first-hand account. But through all of the pain of eating and binging she persevered through it and that was what really got through to me. Instead of beating herself up for being anorexic and not being able to fix it, she found what was wrong with society and how they saw her as a woman. As women we try to live up to unrealistic standards thinking that that is what men want and what other women will be jealous of. It’s what society has done to us, it’s damaged us. Mrs. Chernick finally broke through this when she saw herself and “observed a woman held up by her culture as the physical ideal because she was starving, self-obsessed, and powerless, a women called beautiful because she threatened no one except herself,” (323) . Women are not suppose to be powerful and dominate of themselves, that’s what were told. Men are to be the superior and made to feel that way; maybe that is why they seem so confident in their bodies. “As long as society resists female power, fashion will call healthy women physically flawed,” (324). If only we could all learn to be “based on an image of a women warrior,” (324) and be happy as ourselves. -Morgan<br />
<br />
==Organizing the Farm Workers, Jessie Lopez De La Cruz==<br />
<br />
This article made me believe in not only the union fight but the power women could have in the union struggle. The line that clearly stood out to me was, "It doesn't take courage. All it takes is standing up for what you believe in,..."(285). Jessie did not want to be known as courageous, as someone who should be idiolzed but she was, for a woman to step outside societal norms and challenge practices was not common. She just wanted people to come together and fight for what they deserved and the help she had from the nurse to enter Parlier proved that many people felt the same and just wanted to see a good outcome.-Megan W.<br />
<br />
==Date Rape: Hysteria or Epidemic? Katie Roiphe==<br />
<br />
Although when I first started reading this piece I thought that Roiphe was making some streched claims, she did bring up a lot of great points. I think her willingness to show that the issue of "date rape" actually produces a negative view on women is interesting. She believes that "date rape" victimizes women and labels women as incapable of being sensual beings. I thought this was interesting because a lot of women in the feminist movement (first and second) were trying to move away from this Victorian stereotype of women being pure and pious. Roiphe shows that this date rape movement is actually, in some ways, harking back to this old ideal that rejects women as sexual beings. Roiphe is instead promoting that women take responsibility for their own actions and not subject themselves to this stereotype and to not be afraid to be sexual. -abratchi<br />
<br />
==Women and Disabilities, Nancy Mairs==<br />
<br />
This article I found to be empowering for anyone who has a degenerative disease, they know they are not alone and while a cure would be ideal, they can survive and still enjoy life. The one issue I had with the article was when she discussed the use of the word, "cripple" and said, "[people]-wince at the word ''cripple'', as they do not at handicapped or disabled."(317). I do not think that is true, as someone who has personal experience with a disabled person I know they are still looked at differently when the word disabled is brought up, or someone notices their license plate with disabled tags, and people make comments. No matter how a person is classified as crippled, disabled, or handicapped there is always an ignorant person who will make a remark, but people like Nancy make the best of it. -Megan W.</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_14_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 14 Questions/Comments2010-04-21T19:15:22Z<p>Megan3088: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Susan Eisenberg, Hard-Hatted Women ==<br />
<br />
I like the comparison Susan Eisenberg made on page 279 when she says, “Entering construction in the late 1970s was a little like falling in love with someone who you weren’t supposed to.” It seems that the problem for these women was not enjoying the job, but the hostility they faced from men and the fear they had of what the men would think of things such as pregnancy. It is good that these women had each other to lean on and form close bonds. I would guess that the majority of them would not have lasted if they didn’t have these strong connections to other women. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin on her post. It is great that these women had a community of a few other women who were going through the same things to motivate and identify with each other. Many women did not have that in the work place. I found it interesting when Eisenberg talked about working up until being about 6 months pregnant. Her friends outside of work couldn’t conceive (no pun intended) of the notion that people wouldn’t notice that she was pregnant, but as she said “no one expected to see a pregnant woman on a construction site”(280) so they didn’t see it at all under her baggy work cloths. She also presented herself as “she always had” (280) so they really didn’t see a difference. What I found to be sad was her experience on the work-site with the banter that the men had with each other. While they were joking about beating their wives and other assorted misogynistic things, she was quietly crying to herself in private. It is unfortunate because I feel like that still goes on. When I used to work in restaurants that banter was certainly happening behind the scenes which made many female co-workers uncomfortable. The difference now is that we are able to speak out against and potentially have action taken whereas Eisenberg really felt that had no power to do so in her position and industry. -Caryn<br />
<br />
I also agree with Erin and Caryn. It like how the women formed a support network amongst each other when working with the crass men became too much for any one of them to bear alone. However, I also found it interesting how the women didn't just get support from other "hard hatted" women, but from all women in general. Eisenberg talks about how she ran into women who wished they had led the lifestyle she had and who constantly encouraged her to keep going when things got tough. I think this really illustrates the "sisterhood" aspect of the women's lib movement. Women of different backgrounds rallied behind Eisenberg and her peers to make sure they had the support and the opportunity that they needed to keep going. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin, that line describes her passion in being a journeywoman. I found her experiences with combining her position and her pregnancy most moving. Pregnancy is an emotional and delicate process that a woman goes through. Pregnancy combined with feeling that co-workers would look at you differently and change the dynamics of work if they knew of the pregnancy. It is understandable why she didn’t tell them until later in her pregnancy. She did not want her co-workers to think she couldn‘t do her job any less than them. She was dealing with a lot of opposition in a field so new to women. As I read this piece, I got a sense of the enormous pressure she had on her and how it would be natural for her to draw strength from other women in the field. -Mhimes<br />
<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading this piece about a woman who became an electrician. I thought it was really neat to read about how much she loved her blue-collar job. Working in this type of occupation which was a predominantly male field must have been pretty hard at times. Thankfully women had the support of other women. Pregnancy was definitely an issue for these women especially because of their higher risk of miscarriages. I can't imagine having to do certain tasks and do labor intensive work while being pregnant. The idea of miscarrying must have also led to increase stress. These women were brave and strong women for working these kinds of jobs alongside men and also being pregnant and/or mothers at the same time. -avanness<br />
<br />
== Connaught C. Marshner Explains What Social Conservatives Really Want, 1988 ==<br />
<br />
This is great because I have always wanted to know what social conservatives really want =) On a serious note, I think the reason I like this so much is because it was written in 1988 and these are arguments that I have personally heard people make. Honestly, what I really got out of this article was how hard it is to study and interpret history that is so recent because it really is difficult to separate your own feelings from the facts. I think it is important to see where one side is coming from, and even though I hate to admit it, I think that social conservatives, as described in this article, have some valid points (though they are few and far between). For example, women who choose to stay at home should get more credit in forms of tax breaks. <br />
On a side note -- I am curious about whom the audience of this article was intended to be and if they were trying to sway opinions in any particular way. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
== The Real "Norma Rae" Tells Her Story, Crystal Lee Sutton ==<br />
<br />
<br />
The Real “Norma Rae” was interesting. Sutton seemed to fall into union activity, but proved to be quite brave in the end. She really stuck to her guns throughout this piece. I was not entirely surprised when the Mill forbid the copying the “What the Company Will Do for You”. That doesn’t seem legal but it was a brave thing for Sutton to copy that letter for the National Labor Relations Board. I think that this empowerment allowed Sutton to really make a difference at this mill. She would not give up the fight even at the very end when she got fired and removed from the premises, “I was trying to get back in. I was fighting.” (277) It’s amazing how, in such a short time, she was educated and indoctrinated into the labor movement. – Caryn<br />
<br />
This piece almost reminded me of the interview I did for the paper. My interviewee's father did not agree with what Unions were doing at the time and forbade her to join them, just like Suttons mother and sister did. "[They] didn't think I ought to go" (274). However, unlike my interviewee, Sutton eventually fell into the Unions and I think the main reason was opportunity. Sutton did not have too much of this in the south and the workings conditions were not very favorable. Also, the economic status was most likely worse than my interviewee who was upper middle class. Sutton was almost certainly a lower class than this and in the south she had fewer options and was therefore forced into the Unions. This excerpt shows that economic status and location growing up definately contribute to opportunities for women. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I agree with Caryn, I really liked Sutton's determination. She literally did everything she could to get that letter. I also liked how she knew that it was more important to get the plant unionized than for her to keep her job. She gave up her own livelihood for the greater good of the factory workers, which is really admirable. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
Norma Rae was an interesting piece. Most intriguing was when she looked around and thought to herself as the boss was lying about what she’d been doing trying to find reasons to fire her [talking on the phone, hanging out in the bathroom, etc] that no one stood up for her, not even ones that had picnics together. Of course these people were afraid of loosing their jobs but that’s what the boss men expected -to use that fear to prevent them from creating or joining unions. Norma Rae stood up even though her knees were shaky and it wasn’t in her plan for the day, she did it. A lot of the readings this week were about women standing up. When they stood up, they set a precedent… if she made it, so can I! -MHimes<br />
<br />
<br />
Crystal Lee Sutton was a very brave and determined woman. She took risks because she knew what was right. Two things that I thought was interesting in this piece were the fact that after she was fired in 1973, no one would hire her until 1978. That is a long time she went without work and it shows how much employers and businesses really disliked unions and union activity. The other thing that was interesting was the fact that the plant didn't sign the union contract until 1989, almost six years after the union won an election at the plant. Again, people were very determined to keep unions out of plants and their businesses. -Avanness<br />
<br />
Crystal Lee Sutton was a powerful woman for her time and wanted to challenge the norms of male/corporate superiority. The line that struck was when Sutton was at the factory for dinner and the union organizer was pressuring her to get the letter off the bulletin board. When Eli said, "Look, Crystal, you can afford to lose a few pounds and I need that letter."(275). Was this a normal tactic used by men to get women to help the union effort? I am pretty sure it is an unwritten rule that you never call a woman fat, yet did it accomplish what Eli wanted? I think he may have said that to get the rise out of her, it would out of me but probably in retailiation against him, and it ultimately led to her being released from the company but it was a powerful move to challenge the head of corporations and I commend her for it. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
==Women on Welfare, Johnnie Tillmon, 1972==<br />
<br />
First, let me just say that I love Mrs. Tillmon. Second, I would hate to be on welfare and I hope I will never have to deal with it and by reading this piece I really felt for Mrs. Tillmon. It really helped me to see a different side of being on welfare. I see that we as a society have always looked down on those who resort to the use of welfare because we tend to think of them as inhuman. “In this country, if your any one of those things-poor, black, fat, female, middle-aged, on welfare-you count less as a human being,” (268). We see such people as taking our money because they are too lazy to work, but who are we to place such stereotypes upon these people? We just assume things having never experienced them and I see that we tend to believe what the politicians say as welfare being a “cancer eating at our vitals,” (287). We never see the people as mothers or children, just poor people taking away more of our money, aliens to the little world we live in. I’ll admit that I thought that same before because I’ve never had to deal with it. I like that Mrs. Tillmon comes up with a solution though and a smart one at that: “I’d start paying women a living wage for doing the work we are already doing-child-raising and housekeeping,” (289). This way the welfare crisis would be over and housewives wouldn’t be looked down upon either. We’ve spoken of working women as being more outgoing and not seen as “true women” either. Wouldn’t that all fix itself as women got paid for their domestic work in their house? I think we would be respected more and have more opportunities. I would definitely be rich by now. =) -Morgan<br />
<br />
==The Voice of the an Anorexic, Abra Fortune Chernik, 1995==<br />
<br />
This article scared and gave hope to me. Of course I’ve heard of anorexic and I’ve seen it, but I’ve never felt the pain like I did in reading Mrs. Chernik’s first-hand account. But through all of the pain of eating and binging she persevered through it and that was what really got through to me. Instead of beating herself up for being anorexic and not being able to fix it, she found what was wrong with society and how they saw her as a woman. As women we try to live up to unrealistic standards thinking that that is what men want and what other women will be jealous of. It’s what society has done to us, it’s damaged us. Mrs. Chernick finally broke through this when she saw herself and “observed a woman held up by her culture as the physical ideal because she was starving, self-obsessed, and powerless, a women called beautiful because she threatened no one except herself,” (323) . Women are not suppose to be powerful and dominate of themselves, that’s what were told. Men are to be the superior and made to feel that way; maybe that is why they seem so confident in their bodies. “As long as society resists female power, fashion will call healthy women physically flawed,” (324). If only we could all learn to be “based on an image of a women warrior,” (324) and be happy as ourselves. -Morgan<br />
<br />
==Organizing the Farm Workers, Jessie Lopez De La Cruz==<br />
<br />
This article made me believe in not only the union fight but the power women could have in the union struggle. The line that clearly stood out to me was, "It doesn't take courage. All it takes is standing up for what you believe in,..."(285). Jessie did not want to be known as courageous, as someone who should be idiolzed but she was, for a woman to step outside societal norms and challenge practices was not common. She just wanted people to come together and fight for what they deserved and the help she had from the nurse to enter Parlier proved that many people felt the same and just wanted to see a good outcome.-Megan W.</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_14_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 14 Questions/Comments2010-04-21T18:51:23Z<p>Megan3088: /* The Real "Norma Rae" Tells Her Story, Crystal Lee Sutton */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Susan Eisenberg, Hard-Hatted Women ==<br />
<br />
I like the comparison Susan Eisenberg made on page 279 when she says, “Entering construction in the late 1970s was a little like falling in love with someone who you weren’t supposed to.” It seems that the problem for these women was not enjoying the job, but the hostility they faced from men and the fear they had of what the men would think of things such as pregnancy. It is good that these women had each other to lean on and form close bonds. I would guess that the majority of them would not have lasted if they didn’t have these strong connections to other women. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin on her post. It is great that these women had a community of a few other women who were going through the same things to motivate and identify with each other. Many women did not have that in the work place. I found it interesting when Eisenberg talked about working up until being about 6 months pregnant. Her friends outside of work couldn’t conceive (no pun intended) of the notion that people wouldn’t notice that she was pregnant, but as she said “no one expected to see a pregnant woman on a construction site”(280) so they didn’t see it at all under her baggy work cloths. She also presented herself as “she always had” (280) so they really didn’t see a difference. What I found to be sad was her experience on the work-site with the banter that the men had with each other. While they were joking about beating their wives and other assorted misogynistic things, she was quietly crying to herself in private. It is unfortunate because I feel like that still goes on. When I used to work in restaurants that banter was certainly happening behind the scenes which made many female co-workers uncomfortable. The difference now is that we are able to speak out against and potentially have action taken whereas Eisenberg really felt that had no power to do so in her position and industry. -Caryn<br />
<br />
I also agree with Erin and Caryn. It like how the women formed a support network amongst each other when working with the crass men became too much for any one of them to bear alone. However, I also found it interesting how the women didn't just get support from other "hard hatted" women, but from all women in general. Eisenberg talks about how she ran into women who wished they had led the lifestyle she had and who constantly encouraged her to keep going when things got tough. I think this really illustrates the "sisterhood" aspect of the women's lib movement. Women of different backgrounds rallied behind Eisenberg and her peers to make sure they had the support and the opportunity that they needed to keep going. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin, that line describes her passion in being a journeywoman. I found her experiences with combining her position and her pregnancy most moving. Pregnancy is an emotional and delicate process that a woman goes through. Pregnancy combined with feeling that co-workers would look at you differently and change the dynamics of work if they knew of the pregnancy. It is understandable why she didn’t tell them until later in her pregnancy. She did not want her co-workers to think she couldn‘t do her job any less than them. She was dealing with a lot of opposition in a field so new to women. As I read this piece, I got a sense of the enormous pressure she had on her and how it would be natural for her to draw strength from other women in the field. -Mhimes<br />
<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading this piece about a woman who became an electrician. I thought it was really neat to read about how much she loved her blue-collar job. Working in this type of occupation which was a predominantly male field must have been pretty hard at times. Thankfully women had the support of other women. Pregnancy was definitely an issue for these women especially because of their higher risk of miscarriages. I can't imagine having to do certain tasks and do labor intensive work while being pregnant. The idea of miscarrying must have also led to increase stress. These women were brave and strong women for working these kinds of jobs alongside men and also being pregnant and/or mothers at the same time. -avanness<br />
<br />
== Connaught C. Marshner Explains What Social Conservatives Really Want, 1988 ==<br />
<br />
This is great because I have always wanted to know what social conservatives really want =) On a serious note, I think the reason I like this so much is because it was written in 1988 and these are arguments that I have personally heard people make. Honestly, what I really got out of this article was how hard it is to study and interpret history that is so recent because it really is difficult to separate your own feelings from the facts. I think it is important to see where one side is coming from, and even though I hate to admit it, I think that social conservatives, as described in this article, have some valid points (though they are few and far between). For example, women who choose to stay at home should get more credit in forms of tax breaks. <br />
On a side note -- I am curious about whom the audience of this article was intended to be and if they were trying to sway opinions in any particular way. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
== The Real "Norma Rae" Tells Her Story, Crystal Lee Sutton ==<br />
<br />
<br />
The Real “Norma Rae” was interesting. Sutton seemed to fall into union activity, but proved to be quite brave in the end. She really stuck to her guns throughout this piece. I was not entirely surprised when the Mill forbid the copying the “What the Company Will Do for You”. That doesn’t seem legal but it was a brave thing for Sutton to copy that letter for the National Labor Relations Board. I think that this empowerment allowed Sutton to really make a difference at this mill. She would not give up the fight even at the very end when she got fired and removed from the premises, “I was trying to get back in. I was fighting.” (277) It’s amazing how, in such a short time, she was educated and indoctrinated into the labor movement. – Caryn<br />
<br />
This piece almost reminded me of the interview I did for the paper. My interviewee's father did not agree with what Unions were doing at the time and forbade her to join them, just like Suttons mother and sister did. "[They] didn't think I ought to go" (274). However, unlike my interviewee, Sutton eventually fell into the Unions and I think the main reason was opportunity. Sutton did not have too much of this in the south and the workings conditions were not very favorable. Also, the economic status was most likely worse than my interviewee who was upper middle class. Sutton was almost certainly a lower class than this and in the south she had fewer options and was therefore forced into the Unions. This excerpt shows that economic status and location growing up definately contribute to opportunities for women. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I agree with Caryn, I really liked Sutton's determination. She literally did everything she could to get that letter. I also liked how she knew that it was more important to get the plant unionized than for her to keep her job. She gave up her own livelihood for the greater good of the factory workers, which is really admirable. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
Norma Rae was an interesting piece. Most intriguing was when she looked around and thought to herself as the boss was lying about what she’d been doing trying to find reasons to fire her [talking on the phone, hanging out in the bathroom, etc] that no one stood up for her, not even ones that had picnics together. Of course these people were afraid of loosing their jobs but that’s what the boss men expected -to use that fear to prevent them from creating or joining unions. Norma Rae stood up even though her knees were shaky and it wasn’t in her plan for the day, she did it. A lot of the readings this week were about women standing up. When they stood up, they set a precedent… if she made it, so can I! -MHimes<br />
<br />
<br />
Crystal Lee Sutton was a very brave and determined woman. She took risks because she knew what was right. Two things that I thought was interesting in this piece were the fact that after she was fired in 1973, no one would hire her until 1978. That is a long time she went without work and it shows how much employers and businesses really disliked unions and union activity. The other thing that was interesting was the fact that the plant didn't sign the union contract until 1989, almost six years after the union won an election at the plant. Again, people were very determined to keep unions out of plants and their businesses. -Avanness<br />
<br />
Crystal Lee Sutton was a powerful woman for her time and wanted to challenge the norms of male/corporate superiority. The line that struck was when Sutton was at the factory for dinner and the union organizer was pressuring her to get the letter off the bulletin board. When Eli said, "Look, Crystal, you can afford to lose a few pounds and I need that letter."(275). Was this a normal tactic used by men to get women to help the union effort? I am pretty sure it is an unwritten rule that you never call a woman fat, yet did it accomplish what Eli wanted? I think he may have said that to get the rise out of her, it would out of me but probably in retailiation against him, and it ultimately led to her being released from the company but it was a powerful move to challenge the head of corporations and I commend her for it. -Megan W.</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_13_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 13 Questions/Comments2010-04-15T14:05:01Z<p>Megan3088: /* */</p>
<hr />
<div>THIS WEEK'S DISCUSSION IS ABOUT THE PAPERS TURNED IN, NOT THE READING. You are still responsible for the reading, but the posting should be about the papers. A link to the papers will be emailed to you by Wednesday, April 14.<br />
<br />
NOTE: You do not need to post about the reading for April 15 (though you are responsible for reading it).<br />
<br />
Class discussion: We will pick up the wiki discussion during class on Tuesday, April 20.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''What patterns do you see? What experiences stand out? Did these interviews challenge or meet with the trends we've talked about in class?'''<br />
<br />
== ==<br />
<br />
I definitely see that "typical housewife and mother" trend with a majority of the women interviewed. The women who did work either had to work for economic reasons or because they really enjoyed their jobs. I think only one woman regretted working because she hadn't been able to focus on her kids and another felt bad about it at the time because it just wasn't what society expected. However, there were a few women who focused on a higher education and a professional career, whether they stayed single or got married later. With some exceptions, the trend was to work in female positions (i.e. nursing, teaching). Overall, I think it's important to note that most of these women can look back on their lives and are proud of how they lived them; even those who went with the flow and were homemakers. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I agree with CBrau. I was surprised by how many other women had experiences that were similar to the woman that I interviewed. Like CBrau stated, women seemed to enter into nursing and teaching the most, but it seemed like they were forced into these positions for lack of opportunity elsewhere. It also seems like most of the women were forced into these positions because their fathers or husbands believed that they would be starting a family and spending money on an education was wasteful. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I thought it was very interesting and amusing that in Alices' paper, Lois Wagner had miniature army corps suits and have fake machine guns and little did they know that the real women in the WAC never saw any action in battle. Also, these were just young girls and had no idea of a feminist movement or what women were going through at this particular period yet they were supporting the efforts of women, even if they were too young to understand. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I saw many similarities between the women who were interviewed including the roles they had as mothers, wives, and women in the workforce and society. I definitely saw the pattern of many women who worked in the domestic sphere who also sometimes worked in careers outside the home. Most of the women seemed to have had children of the baby boom generation or were baby boomers themselves. In Dvorak's paper, the woman she interviewed challenged some of the trends of the time by focusing on her education and career of dentistry rather than on finding a husband and starting a family right away. I also noticed in Rowley's paper, the woman got a divorce about the time in the 1960s that we talked about in class when there seemed to be a high divorce rate. I think it's interesting so see the similarities between the people who were interviewed but good to also note that all of their stories are still unique in their own way. -Avanness<br />
<br />
The similarities between the women interviewed are clearly defined, many became mothers and housewives right after graduation and a few had careers but the majority of women thought they should fulfill the roles they were told to. They produced the children who led further reforms for women and I saw in a few papers such as Mary Ann's the women, who produced the baby boomers, did not have time to be politically active and brushed it aside. It reminded me of the woman I interviewed who admitted they were too tied up in their worlds to pay attention to outside influences. In a few papers I thought the women who were single mothers and able to support themselves and children were leaders of the Women's Movement even if they did not openly admit it. Those women started the trend towards independence and without their mark in the workplace and challenging "male dominated roles" women may not have acheived what they did in the 1960-1970s era. I agree with Avanness it is important to note that even with all the similarities all of the women were exceptional in their stories. -Megan W.</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_12_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 12 Questions/Comments2010-04-07T23:34:10Z<p>Megan3088: /* Civil Rights Activists, Rosa Parks and Virginia Foster Durr */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Civil Rights Activists, Rosa Parks and Virginia Foster Durr ==<br />
<br />
"Everybody knew everbody else was lying, but to save face, they had to lie" (p. 225). We have all heard the story of Rosa Parks and the bus boycotts, just with less detail. I was definitely not expecting the role that white women played. I suppose it makes sense to focus on those who were being directly affected by the Civil Rights Movement, but perhaps these boycotts would not have been as successful without the help of various white women. They generously offered rides to black women to and from work despite the chance of getting a ticket, something that could have helped keep the morale up for the strike. White women also understood the important of keeping black women's involvement in the boycotts a secret. It was obvious that these black women needed their jobs and being a part of the boycott would surely get them fired. I'm just wondering if all the white women who offered a ride or kept a secret agreed with the boycotts or even with the Civil Rights Movement? Durr is clearly biased in favor of civil rights, but maybe some women were just being nice and did not agree with civil rights or even understand what the women were boycotting against. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I enjoyed this article because it shows the role that white women played in the early stages of the Civil Rights Movement in the South. It is interesting because the initial thought one generally has when thinking of the 1950s South is the hatred whites had towards African Americans and the fear that caused in the African American community. However, what this article illustrates is the fact that many white women were as active in the Civil Rights movement as they could be. I seriously doubt that there are statistics regarding the number of white women who helped Black women in the bus boycott because of the fear that was in both parties. It is interesting because the white women would lie and say that they didn’t support the boycott or help the black women. And the black women would lie and say that they were not participating, they just needed to take care of a sick child (or something like that). I am curious about how widespread this actually was, but I guess we will never know because of how secretive these women had to be. I am curious if the husbands of these white women were aware of their participation and support. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
What Rosa Parks did was defy a social norm, that blacks were supposed to move when whites told them to do so. To our generation that seems ignorant but I remember my mother saying that she never went to school with an African American and that it was just expected you didn’t mix the two. My dad said they had two theaters one for blacks and one for whites but they never thought twice about it. Rosa Parks along with other civil rights activists were going against these unjust socially accepted policies that had been legalized. The idea of integration seemed like a social taboo and if you crossed it then you were looked at unjustly as well. I think this is why the white women giving rides kept it secret. The black women may have feared loosing their jobs if their employers knew they were involved in the boycott. -- Mhimes<br />
<br />
While I read this excerpt, I could only imagine Rosa Parks demeanor during her ordeal on the bus. She seemed so calm to publicly break the segregation laws for the bus. I'm sure her demeanor was quite calm and collected, with Parks being perfectly content to say no. The police arrested Rosa Parks on "suspicion," and even with that, Parks was unsure of what she was being arrested for. It just surprised me how corrupt the police were at the time; they did everything within their power, and even beyond that, to ensure that life was made harder for African Americans. Did nobody see a problem with that? Or did people just accept it? Also, what happened to white people who had dissenting opinions about the corruptness and the unfair treatment of African Americans at the time? I feel like nobody really spoke up about the injustices that were occurring, for fear of what might happen to them. I think it is interesting how the white women actually believed the African American women and men about why they were walking instead of riding the bus; it was because they were truly boycotting, but the boycotters lied to keep their jobs. "The white people really believed that. They didn't see through it all."(P. 225) Both the whites and African Americans were working together to help the boycott, yet neither group knew they were working in conjunction with the other. This was maybe the first time that whites and Blacks were working together for a common cause: civil rights. However, neither group even knew it. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
Rosa was sitting in her right section, the back section that was reserved to the blacks, and was then asked to move. I really don’t understand what gave the bus driver the right to ask her to move. She had done everything that was required of her and she hadn’t broken any rules. “After I had paid my fare and occupied a seat, I didn’t think I should have to give it up,” (222). Rosa was in the “right” section, had paid her fare, and was sitting down (she had paid for her seat). Just because white people came onto the bus and didn’t have a seat, the black people shouldn’t have been made to move. If black people had come onto the bus and didn’t have seats, they would have been made to stand in the aisle, so why shouldn’t have the white people been made too? Of course I am thinking in modern terms probably, it just seems so unfair. Just like the black and white people did, I would have lied about who was a part of bus boycott. I can understand why a majority of the white community would have lied for the black participates too. This way the black servants wouldn’t be locked up and they could continue to provide their services to the white families that employed them and in turn they would continue to receive a weekly check. Both parties would benefit from the unsaid agreement of lying for the other. “Everybody knew everybody else was lying,” (225). -Morgan<br />
<br />
Like several people above stated, I really liked the camaraderie that developed between some black and white women during the bus boycott. Although I'm sure this wasn't the case for every white woman in Montgomery, many of the white employers of black domestics pretended not to realize that their employees were participating in the boycott. This seems to me whatever facade the white women put up was just a thin disguise for the support of integration. Otherwise, why else would the women give their employees rides to work, or excuse frequent tardiness? Like the article stated, everyone knew everyone else was lying about their participation or support of the Montgomery bus boycott.--Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I liked how Anna referred to the relationship between black and white women as a camaraderie. I think that really captures the essence of this piece. I think another important thing that this piece does is show how black women HAD to work, yet they also felt that they had to participate in the civil rights movement if they wanted things to change. The relationship that developed between white and black women in this particular case is quite remarkable, but it makes me wonder, is this type of thing common, or is this just a special case? The civil rights movement seems to be flagged with a series of things that make one wonder, why did that happen? Rosa Parks did not appear to be the type of woman to get arrested for refusing to give up her seat on a city bus, yet she was. It also appears unlikely that white women would help black women, especially, I would think, out of fear. Yet, these things happened, as this piece showed. It helped me realize that there was more the civil rights movements than blacks fighting for black rights. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I have to add my two cents to the conversation about the relationship between white and black women during the bus boycott. A few people have pointed out that the situation was a positive one, a time when white women willingly helped their black employees support the bus boycott even if neither party directly admitted to it. Maybe I'm just more cynical, but I don't believe that most of the white women wanted to be helping the civil rights movement. These were not women who had showed any interest in equality before the boycott, and the "roar of indignation" over the issue only came when the mayor suggested women stop employing their black maids. In my view, Montgomery's white women were far more influenced by the domestic ideals of the day than civil rights protests. Black servants kept white homes neat and white children out of the mud so that white women could look their judgmental neighbors in the eye. Had the black women stopped coming to work, white wives and mothers would have had to do complete the never ending list of domestic chores required of "respectable women" themselves or risk letting some things fall through the cracks and losing some of the esteem of their neighbors. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I really agree with everything that everyone above me mentioned... especially the part about how we all know the story of Rosa Parks but never in such detail or especially told in such a novel manner. I think it was pretty amazing how much effort it took to cover up the boycott and it was interesting to think about how the white women covered up the boycotting action of their domestic servants because they knew that "the black women needed those jobs" (page 226). What a great potential sacrifice all parties involved were making in order to accomplish a goal that they wanted. -ssellers<br />
<br />
The line that struck me in this piece was from Mary, "Well, I tell you, Mr. Cliff, I tell you, I learned one thing in my life and that is, when your hand's in the lion's mouth, it's just better to pat it on the head." (226). The black women knew, like ssellers said, they needed the meager paying jobs in order to survive and it was better to appease the whites than fight them. This also made me relate to Martin Luther King Jr.'s teachings he preached non-violence so in a way the women were acting on his words by not fighting the whites and doing what they needed to in order to get by. This piece made me wonder if without Rosa Parks defiance would MLK Jr. have been as prominent without his speeches on the bus boycott? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Mirta Vidal Reports on the Rising Consciousness of the Chicana About Her Special Oppression, 1971 ==<br />
<br />
What caught my attention in this article was the forced sterilization that some Chicanas experienced. In class I was wondering why somebody would sterilize a woman without her permission, and Vidal gives one reason: "forced sterilization [is] justified by the viciously racist ideology that the problems of La Raza are caused by Raza women having too many babies." So, the procedure was a permanent birth control. I am hardly pro-abortion, but to have the ability to bear children taken away like that would truly be devastating. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
To go off of what CBrau was saying -- I wish I could say that I was surprised by the forced sterilization, I think it comes out of a racist ideology, and the fact that during this time there was a massive inflow of immigrants into the United States. This led to nativism among the Anglo population and fear that their jobs would be taken away. During this time, there was also a lot of scholarship that argued that the Anglo population was having fewer children while Chicana and other Latin American groups continued to have the same number of children, so a fear that the white population would eventually be overtaken existed as well. I think its important to understand the struggles of these women on the three levels: their nationality, the fact that they were workers, and the fact that they were women. Their unique circumstances meant that they specific demands, and I think that the fact that they could recognize this and come together is very powerful. I also think that this is something that is still being dealt with today. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
“Chicana motherhood should not preclude educational, political, social, and economic advancement,” (455). I felt like the chicana women were making this notion of being oppressed was new and exclusively to them. Having to choose between motherhood and their own ambitions was not a new idea at all. Women, of all races, felt like this and had been fighting for it. I don’t mean to demean Latin American women in any way; I merely think there were a little late in this thinking. Along with this premise of feeling like they were the only ones broken, black women had been facing the same triple oppression “as members of an oppressed nationality, as workers, and as women,” (455). Once again this feeling was nothing new to the world, to the Chicana’s who were just realizing their feeling of adversity, yes, but to other women they were late to the party. The sterilization freaked me out too, that was something I've only heard about happening in Africa. Very scary. La Raza means The Race by the way. -Morgan<br />
<br />
As difficult as it is to beleive this, I agree with Erin. The forced sterilization in large part came out of racism and oppression. They are severley oppressed and do not have access to freedoms that would certainly make their lives more manegable. The americans felt threatened by the massive influx of mexicans and jumped to the conlcusion of forced of forced sterilization as the way to prevent their population from multiplying. I wonder if they ever thought this matter through or automatically jumped to thinking forced sterilization was the best way to operate? Obvioiusly, it is not humane. When it mentions that these Raza women faced triple oppression, it reminded me of the oppression black women were facing. The Raza women were oppressed because of their nationality, as workers and women. Then there are the black women who were oppressed as women, the color of their skin, and occasionally in the workplace. Non-white women are certainly having a difficult time! -afrisk<br />
<br />
Everyone above has commented on the remark made by Vidal concerning sterilization. Although it seems shocking, this was a common practice throughout the 20th century in most states. Virgina ranked second among the 50 states for most forced sterilizations on both men and women (it is also good to note that it was not just among minorities either). It is all matter of eugenics and perfecting the human race (it is more familiar in regards to Hitler). I think that this piece is trying to show that women of all races were experiencing some form of oppression and desire for control of their own bodies. I think it is easy to brush off cases like this when it involves a minority, but it causes one to stop and think, what are the reasons for this need among minorities? I think it comes back to the idea that people often viewed minorities, especially women, as inferior. I think that Vidal is trying to show that there is an equal need among Chicanos women for birth control, child care, movement away from racist or sexists practices, etc. that is also common among many white urban women and African Americans. -abratchi<br />
<br />
Vidal’s point about Chicanas facing triple discrimination is important, because discrimination is never a simple cut and dry thing. If you solve the problem of class, that does not solve the problems of gender or race or sexuality. I think this is what made, and still makes, the push for equal rights so difficult. How does one choose what one focuses on in the fight? In the Hispanic community, Chicanas were told by Chicano leaders not to join the women’s liberation movement because “it is an ‘Anglo thing’” (455). Chicanas recognized that women’s liberation was not just for middle class white women, it was for them too. The men in the community were not offering much support, so Vidal, by connecting “machismo” to Anglo chauvinism, compares Chicanos to white males, and I’m sure that Hispanic men did not want to be connected with the very people they were fighting against. – Alice W<br />
<br />
== "More Than a Lady" Ruby Doris Smith Robinson and Black Women's Leadership in the SNCC, Cynthia Fleming ==<br />
<br />
Ruby Doris Smith Robinson commanded attention to herself and her affiliations like a man would. My favorite comment seems to sum up Robinson, “she had 100 percent effective shit detector,” (552). I believe this makes her a very intimidating figure to men and women alike, that’s saying something during a time when women and African American’s were both oppressed. Robinson may have been a very intimidating woman, but at the same time she didn’t ask for recognition. I suspect that she was such a strong woman that she needed no approval from anyone. To a degree I understand this because she didn’t want to make a big deal out of the fact that she was a woman running the SNCC, but I think that she should have realized that some recognition would have further propelled the organization too. Being the head of SNCC and an imitating figure, Rob was “accepted as one of the boys,” (555). I don’t think that this was a good or a bad thing. She commanded the authority and attention as a man, but I think she unconsciously lost some of her femininity too. She must have been torn with her standings, she wanted to be taken seriously like a man but at the same time she keep up her appearance, retaining some of her femininity. How could she have been happy? I feel like Robinson was fighting a battle within herself between being a strong leader: a manly figure and being a sensitive mothering figure, like she is biologically programmed to be. A tough choice for sure. -Morgan<br />
<br />
It bothered me that the women activists were attributed male qualities just because they didn't completely mold to the feminine ideals of the time. As the article stated, Robinson still completely embraced her femininity; she still took great care that her appearance and clothing were very ladylike & proper, even when shipping off to jail. If she didn't truly embrace who she was as a woman, she wouldn't have cared enough to do this. It also disturbed me that since Robinson's voice was powerful and commanding, it was automatically compared to a man's voice. If anything is aggressive and powerful, then it ''must'' belong to a man, and consequently must be unnatural for a woman to possess. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
Robinson obviously found her passion within the civil rights movement, and it's sad that she didn't live to see all the progress that's been made. The fact that, as a woman, she had to continue to justify her place within the leadership of the movement betrays how pervasive the white, middle class ideal of woman as submissive housewife became. As the author notes, Robinson's actions "fit comfortably into an established tradition of black female assertiveness" (pg 557), a trait we've seen in several other readings. But in this era, black women were told to be more "feminine" when they tried to speak out or organize. Ideals, quite obviously, are not one size fits all. -Mary Ann <br />
<br />
== "Polishing Brown Diamonds" and "More than a Lady" ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Outside the fact that Ebony magazine wanted to make money and focused more on the middle class, there was an attempt to change the stereotypical views of the black women from the Aunt Jemima look to a beautiful “brown-skinned” women. I think what Laila Haidarali was trying to show how "Ebony" tried to influence perceptions through this ideal “brown-skinned” woman. The charm schools weren’t just creating models but a self-confident woman who may not become a model but was ready to face the work force with less fears of knowing the right thing to say or the appropriate attire for the job. An interesting example she used was Watson’s Charm Clinic, that if you put too much make-up on you could look like you were going to a nightclub not to work. An important point made in Watson’s address was that one’s appearance reflects one’s abilities. These options led women to believe that they would improve the view of a black woman and bring her more social mobility. With all of that being said, where does the dark-skinned black woman fit in? As I read “More than a lady” by Fleming, they seemed contradictory. What women activists did defied this ideal notion of a woman black or white. But what is interesting was when I read how a black female civil rights worker was demonstrating and was grabbed and slapped in the face by a cop and his response grouped all black people together. If she was a white activist, she probably wouldn’t have been slapped around or beaten as these black women were. To the cop, she was black and he didn’t care if you were man or woman. --Mhimes<br />
<br />
<br />
I really was interested by the experience of the black model who was too light skinned to represent the African Americans, but too dark to represent the whites. That is just ridiculous to me in today's terms, especially since in black and white print you probably wouldn't be able to differentiate between whether she was white or light skinned black or a subtle shade of orange. It's not often that you think about the hardships of the models in the modeling industry, but it was enlighening to read about this experience of exclusion solely because you happened to be too light skinned, but not light skinned enough. -ssellers<br />
<br />
== "Polishing Brown Diamonds," Laila Haidarali ==<br />
<br />
It was great to read this article for many reasons; it was fascinating and enlightening. One of the things I found the most interesting about it, though, was how often Haidarali emphasized the fact that the ideal was, yes, feminine, hardworking and family oriented, but also heterosexual. I think in some of the articles we have read this semester they do not reiterate this point as much as Haidarali because they think it is understood. While I never really thought post-war America was open to homosexuality, I appreciate her continually reminding us that sexism and racism were not the only discriminations of the day. -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
== "We Marched for Our Rights," Rev. Naomi Craig ==<br />
<br />
The last line of this article struck me the most, "I still have a piece that is missing in my life because I never got to really know him like I would have wanted to." If this was the start of the article or I had missed something, I would have thought she was talking about a father, a brother, a lover...someone that she would have had a close personal connection with that ended to soon. I certainly would not have expected her to be talking about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. This line, I think, shows how deeply MLK inspired not only African-Americans, but all Americans. His assassination was something personal. -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
This article was really inspiring to me and also showed me the true difference between the North and South, it was not something we just read about, it was a reality. Naomi Craig was scared for her son and daughter's welfare but never stopped them from growing into the people they wanted to be, amongst all the racial differences she let them attend school in the South and travel to a place that appeared to be on a different continent, not states inside the United States. I also wanted to note on the line she stated, "I had never been around so many Blacks before; I thought it was wonderful. I felt they were all so pretty, all different colors." That was the most inspiring line for me, Mrs. Craig saw beyond first appearances she believed color was beautiful why could America not do the same? -Megan W.</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_12_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 12 Questions/Comments2010-04-07T23:10:40Z<p>Megan3088: /* "We Marched for Our Rights," Rev. Naomi Craig */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Civil Rights Activists, Rosa Parks and Virginia Foster Durr ==<br />
<br />
"Everybody knew everbody else was lying, but to save face, they had to lie" (p. 225). We have all heard the story of Rosa Parks and the bus boycotts, just with less detail. I was definitely not expecting the role that white women played. I suppose it makes sense to focus on those who were being directly affected by the Civil Rights Movement, but perhaps these boycotts would not have been as successful without the help of various white women. They generously offered rides to black women to and from work despite the chance of getting a ticket, something that could have helped keep the morale up for the strike. White women also understood the important of keeping black women's involvement in the boycotts a secret. It was obvious that these black women needed their jobs and being a part of the boycott would surely get them fired. I'm just wondering if all the white women who offered a ride or kept a secret agreed with the boycotts or even with the Civil Rights Movement? Durr is clearly biased in favor of civil rights, but maybe some women were just being nice and did not agree with civil rights or even understand what the women were boycotting against. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I enjoyed this article because it shows the role that white women played in the early stages of the Civil Rights Movement in the South. It is interesting because the initial thought one generally has when thinking of the 1950s South is the hatred whites had towards African Americans and the fear that caused in the African American community. However, what this article illustrates is the fact that many white women were as active in the Civil Rights movement as they could be. I seriously doubt that there are statistics regarding the number of white women who helped Black women in the bus boycott because of the fear that was in both parties. It is interesting because the white women would lie and say that they didn’t support the boycott or help the black women. And the black women would lie and say that they were not participating, they just needed to take care of a sick child (or something like that). I am curious about how widespread this actually was, but I guess we will never know because of how secretive these women had to be. I am curious if the husbands of these white women were aware of their participation and support. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
What Rosa Parks did was defy a social norm, that blacks were supposed to move when whites told them to do so. To our generation that seems ignorant but I remember my mother saying that she never went to school with an African American and that it was just expected you didn’t mix the two. My dad said they had two theaters one for blacks and one for whites but they never thought twice about it. Rosa Parks along with other civil rights activists were going against these unjust socially accepted policies that had been legalized. The idea of integration seemed like a social taboo and if you crossed it then you were looked at unjustly as well. I think this is why the white women giving rides kept it secret. The black women may have feared loosing their jobs if their employers knew they were involved in the boycott. -- Mhimes<br />
<br />
While I read this excerpt, I could only imagine Rosa Parks demeanor during her ordeal on the bus. She seemed so calm to publicly break the segregation laws for the bus. I'm sure her demeanor was quite calm and collected, with Parks being perfectly content to say no. The police arrested Rosa Parks on "suspicion," and even with that, Parks was unsure of what she was being arrested for. It just surprised me how corrupt the police were at the time; they did everything within their power, and even beyond that, to ensure that life was made harder for African Americans. Did nobody see a problem with that? Or did people just accept it? Also, what happened to white people who had dissenting opinions about the corruptness and the unfair treatment of African Americans at the time? I feel like nobody really spoke up about the injustices that were occurring, for fear of what might happen to them. I think it is interesting how the white women actually believed the African American women and men about why they were walking instead of riding the bus; it was because they were truly boycotting, but the boycotters lied to keep their jobs. "The white people really believed that. They didn't see through it all."(P. 225) Both the whites and African Americans were working together to help the boycott, yet neither group knew they were working in conjunction with the other. This was maybe the first time that whites and Blacks were working together for a common cause: civil rights. However, neither group even knew it. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
Rosa was sitting in her right section, the back section that was reserved to the blacks, and was then asked to move. I really don’t understand what gave the bus driver the right to ask her to move. She had done everything that was required of her and she hadn’t broken any rules. “After I had paid my fare and occupied a seat, I didn’t think I should have to give it up,” (222). Rosa was in the “right” section, had paid her fare, and was sitting down (she had paid for her seat). Just because white people came onto the bus and didn’t have a seat, the black people shouldn’t have been made to move. If black people had come onto the bus and didn’t have seats, they would have been made to stand in the aisle, so why shouldn’t have the white people been made too? Of course I am thinking in modern terms probably, it just seems so unfair. Just like the black and white people did, I would have lied about who was a part of bus boycott. I can understand why a majority of the white community would have lied for the black participates too. This way the black servants wouldn’t be locked up and they could continue to provide their services to the white families that employed them and in turn they would continue to receive a weekly check. Both parties would benefit from the unsaid agreement of lying for the other. “Everybody knew everybody else was lying,” (225). -Morgan<br />
<br />
Like several people above stated, I really liked the camaraderie that developed between some black and white women during the bus boycott. Although I'm sure this wasn't the case for every white woman in Montgomery, many of the white employers of black domestics pretended not to realize that their employees were participating in the boycott. This seems to me whatever facade the white women put up was just a thin disguise for the support of integration. Otherwise, why else would the women give their employees rides to work, or excuse frequent tardiness? Like the article stated, everyone knew everyone else was lying about their participation or support of the Montgomery bus boycott.--Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I liked how Anna referred to the relationship between black and white women as a camaraderie. I think that really captures the essence of this piece. I think another important thing that this piece does is show how black women HAD to work, yet they also felt that they had to participate in the civil rights movement if they wanted things to change. The relationship that developed between white and black women in this particular case is quite remarkable, but it makes me wonder, is this type of thing common, or is this just a special case? The civil rights movement seems to be flagged with a series of things that make one wonder, why did that happen? Rosa Parks did not appear to be the type of woman to get arrested for refusing to give up her seat on a city bus, yet she was. It also appears unlikely that white women would help black women, especially, I would think, out of fear. Yet, these things happened, as this piece showed. It helped me realize that there was more the civil rights movements than blacks fighting for black rights. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I have to add my two cents to the conversation about the relationship between white and black women during the bus boycott. A few people have pointed out that the situation was a positive one, a time when white women willingly helped their black employees support the bus boycott even if neither party directly admitted to it. Maybe I'm just more cynical, but I don't believe that most of the white women wanted to be helping the civil rights movement. These were not women who had showed any interest in equality before the boycott, and the "roar of indignation" over the issue only came when the mayor suggested women stop employing their black maids. In my view, Montgomery's white women were far more influenced by the domestic ideals of the day than civil rights protests. Black servants kept white homes neat and white children out of the mud so that white women could look their judgmental neighbors in the eye. Had the black women stopped coming to work, white wives and mothers would have had to do complete the never ending list of domestic chores required of "respectable women" themselves or risk letting some things fall through the cracks and losing some of the esteem of their neighbors. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I really agree with everything that everyone above me mentioned... especially the part about how we all know the story of Rosa Parks but never in such detail or especially told in such a novel manner. I think it was pretty amazing how much effort it took to cover up the boycott and it was interesting to think about how the white women covered up the boycotting action of their domestic servants because they knew that "the black women needed those jobs" (page 226). What a great potential sacrifice all parties involved were making in order to accomplish a goal that they wanted. -ssellers<br />
<br />
== Mirta Vidal Reports on the Rising Consciousness of the Chicana About Her Special Oppression, 1971 ==<br />
<br />
What caught my attention in this article was the forced sterilization that some Chicanas experienced. In class I was wondering why somebody would sterilize a woman without her permission, and Vidal gives one reason: "forced sterilization [is] justified by the viciously racist ideology that the problems of La Raza are caused by Raza women having too many babies." So, the procedure was a permanent birth control. I am hardly pro-abortion, but to have the ability to bear children taken away like that would truly be devastating. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
To go off of what CBrau was saying -- I wish I could say that I was surprised by the forced sterilization, I think it comes out of a racist ideology, and the fact that during this time there was a massive inflow of immigrants into the United States. This led to nativism among the Anglo population and fear that their jobs would be taken away. During this time, there was also a lot of scholarship that argued that the Anglo population was having fewer children while Chicana and other Latin American groups continued to have the same number of children, so a fear that the white population would eventually be overtaken existed as well. I think its important to understand the struggles of these women on the three levels: their nationality, the fact that they were workers, and the fact that they were women. Their unique circumstances meant that they specific demands, and I think that the fact that they could recognize this and come together is very powerful. I also think that this is something that is still being dealt with today. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
“Chicana motherhood should not preclude educational, political, social, and economic advancement,” (455). I felt like the chicana women were making this notion of being oppressed was new and exclusively to them. Having to choose between motherhood and their own ambitions was not a new idea at all. Women, of all races, felt like this and had been fighting for it. I don’t mean to demean Latin American women in any way; I merely think there were a little late in this thinking. Along with this premise of feeling like they were the only ones broken, black women had been facing the same triple oppression “as members of an oppressed nationality, as workers, and as women,” (455). Once again this feeling was nothing new to the world, to the Chicana’s who were just realizing their feeling of adversity, yes, but to other women they were late to the party. The sterilization freaked me out too, that was something I've only heard about happening in Africa. Very scary. La Raza means The Race by the way. -Morgan<br />
<br />
As difficult as it is to beleive this, I agree with Erin. The forced sterilization in large part came out of racism and oppression. They are severley oppressed and do not have access to freedoms that would certainly make their lives more manegable. The americans felt threatened by the massive influx of mexicans and jumped to the conlcusion of forced of forced sterilization as the way to prevent their population from multiplying. I wonder if they ever thought this matter through or automatically jumped to thinking forced sterilization was the best way to operate? Obvioiusly, it is not humane. When it mentions that these Raza women faced triple oppression, it reminded me of the oppression black women were facing. The Raza women were oppressed because of their nationality, as workers and women. Then there are the black women who were oppressed as women, the color of their skin, and occasionally in the workplace. Non-white women are certainly having a difficult time! -afrisk<br />
<br />
Everyone above has commented on the remark made by Vidal concerning sterilization. Although it seems shocking, this was a common practice throughout the 20th century in most states. Virgina ranked second among the 50 states for most forced sterilizations on both men and women (it is also good to note that it was not just among minorities either). It is all matter of eugenics and perfecting the human race (it is more familiar in regards to Hitler). I think that this piece is trying to show that women of all races were experiencing some form of oppression and desire for control of their own bodies. I think it is easy to brush off cases like this when it involves a minority, but it causes one to stop and think, what are the reasons for this need among minorities? I think it comes back to the idea that people often viewed minorities, especially women, as inferior. I think that Vidal is trying to show that there is an equal need among Chicanos women for birth control, child care, movement away from racist or sexists practices, etc. that is also common among many white urban women and African Americans. -abratchi<br />
<br />
Vidal’s point about Chicanas facing triple discrimination is important, because discrimination is never a simple cut and dry thing. If you solve the problem of class, that does not solve the problems of gender or race or sexuality. I think this is what made, and still makes, the push for equal rights so difficult. How does one choose what one focuses on in the fight? In the Hispanic community, Chicanas were told by Chicano leaders not to join the women’s liberation movement because “it is an ‘Anglo thing’” (455). Chicanas recognized that women’s liberation was not just for middle class white women, it was for them too. The men in the community were not offering much support, so Vidal, by connecting “machismo” to Anglo chauvinism, compares Chicanos to white males, and I’m sure that Hispanic men did not want to be connected with the very people they were fighting against. – Alice W<br />
<br />
== "More Than a Lady" Ruby Doris Smith Robinson and Black Women's Leadership in the SNCC, Cynthia Fleming ==<br />
<br />
Ruby Doris Smith Robinson commanded attention to herself and her affiliations like a man would. My favorite comment seems to sum up Robinson, “she had 100 percent effective shit detector,” (552). I believe this makes her a very intimidating figure to men and women alike, that’s saying something during a time when women and African American’s were both oppressed. Robinson may have been a very intimidating woman, but at the same time she didn’t ask for recognition. I suspect that she was such a strong woman that she needed no approval from anyone. To a degree I understand this because she didn’t want to make a big deal out of the fact that she was a woman running the SNCC, but I think that she should have realized that some recognition would have further propelled the organization too. Being the head of SNCC and an imitating figure, Rob was “accepted as one of the boys,” (555). I don’t think that this was a good or a bad thing. She commanded the authority and attention as a man, but I think she unconsciously lost some of her femininity too. She must have been torn with her standings, she wanted to be taken seriously like a man but at the same time she keep up her appearance, retaining some of her femininity. How could she have been happy? I feel like Robinson was fighting a battle within herself between being a strong leader: a manly figure and being a sensitive mothering figure, like she is biologically programmed to be. A tough choice for sure. -Morgan<br />
<br />
It bothered me that the women activists were attributed male qualities just because they didn't completely mold to the feminine ideals of the time. As the article stated, Robinson still completely embraced her femininity; she still took great care that her appearance and clothing were very ladylike & proper, even when shipping off to jail. If she didn't truly embrace who she was as a woman, she wouldn't have cared enough to do this. It also disturbed me that since Robinson's voice was powerful and commanding, it was automatically compared to a man's voice. If anything is aggressive and powerful, then it ''must'' belong to a man, and consequently must be unnatural for a woman to possess. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
Robinson obviously found her passion within the civil rights movement, and it's sad that she didn't live to see all the progress that's been made. The fact that, as a woman, she had to continue to justify her place within the leadership of the movement betrays how pervasive the white, middle class ideal of woman as submissive housewife became. As the author notes, Robinson's actions "fit comfortably into an established tradition of black female assertiveness" (pg 557), a trait we've seen in several other readings. But in this era, black women were told to be more "feminine" when they tried to speak out or organize. Ideals, quite obviously, are not one size fits all. -Mary Ann <br />
<br />
== "Polishing Brown Diamonds" and "More than a Lady" ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Outside the fact that Ebony magazine wanted to make money and focused more on the middle class, there was an attempt to change the stereotypical views of the black women from the Aunt Jemima look to a beautiful “brown-skinned” women. I think what Laila Haidarali was trying to show how "Ebony" tried to influence perceptions through this ideal “brown-skinned” woman. The charm schools weren’t just creating models but a self-confident woman who may not become a model but was ready to face the work force with less fears of knowing the right thing to say or the appropriate attire for the job. An interesting example she used was Watson’s Charm Clinic, that if you put too much make-up on you could look like you were going to a nightclub not to work. An important point made in Watson’s address was that one’s appearance reflects one’s abilities. These options led women to believe that they would improve the view of a black woman and bring her more social mobility. With all of that being said, where does the dark-skinned black woman fit in? As I read “More than a lady” by Fleming, they seemed contradictory. What women activists did defied this ideal notion of a woman black or white. But what is interesting was when I read how a black female civil rights worker was demonstrating and was grabbed and slapped in the face by a cop and his response grouped all black people together. If she was a white activist, she probably wouldn’t have been slapped around or beaten as these black women were. To the cop, she was black and he didn’t care if you were man or woman. --Mhimes<br />
<br />
<br />
I really was interested by the experience of the black model who was too light skinned to represent the African Americans, but too dark to represent the whites. That is just ridiculous to me in today's terms, especially since in black and white print you probably wouldn't be able to differentiate between whether she was white or light skinned black or a subtle shade of orange. It's not often that you think about the hardships of the models in the modeling industry, but it was enlighening to read about this experience of exclusion solely because you happened to be too light skinned, but not light skinned enough. -ssellers<br />
<br />
== "Polishing Brown Diamonds," Laila Haidarali ==<br />
<br />
It was great to read this article for many reasons; it was fascinating and enlightening. One of the things I found the most interesting about it, though, was how often Haidarali emphasized the fact that the ideal was, yes, feminine, hardworking and family oriented, but also heterosexual. I think in some of the articles we have read this semester they do not reiterate this point as much as Haidarali because they think it is understood. While I never really thought post-war America was open to homosexuality, I appreciate her continually reminding us that sexism and racism were not the only discriminations of the day. -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
== "We Marched for Our Rights," Rev. Naomi Craig ==<br />
<br />
The last line of this article struck me the most, "I still have a piece that is missing in my life because I never got to really know him like I would have wanted to." If this was the start of the article or I had missed something, I would have thought she was talking about a father, a brother, a lover...someone that she would have had a close personal connection with that ended to soon. I certainly would not have expected her to be talking about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. This line, I think, shows how deeply MLK inspired not only African-Americans, but all Americans. His assassination was something personal. -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
This article was really inspiring to me and also showed me the true difference between the North and South, it was not something we just read about, it was a reality. Naomi Craig was scared for her son and daughter's welfare but never stopped them from growing into the people they wanted to be, amongst all the racial differences she let them attend school in the South and travel to a place that appeared to be on a different continent, not states inside the United States. I also wanted to note on the line she stated, "I had never been around so many Blacks before; I thought it was wonderful. I felt they were all so pretty, all different colors." That was the most inspiring line for me, Mrs. Craig saw beyond first appearances she believed color was beautiful why could America not do the same? -Megan W.</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_11_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 11 Questions/Comments2010-04-01T00:46:05Z<p>Megan3088: /* "Star Struck," Vicki L. Ruiz */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''MAKE SURE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS UNDER THE RELEVANT AUTHOR/TITLE HEADING (OR TO CREATE A NEW HEADING IF THERE ISN'T ONE YET)'''<br />
<br />
== "Balancing Work and Family," Betty Jeanne Boggs ==<br />
"Always this-- 'because you're a woman'" (page 208). I was really moved by this article and felt that as all of the articles get closer to current times, their revelance becomes so much more alarming. I can't believe that things written by females (what feels like) SO LONG AGO are still things that I look at society today and think are completely ridiculous. I did, however, really appreciate her husband in this article. FINALLY, a good man in history who wasn't pushing his wife into the home. He encouraged her to work while he finished school because she liked her work, even though they were married, and when they accidentially got married he still wanted her to continue working because he KNEW how much she liked her job. I wish there were more historically based documents that talked about things like this just because it makes things not always depressing. I still felt strong emotions towards her statement "For one thing, I wanted to stay home with the baby; two, I wanted to help Josh get through; three, I really enjoyed that job. I just didn't know what to do about it, because I enjoyed working and yet I thought I should really be home with that baby" (page 210) because it's something that I feel goes above the issue of sex and into the issue of parenthood. I can't imagine it's ever easy to look at your child bonding more with your husband/wife and NOT feel like you may be missing out on something because you feel like you have obligations that don't allow that access. I am sure that her husband felt the exact same way when he looked at her relationship with the children, though, because in a family it always seems greener on the other side. I feel as though this article truly represents a healthy relationship between husband and wife, and every insecurity that Betty Jeanne Boggs felt about working while she had a husband was something that was based upon society, not upon her husbands actions. This could just be my wishful thinking, but it's nice to imagine. -Ssellers<br />
<br />
I admire this woman for paving the way for working mothers, if only for a time, but I also noticed her husband's willingness to rely on her for income while he finished school and often stayed home with their son. His attitude appears remarkably progressive for a time when many thought men should be resuming their places as heads of households after the war. I also noticed how conflicted the author felt about both wanting to work and wanting to be at home with her children, saying she "wanted to be in two places at one time." I went to the Great Lives lecture on Rosie the Riveter tonight, and the speaker quoted a poll taken during WWII about the most admired women in America. First was Eleanor Roosevelt, and second was Betty Crocker, and I think those contrasting results reflect the independence and work vs. domestic housewife dichotomy that women like the author experienced in those years. Many of today's working mothers can turn to their mothers for advice on how to balance their different wants and obligations, but these women were part of the first generation of women, of middle class women especially, to really have any sort of opportunity to work outside of the home after having children. They were making it up as they went along. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I really like reading about Rosie the Riveters. They are definitely an inspiration for women. Sometimes, however, I read about a woman or hear her story as I did with Betty Jeanne Boggs' story, and I feel that it's a story about two different women. One part of the story is the rise of a more independent woman who relies on herself financially, has to take care of the children while the husband is off fighting the war, and is usually working at a labor-intensive job. They juggle everything fairly well for being on their own and even obtain raises in wages and in higher positions as in Boggs' case. As soon as the husbands come home and the war is over, a new woman appears. Even though Boggs' did want to eventually continue her career she didn't do so until much later down the road when her children were full grown. She was content with staying at home taking care of her husband and family. She was consumed with her family. She said, "...but I would never go anywhere unless he would go," (referring to her husband). No longer were women working and creating their own wealth. They were again housewives and for the most part enjoyed being in that role. Personally I think because the idea of a women working and being away from the home and being a mother was fairly new, most didn't think it was possible to juggle both or weren't sure how to go about doing it. I think more men than women didn't think it was possible otherwise the "problem that has no name" would not have arose. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Rachel Carson ==<br />
<br />
I am not the world's biggest environmentalist and I still loved this article. Rachel Carson did an awesome job defending herself against her critics in this article and for some reason I was in disbelief that even back then people questioned the existance of environmental problems like pesticides and pollutions. Ridiculous that her response "No, the problem of pesticides is not merely the dream of an avracious author, out to pile up royalties by frightening the public- it is very much with us, here and now" (page 229) even has to be made. Her proof of the levels of toxins in the dying animals was disgusting, to say the very least. and I completely agree with her statement that "A world that is no longer fit for wild plants that is no longer graced by the flights of birds, a world whose streams and forrests are empty and lifeless is not likely to be fit habitat for man himself, for these things are symptoms of an ailing world" (page 228). She certainly won me over. (And I would especially buy some more Samoas to support her environmentalist cause.) --Ssellers<br />
<br />
<br />
==Louisa Randall Church Explores the Duties of Parents as Architects of Peace, 1946==<br />
<br />
Out of Church’s fear of bombs, “in the hundreds and thousands,”(410) she decides that the only way to save the world is to raise children the right way. But aside from that, something struck me funny, the second full paragraph on page 411, Church discusses the importance of raising children correctly, but keeps referring to the child as “he”, “when ''he'' has achieved complete control over ''himself'' and his environment. Only then can ''he'' meet the exigencies of worthy citizenship in the world of tomorrow.” So what does this say about the author’s view of the roles of girls in the future? Do these rules listed by Church only apply to male children? Or perhaps it is the assumption that only the male children will be in the public arena and be able to make a difference in the “world of tomorrow” whereas female children will merely grow up to produce more children to raise in the same way her mother had? --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
Erin, I noticed that Church uses 'he' throughout the piece, but I don't necessarily think it was meant to indicate that girls were not valued, just a quirk of grammar. She actually states quite clearly that in the near future women "will be taking their rightful place in world affairs," and so girls should be "provided with the same opportunities" (pg. 411) as their brothers. She seems to hold a fairly egalitarian view of parenting, advocating that both mothers and fathers be involved in the lives of their children and consistently referring to the responsibilities of 'parents' rather than simply the role of 'mother. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary Ann's statement above. One of Church's main arguments for attaining personal security for children is equal rights between all children and not showing favoritism, as well as asserting that "neither the father nor mother should reign supreme" (411). Going along with equal rights between the sexes, she defends that "girls should be provided with the same opportunities, intellectually, professionally, socially and economically as boys" (411). If Church believed that only male citizens are valuable members of society, I don't believe she would be encouraging parents to provide their daughters with the same opportunities. I also found the wording of Church's essay interesting when she states "women will be taking their ''rightful'' places in society" (411). This almost sounds feminist. It seems like Church is arguing that women have been denied something they were entitled to all along-an equal place with men in all worldly affairs. --Anna K Holman<br />
<br />
==Nonconformist Joyce Johnson Recounts Her Experience in Obtaining an Illegal Abortion in New York City, 1955==<br />
<br />
Getting an abortion now seems like it would be a horrible, isolating experience. It is still so controversial that even if a woman makes that decision and is happy with it, she has to face judgment from everyone around her. Getting an abortion in 1955 seems like it would be so much worse. Abortion was to be unspoken of and it was really dangerous. In order to find a person to carry out an illegal abortion Joyce Johnson had to ask friends and friends of friends, all of whom probably judged her. She ended up having to meet a shady guy in a restaurant who had some sick obsession with helping girls get abortions. Joyce was truly alone through the entire process. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
To add, The fact that single women would rather face danger and health risks to have an illegal abortion than have a baby shows the amount of pressure that these women were under to fit into a mold. To Joyce Johnson, an abortion was living and having a child meant dying. That is a pretty serious statement. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
Regardless of one's moral idea on the subject, I have to say the idea of having a child to many young women today is still the equivalent of dying. If only 1955 had been more acceptable towards the use of contraception, then less women, like Joyce Johnson, would have had to make the decision to stop an unplanned pregnancy. Still, it is disgusting that this decision today, and in 1955, was considered a PUBLIC decision in regards to laws and social acceptability. I still think today that ultra-coservatives would be more willing to forgive a serial rapist and murderer than a woman who made the decision to NOT ruin her life, career, societal standing, education, dreams, ambition, etc., to have an abortion. Based upon unplanned pregnancy levels just because the opportunity to have an abortion is there doesn't mean that one is going to take advantage of that option. It is a very hard, and very personal decision; Which I think Joyce Johnson did an amazing job conveying. It isn't fair that a male can have sex unprotected for fun and not have to deal with the same consequences (which the article implied that Joyce Johnson just knew that it was as much of an obligation to the father as it was to her which i would LOVE to have more information upon... was this the thinking of society as a whole at the time? Was a man financially obligated to take care of the situation? How did that notion change into what it is today?)in today's world even with sexual protection opportunities. Contradictory to her belief on his financial responsibility however I found it interesting that she said "Life was considered sacred. But independence could be punishable by death. The punishment for sex was, appropriately, sexual" (page 419) which is seemingly contradictory to the financial responsibility she felt he had. I totally support her on that statement though. A woman's right to choose her life ends in this country when a zygote is involved, yet if she were sexually assaulted or raped the legal system would find a way to blame her as the Victim, instead of the male who was just acting naturally. more proof that the punishment for sex is appropriately sexual. I think having an abortion is something that Joyce Johnson thought about roughly, probably lost a ton of sleep over, and I'm happy that she had the opportunity to fly to Puerto Rico to get it done (although, I'm also sadly suprised that having a legal abortion at a facility in Puerto Rico would be safer than an illegal one in the United States...??) because if she hadn't had that opportunity then she would have been stuck with an unloved child and husband, and a disdain for their involvement in her life. Obviously, I feel very strongly in support of Joyce Johnson's decision to take control of her livelihood, and believe that because of this experience she, and the boy who knocked her up, would in the future both be more careful in regards to sexual activity. It wasn't a simple solution and from this article I can only imagine the disgust I would feel towards the society who would judge her for such a decision. It's amazing how morality derived from the teachings of the Catholic Church, in their passage onto the other christian faiths based upon them, play such an unfortunate role historically in the lives of Women in the United States, yet Boys will just be boys. -Ssellers<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that the doctor in Canarsie was clearly against abortions, as he didn’t even use the word “abortion” and admonished Johnson, telling her “don’t ever let me catch you back here again, young lady!” (421), yet he still was willing to perform the operation. Why was that? Did his concern for women’s safety, the fear that they might turn to someone incompetent, override his opposition to the procedure? And were most doctors who performed illegal abortions like him, or did they genuinely believe the women had a right to the procedure? – Alice W.<br />
<br />
I like Alice found interesting that the doctor described other procedures he performed but would not dare mention abortion. I do not think he really cared about women's health, I think he was worried that if women came to him who were pregnant and wanted abortions one he would know they were pregnant outside of marriage and two he did not want people (government) to find out he was performing them, at the time I feel like he could of lost his license if it was found out. Maybe he did care about women but with all the precautions he took and the way he spoke to Joyce I have to say I do not think he did, he may of just been a doctor who did not believe in having children outside of marriage. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
=="An Unplanned Pregnancy", by Joanna Rubin==<br />
<br />
I found this article to be fascinating, insightful and harrowing. I wonder what audience Joanna Rubin was writing for and after having her abortion at a time when it was illegal, what made her be so willing to share her story. Were abortions also illegal in Puerto Rico at that time? I know Rubin did not see any other Americans at her clinic, but was it a likely occurrence that American women would go to Puerto Rico or other countries for the procedure? My curiosity was piqued about the beliefs of American doctors after the line, "When I found out I was pregnant, I went to see a doctor, and he told me to come and see him afterwards. I had a low-grade infection. He was very sweet, supportive, gave me antibiotics" (217). Did American Doctors refer their patients to unofficial clinics that they knew off or simply accept that it was inevitable? As it was illegal, were doctors encouraged to turn in women who got abortions? Were there any actions taken against these women? For me, this article raised a lot more questions about what was typical than it answered. -- Kokeefe<br />
<br />
To answer one of the questions raised above, I think maybe Joanna Rubin decided to tell her story because she needed to tell people, mainly women, that even though she knew that she wanted an abortion it was still a hard decision to make. She said, "Although I didn't for a minute think I didn't want the abortion, it was still a very, very heavy experience. It isn't 'Oh, this is a cool, easy decision to make, and there are no consequences.'"(217) She wanted to make sure that women knew that abortion wasn't "taking the easy way out," it was scary, intimidating, and probably created a feeling of guilt which may be another reason for her writing this piece. I also was wondering about the number of women that went to Puerto Rico and other countries to receive abortions during this time. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I think when comparing this abortion story of Joanna to the other story of Jocye Johnson, it reveals that pregnancy was a very real and scary thing for women. Both these women made desperate attempts to get an abortion, while still weighing the heavy costs of pain (both physical and emotional), injury, and possible death. This story, in particular shows the willingness and hardships Joanna faced to get an abortion; it meant she had to leave the country just to do so. It shows that pregnancy and abortion were real fears for young women, who had little to no access of birth control. I think that it was included to show that there was a real need for contraceptive information in the 50's and 60's and what would lead to the landmark courtcase ''Roe v Wade''. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I commend Joanna Rubin for writing her story at a time when abortion was illegal in the United States, I feel that she wanted other women to know that they were not alone. I think that even though Joanna knew she was going to get an abortion no questions asked she knew any woman who gets an abortion would feel a burden on her shoulders. I agree with abratchi this article made me think of Birth Control clinics and how there was a strong need for them not just for married women but any woman who wanted to learn about the risks, symptoms, or who to talk to when they found out they were pregnant. Even today I feel that more women should learn about the risks of pregnancy and how shows on MTV such as 16 and pregnant (while not the high quality) are a reality and show that all it takes is one time and you can be pregnant. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
=="The Problem That Has No Name," Betty Friedan, 1963==<br />
<br />
I think, more than anything, what got to these women was the isolation involved in being the perfect domestic housewife. This was an age of single family homes, of cars instead of public transportation, of cleaning quietly in the kitchen rather than enjoying a laugh with the other women over lunch at the defense plant like the women interviewed in the video we watched. These women's lives revolved around a home that for a significant portion of the day she shared with perhaps a mildly communicative infant or no one at all if her children were old enough to be in school. Sure she went out to do the shopping and interacted with people through that, but she always ultimately returned to her empty house that constantly reminded her of further chores she needed to accomplish. And no matter how many friends women did have, they'd still feel isolated in that they couldn't share with their friends what was truly on their minds, thinking themselves all alone in their feelings of desperation and boredom. It's telling that just a simple acknowledgment that friends shared similar thoughts could cause women to break down and cry "just to know they are not alone." -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I think that Mary Ann raised an important point about Betty Freidan’s excerpt, to know that you were not alone in how you felt about your duties as a wife, mother, and the home. Women were facing societal implications that if you felt that you wanted more or even a career that this meant that you could not be worthy or could not fulfill those duties. If you step outside of those roles of the home, does that make you less able to maintain them? In the 1950’s, you were looked down upon if you did, did it make you less of a mother and wife? It became a moral dilemma. Women had to maintain that ideal picture, they felt the pressure that limited options for self fulfillment for women in those roles. I play the scene in my mind, the husband saying, “Oh dear, why are you not happy, you have more than any woman could ever want?” (no pressure here.) Freidan found in talking with other women that she was not alone in her thoughts. -MHimes<br />
<br />
==Farnham and Lundberg==<br />
Oy vey, these women are something, aren’t they? Much like the women of the 19th century who went out into the public to tell women to get back into the house where they belonged, we’ve got a psychiatrist and a sociologist telling women that they shouldn’t have jobs. It just blows the mind. According to them, women who work are neurotic and unfeminine, and they ignore their family duties for their jobs and became resentful towards men. Are they speaking from personal experience, because, you know, they ''have jobs themselves''? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
The idea of “feminine relinquishment” was interesting. It seems strange that if you had a career outside of the home, that meant you lost you feminine qualities. But when there was an ideal perception of family, that locked women in those roles, it made it difficult to go anywhere else without consequences. I never thought about it as woman were living “dangerously” if women tried to juggle both work and home. Everyone seems to suffer for the wife’s aspirations. Who would want to leave the home if they felt they would destroy their family? I think that Farnham and Lundberg were vividly describing the moral dilemmas women were facing if they tried to work and take care of the family. -MHimes<br />
<br />
I thought these women were quite bold in some of their statements. I thought that it was interesting how they equated women working outside the home as becoming more masculine, as MHimes above me stated. They seem to believe that a woman could not possibly be feminine if working outside the home, which caused an internal struggle in women who worked while having household responsibilities, like a husband and children. They seem to really find danger to a woman's feminity if she is engaged in work, which in turn negatively affects men. They appear as advocates of the this new modern cult of domesticity that was emerging in the post war period, it seems. -abratchi<br />
<br />
==Taylor, Women Strike for Peace==<br />
I can’t help but chuckle anytime HUAC gets the run around. Just imagine being in that courtroom. Middle-class, supposedly meek and compliant little housewives and mothers with their pristine white gloves being accused of Communist activity; even if they did have Communist sympathies, no one would believe it. It sounds like these women used the housewife image well in their campaign for peace. Much like the women of the 19th century reform movement, they justified being involved in politics with their concerns as wives and mothers. And much like the reform women, they embraced and contradicted the ideal image of femininity at the same time. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I found the HUAC to be extremely hypocritical. On one hand Ethel Baron Taylor is complaining about how "women are not in positions of power and they have no role in policy-making" (218) , and on the other she chooses to get her point across by portraying her organization in a way that makes them seem submissive and powerless. Even though she is fighting to obtain more power for women through this group, she inadvertently still relies on men. It particularly disturbed me when she waited for a man to help her out of the police van after being arrested; If Taylor can't handle a five foot jump without a man guiding her, how are we supposed to take her cause seriously? --Anna K Holman<br />
<br />
I saw WSP as more sly and manipulative. They knew that the most effective way to get a woman's voice heard was to play up those female stereotypes, especially in court. No judge would throw out a bunch of sweet women who weren't doing anything wrong! And they couldn't go militant or get too forceful with their protests. That kind of thing tends to irritate and annoy people rather than make them agreeable to the cause. I just think that if you're going to go with that method, you can't complain about being treated like a stereotype afterwards. So, Taylor complaining about wanting to be treated equally while manipulating the female stereotypes is definitely hypocritical. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
=="Star Struck," Vicki L. Ruiz ==<br />
<br />
All these articles are important in our understanding of the past and how it continues to shape the present. However, I found this article in particular to be especially important because generations later the poverty and degradation of Mexican Americans is still the reality. The Mexican American women from the 1920's to 1950's written about in this article could easily be Mexican American women today. All the issues they faced in the first half of the twentieth century are the same battles they fight today in the beginning of the twenty-first century, with little to no improvement. Perhaps it is because unlike other immigrant groups, the Latina community continues to emigrate and despite having been an essential part of our nation for an extended time, they are perceived to be the “new guys.” -- Kokeefe<br />
<br />
I found this article could easily be related to today and how women are percieved or told how they should be percieved in the media. While I feel that many immigrant groups wanted to promote their culture, especially the Mexican Americans through language and traditions, the children of immigrant parents wanted to assimilate into American culture, and the leading way in California was through "the public fascination with Hollywood."(367). Today, things have still not changed infact I believe we as a society have become more fascinated with Hollywood and how it defines America, I cannot even count how many times I have heard the story about Sandra Bullock and her husband and very little on world affairs or even the healthcare bill. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
==Indian Relocation, Wilma Mankiller==<br />
The hardships that Indians peoples faced throughout the 19th and 20th century had clear impacts. This experience by one Indian girl who was forced to leave her town in Oklahoma for California was heartbreaking. This girl had to endure leaving her entire life, at the expense of the US Government who thought they were offering “a wonderful opportunity for Indian families to get great jobs, obtain good educations for their kids and, once and for all, leave poverty behind” (212). This girls life did not get easier, but harder, emotionally and financially. It is a clear example of how racial minorities were again, uprooted from their lives. Wilma explains how she was teased because of her last name and how she knew she was clearly different from the other children, who knew as well. This must have had lasting impacts on her as she grew and matured. -abratchi<br />
<br />
==A Letter to the Editor of The Ladder from an African American Lesbian, 1957==<br />
<br />
The issue of appearance and whether or not minority groups should dress according to the standards of “the dominant social group” was interesting here. Conforming to their standards might be a way for a lesbian (or an African American or any other minority group) to prove that she was “normal” and that her sexuality should not be a determining factor of her standing in society. On the other hand, not conforming to these standards would be a way to say “I don’t care what you think.” The writer seems to think it shouldn’t matter either way, as she expresses the hope that “someday…the ‘discreet’ Lesbian will not turn her head on the streets at the sight of the ‘butch’ strolling hand in hand with her friend in their trousers and definitive haircuts” (422). It’s something modern lesbians could identify with, as there are many women for whom appearance is still a big concern, as they do not want the stereotype of the “manly” lesbian to be the only thing others think of. - Alice W<br />
<br />
==African American Pauli Murray Explains Why Negro Girls Stay Single, 1947==<br />
<br />
I found this piece a mix of saddening, isolating, and devastating. I felt like there was no hope at all for the African American woman in any aspect of life, especially in finding love. She could aspire to better herself and get an education, but wouldn’t be able to find a job that would pay her equal to white women. She could look for a husband and she wouldn’t find one. This must have been the harshest reality to find; that African American just were not available and, those that were, did not want to marry her type of a woman. She “often has a potential earning power far beyond the range of the majority of available singe males-a social handicap if she wants marriage,” (416). A man’s partner making more than him must have been emasculating. Men did not want to be subordinate to women in any way or in any race, as history has shown us; he always wanted to be the breadwinner for the family. “He is the victim of constant frustration in his role as a male because socially he is subordinate to the white women although he is trained to act as a member of the dominate sex,” (417). African American men were already seen as of lesser value than white women, and yet to be dominate in their own race. How could they be dominate while they were lesser in society than white women, less educated than African American women, and brought home less money to support their families? Because African American men were so emotionally broken by their place in the hierarchy of society as well as their role as African American men, women had no chance to find a strong male partner. Without such a partner or the potential to find one, I would feel isolated in society too. -Morgan M</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_11_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 11 Questions/Comments2010-04-01T00:00:05Z<p>Megan3088: /* Nonconformist Joyce Johnson Recounts Her Experience in Obtaining an Illegal Abortion in New York City, 1955 */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''MAKE SURE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS UNDER THE RELEVANT AUTHOR/TITLE HEADING (OR TO CREATE A NEW HEADING IF THERE ISN'T ONE YET)'''<br />
<br />
== "Balancing Work and Family," Betty Jeanne Boggs ==<br />
"Always this-- 'because you're a woman'" (page 208). I was really moved by this article and felt that as all of the articles get closer to current times, their revelance becomes so much more alarming. I can't believe that things written by females (what feels like) SO LONG AGO are still things that I look at society today and think are completely ridiculous. I did, however, really appreciate her husband in this article. FINALLY, a good man in history who wasn't pushing his wife into the home. He encouraged her to work while he finished school because she liked her work, even though they were married, and when they accidentially got married he still wanted her to continue working because he KNEW how much she liked her job. I wish there were more historically based documents that talked about things like this just because it makes things not always depressing. I still felt strong emotions towards her statement "For one thing, I wanted to stay home with the baby; two, I wanted to help Josh get through; three, I really enjoyed that job. I just didn't know what to do about it, because I enjoyed working and yet I thought I should really be home with that baby" (page 210) because it's something that I feel goes above the issue of sex and into the issue of parenthood. I can't imagine it's ever easy to look at your child bonding more with your husband/wife and NOT feel like you may be missing out on something because you feel like you have obligations that don't allow that access. I am sure that her husband felt the exact same way when he looked at her relationship with the children, though, because in a family it always seems greener on the other side. I feel as though this article truly represents a healthy relationship between husband and wife, and every insecurity that Betty Jeanne Boggs felt about working while she had a husband was something that was based upon society, not upon her husbands actions. This could just be my wishful thinking, but it's nice to imagine. -Ssellers<br />
<br />
I admire this woman for paving the way for working mothers, if only for a time, but I also noticed her husband's willingness to rely on her for income while he finished school and often stayed home with their son. His attitude appears remarkably progressive for a time when many thought men should be resuming their places as heads of households after the war. I also noticed how conflicted the author felt about both wanting to work and wanting to be at home with her children, saying she "wanted to be in two places at one time." I went to the Great Lives lecture on Rosie the Riveter tonight, and the speaker quoted a poll taken during WWII about the most admired women in America. First was Eleanor Roosevelt, and second was Betty Crocker, and I think those contrasting results reflect the independence and work vs. domestic housewife dichotomy that women like the author experienced in those years. Many of today's working mothers can turn to their mothers for advice on how to balance their different wants and obligations, but these women were part of the first generation of women, of middle class women especially, to really have any sort of opportunity to work outside of the home after having children. They were making it up as they went along. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I really like reading about Rosie the Riveters. They are definitely an inspiration for women. Sometimes, however, I read about a woman or hear her story as I did with Betty Jeanne Boggs' story, and I feel that it's a story about two different women. One part of the story is the rise of a more independent woman who relies on herself financially, has to take care of the children while the husband is off fighting the war, and is usually working at a labor-intensive job. They juggle everything fairly well for being on their own and even obtain raises in wages and in higher positions as in Boggs' case. As soon as the husbands come home and the war is over, a new woman appears. Even though Boggs' did want to eventually continue her career she didn't do so until much later down the road when her children were full grown. She was content with staying at home taking care of her husband and family. She was consumed with her family. She said, "...but I would never go anywhere unless he would go," (referring to her husband). No longer were women working and creating their own wealth. They were again housewives and for the most part enjoyed being in that role. Personally I think because the idea of a women working and being away from the home and being a mother was fairly new, most didn't think it was possible to juggle both or weren't sure how to go about doing it. I think more men than women didn't think it was possible otherwise the "problem that has no name" would not have arose. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Rachel Carson ==<br />
<br />
I am not the world's biggest environmentalist and I still loved this article. Rachel Carson did an awesome job defending herself against her critics in this article and for some reason I was in disbelief that even back then people questioned the existance of environmental problems like pesticides and pollutions. Ridiculous that her response "No, the problem of pesticides is not merely the dream of an avracious author, out to pile up royalties by frightening the public- it is very much with us, here and now" (page 229) even has to be made. Her proof of the levels of toxins in the dying animals was disgusting, to say the very least. and I completely agree with her statement that "A world that is no longer fit for wild plants that is no longer graced by the flights of birds, a world whose streams and forrests are empty and lifeless is not likely to be fit habitat for man himself, for these things are symptoms of an ailing world" (page 228). She certainly won me over. (And I would especially buy some more Samoas to support her environmentalist cause.) --Ssellers<br />
<br />
<br />
==Louisa Randall Church Explores the Duties of Parents as Architects of Peace, 1946==<br />
<br />
Out of Church’s fear of bombs, “in the hundreds and thousands,”(410) she decides that the only way to save the world is to raise children the right way. But aside from that, something struck me funny, the second full paragraph on page 411, Church discusses the importance of raising children correctly, but keeps referring to the child as “he”, “when ''he'' has achieved complete control over ''himself'' and his environment. Only then can ''he'' meet the exigencies of worthy citizenship in the world of tomorrow.” So what does this say about the author’s view of the roles of girls in the future? Do these rules listed by Church only apply to male children? Or perhaps it is the assumption that only the male children will be in the public arena and be able to make a difference in the “world of tomorrow” whereas female children will merely grow up to produce more children to raise in the same way her mother had? --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
Erin, I noticed that Church uses 'he' throughout the piece, but I don't necessarily think it was meant to indicate that girls were not valued, just a quirk of grammar. She actually states quite clearly that in the near future women "will be taking their rightful place in world affairs," and so girls should be "provided with the same opportunities" (pg. 411) as their brothers. She seems to hold a fairly egalitarian view of parenting, advocating that both mothers and fathers be involved in the lives of their children and consistently referring to the responsibilities of 'parents' rather than simply the role of 'mother. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary Ann's statement above. One of Church's main arguments for attaining personal security for children is equal rights between all children and not showing favoritism, as well as asserting that "neither the father nor mother should reign supreme" (411). Going along with equal rights between the sexes, she defends that "girls should be provided with the same opportunities, intellectually, professionally, socially and economically as boys" (411). If Church believed that only male citizens are valuable members of society, I don't believe she would be encouraging parents to provide their daughters with the same opportunities. I also found the wording of Church's essay interesting when she states "women will be taking their ''rightful'' places in society" (411). This almost sounds feminist. It seems like Church is arguing that women have been denied something they were entitled to all along-an equal place with men in all worldly affairs. --Anna K Holman<br />
<br />
==Nonconformist Joyce Johnson Recounts Her Experience in Obtaining an Illegal Abortion in New York City, 1955==<br />
<br />
Getting an abortion now seems like it would be a horrible, isolating experience. It is still so controversial that even if a woman makes that decision and is happy with it, she has to face judgment from everyone around her. Getting an abortion in 1955 seems like it would be so much worse. Abortion was to be unspoken of and it was really dangerous. In order to find a person to carry out an illegal abortion Joyce Johnson had to ask friends and friends of friends, all of whom probably judged her. She ended up having to meet a shady guy in a restaurant who had some sick obsession with helping girls get abortions. Joyce was truly alone through the entire process. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
To add, The fact that single women would rather face danger and health risks to have an illegal abortion than have a baby shows the amount of pressure that these women were under to fit into a mold. To Joyce Johnson, an abortion was living and having a child meant dying. That is a pretty serious statement. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
Regardless of one's moral idea on the subject, I have to say the idea of having a child to many young women today is still the equivalent of dying. If only 1955 had been more acceptable towards the use of contraception, then less women, like Joyce Johnson, would have had to make the decision to stop an unplanned pregnancy. Still, it is disgusting that this decision today, and in 1955, was considered a PUBLIC decision in regards to laws and social acceptability. I still think today that ultra-coservatives would be more willing to forgive a serial rapist and murderer than a woman who made the decision to NOT ruin her life, career, societal standing, education, dreams, ambition, etc., to have an abortion. Based upon unplanned pregnancy levels just because the opportunity to have an abortion is there doesn't mean that one is going to take advantage of that option. It is a very hard, and very personal decision; Which I think Joyce Johnson did an amazing job conveying. It isn't fair that a male can have sex unprotected for fun and not have to deal with the same consequences (which the article implied that Joyce Johnson just knew that it was as much of an obligation to the father as it was to her which i would LOVE to have more information upon... was this the thinking of society as a whole at the time? Was a man financially obligated to take care of the situation? How did that notion change into what it is today?)in today's world even with sexual protection opportunities. Contradictory to her belief on his financial responsibility however I found it interesting that she said "Life was considered sacred. But independence could be punishable by death. The punishment for sex was, appropriately, sexual" (page 419) which is seemingly contradictory to the financial responsibility she felt he had. I totally support her on that statement though. A woman's right to choose her life ends in this country when a zygote is involved, yet if she were sexually assaulted or raped the legal system would find a way to blame her as the Victim, instead of the male who was just acting naturally. more proof that the punishment for sex is appropriately sexual. I think having an abortion is something that Joyce Johnson thought about roughly, probably lost a ton of sleep over, and I'm happy that she had the opportunity to fly to Puerto Rico to get it done (although, I'm also sadly suprised that having a legal abortion at a facility in Puerto Rico would be safer than an illegal one in the United States...??) because if she hadn't had that opportunity then she would have been stuck with an unloved child and husband, and a disdain for their involvement in her life. Obviously, I feel very strongly in support of Joyce Johnson's decision to take control of her livelihood, and believe that because of this experience she, and the boy who knocked her up, would in the future both be more careful in regards to sexual activity. It wasn't a simple solution and from this article I can only imagine the disgust I would feel towards the society who would judge her for such a decision. It's amazing how morality derived from the teachings of the Catholic Church, in their passage onto the other christian faiths based upon them, play such an unfortunate role historically in the lives of Women in the United States, yet Boys will just be boys. -Ssellers<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that the doctor in Canarsie was clearly against abortions, as he didn’t even use the word “abortion” and admonished Johnson, telling her “don’t ever let me catch you back here again, young lady!” (421), yet he still was willing to perform the operation. Why was that? Did his concern for women’s safety, the fear that they might turn to someone incompetent, override his opposition to the procedure? And were most doctors who performed illegal abortions like him, or did they genuinely believe the women had a right to the procedure? – Alice W.<br />
<br />
I like Alice found interesting that the doctor described other procedures he performed but would not dare mention abortion. I do not think he really cared about women's health, I think he was worried that if women came to him who were pregnant and wanted abortions one he would know they were pregnant outside of marriage and two he did not want people (government) to find out he was performing them, at the time I feel like he could of lost his license if it was found out. Maybe he did care about women but with all the precautions he took and the way he spoke to Joyce I have to say I do not think he did, he may of just been a doctor who did not believe in having children outside of marriage. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
=="An Unplanned Pregnancy", by Joanna Rubin==<br />
<br />
I found this article to be fascinating, insightful and harrowing. I wonder what audience Joanna Rubin was writing for and after having her abortion at a time when it was illegal, what made her be so willing to share her story. Were abortions also illegal in Puerto Rico at that time? I know Rubin did not see any other Americans at her clinic, but was it a likely occurrence that American women would go to Puerto Rico or other countries for the procedure? My curiosity was piqued about the beliefs of American doctors after the line, "When I found out I was pregnant, I went to see a doctor, and he told me to come and see him afterwards. I had a low-grade infection. He was very sweet, supportive, gave me antibiotics" (217). Did American Doctors refer their patients to unofficial clinics that they knew off or simply accept that it was inevitable? As it was illegal, were doctors encouraged to turn in women who got abortions? Were there any actions taken against these women? For me, this article raised a lot more questions about what was typical than it answered. -- Kokeefe<br />
<br />
To answer one of the questions raised above, I think maybe Joanna Rubin decided to tell her story because she needed to tell people, mainly women, that even though she knew that she wanted an abortion it was still a hard decision to make. She said, "Although I didn't for a minute think I didn't want the abortion, it was still a very, very heavy experience. It isn't 'Oh, this is a cool, easy decision to make, and there are no consequences.'"(217) She wanted to make sure that women knew that abortion wasn't "taking the easy way out," it was scary, intimidating, and probably created a feeling of guilt which may be another reason for her writing this piece. I also was wondering about the number of women that went to Puerto Rico and other countries to receive abortions during this time. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I think when comparing this abortion story of Joanna to the other story of Jocye Johnson, it reveals that pregnancy was a very real and scary thing for women. Both these women made desperate attempts to get an abortion, while still weighing the heavy costs of pain (both physical and emotional), injury, and possible death. This story, in particular shows the willingness and hardships Joanna faced to get an abortion; it meant she had to leave the country just to do so. It shows that pregnancy and abortion were real fears for young women, who had little to no access of birth control. I think that it was included to show that there was a real need for contraceptive information in the 50's and 60's and what would lead to the landmark courtcase ''Roe v Wade''. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I commend Joanna Rubin for writing her story at a time when abortion was illegal in the United States, I feel that she wanted other women to know that they were not alone. I think that even though Joanna knew she was going to get an abortion no questions asked she knew any woman who gets an abortion would feel a burden on her shoulders. I agree with abratchi this article made me think of Birth Control clinics and how there was a strong need for them not just for married women but any woman who wanted to learn about the risks, symptoms, or who to talk to when they found out they were pregnant. Even today I feel that more women should learn about the risks of pregnancy and how shows on MTV such as 16 and pregnant (while not the high quality) are a reality and show that all it takes is one time and you can be pregnant. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
=="The Problem That Has No Name," Betty Friedan, 1963==<br />
<br />
I think, more than anything, what got to these women was the isolation involved in being the perfect domestic housewife. This was an age of single family homes, of cars instead of public transportation, of cleaning quietly in the kitchen rather than enjoying a laugh with the other women over lunch at the defense plant like the women interviewed in the video we watched. These women's lives revolved around a home that for a significant portion of the day she shared with perhaps a mildly communicative infant or no one at all if her children were old enough to be in school. Sure she went out to do the shopping and interacted with people through that, but she always ultimately returned to her empty house that constantly reminded her of further chores she needed to accomplish. And no matter how many friends women did have, they'd still feel isolated in that they couldn't share with their friends what was truly on their minds, thinking themselves all alone in their feelings of desperation and boredom. It's telling that just a simple acknowledgment that friends shared similar thoughts could cause women to break down and cry "just to know they are not alone." -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I think that Mary Ann raised an important point about Betty Freidan’s excerpt, to know that you were not alone in how you felt about your duties as a wife, mother, and the home. Women were facing societal implications that if you felt that you wanted more or even a career that this meant that you could not be worthy or could not fulfill those duties. If you step outside of those roles of the home, does that make you less able to maintain them? In the 1950’s, you were looked down upon if you did, did it make you less of a mother and wife? It became a moral dilemma. Women had to maintain that ideal picture, they felt the pressure that limited options for self fulfillment for women in those roles. I play the scene in my mind, the husband saying, “Oh dear, why are you not happy, you have more than any woman could ever want?” (no pressure here.) Freidan found in talking with other women that she was not alone in her thoughts. -MHimes<br />
<br />
==Farnham and Lundberg==<br />
Oy vey, these women are something, aren’t they? Much like the women of the 19th century who went out into the public to tell women to get back into the house where they belonged, we’ve got a psychiatrist and a sociologist telling women that they shouldn’t have jobs. It just blows the mind. According to them, women who work are neurotic and unfeminine, and they ignore their family duties for their jobs and became resentful towards men. Are they speaking from personal experience, because, you know, they ''have jobs themselves''? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
The idea of “feminine relinquishment” was interesting. It seems strange that if you had a career outside of the home, that meant you lost you feminine qualities. But when there was an ideal perception of family, that locked women in those roles, it made it difficult to go anywhere else without consequences. I never thought about it as woman were living “dangerously” if women tried to juggle both work and home. Everyone seems to suffer for the wife’s aspirations. Who would want to leave the home if they felt they would destroy their family? I think that Farnham and Lundberg were vividly describing the moral dilemmas women were facing if they tried to work and take care of the family. -MHimes<br />
<br />
I thought these women were quite bold in some of their statements. I thought that it was interesting how they equated women working outside the home as becoming more masculine, as MHimes above me stated. They seem to believe that a woman could not possibly be feminine if working outside the home, which caused an internal struggle in women who worked while having household responsibilities, like a husband and children. They seem to really find danger to a woman's feminity if she is engaged in work, which in turn negatively affects men. They appear as advocates of the this new modern cult of domesticity that was emerging in the post war period, it seems. -abratchi<br />
<br />
==Taylor, Women Strike for Peace==<br />
I can’t help but chuckle anytime HUAC gets the run around. Just imagine being in that courtroom. Middle-class, supposedly meek and compliant little housewives and mothers with their pristine white gloves being accused of Communist activity; even if they did have Communist sympathies, no one would believe it. It sounds like these women used the housewife image well in their campaign for peace. Much like the women of the 19th century reform movement, they justified being involved in politics with their concerns as wives and mothers. And much like the reform women, they embraced and contradicted the ideal image of femininity at the same time. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I found the HUAC to be extremely hypocritical. On one hand Ethel Baron Taylor is complaining about how "women are not in positions of power and they have no role in policy-making" (218) , and on the other she chooses to get her point across by portraying her organization in a way that makes them seem submissive and powerless. Even though she is fighting to obtain more power for women through this group, she inadvertently still relies on men. It particularly disturbed me when she waited for a man to help her out of the police van after being arrested; If Taylor can't handle a five foot jump without a man guiding her, how are we supposed to take her cause seriously? --Anna K Holman<br />
<br />
=="Star Struck," Vicki L. Ruiz ==<br />
<br />
All these articles are important in our understanding of the past and how it continues to shape the present. However, I found this article in particular to be especially important because generations later the poverty and degradation of Mexican Americans is still the reality. The Mexican American women from the 1920's to 1950's written about in this article could easily be Mexican American women today. All the issues they faced in the first half of the twentieth century are the same battles they fight today in the beginning of the twenty-first century, with little to no improvement. Perhaps it is because unlike other immigrant groups, the Latina community continues to emigrate and despite having been an essential part of our nation for an extended time, they are perceived to be the “new guys.” -- Kokeefe<br />
<br />
==Indian Relocation, Wilma Mankiller==<br />
The hardships that Indians peoples faced throughout the 19th and 20th century had clear impacts. This experience by one Indian girl who was forced to leave her town in Oklahoma for California was heartbreaking. This girl had to endure leaving her entire life, at the expense of the US Government who thought they were offering “a wonderful opportunity for Indian families to get great jobs, obtain good educations for their kids and, once and for all, leave poverty behind” (212). This girls life did not get easier, but harder, emotionally and financially. It is a clear example of how racial minorities were again, uprooted from their lives. Wilma explains how she was teased because of her last name and how she knew she was clearly different from the other children, who knew as well. This must have had lasting impacts on her as she grew and matured. -abratchi<br />
<br />
==A Letter to the Editor of The Ladder from an African American Lesbian, 1957==<br />
<br />
The issue of appearance and whether or not minority groups should dress according to the standards of “the dominant social group” was interesting here. Conforming to their standards might be a way for a lesbian (or an African American or any other minority group) to prove that she was “normal” and that her sexuality should not be a determining factor of her standing in society. On the other hand, not conforming to these standards would be a way to say “I don’t care what you think.” The writer seems to think it shouldn’t matter either way, as she expresses the hope that “someday…the ‘discreet’ Lesbian will not turn her head on the streets at the sight of the ‘butch’ strolling hand in hand with her friend in their trousers and definitive haircuts” (422). It’s something modern lesbians could identify with, as there are many women for whom appearance is still a big concern, as they do not want the stereotype of the “manly” lesbian to be the only thing others think of. - Alice W<br />
<br />
==African American Pauli Murray Explains Why Negro Girls Stay Single, 1947==<br />
<br />
I found this piece a mix of saddening, isolating, and devastating. I felt like there was no hope at all for the African American woman in any aspect of life, especially in finding love. She could aspire to better herself and get an education, but wouldn’t be able to find a job that would pay her equal to white women. She could look for a husband and she wouldn’t find one. This must have been the harshest reality to find; that African American just were not available and, those that were, did not want to marry her type of a woman. She “often has a potential earning power far beyond the range of the majority of available singe males-a social handicap if she wants marriage,” (416). A man’s partner making more than him must have been emasculating. Men did not want to be subordinate to women in any way or in any race, as history has shown us; he always wanted to be the breadwinner for the family. “He is the victim of constant frustration in his role as a male because socially he is subordinate to the white women although he is trained to act as a member of the dominate sex,” (417). African American men were already seen as of lesser value than white women, and yet to be dominate in their own race. How could they be dominate while they were lesser in society than white women, less educated than African American women, and brought home less money to support their families? Because African American men were so emotionally broken by their place in the hierarchy of society as well as their role as African American men, women had no chance to find a strong male partner. Without such a partner or the potential to find one, I would feel isolated in society too. -Morgan M</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_11_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 11 Questions/Comments2010-03-31T23:42:15Z<p>Megan3088: /* "An Unplanned Pregnancy", by Joanna Rubin */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''MAKE SURE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS UNDER THE RELEVANT AUTHOR/TITLE HEADING (OR TO CREATE A NEW HEADING IF THERE ISN'T ONE YET)'''<br />
<br />
== "Balancing Work and Family," Betty Jeanne Boggs ==<br />
"Always this-- 'because you're a woman'" (page 208). I was really moved by this article and felt that as all of the articles get closer to current times, their revelance becomes so much more alarming. I can't believe that things written by females (what feels like) SO LONG AGO are still things that I look at society today and think are completely ridiculous. I did, however, really appreciate her husband in this article. FINALLY, a good man in history who wasn't pushing his wife into the home. He encouraged her to work while he finished school because she liked her work, even though they were married, and when they accidentially got married he still wanted her to continue working because he KNEW how much she liked her job. I wish there were more historically based documents that talked about things like this just because it makes things not always depressing. I still felt strong emotions towards her statement "For one thing, I wanted to stay home with the baby; two, I wanted to help Josh get through; three, I really enjoyed that job. I just didn't know what to do about it, because I enjoyed working and yet I thought I should really be home with that baby" (page 210) because it's something that I feel goes above the issue of sex and into the issue of parenthood. I can't imagine it's ever easy to look at your child bonding more with your husband/wife and NOT feel like you may be missing out on something because you feel like you have obligations that don't allow that access. I am sure that her husband felt the exact same way when he looked at her relationship with the children, though, because in a family it always seems greener on the other side. I feel as though this article truly represents a healthy relationship between husband and wife, and every insecurity that Betty Jeanne Boggs felt about working while she had a husband was something that was based upon society, not upon her husbands actions. This could just be my wishful thinking, but it's nice to imagine. -Ssellers<br />
<br />
I admire this woman for paving the way for working mothers, if only for a time, but I also noticed her husband's willingness to rely on her for income while he finished school and often stayed home with their son. His attitude appears remarkably progressive for a time when many thought men should be resuming their places as heads of households after the war. I also noticed how conflicted the author felt about both wanting to work and wanting to be at home with her children, saying she "wanted to be in two places at one time." I went to the Great Lives lecture on Rosie the Riveter tonight, and the speaker quoted a poll taken during WWII about the most admired women in America. First was Eleanor Roosevelt, and second was Betty Crocker, and I think those contrasting results reflect the independence and work vs. domestic housewife dichotomy that women like the author experienced in those years. Many of today's working mothers can turn to their mothers for advice on how to balance their different wants and obligations, but these women were part of the first generation of women, of middle class women especially, to really have any sort of opportunity to work outside of the home after having children. They were making it up as they went along. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I really like reading about Rosie the Riveters. They are definitely an inspiration for women. Sometimes, however, I read about a woman or hear her story as I did with Betty Jeanne Boggs' story, and I feel that it's a story about two different women. One part of the story is the rise of a more independent woman who relies on herself financially, has to take care of the children while the husband is off fighting the war, and is usually working at a labor-intensive job. They juggle everything fairly well for being on their own and even obtain raises in wages and in higher positions as in Boggs' case. As soon as the husbands come home and the war is over, a new woman appears. Even though Boggs' did want to eventually continue her career she didn't do so until much later down the road when her children were full grown. She was content with staying at home taking care of her husband and family. She was consumed with her family. She said, "...but I would never go anywhere unless he would go," (referring to her husband). No longer were women working and creating their own wealth. They were again housewives and for the most part enjoyed being in that role. Personally I think because the idea of a women working and being away from the home and being a mother was fairly new, most didn't think it was possible to juggle both or weren't sure how to go about doing it. I think more men than women didn't think it was possible otherwise the "problem that has no name" would not have arose. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Rachel Carson ==<br />
<br />
I am not the world's biggest environmentalist and I still loved this article. Rachel Carson did an awesome job defending herself against her critics in this article and for some reason I was in disbelief that even back then people questioned the existance of environmental problems like pesticides and pollutions. Ridiculous that her response "No, the problem of pesticides is not merely the dream of an avracious author, out to pile up royalties by frightening the public- it is very much with us, here and now" (page 229) even has to be made. Her proof of the levels of toxins in the dying animals was disgusting, to say the very least. and I completely agree with her statement that "A world that is no longer fit for wild plants that is no longer graced by the flights of birds, a world whose streams and forrests are empty and lifeless is not likely to be fit habitat for man himself, for these things are symptoms of an ailing world" (page 228). She certainly won me over. (And I would especially buy some more Samoas to support her environmentalist cause.) --Ssellers<br />
<br />
<br />
==Louisa Randall Church Explores the Duties of Parents as Architects of Peace, 1946==<br />
<br />
Out of Church’s fear of bombs, “in the hundreds and thousands,”(410) she decides that the only way to save the world is to raise children the right way. But aside from that, something struck me funny, the second full paragraph on page 411, Church discusses the importance of raising children correctly, but keeps referring to the child as “he”, “when ''he'' has achieved complete control over ''himself'' and his environment. Only then can ''he'' meet the exigencies of worthy citizenship in the world of tomorrow.” So what does this say about the author’s view of the roles of girls in the future? Do these rules listed by Church only apply to male children? Or perhaps it is the assumption that only the male children will be in the public arena and be able to make a difference in the “world of tomorrow” whereas female children will merely grow up to produce more children to raise in the same way her mother had? --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
Erin, I noticed that Church uses 'he' throughout the piece, but I don't necessarily think it was meant to indicate that girls were not valued, just a quirk of grammar. She actually states quite clearly that in the near future women "will be taking their rightful place in world affairs," and so girls should be "provided with the same opportunities" (pg. 411) as their brothers. She seems to hold a fairly egalitarian view of parenting, advocating that both mothers and fathers be involved in the lives of their children and consistently referring to the responsibilities of 'parents' rather than simply the role of 'mother. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary Ann's statement above. One of Church's main arguments for attaining personal security for children is equal rights between all children and not showing favoritism, as well as asserting that "neither the father nor mother should reign supreme" (411). Going along with equal rights between the sexes, she defends that "girls should be provided with the same opportunities, intellectually, professionally, socially and economically as boys" (411). If Church believed that only male citizens are valuable members of society, I don't believe she would be encouraging parents to provide their daughters with the same opportunities. I also found the wording of Church's essay interesting when she states "women will be taking their ''rightful'' places in society" (411). This almost sounds feminist. It seems like Church is arguing that women have been denied something they were entitled to all along-an equal place with men in all worldly affairs. --Anna K Holman<br />
<br />
==Nonconformist Joyce Johnson Recounts Her Experience in Obtaining an Illegal Abortion in New York City, 1955==<br />
<br />
Getting an abortion now seems like it would be a horrible, isolating experience. It is still so controversial that even if a woman makes that decision and is happy with it, she has to face judgment from everyone around her. Getting an abortion in 1955 seems like it would be so much worse. Abortion was to be unspoken of and it was really dangerous. In order to find a person to carry out an illegal abortion Joyce Johnson had to ask friends and friends of friends, all of whom probably judged her. She ended up having to meet a shady guy in a restaurant who had some sick obsession with helping girls get abortions. Joyce was truly alone through the entire process. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
To add, The fact that single women would rather face danger and health risks to have an illegal abortion than have a baby shows the amount of pressure that these women were under to fit into a mold. To Joyce Johnson, an abortion was living and having a child meant dying. That is a pretty serious statement. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
Regardless of one's moral idea on the subject, I have to say the idea of having a child to many young women today is still the equivalent of dying. If only 1955 had been more acceptable towards the use of contraception, then less women, like Joyce Johnson, would have had to make the decision to stop an unplanned pregnancy. Still, it is disgusting that this decision today, and in 1955, was considered a PUBLIC decision in regards to laws and social acceptability. I still think today that ultra-coservatives would be more willing to forgive a serial rapist and murderer than a woman who made the decision to NOT ruin her life, career, societal standing, education, dreams, ambition, etc., to have an abortion. Based upon unplanned pregnancy levels just because the opportunity to have an abortion is there doesn't mean that one is going to take advantage of that option. It is a very hard, and very personal decision; Which I think Joyce Johnson did an amazing job conveying. It isn't fair that a male can have sex unprotected for fun and not have to deal with the same consequences (which the article implied that Joyce Johnson just knew that it was as much of an obligation to the father as it was to her which i would LOVE to have more information upon... was this the thinking of society as a whole at the time? Was a man financially obligated to take care of the situation? How did that notion change into what it is today?)in today's world even with sexual protection opportunities. Contradictory to her belief on his financial responsibility however I found it interesting that she said "Life was considered sacred. But independence could be punishable by death. The punishment for sex was, appropriately, sexual" (page 419) which is seemingly contradictory to the financial responsibility she felt he had. I totally support her on that statement though. A woman's right to choose her life ends in this country when a zygote is involved, yet if she were sexually assaulted or raped the legal system would find a way to blame her as the Victim, instead of the male who was just acting naturally. more proof that the punishment for sex is appropriately sexual. I think having an abortion is something that Joyce Johnson thought about roughly, probably lost a ton of sleep over, and I'm happy that she had the opportunity to fly to Puerto Rico to get it done (although, I'm also sadly suprised that having a legal abortion at a facility in Puerto Rico would be safer than an illegal one in the United States...??) because if she hadn't had that opportunity then she would have been stuck with an unloved child and husband, and a disdain for their involvement in her life. Obviously, I feel very strongly in support of Joyce Johnson's decision to take control of her livelihood, and believe that because of this experience she, and the boy who knocked her up, would in the future both be more careful in regards to sexual activity. It wasn't a simple solution and from this article I can only imagine the disgust I would feel towards the society who would judge her for such a decision. It's amazing how morality derived from the teachings of the Catholic Church, in their passage onto the other christian faiths based upon them, play such an unfortunate role historically in the lives of Women in the United States, yet Boys will just be boys. -Ssellers<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that the doctor in Canarsie was clearly against abortions, as he didn’t even use the word “abortion” and admonished Johnson, telling her “don’t ever let me catch you back here again, young lady!” (421), yet he still was willing to perform the operation. Why was that? Did his concern for women’s safety, the fear that they might turn to someone incompetent, override his opposition to the procedure? And were most doctors who performed illegal abortions like him, or did they genuinely believe the women had a right to the procedure? – Alice W.<br />
<br />
=="An Unplanned Pregnancy", by Joanna Rubin==<br />
<br />
I found this article to be fascinating, insightful and harrowing. I wonder what audience Joanna Rubin was writing for and after having her abortion at a time when it was illegal, what made her be so willing to share her story. Were abortions also illegal in Puerto Rico at that time? I know Rubin did not see any other Americans at her clinic, but was it a likely occurrence that American women would go to Puerto Rico or other countries for the procedure? My curiosity was piqued about the beliefs of American doctors after the line, "When I found out I was pregnant, I went to see a doctor, and he told me to come and see him afterwards. I had a low-grade infection. He was very sweet, supportive, gave me antibiotics" (217). Did American Doctors refer their patients to unofficial clinics that they knew off or simply accept that it was inevitable? As it was illegal, were doctors encouraged to turn in women who got abortions? Were there any actions taken against these women? For me, this article raised a lot more questions about what was typical than it answered. -- Kokeefe<br />
<br />
To answer one of the questions raised above, I think maybe Joanna Rubin decided to tell her story because she needed to tell people, mainly women, that even though she knew that she wanted an abortion it was still a hard decision to make. She said, "Although I didn't for a minute think I didn't want the abortion, it was still a very, very heavy experience. It isn't 'Oh, this is a cool, easy decision to make, and there are no consequences.'"(217) She wanted to make sure that women knew that abortion wasn't "taking the easy way out," it was scary, intimidating, and probably created a feeling of guilt which may be another reason for her writing this piece. I also was wondering about the number of women that went to Puerto Rico and other countries to receive abortions during this time. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I think when comparing this abortion story of Joanna to the other story of Jocye Johnson, it reveals that pregnancy was a very real and scary thing for women. Both these women made desperate attempts to get an abortion, while still weighing the heavy costs of pain (both physical and emotional), injury, and possible death. This story, in particular shows the willingness and hardships Joanna faced to get an abortion; it meant she had to leave the country just to do so. It shows that pregnancy and abortion were real fears for young women, who had little to no access of birth control. I think that it was included to show that there was a real need for contraceptive information in the 50's and 60's and what would lead to the landmark courtcase ''Roe v Wade''. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I commend Joanna Rubin for writing her story at a time when abortion was illegal in the United States, I feel that she wanted other women to know that they were not alone. I think that even though Joanna knew she was going to get an abortion no questions asked she knew any woman who gets an abortion would feel a burden on her shoulders. I agree with abratchi this article made me think of Birth Control clinics and how there was a strong need for them not just for married women but any woman who wanted to learn about the risks, symptoms, or who to talk to when they found out they were pregnant. Even today I feel that more women should learn about the risks of pregnancy and how shows on MTV such as 16 and pregnant (while not the high quality) are a reality and show that all it takes is one time and you can be pregnant. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
=="The Problem That Has No Name," Betty Friedan, 1963==<br />
<br />
I think, more than anything, what got to these women was the isolation involved in being the perfect domestic housewife. This was an age of single family homes, of cars instead of public transportation, of cleaning quietly in the kitchen rather than enjoying a laugh with the other women over lunch at the defense plant like the women interviewed in the video we watched. These women's lives revolved around a home that for a significant portion of the day she shared with perhaps a mildly communicative infant or no one at all if her children were old enough to be in school. Sure she went out to do the shopping and interacted with people through that, but she always ultimately returned to her empty house that constantly reminded her of further chores she needed to accomplish. And no matter how many friends women did have, they'd still feel isolated in that they couldn't share with their friends what was truly on their minds, thinking themselves all alone in their feelings of desperation and boredom. It's telling that just a simple acknowledgment that friends shared similar thoughts could cause women to break down and cry "just to know they are not alone." -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I think that Mary Ann raised an important point about Betty Freidan’s excerpt, to know that you were not alone in how you felt about your duties as a wife, mother, and the home. Women were facing societal implications that if you felt that you wanted more or even a career that this meant that you could not be worthy or could not fulfill those duties. If you step outside of those roles of the home, does that make you less able to maintain them? In the 1950’s, you were looked down upon if you did, did it make you less of a mother and wife? It became a moral dilemma. Women had to maintain that ideal picture, they felt the pressure that limited options for self fulfillment for women in those roles. I play the scene in my mind, the husband saying, “Oh dear, why are you not happy, you have more than any woman could ever want?” (no pressure here.) Freidan found in talking with other women that she was not alone in her thoughts. -MHimes<br />
<br />
==Farnham and Lundberg==<br />
Oy vey, these women are something, aren’t they? Much like the women of the 19th century who went out into the public to tell women to get back into the house where they belonged, we’ve got a psychiatrist and a sociologist telling women that they shouldn’t have jobs. It just blows the mind. According to them, women who work are neurotic and unfeminine, and they ignore their family duties for their jobs and became resentful towards men. Are they speaking from personal experience, because, you know, they ''have jobs themselves''? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
The idea of “feminine relinquishment” was interesting. It seems strange that if you had a career outside of the home, that meant you lost you feminine qualities. But when there was an ideal perception of family, that locked women in those roles, it made it difficult to go anywhere else without consequences. I never thought about it as woman were living “dangerously” if women tried to juggle both work and home. Everyone seems to suffer for the wife’s aspirations. Who would want to leave the home if they felt they would destroy their family? I think that Farnham and Lundberg were vividly describing the moral dilemmas women were facing if they tried to work and take care of the family. -MHimes<br />
<br />
I thought these women were quite bold in some of their statements. I thought that it was interesting how they equated women working outside the home as becoming more masculine, as MHimes above me stated. They seem to believe that a woman could not possibly be feminine if working outside the home, which caused an internal struggle in women who worked while having household responsibilities, like a husband and children. They seem to really find danger to a woman's feminity if she is engaged in work, which in turn negatively affects men. They appear as advocates of the this new modern cult of domesticity that was emerging in the post war period, it seems. -abratchi<br />
<br />
==Taylor, Women Strike for Peace==<br />
I can’t help but chuckle anytime HUAC gets the run around. Just imagine being in that courtroom. Middle-class, supposedly meek and compliant little housewives and mothers with their pristine white gloves being accused of Communist activity; even if they did have Communist sympathies, no one would believe it. It sounds like these women used the housewife image well in their campaign for peace. Much like the women of the 19th century reform movement, they justified being involved in politics with their concerns as wives and mothers. And much like the reform women, they embraced and contradicted the ideal image of femininity at the same time. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I found the HUAC to be extremely hypocritical. On one hand Ethel Baron Taylor is complaining about how "women are not in positions of power and they have no role in policy-making" (218) , and on the other she chooses to get her point across by portraying her organization in a way that makes them seem submissive and powerless. Even though she is fighting to obtain more power for women through this group, she inadvertently still relies on men. It particularly disturbed me when she waited for a man to help her out of the police van after being arrested; If Taylor can't handle a five foot jump without a man guiding her, how are we supposed to take her cause seriously? --Anna K Holman<br />
<br />
=="Star Struck," Vicki L. Ruiz ==<br />
<br />
All these articles are important in our understanding of the past and how it continues to shape the present. However, I found this article in particular to be especially important because generations later the poverty and degradation of Mexican Americans is still the reality. The Mexican American women from the 1920's to 1950's written about in this article could easily be Mexican American women today. All the issues they faced in the first half of the twentieth century are the same battles they fight today in the beginning of the twenty-first century, with little to no improvement. Perhaps it is because unlike other immigrant groups, the Latina community continues to emigrate and despite having been an essential part of our nation for an extended time, they are perceived to be the “new guys.” -- Kokeefe<br />
<br />
==Indian Relocation, Wilma Mankiller==<br />
The hardships that Indians peoples faced throughout the 19th and 20th century had clear impacts. This experience by one Indian girl who was forced to leave her town in Oklahoma for California was heartbreaking. This girl had to endure leaving her entire life, at the expense of the US Government who thought they were offering “a wonderful opportunity for Indian families to get great jobs, obtain good educations for their kids and, once and for all, leave poverty behind” (212). This girls life did not get easier, but harder, emotionally and financially. It is a clear example of how racial minorities were again, uprooted from their lives. Wilma explains how she was teased because of her last name and how she knew she was clearly different from the other children, who knew as well. This must have had lasting impacts on her as she grew and matured. -abratchi<br />
<br />
==A Letter to the Editor of The Ladder from an African American Lesbian, 1957==<br />
<br />
The issue of appearance and whether or not minority groups should dress according to the standards of “the dominant social group” was interesting here. Conforming to their standards might be a way for a lesbian (or an African American or any other minority group) to prove that she was “normal” and that her sexuality should not be a determining factor of her standing in society. On the other hand, not conforming to these standards would be a way to say “I don’t care what you think.” The writer seems to think it shouldn’t matter either way, as she expresses the hope that “someday…the ‘discreet’ Lesbian will not turn her head on the streets at the sight of the ‘butch’ strolling hand in hand with her friend in their trousers and definitive haircuts” (422). It’s something modern lesbians could identify with, as there are many women for whom appearance is still a big concern, as they do not want the stereotype of the “manly” lesbian to be the only thing others think of. - Alice W<br />
<br />
==African American Pauli Murray Explains Why Negro Girls Stay Single, 1947==<br />
<br />
I found this piece a mix of saddening, isolating, and devastating. I felt like there was no hope at all for the African American woman in any aspect of life, especially in finding love. She could aspire to better herself and get an education, but wouldn’t be able to find a job that would pay her equal to white women. She could look for a husband and she wouldn’t find one. This must have been the harshest reality to find; that African American just were not available and, those that were, did not want to marry her type of a woman. She “often has a potential earning power far beyond the range of the majority of available singe males-a social handicap if she wants marriage,” (416). A man’s partner making more than him must have been emasculating. Men did not want to be subordinate to women in any way or in any race, as history has shown us; he always wanted to be the breadwinner for the family. “He is the victim of constant frustration in his role as a male because socially he is subordinate to the white women although he is trained to act as a member of the dominate sex,” (417). African American men were already seen as of lesser value than white women, and yet to be dominate in their own race. How could they be dominate while they were lesser in society than white women, less educated than African American women, and brought home less money to support their families? Because African American men were so emotionally broken by their place in the hierarchy of society as well as their role as African American men, women had no chance to find a strong male partner. Without such a partner or the potential to find one, I would feel isolated in society too. -Morgan M</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 10 Questions/Comments2010-03-24T23:00:30Z<p>Megan3088: /* Japanese Relocation, Monica Sone */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Rosie the Riveter, Fanny Christina Hill ==<br />
<br />
Having grown up accustomed to seeing Rosie the Riveter in any history of the United States in World War II, it's almost surprising to have a tangible and relatable "Rosie" to read about. I really enjoy the comparison between the work woman who presents herself through Rosie than the working woman who came before her, who had to constantly fight for her right to work. It's amazing how when the country needed the woman worker she was there even though society had always told her it was not her place. I think it'd be interesting to read more accounts of woman workers during this time. -Ssellers<br />
<br />
What surprised me most about Fanny Christina Hill was the number of opportunities that she had as a black woman thanks to WWII. When she describes her life she talks about several jobs that she had. Those that she didn’t like, she would quit. Its amazing to think that only a few decades prior, black woman were limited to hard domestic work and they were stuck doing those jobs because they had no other options. Hill had many options, she went to work at North American Aircraft where she learned to do different skills. She did not like department 17 because it “was nothing but shooting and bucking rivets.” (186) So she decided to leave, then got a job in bench work, then plastics. Then she had a child and left North American and did day work, but she did not like that so she quit. Then she got a factory job weaving. Then, North American Aircraft called her back so she quit the factory job and went back! This shows how WWII’s labor shortage truly opened up opportunities for black woman. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think Fanny Christina Hill’s experiences were extraordinary opportunities as a black woman. She was able to make more money than she had before the War. Though she talks about how the jobs were different than white females working in the same company, she expressed that it was movement forward and how her hard work earned her a place back in the company after she had her child. I thought of Hill, after having discussed unemployment being not present during that time, explains a reason why she had a lot of opportunities. -Mhimes<br />
<br />
I liked the story about Fanny Christina Hill's experiences. I think she really brought Rosie the Riveter to life. I'm glad that during the war even African American women were able to obtain jobs. They didn't, however, always get the best jobs available as opposed to their white, female counterparts. She said the job she got was in Department 17 where all they did was shooting and bucking rivets even if they had their good education. This is also a happy story though because she was able to return to the job she loved at the end. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I agree with everyone else about having a real, tangible Rosie the Riveter. I have J. Howard Miller's poster on my wall at home and have often wondered who the encouraging woman was, where she came from, what she did after the war... and now I know! While reading though, I was intrigued by Fanny Christina Hill's off hand comment of "they weren't hiring too many men unless they had a good excuse" (186). I know this is a women's history class, but it made me wonder. Were they refusing to hire men that they thought should have been fighting in the War? -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
== Mrs. Norma Yerger Queen Reports on the Problems of Employed Mothers in Utah, 1944==<br />
<br />
"Those who quit have done so because of lack of good care for their children or of inability to do the housework and the job" (page 373). I like that quote from the article a lot because it emphasizes to me the difficultly some women must have had with working instead of fulfilling their obligation as wives and mothers. In today's understanding, it is possible to do both at the same time (although, not everyone would agree with that statement), and so it's easy to be sympathetic toward these women who had to deal with the status of society around them changing on an almost daily notion, while internally debating upon leaving the home to do a civic or familal duty or fulfilling her role in life as caretaker and mother. -ssellers<br />
<br />
It seems as though the author of this article is sort of addressing two separate issues. As the title says, the first is the issue of providing families with adequate childcare services. The second problem though is that working mothers are still expected to shoulder all of the housework plus the added chores brought about by wartime rationing. The author would rather women be given the option of shorter work weeks so that they can complete their tasks at home than receive help from husbands who return from work to read newspapers and relax. She seems very accepting of the fact that joint housekeeping simply "didn't click" for her and her husband, despite the fact that she had gone to work under the impression that he would help out more around the house. Couldn't someone have made the case that if women were doing their patriotic duty by going to work in the war industries that men could do theirs as well by helping with some of the housework that might otherwise keep their wives home? -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
==Wartime Migration, Harriette Arnow==<br />
<br />
Gertie and her family relocate because of World War II's new economic opportunities, but Gertie does not shed her Depression era mentality very quickly. Her husband seems content in his ability to borrow to put a roof over his family's heads. Gertie, however, remains ever mindful of the family budget. She was most likely the one keeping track of the finances during the Depression, especially while her husband was off working in Detroit, and his casual attitude towards buying on credit and debt do not sit well with her. After all of our readings from last week, it's not hard to imagine some of the extremes Gertie may have gone to to keep her kids fed. We know that, at the least, she sacrificed time with her children as she writes that "she'd never had the time" to take the kids on day trips the way Clovis had. Yet now, in her eyes at least, her husband is undoing all of her careful scrimping and saving. It's easy to see how real-life women in Gertie's situation would have felt a bit taken advantage of and lost amidst the changing economic environment. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
When I read the excerpt from Harriet Arnow’s, ''The Doll maker'', I kept thinking of how different Gertie and Clovis were about the idea of what they wanted their life to be like. I don’t think they believed in the idea of a companionate marriage. Gertie’s hatred toward the city brings out the harshness of what a city was like and compared it to the farm she’d always wanted. As I read her descriptions of the city, about loud noises and the small living space, it made me think of the shock women would have felt as they moved from rural areas to a bustling city for better wages. -MHimes<br />
<br />
This poor woman, Gertie, and her family really got to me even though it’s just a book. Whether the book was told in the third person omniscient or first person, I really felt like I was Gertie while reading this. The fact that she was forced from her home by her husband, so he could get a job that paid better, was enough to sympathize with her. What really got me was the sense of confinement I felt while reading. Beginning with Gertie standing “her outspread hands pressed against the door, closed behind her,” (192). I felt like she was holding onto the door for her dear life, as if she was in a bad dream and she was going to wake up in any minute. She continues “to stand a moment longer staring, choking, swallowing hard to prove to herself that she was not choking,” (193). It feels to me like she’s drowning, struggling for a way out of her new life that her husband has forced upon her; an unavoidable wave crashed on her. Gertie obviously couldn’t leave her husband and the support he provided as well as separating her children from their father even if she isn’t happy. Her husband, Clovis, contributed to Gertie’s drowning feeling not just by making the family move but in his accumulation of debt as well. Gertie asks “if’n you’ve already run into debt ‘fore me an th youngens comes, why how can you manage with us?” (195). I would have asked the same question. What was he thinking gathering debt before the rest of his family had already moved in? Now Gertie had more reason to feel like she was drowning. There was no way out and that much have been a devastating, overwhelming feeling. I can’t even imagine. Gertie isn’t just mentally trapped, she’s physically trapped. The house is so small that she “struck her shin bone against a chair,” (193) and then “her hips struck a corner of the low head of a cot-like bed,” (193). The house itself feels like a jail cell. -Morgan<br />
<br />
World War II created many more opportunities for employment, and these were very important after the economic tragadies of the great depression. This family moved to Detroit due to the country's massive mobilization and hopefully a job. I think their experience there was nothing like they expected. They thought they would be able to work constantly and improve their economic status. But as the excerpt says, the conditions were not ideal and it was not always easy to find consistent work. Their life is portrayed as incredibly rudamentary and boring. The conditions do not seem ideal as, their was "adoorless doorway into a small hall-like living room." I think this family had very high expectations and that the War would provide un-limited jobs and solve all their problems but this was not the case and they often struggled to make a living. Poverty was still prevalent in American life, especially for this particular family. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I agree with what Mary Ann said. As the wife, Gertie was placed in charge of dealing with all the important matters of the family. The passage says, "Clovis had always brought the fun - trips in the coal truck, the river in summer, grape hunting in the fall." (P. 194) She seemed to take the on the role of the responsible parent, and almost seemed to be the head of the household in more ways than others. She was the one who worried about the finances, how being in debt was going to affect the family, and taking care of the family in general. Her husband was so distracted by the big city, and how different Detroit was from their old home. He saw everything in shades of gold, being so caught up in the idea of a new job. However, Gertie, was not so blinded by this and realized maybe they might have been worse off moving for her husband's job. I think many women faced what Gertie faced. Gertie moved because her husband found better work because of the War. That was a positive side of all this, except that Gertie's life was drastically changed by the move. I feel that many women moved along with their husbands to find better work, but it was hard for them to adjust to the new life. It seemed to me that Gertie had culture shock after moving to Detroit. I can only imagine her reaction to when her husband said, "When else would a woman on th three-tu-twelve shift git home?" (Page 197). Many women probably had to adjust to the new lifestyle, but these new lifestyles were necessary for individuals as well as the nation as a whole. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
==The Challenges of Maintaining the Health, Discipline, and Morale of the Women's Army Corps in North Africa and the Mediterranean During World War II==<br />
<br />
I think that the colonel who declared that the women of the Fifth Army Corps were "perhaps the best-integrated unit in the theater" (pg. 375) was on to something. It's noted throughout the article that these women complained little while enduring difficult and occasionally dangerous conditions. In fact, they seemed to thrive on their work. I think it was probably because the women were so integrated that they thrived, because they felt useful, that their job had a real and defined purpose. They had responsibility and jobs that they were good at and being praised for. With all of that, it doesn't seem so surprising that the women did not want to be moved to "less exhausting" positions. It was not an ideal job to be sure, yet most of these women probably believed themselves to be on an adventure of a lifetime. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
While these women were successful in being the first WAC women to travel to Italy and North Africa, the standards that they were selected from, I found a bit outrageous. “WAC advisers recommended that any such groups, for best success, be carefully selected,” (375). The fact that certain types of women were unwanted while others seems very odd coming from a women’s organization, you would think that they would be accepting of all types of women (of course ‘all types of women’ being white upper/middle class). “Those with irritating habits and mannerisms,” (376) weren’t chosen because they were too much to handle and, I think, would take away emphasis on the men of the Army. “The ambitious or the highly qualified women,” (376) weren’t a good choice either because they may want something that they couldn’t ever have, a promotion. Those women chosen for this job, of following the Fifth Army around, were essentially passive, pushovers. I may be generalizing too much and I’m sure some of the women may have been more, but from what I understand, to be one of the first WAC women needed in combat they had to be submissive, average, and boring. I suppose some women who behave do make history. -Morgan<br />
<br />
==Japanese Relocation, Monica Sone==<br />
<br />
I felt for these Japanese-American people. There was no reason for them to be placed into camps and contained like they were. Somehow they found hope though, in little things. The dandelions seemed to be the most influential piece of hope. The Mother was who found hope in the dandelions saying, “They’re the only beautiful things around here. We could have a garden right here,” (199) and I found it really upsetting when Henry tore up the dandelions. That could be interpreted as a metaphor for Japanese people themselves, they were the only thing that was left beautiful where they had come from and had been uprooted up in hope becoming someone better through the camps? Much like the Jewish people were being captured by Hitler at the same time perhaps? -Morgan<br />
<br />
This was a terrible time in American History. We terribly took advantage of these Japanese people who did nothing wrong and placed them in camps simply because they were related to other Japanese who attacked Pearl Harbor. The most shocking part was that they were all American citizens and had been loyal citizens, and were still placed into different internment camps. This family is now #10710, which is tragic to think that the government just thought of them as objects and not even as citizens of the U.S. In continuing with Morgan's mention of the beautiful dandelions, it is tragic that they could find so much joy in something as simple as a flower. These people were ripped from their homes and very few things can bring them joy and to think that dandelions can do that is very sad. The government treated the Japanese terribly in these camps and the barracks were in terrible shape, the food was terrible, and they did not deserve to be ripped away from their homes. -afrisk<br />
<br />
For Morgan's comment above, I think the feelings of Jews in Europe and the Japanese in America during this time were very similar. It should be acknowledged that Hitler's concentration camps were designed for the extermination of a set of people, while the internment camps were a (very undemocratic) wartime precaution in the aftermath for Pearl Harbor. Both groups of people were alienated because of their heritage, forcibly moved, imprisoned and had to live through horrendous conditions. I do not think America's internment camps are identical to the concentration camps of the Holocaust, few events will ever compare. However, the fear, the anger and the confusion would have been felt by both the Jews and the Japanese. I have learned about World War II numerous times in my life, and I feel like the experience of the internment camp is not emphasized enough. --kokeefe<br />
<br />
I think that this piece reflects how the war affected people, especially women of all ethnicities. Like all the others have stated, this was a terrible time for the Japenese people, being ripped from their homes only to be relocated to a prison-type setting. I think this experience by this Japenese family shows how the war transformed the lives of all people living in America. It believe it is also important to note how the young girl felt that she was no one, how this process made her feel like she was not an American, although she was born in the US and her parents had lived in the country for 25 years. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I agree with all of the above statements but I feel even more strongly about the internment camps. While I agree with what kokeefe said that the internment camps were different from concentration camps, how Americans de-humanized the Japanese was similar. Japanese-Americans became a number much like a test rat in a labratory, they were organized by numbers and letters and were not allowed outside of the high fences, much like a cage. They had poor shelter, food, and were watched everyday including giving the Japanese a bedtime of 10:00, and thinking it was okay. I think there should be a museum representing the stories and lives of the Japanese who were forced into these internment camps much like the Holocaust museum so more Americans can understand what we did as a nation in World War II. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
==Women of Wartime Los Alamos, Ruth Marshak==<br />
<br />
This piece was particularly interesting. I think that Ruth Marshak gives insight into the life of women who felt the effects of the war on the homefront in a very different way than most women. She explains how she was relocated to New Mexico, which she initially thought was not a great place to live, but in the end, it was a positive experience for her. I think she reveals how the war really separated men and women during this time. Although Ruth's husband was not away at war, he was still involved in the war effort and she knew very little, if anything about his line of work. All she knew was that she had to pick up her life and move to a remote, secret location. She even comments how "The Tech Area was a great pit which swallowed our scientist husbands out of sight, almost out of our lives." (205) I think this is important because it shows how women, like herself, had to learn to adapt to a life without a [constant] husband. She is an example of a woman who was able to make the best of a wartime situation that she and many other women, did not prefer. -abratchi<br />
<br />
==Women in the Armed Forces, Marion Stegeman==<br />
<br />
Could Marion be a representation of a “New Woman” for the forties? She is exuberantly adventurous in her letters, thrilling in flying and performing aerobatic stunts. Her use of phrases such as “smackers and much love” and “I sacheted over to Major McConnell’s office” displays quite a bit of sassiness. She also holds an appeal to the male aviators, and fully uses that to her advantage and has fun with it. There is also an independent streak in her, as it is clear she doesn’t like being told what to do, and so doesn’t want to get stuck doing clerical work. However, she still follows the expected path for a woman of her generation: she marries and focuses on raising her children. – Alice W.<br />
<br />
I could not be more proud of a woman in the war effort than a woman like Marion Stegeman. As Alice noted I think she was a "new woman" and wore it as a badge on display for everyone to see what she was capable of. I think she strongly differed from typical women of the time and previous wars because she did not romanticize war and when she wrote to her mother she described dangers and death; no she did not see death overseas but could see it on bases and felt the pain of losing a comrade. I found interesting how she compared the death of her classmates and instructor in a plane and to get used to hearing about such incidents to, "fall[ing] down in the bathtubs at home and be killed, or get in a car and meet death." (MAW, 191). Marion's letters home were truly powerful and made me wonder if other WASPS or WAAC's wrote their parents or significant others the same sort of letters, describing the freedoms they felt and also the feeling of loss? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Photos taken during WWII by Esther Bubley==<br />
<br />
First, I want to say that I found the photos to be really helpful. Not only can I understand the history of women during WWII but I can see them, I think this makes a big difference in fully understanding the time. Next, I want to say that what stood out to me was the different ways that women were dressed. All of these pictures were taken during the war, however, some women were wearing typical woman's clothing of the time, while other women were wearing pants. What is more interesting is that women in the skirts all seemed to sit in a really uncomfortable, uptight looking way with their legs crossed at the bottom or held tightly together with their hands in their laps. The women in pants, on the other hand, are sitting in traditionally male positions as we would see them today, slouched with legs wide open, leaning on the thighs. I'm not sure if that means anything, but it stood out to me. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
==Mary McLeod Bethune Urges President Roosevelt to Turn to Qualified Negro Women for Help, 1940==<br />
<br />
I found this article to be really interesting because it shows that black women felt the need to help their country just as much as the white women did. The reason it is so interesting to me is because up until this time, the country had not done much for the black community, so why should they feel like they need to be helping their country? The answer to that question is sort of what Bethune is getting at. She is saying that the black community has earned the right to be patriotic and defensive of their country because they ''are'' citizens. She wants to be treated like the white citizens who are defending their country because she is a hardworking citizen too. On page 372, she says while speaking about the black community, "they, too, have earned the right to be numbered among the active forces who are working towards the protection of our democratic stronghold." I think that Mary Bethune wants the President to know that black women love their country and want to protect it, and they should be given the right to do so. - Angie<br />
<br />
<br />
==Jeanne Wakatsuki Houston, A Schoolgirl at Manzanar, 1940s==<br />
<br />
I thought reading this article was really kind of sad because of how much Jeanne didn't seem to want anything to do with her Japanese culture. I don't think it was really a conscious decision on her part, its just that she was American and wanted to do American things. She didn't want to learn the traditional Japanese form of dance but instead wanted to do baton twirling and go to catechism. Furthermore, it was pretty obvious that she didn't care whether or not she found a Japanese husband or not. Jeanne and probably many other girls just like her really were not foreign at all. Jeanne didn't even speak Japanese. Americans at this time were terrified of anyone of that race and threw them all into the same category whether they belonged or not. This is a perfect example of someone who didn't belong. Women were already fighting hard for more equality and these girls had it even harder because, just like African Americans, they didn't have gender OR race on their side. - Angie</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 10 Questions/Comments2010-03-24T22:00:43Z<p>Megan3088: /* Women in the Armed Forces, Marion Stegeman */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Rosie the Riveter, Fanny Christina Hill ==<br />
<br />
Having grown up accustomed to seeing Rosie the Riveter in any history of the United States in World War II, it's almost surprising to have a tangible and relatable "Rosie" to read about. I really enjoy the comparison between the work woman who presents herself through Rosie than the working woman who came before her, who had to constantly fight for her right to work. It's amazing how when the country needed the woman worker she was there even though society had always told her it was not her place. I think it'd be interesting to read more accounts of woman workers during this time. -Ssellers<br />
<br />
What surprised me most about Fanny Christina Hill was the number of opportunities that she had as a black woman thanks to WWII. When she describes her life she talks about several jobs that she had. Those that she didn’t like, she would quit. Its amazing to think that only a few decades prior, black woman were limited to hard domestic work and they were stuck doing those jobs because they had no other options. Hill had many options, she went to work at North American Aircraft where she learned to do different skills. She did not like department 17 because it “was nothing but shooting and bucking rivets.” (186) So she decided to leave, then got a job in bench work, then plastics. Then she had a child and left North American and did day work, but she did not like that so she quit. Then she got a factory job weaving. Then, North American Aircraft called her back so she quit the factory job and went back! This shows how WWII’s labor shortage truly opened up opportunities for black woman. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think Fanny Christina Hill’s experiences were extraordinary opportunities as a black woman. She was able to make more money than she had before the War. Though she talks about how the jobs were different than white females working in the same company, she expressed that it was movement forward and how her hard work earned her a place back in the company after she had her child. I thought of Hill, after having discussed unemployment being not present during that time, explains a reason why she had a lot of opportunities. -Mhimes<br />
<br />
I liked the story about Fanny Christina Hill's experiences. I think she really brought Rosie the Riveter to life. I'm glad that during the war even African American women were able to obtain jobs. They didn't, however, always get the best jobs available as opposed to their white, female counterparts. She said the job she got was in Department 17 where all they did was shooting and bucking rivets even if they had their good education. This is also a happy story though because she was able to return to the job she loved at the end. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I agree with everyone else about having a real, tangible Rosie the Riveter. I have J. Howard Miller's poster on my wall at home and have often wondered who the encouraging woman was, where she came from, what she did after the war... and now I know! While reading though, I was intrigued by Fanny Christina Hill's off hand comment of "they weren't hiring too many men unless they had a good excuse" (186). I know this is a women's history class, but it made me wonder. Were they refusing to hire men that they thought should have been fighting in the War? -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
== Mrs. Norma Yerger Queen Reports on the Problems of Employed Mothers in Utah, 1944==<br />
<br />
"Those who quit have done so because of lack of good care for their children or of inability to do the housework and the job" (page 373). I like that quote from the article a lot because it emphasizes to me the difficultly some women must have had with working instead of fulfilling their obligation as wives and mothers. In today's understanding, it is possible to do both at the same time (although, not everyone would agree with that statement), and so it's easy to be sympathetic toward these women who had to deal with the status of society around them changing on an almost daily notion, while internally debating upon leaving the home to do a civic or familal duty or fulfilling her role in life as caretaker and mother. -ssellers<br />
<br />
It seems as though the author of this article is sort of addressing two separate issues. As the title says, the first is the issue of providing families with adequate childcare services. The second problem though is that working mothers are still expected to shoulder all of the housework plus the added chores brought about by wartime rationing. The author would rather women be given the option of shorter work weeks so that they can complete their tasks at home than receive help from husbands who return from work to read newspapers and relax. She seems very accepting of the fact that joint housekeeping simply "didn't click" for her and her husband, despite the fact that she had gone to work under the impression that he would help out more around the house. Couldn't someone have made the case that if women were doing their patriotic duty by going to work in the war industries that men could do theirs as well by helping with some of the housework that might otherwise keep their wives home? -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
==Wartime Migration, Harriette Arnow==<br />
<br />
Gertie and her family relocate because of World War II's new economic opportunities, but Gertie does not shed her Depression era mentality very quickly. Her husband seems content in his ability to borrow to put a roof over his family's heads. Gertie, however, remains ever mindful of the family budget. She was most likely the one keeping track of the finances during the Depression, especially while her husband was off working in Detroit, and his casual attitude towards buying on credit and debt do not sit well with her. After all of our readings from last week, it's not hard to imagine some of the extremes Gertie may have gone to to keep her kids fed. We know that, at the least, she sacrificed time with her children as she writes that "she'd never had the time" to take the kids on day trips the way Clovis had. Yet now, in her eyes at least, her husband is undoing all of her careful scrimping and saving. It's easy to see how real-life women in Gertie's situation would have felt a bit taken advantage of and lost amidst the changing economic environment. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
When I read the excerpt from Harriet Arnow’s, ''The Doll maker'', I kept thinking of how different Gertie and Clovis were about the idea of what they wanted their life to be like. I don’t think they believed in the idea of a companionate marriage. Gertie’s hatred toward the city brings out the harshness of what a city was like and compared it to the farm she’d always wanted. As I read her descriptions of the city, about loud noises and the small living space, it made me think of the shock women would have felt as they moved from rural areas to a bustling city for better wages. -MHimes<br />
<br />
This poor woman, Gertie, and her family really got to me even though it’s just a book. Whether the book was told in the third person omniscient or first person, I really felt like I was Gertie while reading this. The fact that she was forced from her home by her husband, so he could get a job that paid better, was enough to sympathize with her. What really got me was the sense of confinement I felt while reading. Beginning with Gertie standing “her outspread hands pressed against the door, closed behind her,” (192). I felt like she was holding onto the door for her dear life, as if she was in a bad dream and she was going to wake up in any minute. She continues “to stand a moment longer staring, choking, swallowing hard to prove to herself that she was not choking,” (193). It feels to me like she’s drowning, struggling for a way out of her new life that her husband has forced upon her; an unavoidable wave crashed on her. Gertie obviously couldn’t leave her husband and the support he provided as well as separating her children from their father even if she isn’t happy. Her husband, Clovis, contributed to Gertie’s drowning feeling not just by making the family move but in his accumulation of debt as well. Gertie asks “if’n you’ve already run into debt ‘fore me an th youngens comes, why how can you manage with us?” (195). I would have asked the same question. What was he thinking gathering debt before the rest of his family had already moved in? Now Gertie had more reason to feel like she was drowning. There was no way out and that much have been a devastating, overwhelming feeling. I can’t even imagine. Gertie isn’t just mentally trapped, she’s physically trapped. The house is so small that she “struck her shin bone against a chair,” (193) and then “her hips struck a corner of the low head of a cot-like bed,” (193). The house itself feels like a jail cell. -Morgan<br />
<br />
World War II created many more opportunities for employment, and these were very important after the economic tragadies of the great depression. This family moved to Detroit due to the country's massive mobilization and hopefully a job. I think their experience there was nothing like they expected. They thought they would be able to work constantly and improve their economic status. But as the excerpt says, the conditions were not ideal and it was not always easy to find consistent work. Their life is portrayed as incredibly rudamentary and boring. The conditions do not seem ideal as, their was "adoorless doorway into a small hall-like living room." I think this family had very high expectations and that the War would provide un-limited jobs and solve all their problems but this was not the case and they often struggled to make a living. Poverty was still prevalent in American life, especially for this particular family. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I agree with what Mary Ann said. As the wife, Gertie was placed in charge of dealing with all the important matters of the family. The passage says, "Clovis had always brought the fun - trips in the coal truck, the river in summer, grape hunting in the fall." (P. 194) She seemed to take the on the role of the responsible parent, and almost seemed to be the head of the household in more ways than others. She was the one who worried about the finances, how being in debt was going to affect the family, and taking care of the family in general. Her husband was so distracted by the big city, and how different Detroit was from their old home. He saw everything in shades of gold, being so caught up in the idea of a new job. However, Gertie, was not so blinded by this and realized maybe they might have been worse off moving for her husband's job. I think many women faced what Gertie faced. Gertie moved because her husband found better work because of the War. That was a positive side of all this, except that Gertie's life was drastically changed by the move. I feel that many women moved along with their husbands to find better work, but it was hard for them to adjust to the new life. It seemed to me that Gertie had culture shock after moving to Detroit. I can only imagine her reaction to when her husband said, "When else would a woman on th three-tu-twelve shift git home?" (Page 197). Many women probably had to adjust to the new lifestyle, but these new lifestyles were necessary for individuals as well as the nation as a whole. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
==The Challenges of Maintaining the Health, Discipline, and Morale of the Women's Army Corps in North Africa and the Mediterranean During World War II==<br />
<br />
I think that the colonel who declared that the women of the Fifth Army Corps were "perhaps the best-integrated unit in the theater" (pg. 375) was on to something. It's noted throughout the article that these women complained little while enduring difficult and occasionally dangerous conditions. In fact, they seemed to thrive on their work. I think it was probably because the women were so integrated that they thrived, because they felt useful, that their job had a real and defined purpose. They had responsibility and jobs that they were good at and being praised for. With all of that, it doesn't seem so surprising that the women did not want to be moved to "less exhausting" positions. It was not an ideal job to be sure, yet most of these women probably believed themselves to be on an adventure of a lifetime. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
While these women were successful in being the first WAC women to travel to Italy and North Africa, the standards that they were selected from, I found a bit outrageous. “WAC advisers recommended that any such groups, for best success, be carefully selected,” (375). The fact that certain types of women were unwanted while others seems very odd coming from a women’s organization, you would think that they would be accepting of all types of women (of course ‘all types of women’ being white upper/middle class). “Those with irritating habits and mannerisms,” (376) weren’t chosen because they were too much to handle and, I think, would take away emphasis on the men of the Army. “The ambitious or the highly qualified women,” (376) weren’t a good choice either because they may want something that they couldn’t ever have, a promotion. Those women chosen for this job, of following the Fifth Army around, were essentially passive, pushovers. I may be generalizing too much and I’m sure some of the women may have been more, but from what I understand, to be one of the first WAC women needed in combat they had to be submissive, average, and boring. I suppose some women who behave do make history. -Morgan<br />
<br />
==Japanese Relocation, Monica Sone==<br />
<br />
I felt for these Japanese-American people. There was no reason for them to be placed into camps and contained like they were. Somehow they found hope though, in little things. The dandelions seemed to be the most influential piece of hope. The Mother was who found hope in the dandelions saying, “They’re the only beautiful things around here. We could have a garden right here,” (199) and I found it really upsetting when Henry tore up the dandelions. That could be interpreted as a metaphor for Japanese people themselves, they were the only thing that was left beautiful where they had come from and had been uprooted up in hope becoming someone better through the camps? Much like the Jewish people were being captured by Hitler at the same time perhaps? -Morgan<br />
<br />
This was a terrible time in American History. We terribly took advantage of these Japanese people who did nothing wrong and placed them in camps simply because they were related to other Japanese who attacked Pearl Harbor. The most shocking part was that they were all American citizens and had been loyal citizens, and were still placed into different internment camps. This family is now #10710, which is tragic to think that the government just thought of them as objects and not even as citizens of the U.S. In continuing with Morgan's mention of the beautiful dandelions, it is tragic that they could find so much joy in something as simple as a flower. These people were ripped from their homes and very few things can bring them joy and to think that dandelions can do that is very sad. The government treated the Japanese terribly in these camps and the barracks were in terrible shape, the food was terrible, and they did not deserve to be ripped away from their homes. -afrisk<br />
<br />
For Morgan's comment above, I think the feelings of Jews in Europe and the Japanese in America during this time were very similar. It should be acknowledged that Hitler's concentration camps were designed for the extermination of a set of people, while the internment camps were a (very undemocratic) wartime precaution in the aftermath for Pearl Harbor. Both groups of people were alienated because of their heritage, forcibly moved, imprisoned and had to live through horrendous conditions. I do not think America's internment camps are identical to the concentration camps of the Holocaust, few events will ever compare. However, the fear, the anger and the confusion would have been felt by both the Jews and the Japanese. I have learned about World War II numerous times in my life, and I feel like the experience of the internment camp is not emphasized enough. --kokeefe<br />
<br />
I think that this piece reflects how the war affected people, especially women of all ethnicities. Like all the others have stated, this was a terrible time for the Japenese people, being ripped from their homes only to be relocated to a prison-type setting. I think this experience by this Japenese family shows how the war transformed the lives of all people living in America. It believe it is also important to note how the young girl felt that she was no one, how this process made her feel like she was not an American, although she was born in the US and her parents had lived in the country for 25 years. -abratchi<br />
<br />
==Women of Wartime Los Alamos, Ruth Marshak==<br />
<br />
This piece was particularly interesting. I think that Ruth Marshak gives insight into the life of women who felt the effects of the war on the homefront in a very different way than most women. She explains how she was relocated to New Mexico, which she initially thought was not a great place to live, but in the end, it was a positive experience for her. I think she reveals how the war really separated men and women during this time. Although Ruth's husband was not away at war, he was still involved in the war effort and she knew very little, if anything about his line of work. All she knew was that she had to pick up her life and move to a remote, secret location. She even comments how "The Tech Area was a great pit which swallowed our scientist husbands out of sight, almost out of our lives." (205) I think this is important because it shows how women, like herself, had to learn to adapt to a life without a [constant] husband. She is an example of a woman who was able to make the best of a wartime situation that she and many other women, did not prefer. -abratchi<br />
<br />
==Women in the Armed Forces, Marion Stegeman==<br />
<br />
Could Marion be a representation of a “New Woman” for the forties? She is exuberantly adventurous in her letters, thrilling in flying and performing aerobatic stunts. Her use of phrases such as “smackers and much love” and “I sacheted over to Major McConnell’s office” displays quite a bit of sassiness. She also holds an appeal to the male aviators, and fully uses that to her advantage and has fun with it. There is also an independent streak in her, as it is clear she doesn’t like being told what to do, and so doesn’t want to get stuck doing clerical work. However, she still follows the expected path for a woman of her generation: she marries and focuses on raising her children. – Alice W.<br />
<br />
I could not be more proud of a woman in the war effort than a woman like Marion Stegeman. As Alice noted I think she was a "new woman" and wore it as a badge on display for everyone to see what she was capable of. I think she strongly differed from typical women of the time and previous wars because she did not romanticize war and when she wrote to her mother she described dangers and death; no she did not see death overseas but could see it on bases and felt the pain of losing a comrade. I found interesting how she compared the death of her classmates and instructor in a plane and to get used to hearing about such incidents to, "fall[ing] down in the bathtubs at home and be killed, or get in a car and meet death." (MAW, 191). Marion's letters home were truly powerful and made me wonder if other WASPS or WAAC's wrote their parents or significant others the same sort of letters, describing the freedoms they felt and also the feeling of loss? -Megan W.</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 9 Questions/Comments2010-03-17T18:39:52Z<p>Megan3088: </p>
<hr />
<div>==The Despair of Unemployed Women, Meridel LeSueur==<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this piece by LeSueur because she focused on the women waiting in the employment bureau for a job and told a story about their different backgrounds. It is interesting how LeSueur describes the options that these woman have. They could stay single or get married. A husband could bring security, but if they get married then their husbands could leave them with children and more mouths to feed. They could get money from charities, or they could be proud and starve in silence. The only part that I don’t know if I buy is the very last sentence, “being a slave without the security of a slave.” I am not sure if that is a fair comparison. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I can only imagine how it must have felt for these women to sit around all day, waiting for work. LeSueur describes women who "sit hour after hour, day after day, waiting for a job to come in" (146). One can really feel the desperation in these women's lives; to just simply sit around, hoping a job would come in and they would be the lucky one to take it reveals scarcity and despair. I think this piece shows the embarrassment that women felt when faced with the depression and unemployment. Women were loosing jobs but as LeSueur points out, not many of them appear in places of charity. Some women at this time must have felt ashamed when having to ask for food, shelter, etc. I wonder why women at this time were so ashamed to receive charity, especially when they were willing to choose starvation, over help. -abratchi<br />
<br />
This was a very moving piece and a very important one. We learn the stats, the percentages, but it also imperative to read stories like this, heartbreaking stories, that remind us of the human and individual side of the Great Depression. For years now, my image of the Great Depression has been the memorial in D.C. with the figures in the Bread Lines. As far as I can recall, all those figures are men. LeSueur reminded me of the extent that women suffered. In response to abratchi, I think women flirted with starvation and death instead of asking for charity, because though they were left with nothing else, at least then they still had their pride and self respect. --kokeefe<br />
<br />
I also found this piece heartbreaking. The desperation of these women was completely unbelievable. For me, the most moving part was the description of woman who went crazy because she couldn't find work, and how the woman working behind the desk reacted. It makes you wonder who was truly suffering more-the employed woman who has to watch poverty and despair everyday, or the woman who has to watch her family starve and suffer. This truly depicts the helplessness all the women must have felt. I never really gave much thought to women in the depression, but this piece proves they suffered equally as much, or greater, than the men.-Anna Holman<br />
<br />
Meridel LeSueur pointed out some very interesting things about women and their reactions to the depression. I think she was expressing that you don’t know what fear and hunger are until your faced with it, as well as the humiliation of asking for help. I thought what LeSueur said about the women who took their last little bit of money and bought a hat. She described it as being foolish and lustful,but in some ways I think, these were attempts of women reaching out for what life once was for them. That if they could only have that hat, it might make themselves feel better, somehow regain what they had lost and feel whole again, and erase the humiliation they faced daily. The hat became inward expression of a broken and humuliated women. -Mhimes<br />
<br />
This piece was nothing short of heartbreaking for me to read. It must have been so hard for women the Great Depression era to deal with starvation and lack of work. After coming so far in society (beginning to work more, obtaining suffrage), women far so far. To me, it seems as if there was an intense struggle between dependence and independence going on. On one hand, women wanted to be independent and able to provide for themselves and their family, but were unable to do so as a result of no work, poor wages, etc. This is especially evident when LeSueur says "if she's proud then she starves silently" (146). On the other hand, women were almost regressing to a state of dependence upon males and their roles as providers. LaSueur describes such a desolate time for women. A time of intense loneliness and hopelessness. It was an eye=opening read for me, predominantly because I have been given or blessed with so much. It is hard to recognize the hardships that so many women have had to overcome to arrive at today's societal norms.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
I thought this piece was really interesting because it showed us a new side to the women of the Great Depression. It made them human. As historians we tend to look at the facts and forget that what we read about were real people with real emotions. I think that LeSueur did a great justice to these women by providing us with an insight into their personal world. I found the most interesting part of this piece to be about the women’s faces. LeSueur doesn’t simply remark about each individual face but them as a whole “all familiar to each other,” (146). The faces of the women were all alike to one another because they saw each other every day and everyone always looked the same, desperate for work. Besides Mrs. Grey, whose face would stick out in any crowd, LeSueur describes the women as being unable to look into one another’s eyes, “dreading to see that knowledge in each other’s eyes,” (146). The eyes are said to be a window into the soul and looking into them only to see the knowledge that there is no work for them must have been devastating. It must have appeared that there was no light at the end of the tunnel, “like a women drowning and we turn away,” (149) as LeSueur said of Mrs. Grey. -Morgan<br />
<br />
==American Women Ask Eleanor Roosevelt for Help==<br />
Let me just say that almost all of the primary sources for this week broke my heart. Pain and sadness and such a thick sense of hope lost just oozing off of the paper. But the letters written to Eleanor Roosevelt struck me especially. That these women honestly believed Eleanor would try and help them says a lot about the way she related to Americans and how she tried to present herself as someone who understood how hard the Depression had become for American families. I couldn't believe that one of the women sent her rings to the White House in exchange for baby clothes. She is a perfect example of why birth control should have been made widely available to women, as these families will do anything for their children and it terrifies them to bring babies into the world that they can't afford. And her resistance to the idea of charity, as well as her desire for Eleanor Roosevelt to keep her request a secret, reflect the same attitudes of women Meridel LeSueur's writings about how women do not seek assistance in nearly the same numbers as men do. They are supposed to be the infallible mothers who always provide for their children, and when they cannot they don't want to admit that they haven't achieved the ideal. On a side note, the letters made me wonder what sort of things the Obamas read these days, as the current economic situation isn't the Depression, but I imagine they get some painful letters as well. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I found the letters to Eleanor Roosevelt to be really upsetting. I can’t imagine how desperate a person must be to send these letters, and their descriptions of what they need are so basic for survival. The only letter that didn’t touch me was the first, the woman has a $2000 mortgage that she can afford, but needs help finding a job for her husband because she has a baby on the way. When reading the other articles about women who had been saving for 15 years and had $30, to hear that this woman who could make a $2000 mortgage payment is really frustrating. But I guess it says a lot that an obviously well off woman is seeking help from the White House at the same time that very poor women are. (I wonder if Mrs. H.E.C. ever got her rings back that she sent Mrs. Roosevelt as security, that was really sad to read…) – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
These letters were heart wrenching(as Mary Ann and Erin have already stated and I am sure everyone will continue to say).The desperation, the sadness, the hope all jump off the page. I think it was the hope that got me the most. I know it said that all the letters "were answered or passed on to the appropriate government agency for action" (149), but these were only 4 letters and the Roosevelts recieved up to 8,000 A DAY. I have hard time believing that they were all taken care of. I mean answering all these letters would have definitely created some jobs, but it just seems so sad that they had to call on the First Lady, the magical woman in D.C. with all the answers. It just seemed like they were (devastating)letters to Santa or something. --kokeefe<br />
<br />
I agree with all the other postings; this was terribly sad to read. The women who wrote to Eleanor Roosevelt seemed to have exhausted all of their other options and didn't know where else to turn. I found it especially depressing how it seemed to bother the women to ask a favor of the Roosevelts, despite their extreme need. The hurt pride must have been just as terrible as the empty stomachs.-Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I can't imagine asking the first lady and the president of the United States for help in buying neccesities or things I can not afford on my own. I wonder how many of the letters she responded to and if she actually gave the people what they asked for and not just advice or direction on where to go. I thought the one letter about the women who sent her prized possessions to Eleanor Roosevelt as security was sad. I also wonder if anyone today writes these kinds of letters to the president when they are not able to afford everything they need. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
As everyone else has noted the letters written to FDR and Eleanor broke my heart. As Erin asked I wonder if women not just Mrs. H.E.C. but also the other hundreds of women got their security deposits back? And as other letters showed some people wanted to send security deposits thinking that would help their case, did it? Or were the Roosevelts just as heart broken as I am today reading these letters and wished there was an easy fix-it button to hit? I could not imagine the lives of these women and what they endured to sit and write a letter asking for help not for them to survive but for the betterment of their families. Have any other administrations made public letters such as these or do they focus on other matters at hand and not internal affairs? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
==Eleanor Roosevelt Applauds the Repeal of the Married Persons Clause of the Economy Act, 1937==<br />
I can't imagine how out of touch with the reality Congress must have been to pass a law that assumed all married women who were working were doing so for perfectly frivolous reasons. I liked that Eleanor Roosevelt pointed out that even women who weren't working strictly for economic need had positive benefits on the economy and their communities. Yet even she feels the need to point out that working does not mean these women "are not good mothers and housekeepers" (pg. 348). Even in the midst of an economic disaster, somehow American society clung to those ideals of women as being strictly in the home. I guess the notion represented some kind of return to normalcy, though it had never really existed. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
==Militant Housewives During the Great Depression, Annelise Orleck==<br />
So many married lost their jobs or were barred from acquiring them because they were married, but this didn't stop them from carving out a role for themselves amidst the hardships of the Great Depression. As we learned in class, labor unions gained strength during this time, so it makes sense that women would also come to adopt organization as a means to be heard. Also, since it seems that so many women either did not seek public assistance or who could not because of the structure of the New Deal programs, activities like strikes and boycotts probably seemed the only real way to continue to feed their families, something that consistently fell on their shoulders to do. In a way these women were pulled out of their homes by their desire to stay in their homes, working to ensure that they could afford to continue to be proper wives and mothers. They only noticed that they were defying social norms when others, namely men, began to complain about it. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Orleck mentions that working-class women becoming involved in activism created public tensions because they were politicizing the traditional roles of women as wives and mothers. But hadn’t that been going on for a while? Reformers and suffragists became involved in the public world of politics, and they used their roles as wives and mothers and the associations that came with them as justification to enter that public realm. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I think that this public realm offered some release for these women, laws had put restrictions on them and they felt it was there duty to stand up though not to be just heard but adamant on change. Women had been an intricate part of the family income whether she worked in or outside the home. She was knowledgeable of how the system worked. It was no surprise that they took on this role. -MHimes<br />
<br />
As I was reading Annelise Orleck’s writing, what stood out to me was the exchanges of goods that took place without using any money. I thought about the story my great grandmother told me about her parents farm. It was a big farm and people throughout Culpeper county would come to exchange goods they had or work for food on their farm. She had commented that they were living comfortably till the depression hit. -MHimes<br />
<br />
==Louise Mitchell Denounces the "Slave Markets" Where Domestics Are hired in New York City, 1940==<br />
I found it interesting how Mitchell compared domestic servitude to a slave market. This piece, like almost all the other primary sources, really reveal the sense of distress that many women, namely black, felt as a result of the Depression. Women were willing to stand on streets and street corners all day in the hopes of being selected for a domestic job, which at this time were scarce. Her piece hints at a backwards-ness for blacks because despite slavery's end after the civil war, working as domestics for primarily white families has similarities to [old] slavery. While domestic servitude was still one of the most common jobs for all women, the impact of the depression hit this profession hard, hence why Mitchell writes that women spent endless hours hoping for a job. The reality of this work is also reflected through this piece. Domestic servitude was not an easy job and it often required hard labor, long hours and little pay. I think the desperation of the depression reveals women's willingness to take these jobs, simply because some money was better than no money. Mitchell makes an important distinction about race, by stating that about half of all domestics are negro and ends her piece by stating that reform needs to occur for "the most oppressed section of the working class- Negro women" (350). Black women at this time felt the affects much harder than white women, but I think it is important to understand that most people, even whites were suffering from the effects of the depression, not just African Americans. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I also thought it was interesting that the black woman's domestic service would be labeled a "slave market." Reading about the life of those women and what they did for work makes me better understand why it was termed that. They stand outside waiting for someone(presumably a white person) to come hire them, they do back-breaking work, and get paid very little. I bet they were probably at least thankful to have any type of job though to earn some money during the depression for their family. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley Comments on Birth Control and the Depression, 1934==<br />
<br />
I think my favorite part of women that we have studied so far has been about the issue of birth control. I think it’s because, even as a women in the 21st century it’s something I can relate to the women of the 20th century and earlier. Birth control and the processes of staying a healthy woman have evolved over the years, but the ideals and concerns haven’t. I think it’s also very interesting to see the evolution of the methods and devices used before modern day birth control; it’s a very intriguing history. In my joy of learning about birth control, I loved this article. Some of the statics that Bromley presented were somewhat comical, such as “in 1932 there were 43 percent more births in families without any employed workers than in families with one or more full-time workers,” (338). In summary, couples who weren’t employed were having more children because they had more free time to get busy. Why couldn’t scientists just state that? Then the statistic that “rich classes who took no preventative measures were as fertile as the women of the poorer classes, colored women included,” (338). Did white, middle-class and upper-class women really think that working class women were more fertile? Could that be a racist issue? I suspect that white middle and upper-class women thought that because the “working-class” ranked low on the social hierarchy, that couldn’t control themselves, when they really just couldn’t afford or weren’t offered birth control? Besides that Bromley cites that the “chairman of the section on Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Abdominal Surgery, listed birth control as one of the four major problems in gynecology,” (339) but then the committee refused to study about. Why? Was the subject still too taboo to speak of, even at a committee meeting about Gynecology and Obstetrics? Just like last week's article on Generational Conflicts by Bromley, she writes in a certain way to influence people, this time the doctors and committees who need to make birth control available to everyone, not just to those that can pay for it. -Morgan<br />
<br />
<br />
==Margaret Jarman Hagood, The Life Cycle of a White Southern Farm Woman==<br />
<br />
This section was almost as heart-wrenching for me to read as the letters to the Roosevelt's. Mollie's life is something I could not imagine nor do I think endure. She grew up faster than many women due to her growing number of siblings and a mother who was unable to keep up with all of the chores, and let her education go by the wayside to help her parents. I did enjoy that she was able to get away from the farm for awhile and be her own woman, earning what she wanted and turning down potential suitors. Did all young women who made it away from the farm feel the same? And did they all settle for marriages as she did with Jim? I would want to know how the story would of ended had Mollie been allowed to return to work in the factory; how her ideas of family may have changed. -Megan W.</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 9 Questions/Comments2010-03-17T18:33:43Z<p>Megan3088: /* American Women Ask Eleanor Roosevelt for Help */</p>
<hr />
<div>==The Despair of Unemployed Women, Meridel LeSueur==<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this piece by LeSueur because she focused on the women waiting in the employment bureau for a job and told a story about their different backgrounds. It is interesting how LeSueur describes the options that these woman have. They could stay single or get married. A husband could bring security, but if they get married then their husbands could leave them with children and more mouths to feed. They could get money from charities, or they could be proud and starve in silence. The only part that I don’t know if I buy is the very last sentence, “being a slave without the security of a slave.” I am not sure if that is a fair comparison. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I can only imagine how it must have felt for these women to sit around all day, waiting for work. LeSueur describes women who "sit hour after hour, day after day, waiting for a job to come in" (146). One can really feel the desperation in these women's lives; to just simply sit around, hoping a job would come in and they would be the lucky one to take it reveals scarcity and despair. I think this piece shows the embarrassment that women felt when faced with the depression and unemployment. Women were loosing jobs but as LeSueur points out, not many of them appear in places of charity. Some women at this time must have felt ashamed when having to ask for food, shelter, etc. I wonder why women at this time were so ashamed to receive charity, especially when they were willing to choose starvation, over help. -abratchi<br />
<br />
This was a very moving piece and a very important one. We learn the stats, the percentages, but it also imperative to read stories like this, heartbreaking stories, that remind us of the human and individual side of the Great Depression. For years now, my image of the Great Depression has been the memorial in D.C. with the figures in the Bread Lines. As far as I can recall, all those figures are men. LeSueur reminded me of the extent that women suffered. In response to abratchi, I think women flirted with starvation and death instead of asking for charity, because though they were left with nothing else, at least then they still had their pride and self respect. --kokeefe<br />
<br />
I also found this piece heartbreaking. The desperation of these women was completely unbelievable. For me, the most moving part was the description of woman who went crazy because she couldn't find work, and how the woman working behind the desk reacted. It makes you wonder who was truly suffering more-the employed woman who has to watch poverty and despair everyday, or the woman who has to watch her family starve and suffer. This truly depicts the helplessness all the women must have felt. I never really gave much thought to women in the depression, but this piece proves they suffered equally as much, or greater, than the men.-Anna Holman<br />
<br />
Meridel LeSueur pointed out some very interesting things about women and their reactions to the depression. I think she was expressing that you don’t know what fear and hunger are until your faced with it, as well as the humiliation of asking for help. I thought what LeSueur said about the women who took their last little bit of money and bought a hat. She described it as being foolish and lustful,but in some ways I think, these were attempts of women reaching out for what life once was for them. That if they could only have that hat, it might make themselves feel better, somehow regain what they had lost and feel whole again, and erase the humiliation they faced daily. The hat became inward expression of a broken and humuliated women. -Mhimes<br />
<br />
This piece was nothing short of heartbreaking for me to read. It must have been so hard for women the Great Depression era to deal with starvation and lack of work. After coming so far in society (beginning to work more, obtaining suffrage), women far so far. To me, it seems as if there was an intense struggle between dependence and independence going on. On one hand, women wanted to be independent and able to provide for themselves and their family, but were unable to do so as a result of no work, poor wages, etc. This is especially evident when LeSueur says "if she's proud then she starves silently" (146). On the other hand, women were almost regressing to a state of dependence upon males and their roles as providers. LaSueur describes such a desolate time for women. A time of intense loneliness and hopelessness. It was an eye=opening read for me, predominantly because I have been given or blessed with so much. It is hard to recognize the hardships that so many women have had to overcome to arrive at today's societal norms.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
I thought this piece was really interesting because it showed us a new side to the women of the Great Depression. It made them human. As historians we tend to look at the facts and forget that what we read about were real people with real emotions. I think that LeSueur did a great justice to these women by providing us with an insight into their personal world. I found the most interesting part of this piece to be about the women’s faces. LeSueur doesn’t simply remark about each individual face but them as a whole “all familiar to each other,” (146). The faces of the women were all alike to one another because they saw each other every day and everyone always looked the same, desperate for work. Besides Mrs. Grey, whose face would stick out in any crowd, LeSueur describes the women as being unable to look into one another’s eyes, “dreading to see that knowledge in each other’s eyes,” (146). The eyes are said to be a window into the soul and looking into them only to see the knowledge that there is no work for them must have been devastating. It must have appeared that there was no light at the end of the tunnel, “like a women drowning and we turn away,” (149) as LeSueur said of Mrs. Grey. -Morgan<br />
<br />
==American Women Ask Eleanor Roosevelt for Help==<br />
Let me just say that almost all of the primary sources for this week broke my heart. Pain and sadness and such a thick sense of hope lost just oozing off of the paper. But the letters written to Eleanor Roosevelt struck me especially. That these women honestly believed Eleanor would try and help them says a lot about the way she related to Americans and how she tried to present herself as someone who understood how hard the Depression had become for American families. I couldn't believe that one of the women sent her rings to the White House in exchange for baby clothes. She is a perfect example of why birth control should have been made widely available to women, as these families will do anything for their children and it terrifies them to bring babies into the world that they can't afford. And her resistance to the idea of charity, as well as her desire for Eleanor Roosevelt to keep her request a secret, reflect the same attitudes of women Meridel LeSueur's writings about how women do not seek assistance in nearly the same numbers as men do. They are supposed to be the infallible mothers who always provide for their children, and when they cannot they don't want to admit that they haven't achieved the ideal. On a side note, the letters made me wonder what sort of things the Obamas read these days, as the current economic situation isn't the Depression, but I imagine they get some painful letters as well. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I found the letters to Eleanor Roosevelt to be really upsetting. I can’t imagine how desperate a person must be to send these letters, and their descriptions of what they need are so basic for survival. The only letter that didn’t touch me was the first, the woman has a $2000 mortgage that she can afford, but needs help finding a job for her husband because she has a baby on the way. When reading the other articles about women who had been saving for 15 years and had $30, to hear that this woman who could make a $2000 mortgage payment is really frustrating. But I guess it says a lot that an obviously well off woman is seeking help from the White House at the same time that very poor women are. (I wonder if Mrs. H.E.C. ever got her rings back that she sent Mrs. Roosevelt as security, that was really sad to read…) – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
These letters were heart wrenching(as Mary Ann and Erin have already stated and I am sure everyone will continue to say).The desperation, the sadness, the hope all jump off the page. I think it was the hope that got me the most. I know it said that all the letters "were answered or passed on to the appropriate government agency for action" (149), but these were only 4 letters and the Roosevelts recieved up to 8,000 A DAY. I have hard time believing that they were all taken care of. I mean answering all these letters would have definitely created some jobs, but it just seems so sad that they had to call on the First Lady, the magical woman in D.C. with all the answers. It just seemed like they were (devastating)letters to Santa or something. --kokeefe<br />
<br />
I agree with all the other postings; this was terribly sad to read. The women who wrote to Eleanor Roosevelt seemed to have exhausted all of their other options and didn't know where else to turn. I found it especially depressing how it seemed to bother the women to ask a favor of the Roosevelts, despite their extreme need. The hurt pride must have been just as terrible as the empty stomachs.-Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I can't imagine asking the first lady and the president of the United States for help in buying neccesities or things I can not afford on my own. I wonder how many of the letters she responded to and if she actually gave the people what they asked for and not just advice or direction on where to go. I thought the one letter about the women who sent her prized possessions to Eleanor Roosevelt as security was sad. I also wonder if anyone today writes these kinds of letters to the president when they are not able to afford everything they need. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
As everyone else has noted the letters written to FDR and Eleanor broke my heart. As Erin asked I wonder if women not just Mrs. H.E.C. but also the other hundreds of women got their security deposits back? And as other letters showed some people wanted to send security deposits thinking that would help their case, did it? Or were the Roosevelts just as heart broken as I am today reading these letters and wished there was an easy fix-it button to hit? I could not imagine the lives of these women and what they endured to sit and write a letter asking for help not for them to survive but for the betterment of their families. Have any other administrations made public letters such as these or do they focus on other matters at hand and not internal affairs? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
==Eleanor Roosevelt Applauds the Repeal of the Married Persons Clause of the Economy Act, 1937==<br />
I can't imagine how out of touch with the reality Congress must have been to pass a law that assumed all married women who were working were doing so for perfectly frivolous reasons. I liked that Eleanor Roosevelt pointed out that even women who weren't working strictly for economic need had positive benefits on the economy and their communities. Yet even she feels the need to point out that working does not mean these women "are not good mothers and housekeepers" (pg. 348). Even in the midst of an economic disaster, somehow American society clung to those ideals of women as being strictly in the home. I guess the notion represented some kind of return to normalcy, though it had never really existed. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
==Militant Housewives During the Great Depression, Annelise Orleck==<br />
So many married lost their jobs or were barred from acquiring them because they were married, but this didn't stop them from carving out a role for themselves amidst the hardships of the Great Depression. As we learned in class, labor unions gained strength during this time, so it makes sense that women would also come to adopt organization as a means to be heard. Also, since it seems that so many women either did not seek public assistance or who could not because of the structure of the New Deal programs, activities like strikes and boycotts probably seemed the only real way to continue to feed their families, something that consistently fell on their shoulders to do. In a way these women were pulled out of their homes by their desire to stay in their homes, working to ensure that they could afford to continue to be proper wives and mothers. They only noticed that they were defying social norms when others, namely men, began to complain about it. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Orleck mentions that working-class women becoming involved in activism created public tensions because they were politicizing the traditional roles of women as wives and mothers. But hadn’t that been going on for a while? Reformers and suffragists became involved in the public world of politics, and they used their roles as wives and mothers and the associations that came with them as justification to enter that public realm. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I think that this public realm offered some release for these women, laws had put restrictions on them and they felt it was there duty to stand up though not to be just heard but adamant on change. Women had been an intricate part of the family income whether she worked in or outside the home. She was knowledgeable of how the system worked. It was no surprise that they took on this role. -MHimes<br />
<br />
As I was reading Annelise Orleck’s writing, what stood out to me was the exchanges of goods that took place without using any money. I thought about the story my great grandmother told me about her parents farm. It was a big farm and people throughout Culpeper county would come to exchange goods they had or work for food on their farm. She had commented that they were living comfortably till the depression hit. -MHimes<br />
<br />
==Louise Mitchell Denounces the "Slave Markets" Where Domestics Are hired in New York City, 1940==<br />
I found it interesting how Mitchell compared domestic servitude to a slave market. This piece, like almost all the other primary sources, really reveal the sense of distress that many women, namely black, felt as a result of the Depression. Women were willing to stand on streets and street corners all day in the hopes of being selected for a domestic job, which at this time were scarce. Her piece hints at a backwards-ness for blacks because despite slavery's end after the civil war, working as domestics for primarily white families has similarities to [old] slavery. While domestic servitude was still one of the most common jobs for all women, the impact of the depression hit this profession hard, hence why Mitchell writes that women spent endless hours hoping for a job. The reality of this work is also reflected through this piece. Domestic servitude was not an easy job and it often required hard labor, long hours and little pay. I think the desperation of the depression reveals women's willingness to take these jobs, simply because some money was better than no money. Mitchell makes an important distinction about race, by stating that about half of all domestics are negro and ends her piece by stating that reform needs to occur for "the most oppressed section of the working class- Negro women" (350). Black women at this time felt the affects much harder than white women, but I think it is important to understand that most people, even whites were suffering from the effects of the depression, not just African Americans. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I also thought it was interesting that the black woman's domestic service would be labeled a "slave market." Reading about the life of those women and what they did for work makes me better understand why it was termed that. They stand outside waiting for someone(presumably a white person) to come hire them, they do back-breaking work, and get paid very little. I bet they were probably at least thankful to have any type of job though to earn some money during the depression for their family. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley Comments on Birth Control and the Depression, 1934==<br />
<br />
I think my favorite part of women that we have studied so far has been about the issue of birth control. I think it’s because, even as a women in the 21st century it’s something I can relate to the women of the 20th century and earlier. Birth control and the processes of staying a healthy woman have evolved over the years, but the ideals and concerns haven’t. I think it’s also very interesting to see the evolution of the methods and devices used before modern day birth control; it’s a very intriguing history. In my joy of learning about birth control, I loved this article. Some of the statics that Bromley presented were somewhat comical, such as “in 1932 there were 43 percent more births in families without any employed workers than in families with one or more full-time workers,” (338). In summary, couples who weren’t employed were having more children because they had more free time to get busy. Why couldn’t scientists just state that? Then the statistic that “rich classes who took no preventative measures were as fertile as the women of the poorer classes, colored women included,” (338). Did white, middle-class and upper-class women really think that working class women were more fertile? Could that be a racist issue? I suspect that white middle and upper-class women thought that because the “working-class” ranked low on the social hierarchy, that couldn’t control themselves, when they really just couldn’t afford or weren’t offered birth control? Besides that Bromley cites that the “chairman of the section on Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Abdominal Surgery, listed birth control as one of the four major problems in gynecology,” (339) but then the committee refused to study about. Why? Was the subject still too taboo to speak of, even at a committee meeting about Gynecology and Obstetrics? Just like last week's article on Generational Conflicts by Bromley, she writes in a certain way to influence people, this time the doctors and committees who need to make birth control available to everyone, not just to those that can pay for it. -Morgan</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_8_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 8 Questions/Comments2010-03-10T22:05:31Z<p>Megan3088: /* Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''MAKE SURE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS UNDER THE RELEVANT AUTHOR/TITLE HEADING (OR TO CREATE A NEW HEADING IF THERE ISN'T ONE YET)'''<br />
<br />
<br />
==Peiss, The Cosmetics Industry==<br />
<br />
I’ll admit that I never gave cosmetics much thought or even believed that they deserved thought, for that matter. This article is just another reminder of how even seemingly insignificant objects have a lot of historical value because they reflect broader social patterns. Even makeup. In the case of the article, cosmetics reflect the rise of consumer culture and marketing, as well as class and race connotations. These connotations continue to exist today. I’m sure we’ve all looked at a woman wearing a generous amount of makeup and immediately had less than charitable thoughts about her sexual practices and/or economic position. “Slut” and “trailer park trash” may be words that come to mind. And I’m sure we’ve all seen advertisements about ways to use makeup to look more “exotic,” which is just a politically correct way of saying “ethnic.” I think perhaps nowadays “exotic” is often more about being less offensive. In the past, when people were more overtly racist, maybe labeling things “exotic” was a way to recognize some kind of racial envy and provide a means to achieve what was envied without admitting to it. But that’s kind of a psychological can of worms. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I like the essay "Making Faces" by Kath Peiss. Comparing today's perceptions of cosmetics and beauty to that of the early 20th Century is very interesting. Most women today wear makeup and instead of refraining from using it to appear respectable it is more the norm to use it. Makeup has also been made available to women of almost any class thanks to stores such as Walmart and even dollar stores. The use of makeup is also not associated with prostitutes anymore because most women wear it. It is always interesting to see how beliefs and opinions change over time, compared to non marital sex which can still be debatable, most people agree that wearing makeup today is acceptable. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
It seems rather ironic that cosmetics, long associated with prostitution, would make their move to the mainstream at a time when society appeared so concerned about the moral well-being of women. At the same time though, this was the first era in which women could really claim income of their own; they represented a new market that cosmetics industries and the beauty culture took advantage of, marketing their products as necessities for women. And in a society that feared women may be loosing their femininity to traditionally male pursuits like wage work, voting, and casual relationships, make up became a way of showing that women were still neat and soft and fair, that they were still essentially women, despite the fact that they may have moved beyond the traditional domestic sphere. -Mary Ann <br />
<br />
==Mosher Survey, 1892-1913==<br />
<br />
The Mosher survey was very fascinating. I found it interesting that one of the interviewees in her twenties in the 1890s seemed to have a more conservative view on sexual practices than the woman in her fifties in the 1890s. Number 1 felt there was danger in too much sex for a woman and that it was necessary to men but not women. Number 35 felt that both husbands and wives needed sex and that people became too nervous and twitchy without it. The survey didn’t note where the women were raised or various other features (though I assume they were middle-class at least if they were regular patients), which I think would have been a big influence on their answers. The survey also provided an interesting contrast to Dr. Frederick’s assumptions about women. Had he actually bothered to interview women about their feelings towards sex, which I’m sure he wouldn’t have dared do for sake of propriety, he would have discovered that women also had an interest in sex and could find it just as satisfying as men. Of course, he probably would have tried to explain it away. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
It was interesting that the study done on sexual habits of women was able to obtain opinions from women during that time. It seemed that sex was just not talked about. But after reading the excerpts from the online reading, it was visible in my mind that women were searching for answers to the inter workings of their marriages and needed help. That need to talk came out of the desperation they felt towards preventing their own marriages from falling apart and maintaining their own health and control over their own body. -MHimes<br />
<br />
== Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV ==<br />
<br />
Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV seems to be a call for women to keep fighting and to try to position themselves on the inside of politics as opposed to from the outside. She states that it has been a battle for 60 years to get the right to vote, and argues that it isnt the time to stop. She says on page 121, “Are we going to petition them [the political parties] as we have always done? Well, if so, what was the use of getting the vote?” and, “the only way to get things in this country is to find them on the inside of the political party.”<br />
I think Catt is pretty level headed, though she may be underestimating the difficulty women will have getting into positions of power. She seems to understand that just because women gained the right to vote does not mean that the country’s biases dissolved overnight. She believes that it will be a slow change, but women must work from the inside to make that change happen. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
== Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment ==<br />
<br />
<br />
When reading each side of the Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment I tried to choose which side I found more convincing. I found that I took the side of the Doris Stevens of the National Women’s Party. The argument is quite simple, women and men don’t live under equal protection of the law, and the laws that exist still reflect old English Common Law. The Equal Rights Amendment would remove all legal discriminations against women on account of sex (Stevens goes on to list all the rights/protections women would gain). What I liked about Stevens argument is that she states that women should have the right to do what they want. Just because they have equal rights to inheritance does not mean that they can’t give it to their brother, or son, or whoever. Women don’t have to hold positions of power if they don’t want to. They should just have the ability to do so if they so choose. <br />
Alice Hamilton, on the other hand, seems to have tunnel vision. She is solely focused on working women. I agree that women should be protected, but she does not seem to understand the reasons why working women fail to unionize, nor does she look at the negative impacts of protective legislation on working women. She does not seem to focus on any of the other things women would gain out of the Equal Rights Amendment. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think that Alice Hamilton emphasizes protective legislation because she comes into the picture with the idea that women are naturally different than men though this does not take away from their abilities to perform work. She talked about how men have already achieved strong labor unions and women have not yet achieved theirs and need the chance to grow. She had already separated the male and female arenas. The expectations of society for a woman to fulfill those “ideal” roles (even though not realistic for the working class) makes it hard for women who have families that are working long hours with low wages. What time is left for children, husband, and home? It was interesting that the National Women’s Party wants to get rid of this legislation. I think that Doris Stevens makes a good point when she emphasizes choice. Women have worked hard and organized as “self-governing units of society” and by getting rid of protective legislation it omit’s that difference. It will govern laws that allow men and women to be able to make the choice based on decisiveness and preference as an entity not by gender. They both have their strong points but with different perspectives. -MHimes<br />
<br />
<br />
I am actually quite surprised that Alice Hamilton and so many others are against the Equal Rights Amendment considering how much they could potentially gain from it. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
== Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters ==<br />
<br />
I thought the essay by Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters about the furnished-room districts was very interesting. In particular, the different types of relationships women had including "dating," "pickups," "occasional prostitution", and "temporary alliances" stood out to me. I didn't know they actually labeled these kind of relationships, dating and sexual activities so specifically. Meyerowitz also explains on page 331 that there were mixed opinions of whether these kinds of practices or "non marital sexual expression" was acceptable. I think the idea of sex outside of marriage is still something people are in debate about today. So, many years later these opinions haven't really changed. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I think the notion that "employers paid self-supporting women wages intended for dependent daughters and wives" (pg. 329) is tremendously important in looking at the furnished-room districts. Those who were concerned about the morality of the women living in these districts seemed to largely overlook the fact that many of the women engaging in the relationships deemed scandalous were doing so at least in part out of economic necessity. Maybe they believed paying women a living wage would encourage more women to leave the home in favor of wage work and so further contribute to America's loss of morality, but in reality if women who could have afforded to support themselves things like "occasional prostitution" probably would not have become so rampant among women living on their own. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with Amy I found this whole essay interesting and the way Joanne Meyerowitz describes feminine culture back from the 1830s to the 1960s shows a dramatic shift in the roles women played. I liked how she described the role film played in the changing role of women and how Hollywood banked on the notion, sex sells. On page 334 she discusses the film, ''The ''Model:'' Or, Women and Wine'' and in it Marcelle admits she is a "gold digger" which I compare to Kayne West's song about a woman who is a gold digger. Showing Meyerowitz's theory that "the sexual behavior of women in turn-of-the-century furnished-room districts is not an isolated episode in women's history."(335). -Megan W.<br />
<br />
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley, "Generational Conflicts"==<br />
<br />
I imagine that the generation of women who fought for decades to get women the right to vote were crushed to discover that younger women quite casually dismissed many of the ideals they had fought for and even the label they had worn. I understand why the younger women of the 1920s may have felt that they had the world at their feet because they had more opportunities for independence than their mothers had had, but they must have still realized equality was not yet reality. Instead they had convinced themselves that because so many things were different they were inherently better. And it's interesting to note that the backlash against the word feminist started so long ago. The author's description of feminists as masculine, angry, and anti-men would easily fit with what many associate with the term feminist today. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
<br />
==Anxious Mothers Write the Children's Bureau==<br />
<br />
I found the third letter written by Mrs. A.E.,Minnesota (August 10, 1923) was the most influential in discussing issues of medicine and women's health. While all three letters are relevant to prenatal and child care and I believe writing them was an excellent way for women to share concerns, the third letter hit home to me. It made me wonder if her trouble with delivery was the start of malpractice in child birth. Along with that did doctors still think it was okay to treat women as subserviant, so if they had a rough delivery ooops...guess that is tough luck for you all (referencing the Bible, Adam and Eve). I also think it was wise to let other women know that doctors such as Dr. B should not be trusted with delivery and on the flip side her doctor in Saint Paul could benefit from these publications. Did these women influence how prenatal care is treated today? -Megan W.</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_8_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 8 Questions/Comments2010-03-10T20:41:52Z<p>Megan3088: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''MAKE SURE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS UNDER THE RELEVANT AUTHOR/TITLE HEADING (OR TO CREATE A NEW HEADING IF THERE ISN'T ONE YET)'''<br />
<br />
<br />
==Peiss, The Cosmetics Industry==<br />
<br />
I’ll admit that I never gave cosmetics much thought or even believed that they deserved thought, for that matter. This article is just another reminder of how even seemingly insignificant objects have a lot of historical value because they reflect broader social patterns. Even makeup. In the case of the article, cosmetics reflect the rise of consumer culture and marketing, as well as class and race connotations. These connotations continue to exist today. I’m sure we’ve all looked at a woman wearing a generous amount of makeup and immediately had less than charitable thoughts about her sexual practices and/or economic position. “Slut” and “trailer park trash” may be words that come to mind. And I’m sure we’ve all seen advertisements about ways to use makeup to look more “exotic,” which is just a politically correct way of saying “ethnic.” I think perhaps nowadays “exotic” is often more about being less offensive. In the past, when people were more overtly racist, maybe labeling things “exotic” was a way to recognize some kind of racial envy and provide a means to achieve what was envied without admitting to it. But that’s kind of a psychological can of worms. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I like the essay "Making Faces" by Kath Peiss. Comparing today's perceptions of cosmetics and beauty to that of the early 20th Century is very interesting. Most women today wear makeup and instead of refraining from using it to appear respectable it is more the norm to use it. Makeup has also been made available to women of almost any class thanks to stores such as Walmart and even dollar stores. The use of makeup is also not associated with prostitutes anymore because most women wear it. It is always interesting to see how beliefs and opinions change over time, compared to non marital sex which can still be debatable, most people agree that wearing makeup today is acceptable. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
It seems rather ironic that cosmetics, long associated with prostitution, would make their move to the mainstream at a time when society appeared so concerned about the moral well-being of women. At the same time though, this was the first era in which women could really claim income of their own; they represented a new market that cosmetics industries and the beauty culture took advantage of, marketing their products as necessities for women. And in a society that feared women may be loosing their femininity to traditionally male pursuits like wage work, voting, and casual relationships, make up became a way of showing that women were still neat and soft and fair, that they were still essentially women, despite the fact that they may have moved beyond the traditional domestic sphere. -Mary Ann <br />
<br />
==Mosher Survey, 1892-1913==<br />
<br />
The Mosher survey was very fascinating. I found it interesting that one of the interviewees in her twenties in the 1890s seemed to have a more conservative view on sexual practices than the woman in her fifties in the 1890s. Number 1 felt there was danger in too much sex for a woman and that it was necessary to men but not women. Number 35 felt that both husbands and wives needed sex and that people became too nervous and twitchy without it. The survey didn’t note where the women were raised or various other features (though I assume they were middle-class at least if they were regular patients), which I think would have been a big influence on their answers. The survey also provided an interesting contrast to Dr. Frederick’s assumptions about women. Had he actually bothered to interview women about their feelings towards sex, which I’m sure he wouldn’t have dared do for sake of propriety, he would have discovered that women also had an interest in sex and could find it just as satisfying as men. Of course, he probably would have tried to explain it away. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
It was interesting that the study done on sexual habits of women was able to obtain opinions from women during that time. It seemed that sex was just not talked about. But after reading the excerpts from the online reading, it was visible in my mind that women were searching for answers to the inter workings of their marriages and needed help. That need to talk came out of the desperation they felt towards preventing their own marriages from falling apart and maintaining their own health and control over their own body. -MHimes<br />
<br />
== Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV ==<br />
<br />
Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV seems to be a call for women to keep fighting and to try to position themselves on the inside of politics as opposed to from the outside. She states that it has been a battle for 60 years to get the right to vote, and argues that it isnt the time to stop. She says on page 121, “Are we going to petition them [the political parties] as we have always done? Well, if so, what was the use of getting the vote?” and, “the only way to get things in this country is to find them on the inside of the political party.”<br />
I think Catt is pretty level headed, though she may be underestimating the difficulty women will have getting into positions of power. She seems to understand that just because women gained the right to vote does not mean that the country’s biases dissolved overnight. She believes that it will be a slow change, but women must work from the inside to make that change happen. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
== Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment ==<br />
<br />
<br />
When reading each side of the Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment I tried to choose which side I found more convincing. I found that I took the side of the Doris Stevens of the National Women’s Party. The argument is quite simple, women and men don’t live under equal protection of the law, and the laws that exist still reflect old English Common Law. The Equal Rights Amendment would remove all legal discriminations against women on account of sex (Stevens goes on to list all the rights/protections women would gain). What I liked about Stevens argument is that she states that women should have the right to do what they want. Just because they have equal rights to inheritance does not mean that they can’t give it to their brother, or son, or whoever. Women don’t have to hold positions of power if they don’t want to. They should just have the ability to do so if they so choose. <br />
Alice Hamilton, on the other hand, seems to have tunnel vision. She is solely focused on working women. I agree that women should be protected, but she does not seem to understand the reasons why working women fail to unionize, nor does she look at the negative impacts of protective legislation on working women. She does not seem to focus on any of the other things women would gain out of the Equal Rights Amendment. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think that Alice Hamilton emphasizes protective legislation because she comes into the picture with the idea that women are naturally different than men though this does not take away from their abilities to perform work. She talked about how men have already achieved strong labor unions and women have not yet achieved theirs and need the chance to grow. She had already separated the male and female arenas. The expectations of society for a woman to fulfill those “ideal” roles (even though not realistic for the working class) makes it hard for women who have families that are working long hours with low wages. What time is left for children, husband, and home? It was interesting that the National Women’s Party wants to get rid of this legislation. I think that Doris Stevens makes a good point when she emphasizes choice. Women have worked hard and organized as “self-governing units of society” and by getting rid of protective legislation it omit’s that difference. It will govern laws that allow men and women to be able to make the choice based on decisiveness and preference as an entity not by gender. They both have their strong points but with different perspectives. -MHimes<br />
<br />
<br />
I am actually quite surprised that Alice Hamilton and so many others are against the Equal Rights Amendment considering how much they could potentially gain from it. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
== Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters ==<br />
<br />
I thought the essay by Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters about the furnished-room districts was very interesting. In particular, the different types of relationships women had including "dating," "pickups," "occasional prostitution", and "temporary alliances" stood out to me. I didn't know they actually labeled these kind of relationships, dating and sexual activities so specifically. Meyerowitz also explains on page 331 that there were mixed opinions of whether these kinds of practices or "non marital sexual expression" was acceptable. I think the idea of sex outside of marriage is still something people are in debate about today. So, many years later these opinions haven't really changed. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I think the notion that "employers paid self-supporting women wages intended for dependent daughters and wives" (pg. 329) is tremendously important in looking at the furnished-room districts. Those who were concerned about the morality of the women living in these districts seemed to largely overlook the fact that many of the women engaging in the relationships deemed scandalous were doing so at least in part out of economic necessity. Maybe they believed paying women a living wage would encourage more women to leave the home in favor of wage work and so further contribute to America's loss of morality, but in reality if women who could have afforded to support themselves things like "occasional prostitution" probably would not have become so rampant among women living on their own. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley, "Generational Conflicts"==<br />
<br />
I imagine that the generation of women who fought for decades to get women the right to vote were crushed to discover that younger women quite casually dismissed many of the ideals they had fought for and even the label they had worn. I understand why the younger women of the 1920s may have felt that they had the world at their feet because they had more opportunities for independence than their mothers had had, but they must have still realized equality was not yet reality. Instead they had convinced themselves that because so many things were different they were inherently better. And it's interesting to note that the backlash against the word feminist started so long ago. The author's description of feminists as masculine, angry, and anti-men would easily fit with what many associate with the term feminist today. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
<br />
==Anxious Mothers Write the Children's Bureau==<br />
<br />
I found the third letter written by Mrs. A.E.,Minnesota (August 10, 1923) was the most influential in discussing issues of medicine and women's health. While all three letters are relevant to prenatal and child care and I believe writing them was an excellent way for women to share concerns, the third letter hit home to me. It made me wonder if her trouble with delivery was the start of malpractice in child birth. Along with that did doctors still think it was okay to treat women as subserviant, so if they had a rough delivery ooops...guess that is tough luck for you all (referencing the Bible, Adam and Eve). I also think it was wise to let other women know that doctors such as Dr. B should not be trusted with delivery and on the flip side her doctor in Saint Paul could benefit from these publications. Did these women influence how prenatal care is treated today? -Megan W.</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments2010-02-22T22:18:18Z<p>Megan3088: </p>
<hr />
<div>NOTE: If the document/essay you want to write about isn't listed, add it using the following format: == Author, Title, Year ==<br />
<br />
==Working Women Write the Jewish Daily Forward==<br />
While this essay was not too long in length I found interesting the early day versions of advice columns in newspapers. Women, specifically Jewish women were able to write about their struggles and stories in search of advice instead of just relying on a diary to record their thoughts. It reminded me of reading American Girl magazine when I was younger and learning about different girls stories and how they expressed any concern with their lives. I found it great that the advice given back to girls, much like today, was for the betterment of women. The advice encouraged women to step forward and have a voice in the workplace and home. -Megan W. <br />
<br />
== The Burden of Rural Women's Lives, 1900-1901 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Reading the Burdens of Rural Women’s Lives the author states that she learned two things from her life on the farm. First, the work never kills. Second, that work must be calculated beforehand to figure out ways to be more efficient. I think these two things are emphasized throughout her description of her life. Not only did these rural women have to worry about keeping the home, but they also had to work on the farm. The lives of rural women were tough, and I would argue that they as tough if not tougher than urban working class women’s lives because they worked the same, if not longer hours as the working class urban women, but they also had to do household tasks without the appliances that were available in the cities and without electricity. Based off of the author’s description of her life, I think that these two lessons that she is passing on were probably essential in getting by as a rural farm woman. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
These women's lives totally interest me. As plainly as she tells her life story, as pertaining to work, you get a real sense of the pride that she felt in being so industrious and in being so good at what she did. She even mentions the books she read while she used to churn butter. She was constantly occupied and never (except when she taught before she was married, presumably) for a wage. But by most measures, she and her husband led very successful lives. They provided for their five kids and sent them to school, one even to Cornell. And at 58, it sounds like she even gets to "retire". The values of rural living seem very different than those of urban living. As more and more people moved into urban areas, i wonder how this affected the lifestyles of farm families. -Erin B.<br />
<br />
== Agnes Nestor, The Story of a Glove Maker ==<br />
<br />
After reading Burdens of Rural Women’s Lives I thought that the rural farm woman’s life was incredibly difficult and I stated that it was as tough if not tougher than urban working class women’s lives. However, after reading The Story of a Glove Maker I think I changed my mind. Urban working women had to work in factories with irregular pay and irregular hours all they while they were threatened by their male superiors who could fire them at a moments notice. Not only did they have to worry about keeping their jobs, but they had to worry about being sexually exploited. All the while, these women, too, had to worry about keeping their homes. They also seemed to have fewer opportunities for advancement than the rural farm women. The farm women worked incredibly hard, but the author of Burdens of Rural Women’s Lives had the ability to be educated and have her children be educated, one of her children was at Cornell University! She also seemed to have a lot to show for her work, while it seems that urban women were working hard just to get by. I don’t know if it is fair to compare and contrast, but these women all had difficult lives. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin on a lot of the points she made. This piece captured my attention because of the harsh conditions that these women were forced to work in. I found in particularly difficult to not feel bad for the girls because stress they had to endure by working in industrial places like a glove factory. Nestor references how the girls tried to find ways to produce more gloves in an hour and would sometimes even work during their breaks just to get more done. She also revealed how the women were afraid of the machine breaking because it meant they could not make more gloves, which meant they would not get their payment. Nestor shows the effect of industry on the working woman and it's effects. I wonder how women at this time dealt with professions like this without getting extremely frustrated. -abratchi<br />
<br />
== Fannie Barrier Williams Describes the "Problem of Employment for Negro Women," 1903 ==<br />
<br />
As so many black women worked in domestic service and were in contact with whites, Williams preferred to see the elevation of domestic service into respectable work and a recognized profession, believing that it would raise the race in general. But she suggests that there was a tendency to look down on domestic service within the black community, though I think it may not all have been a result of the demeaning nature of the work itself, but rather that the women who worked in domestic service were essentially working for the betterment of white people in a very direct way. Williams wrote, “If our girls work for wages in a nice home, rather than in a factory or over a counter, they are ruthlessly scorned by their friends and acquaintances” (263). For instance, factory work as compared to domestic service also required manual labor, but while it’s products were more to the benefit of whites, it was in a way less obviously so than domestic service. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I found Williams' views on domestic service to be quite interesting. For example, she thought that domestic service would eventually become a profession and there would training for it as if it were a normal job. Obviously domestic service never became a profession and looking back on that thought today, many of us would probably laugh at the idea. However, for that time period, I don't think her ideas were too out of place because of the incredibly limited employment opportunities for black women at this time. Domestic service was one of their few options, therefore I think Williams was almost forced into beleiving this because she didn't know anything else. Also, she thought that domestic servants should be looked upon in the same light as women in the working world. Again, it is tough to agree or disagree because domestic service is all black women really know and therefore they can almost only beleive that there work is equal to that of white women in society. -afrisk<br />
<br />
On page 264 it says that "the everyday man and woman who make society must change their foolish notions as to what is the polite thing for a young woman to do... my only plea is that we shall protect and respect our girls who honestly and intelligently enter this service, either from preference or necessity" and I find that quote to be loaded with so many things that she has to say. First, I applaud her for realizing that it is not always the role of the woman that needs to change, but societies perception of that role. Then, she also describes how sometimes good, smart people have terrible jobs (college kids waitress-ing???)because of their situation and realization that it would be the best opportunity they could have to get themselves the glory of never having to have to do that terrible work again. I enjoy this quote from the reading in particular because it applies to both races in the lower class and can even still be applied to a lot of things inherently wrong with society today (and she doesn't sound bitter, rude or condescending in this statement). It also helps her statement that by working these service jobs and highering the status of them, the black race as a whole could race their association with these jobs and in turn their status in life. -SSellers<br />
<br />
In reading this article I began to question Fannie’s race. I thought maybe Fannie may have been white because she isn’t criticizing every other race and complaining about the work that African American women have. I found it unusual for an African American woman to empower her kind and their jobs instead of criticizing the work and people. Fannie doesn’t seen too upset about African American women only having an opportunity in the domestic service industry, and instead of denouncing the trade all together, she finds that only a few changes need to be made. I really enjoyed the fact that Fannie is empowering her women rather than continuing to remind them of the short-falls they will face in their life and the hardships that come with their color. “Our girls must be made to feel that there is no stepping down when they become professional housekeepers. The relative dignity, respectability, and honor of this profession should be first taught in our schools,” (pg. 264). -Morgan M <br />
<br />
I had the same question as Morgan while reading this piece and decided to do a little research. I found out that she was a black woman, with a college education. I could not find anything about her working as a domestic servant. Now I wonder who the intended audience of this piece was. Was it aimed at black domestic servants or other black intellectuals? - J Rowley<br />
<br />
From this source, I feel that Williams feels that she wishes black people were in demand for other jobs besides domestic work but since they are not they should put their hard work ethics to use and take pride in the job they are given. She thinks that women who are educated shouldn't necessarily be upset working as a domestic servant but should be thankful to have a job like this. I thought this part was interesting because I know it would be hard for me to think about going to college for 4+ years and then still having to become a domestic servant. I would definitely be a little upset and not want to take pride in the work I was doing especially if the conditions were not so great. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Harriet Brunkhurst Laments the Home Problems of "Business Girls," 1910 ==<br />
<br />
"She could earn her own living, but she could not fight her own battles…" (p. 267). Many of the problems women faced going in to the workforce are quite obvious to us: low wages, harsh conditions, sexual harassment, etc… But Harriet Brunkhurst's article points out a less obvious problem that many girls faced in America - being treated as working women by their families. Even after working all day, they were still expected to keep up with their chores and responsibilities at home. Yet boys and men in the same situations were not expected to carry as much responsibility at home and were recognized for the hours they spent working outside the home. Yet again, there is this difficulty of separating women from the private sphere. And I think that even today some women are expected to carry more responsibilities within the home, even if they work outside of the home. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I agree here that a women in the working world can experience added stress when she is at home. A woman can go to work, but she is still expected to manage the 'domestic sphere' when she returns home and this can place a lot of stress on women. For example, in this excerpt, the girl is expected to work all day, then when she comes home, she gets grief for not helping out with the household chores. It can be very difficult to balance life in the working world with the home front, and women are often expected to do a lot in both fields. -afrisk<br />
<br />
This article by far is my favorite this year because I found so many examples in it that are still present in us women today. The notion that we as women, who are independent, still come home to more work while the men of the house are allowed their “rest and relaxation” because they are said to do more. That is so untrue. Why is that women why work a job, attend school, or have any other daunting task that takes up most her of her time, is expected to return home after such a day to the “domestic sphere” and must continue to maintain it? I find that very unfair and it hits home personally for women in today’s age as well. I feel that today it is just as terrible a situation as it was 100 years ago, if not worse. Because of the many facets of life today, women tend to take on many different tasks in the “public sphere” of life and yet must also maintain the “domestic sphere”. As I’m sure every women has gone through this more than once in her life, all women can attest to the stress and anguish one can feel because of such. There are exceptions to the rule however, such as Maud’s mother, who speaks in her daughter’s defense to a neighbor as “when I would have been on the sofa or comfortably in bed, she trudges bravely away,” (pg. 267). I think that it takes a strong woman like Maud’s mother to stick up for her daughter to another women’s criticism. -Morgan M.<br />
<br />
== The Vice Commission of Chicago reports on the Working Conditions in Department Stores that Lead Female Employees into Prostitution, 1911 ==<br />
<br />
This one’s a doozey. What was the cause of prostitution? Apparently, there were a few causes. Poor sanitary conditions in the working world affected the nervous system causing women to be more susceptible to weakened morality, fast paced modern life lead to eroticism, and poor pay meant a working girl couldn’t afford life’s necessities. I’d say there’s a grain of truth to these claims, poor pay in particular being a problem. Also, young women who worked in department stores were regularly exposed to unsavory individuals who wanted to sully their purity. Again there’s a bit truth, but the most realistic argument here is the case of male employers sexually exploiting girls. However, most of the other examples described seem less like prostitution and more like a girl trying to have a good time. Perhaps the vice commission couldn’t handle the idea of a sexual liberated women. Finally, I have to ask, what was the point of this report? Was it a cry for better working conditions and for better wages? Or was it an argument to keep women out of the working world in order to protect their virtue? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
The first part of this one was just hilarious. The beginning two paragraphs were especially ridiculous--the idea that "highly speeded modern life must stimulate these organisms?" (271) is so stupid that I just have to laugh at it. It claims that being busy and having a fast-paced life arouses women sexually, and then makes the equally odd jump that sexual arousal leads directly to prostitution. Some of the other points of the article are closer to the truth; the various ways in which a girl could get involved in prostitution (as her own boss or under a pimp) probably actually happened. That this kind of income was usually a supplement to the wages that were too low to live on is not a surprise (minimum wage is still too low to cover the cost of living today, as well). The specific stories of the women that were interviewed for the article gives scads more credibility than the ludicrous blanket statements of the beginning (who was this written by, anyways?). --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
I agree with the absurdity of this article that Taylor and Sarah both did a good job at conveying and in order to not be redundant I'll bring up an issue I had with the section on Married Men in particular as "Married men are among the worst offenders against salesgirls (272)". SERIOUSLY?? I mean, I know that there are instances were one who is married, male or female, oversteps flirtation boundaries (although not always intentional)without desiring to have anything come by the banter but when the situation states that if these women do not reciprocate the married man's wishes they would complain and say their business was neglected? I thought men in this time were supposed to be arrogant, secure, strong and not easily offended by someone not returning their favor. If this accusation of the married men is true for the majority of married men at this time, maybe it was the male sex that was weak, insecure and irrational? -Ssellers<br />
<br />
== The Harsh Conditions of Domestic Service ==<br />
<br />
"…when I hear so much said about our unreliability, our untrustworthiness, and even our vices" (p. 54). I think it is pretty amazing that strongly held prejudices in the South guaranteed extremely low wages for domestic servants for so long. These jobs were probably difficult to obtain, since jobs were very limited for African Americans, so they would work hard to keep them. So for an employer to claim their domestic servant is unreliable or untrustworthy? Or to complain about stereotypes of the race? I don't blame the woman who wrote this article for being offended. I am sure she worked extremely hard, for barely any money and at the expense of never seeing her own children, and she could not believe the insensitivity of whites when it came to her job. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I, too, am offended, but not terribly surprised, at the prejudice that obviously existed in the South when the article was written. I am surprised at how much lower the black family's income was than the women department store workers we read about. They could stand to make $24 a month at their much easier jobs, which was the total amount for the entire black Southern family (7-15 people! on a salary too meager for one!). The math there is just astounding. But, as the author points out, there wasn't much she or the black community could do to fight this. If they protested at all, or even requested that their employers use more respectful titles, they were fired, blacklisted, and immediately replaced by another woman who would work for that wage or even less. I'm not sure if minimum wage existed at this time, but even if it was I doubt it would've been enforced for the benefit of these workers. --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
I thought this source about domestic service was very interesting and also a little sad. Reading about how the conditions were different for black women and white women in the workforce didn't surprise me, however. The white women were able to eventually obtain jobs other than being a domestic servant. African American women were not so lucky. The woman in the source said that "more than two-thirds of the negroes of the town where I live are menial servants of one kind or another..."(54) The conditions for these women were not always the best either. The wages they earned were usually lower than that of their white counterparts, they rarely got to see their children, they never even were able to go out for entertainment, and they relied on something known as the "service pan." White women thought they had it tough but it seems clear that they probably didn't even know what the word tough meant. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
From this article I actually felt the hatred and frustration that this anonymous woman felt. Just the thought of making merely enough to get by on, with the help of a service pan, daunting and very overwhelming. It’s reminds me of looking into the future weeks of school and seeing all of the work that lays ahead, knowing that some will not get done, that feeling of failure and there being no way out. For example, if and African American left a servitude job, finding another would be almost impossible, which is so very unfair. “If we did object, we should be driven out without the least ceremony, and in applying for work in other places, we should find it very hard to procure another situation,” (pg. 55). I was very upset with the white women as well, not letting this woman bring her children around the house to see her when she wasn’t allowed to see them but “only once in two weeks, every other Sunday afternoon,” (pg. 54). I feel that the white families do not want to think or believe that an African American servant has children and a family to support; I think that they like to see her as an animal. -Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I was bewildered to read this. The treatment the domestic servant had received by her employer was total disregard to recognize her as a human being. She was taking care of her employers own children and they could not show a little compassion towards her and realize that her family needed her too. As a mother, it would be unbearable to not see my children for that long period of time. It took a strong woman to endure that. This servant nursed their baby, nursed in what sense, like to suckle a baby? If so, was this a common expectation? -MHimes<br />
<br />
==Ellen Carol DuBois on "Harriet Stanton Blatch and the New York Woman Suffrage Movement, 1894-1909"==<br />
<br />
One of the most important questions I think women were most concerned with while trying to obtain suffrage is asked by DuBois on page. 276. She claims that women were worried weather or not they could balance their work in the home with that of gaining suffrage. It seems many women were concerned that they could not acheive a balance between the two and that there work towards suffrage would take away their focus from the home front. I beleive that this question was not incredibly worrisome and that a balance was possible. Even if they were in the work force, responsibilities on the home front could still be upheld. Even today, women work and I still beleive they are a central figure at home. Granted it was more difficult back then because women were attempting to accomplish more, but a balance was still possible. -afrisk<br />
<br />
So the fight for women's rights was divided not only over the issue of race, but also over socioeconomic status. Harriet Stanton Blatch tried to erase some of that hostility by reminding women of all classes that their different livelihoods depended on one another. The educated professional women wanted to consider themselves of a higher order, more prepared for civic responsibility. But by putting down the intelligence and ability of women working for wages, they were disparaging the image of all women who worked outside the home, a group that they themselves were a part of. Both groups of women had a stake in society's opinion of women working and so needed to work together to force society to overcome the idea that working women were somehow less than "respectable." -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
==Female Perspectives on the Great Migration==<br />
<br />
Reading these letters to the ''Chicago Defender'' makes a person realize how desperate the lives of many southern blacks were at the time. They all seem so anxious to get to Chicago, but I have to wonder how much they knew about the city and what life was like there. Here are women asking for any sort of job they can get so that they can support their families, but from our other readings we can infer that all that will be offered to them, if anything, will be difficult and low paying domestic service work. And the more black women who went North, the more they probably competed against one another and drove down their own potential wages. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I do wonder if the Chicago that was portrayed in the ''Defender'' was anything like what the Southern men and women found when they actually got there. Regardless, Mary Ann is right in pointing out the tones of desperation in these letters being such a telling indicator of the financial and cultural hardships that black men and women found in the South. I'd sort of be interested to know how effective this newspaper was at actually placing people in jobs and housing and how much migration it inspired. -Erin B.''<br />
<br />
==Marie Jenny Howe and an "Anti-Suffrage Monologue"==<br />
<br />
It was almost impossible to keep a straight face while reading this particular article and I had to read a passage to my roomate and he was also laughing hysterically. This is the first intense anti-suffrage argument that I have come accross with this much candor and I found it incredibly interesting. Marie Jenny Howe essentially gives her gender no credit and claims they hardly posses any intellectual capacity and are even incapable of doing something as simple as placing a ballot in a box. She wants to continue with the established order and keep women down in the domestic sphere because "some one must wash the dishes." She continues to take a very conservative approach to women's roles and even mentions the Bible as reason to keep women suppressed. Myself, and others I am sure do not agree with Howe's view of women as an imcompetent gender and beleive women should have never been suppressed like they were. -afrisk <br />
<br />
I have to admit to getting some strange looks from my roommate because I was laughing to myself while reading this one. Howe manages to outline the arguments made in favor of denying women the right to vote while simultaneously making each and every one of them sound ridiculous. It reads like a modern political satire, and it's interesting to discover that people used humor to make their points in Howe's time as well. Her decision to structure her work in couplets especially emphasizes the bizarre dichotomies that women became trapped in. They were angels and depraved, vicious individuals all at once. I suspect that class differences accounted for some of the disparity. Women of the upper class would have been to angelic and innocent to involved themselves in politics, while working class women would be too ignorant to deal with politics properly. When phrased this way, it's hard to see how anyone could have continued to employ these arguments against women voting, but I suppose if the anti-suffragists were really using women's hats as a reason to deny them the franchise, they weren't exactly trying to stick to even remotely reasonable attacks. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I, too, found myself laughing at this article, particularly the line “Besides, when I look around me at the men, I feel that God never meant us women to be too particular” (p 104). The pamphlet provided a clever way to point out the ridiculous and contradictory arguments put forth by anti-suffragists without aggressively attacking them. However, I do wonder if this pamphlet helped to change anyone’s mind about suffrage, or if it was mainly an amusing piece for those already committed to the cause. – Alice W<br />
<br />
I also found this article extremely entertaining. I like how Howe stated her arguments in a nonthreatening manner while also proving how ridiculous the arguments of the anti suffragists were. One point that particularly intrigued me was how many believed many women should non be exposed to the "muck and mire of politics" (101) in the public sphere. Many women were already working outside of the home in dangerous factories with terrible conditions and long hours. Could the scandalous nature of politics be much worse? --Anna K Holman<br />
<br />
I think this reading was very amusing. “If you don’t like one you can take the other“, for Howe meant there were so many reasons why a woman should not vote. Interesting that she thought it was more dignified for a woman to tease, nag, cry, or make a scene to get what she wanted rather than vote for it. - Mhimes<br />
<br />
Besides the fact that Howe begins her monologue by calling herself a "modern up-to-date woman" (106), this piece seems to come from a man's point of view. Throughout the monologue she continues to refer to women as 'they' rather than 'we'. The fact that it seems like a man's point of view indicates to me that it is attacking the masculinity of anti-suffragists. - J Rowley<br />
<br />
This is like the Colbert Report for the suffrage movement. "Once I saw a woman driving a horse, and the horse ran away with her. Isn't that just like a woman?" Hilarious. I'm with Alice, though, on this probably not being a persuasive piece or even widely read by those outside of the suffrage movement. - Erin B.<br />
<br />
Just like all the other posts stated, I found this article more comical than persuasive. Howe tries to argue that women do not need the right to vote using by a lot of (in my opinion) ridiculous points. I particularly liked how she stated "I don't care about facts. I ask for proof." I think that suffragists at this time were trying hard to push for rights for women, and that should be Howe's proof. She seems to really embody the idea that women are passive creatures which is almost, in a sense, degrading to women, especially when she states "I am a creature of impulse, instinct and intuition- and I glory in it." -abratchi<br />
<br />
== Suffrage Militant Alice Paul Goes to Jail ==<br />
<br />
I have encountered Alice Paul before in general American History classes, but I had never actually read any of what she wrote about her experience in jail so this was very interesting. While it is a testament to her organizations strength and determination, it also provides an insight into the horrible conditions of jails at this time. Not that jails are meant to be five star resorts, but the lack of ventilation, the inedible food, and the uncleanly atmosphere is appalling. What’s worse is that these women were treated like they were mentally deficient, when that was clearly not the case, and the authorities just needed a way to control them. Events like this got the suffragettes media attention though, which they needed in order to garner support for the movement, so even though what these women had to go through was awful, they knew it was necessary. - Alice W<br />
<br />
I found it appalling how Alice Paul was immediately suspected of mental illness after embarking on her hunger strike. The jail warden and psychologists were obviously looking for any reason to have her committed. The most convenient excuse was an 'obsession' with President Wilson, who Paul mentioned only in reference to her beliefs about gaining suffrage. As Alice W stated, the only way authorities could control these powerful women was through lies. This proves how frightened and intimidated many men were of suffragists. They would use any means to control women, even forging insanity. -Anna Holman <br />
<br />
==Open-Air Meetings: A New Suffrage Tactic, Florence Luscomb==<br />
<br />
The one sentence that stood out to me in this essay, "We even reveled in dog-fights; for, as our chief remarked while we were enjoying one such experience, 'After all, there is nothing to draw a crowd like a dog-fight,'...(100). My first thought was Michael Vick and how much the media paid attention to his role in dog-fights yet women suffragists were right at home among dogs and thought of them as admirers. How society has changed over the years...-Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
==4. The ''New York Times'' Reports on the Tragedy of the Triangle Factory Fire, 1911== <br />
<br />
The death of these 141 women and few men could have been preventable had the owners taken into account that a building cannot be fully "fire-proof" with hundreds of cotton shirts lying around. One fire escape is clearly not enough for 600 employees especially when many were not familiar with the layout of the building. I found it heartbreaking that had it just been a matter of minutes these employees would not of burned nor lept to their death and even more appalling that for hours the bodies were ignored. I understand that firefighters need to do their job and stop the fire but could they not of split the work and tried to move bodies so they could aid workers instead of watching them jump 100 feet to their death? The workers were helpless victims and the fire showed the ignorance of employers to the safety needs of their workers. -Megan W.</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments2010-02-22T22:08:17Z<p>Megan3088: </p>
<hr />
<div>NOTE: If the document/essay you want to write about isn't listed, add it using the following format: == Author, Title, Year ==<br />
<br />
==Working Women Write the Jewish Daily Forward==<br />
While this essay was not too long in length I found interesting the early day versions of advice columns in newspapers. Women, specifically Jewish women were able to write about their struggles and stories in search of advice instead of just relying on a diary to record their thoughts. It reminded me of reading American Girl magazine when I was younger and learning about different girls stories and how they expressed any concern with their lives. I found it great that the advice given back to girls, much like today, was for the betterment of women. The advice encouraged women to step forward and have a voice in the workplace and home. -Megan W. <br />
<br />
== The Burden of Rural Women's Lives, 1900-1901 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Reading the Burdens of Rural Women’s Lives the author states that she learned two things from her life on the farm. First, the work never kills. Second, that work must be calculated beforehand to figure out ways to be more efficient. I think these two things are emphasized throughout her description of her life. Not only did these rural women have to worry about keeping the home, but they also had to work on the farm. The lives of rural women were tough, and I would argue that they as tough if not tougher than urban working class women’s lives because they worked the same, if not longer hours as the working class urban women, but they also had to do household tasks without the appliances that were available in the cities and without electricity. Based off of the author’s description of her life, I think that these two lessons that she is passing on were probably essential in getting by as a rural farm woman. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
These women's lives totally interest me. As plainly as she tells her life story, as pertaining to work, you get a real sense of the pride that she felt in being so industrious and in being so good at what she did. She even mentions the books she read while she used to churn butter. She was constantly occupied and never (except when she taught before she was married, presumably) for a wage. But by most measures, she and her husband led very successful lives. They provided for their five kids and sent them to school, one even to Cornell. And at 58, it sounds like she even gets to "retire". The values of rural living seem very different than those of urban living. As more and more people moved into urban areas, i wonder how this affected the lifestyles of farm families. -Erin B.<br />
<br />
== Agnes Nestor, The Story of a Glove Maker ==<br />
<br />
After reading Burdens of Rural Women’s Lives I thought that the rural farm woman’s life was incredibly difficult and I stated that it was as tough if not tougher than urban working class women’s lives. However, after reading The Story of a Glove Maker I think I changed my mind. Urban working women had to work in factories with irregular pay and irregular hours all they while they were threatened by their male superiors who could fire them at a moments notice. Not only did they have to worry about keeping their jobs, but they had to worry about being sexually exploited. All the while, these women, too, had to worry about keeping their homes. They also seemed to have fewer opportunities for advancement than the rural farm women. The farm women worked incredibly hard, but the author of Burdens of Rural Women’s Lives had the ability to be educated and have her children be educated, one of her children was at Cornell University! She also seemed to have a lot to show for her work, while it seems that urban women were working hard just to get by. I don’t know if it is fair to compare and contrast, but these women all had difficult lives. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin on a lot of the points she made. This piece captured my attention because of the harsh conditions that these women were forced to work in. I found in particularly difficult to not feel bad for the girls because stress they had to endure by working in industrial places like a glove factory. Nestor references how the girls tried to find ways to produce more gloves in an hour and would sometimes even work during their breaks just to get more done. She also revealed how the women were afraid of the machine breaking because it meant they could not make more gloves, which meant they would not get their payment. Nestor shows the effect of industry on the working woman and it's effects. I wonder how women at this time dealt with professions like this without getting extremely frustrated. -abratchi<br />
<br />
== Fannie Barrier Williams Describes the "Problem of Employment for Negro Women," 1903 ==<br />
<br />
As so many black women worked in domestic service and were in contact with whites, Williams preferred to see the elevation of domestic service into respectable work and a recognized profession, believing that it would raise the race in general. But she suggests that there was a tendency to look down on domestic service within the black community, though I think it may not all have been a result of the demeaning nature of the work itself, but rather that the women who worked in domestic service were essentially working for the betterment of white people in a very direct way. Williams wrote, “If our girls work for wages in a nice home, rather than in a factory or over a counter, they are ruthlessly scorned by their friends and acquaintances” (263). For instance, factory work as compared to domestic service also required manual labor, but while it’s products were more to the benefit of whites, it was in a way less obviously so than domestic service. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I found Williams' views on domestic service to be quite interesting. For example, she thought that domestic service would eventually become a profession and there would training for it as if it were a normal job. Obviously domestic service never became a profession and looking back on that thought today, many of us would probably laugh at the idea. However, for that time period, I don't think her ideas were too out of place because of the incredibly limited employment opportunities for black women at this time. Domestic service was one of their few options, therefore I think Williams was almost forced into beleiving this because she didn't know anything else. Also, she thought that domestic servants should be looked upon in the same light as women in the working world. Again, it is tough to agree or disagree because domestic service is all black women really know and therefore they can almost only beleive that there work is equal to that of white women in society. -afrisk<br />
<br />
On page 264 it says that "the everyday man and woman who make society must change their foolish notions as to what is the polite thing for a young woman to do... my only plea is that we shall protect and respect our girls who honestly and intelligently enter this service, either from preference or necessity" and I find that quote to be loaded with so many things that she has to say. First, I applaud her for realizing that it is not always the role of the woman that needs to change, but societies perception of that role. Then, she also describes how sometimes good, smart people have terrible jobs (college kids waitress-ing???)because of their situation and realization that it would be the best opportunity they could have to get themselves the glory of never having to have to do that terrible work again. I enjoy this quote from the reading in particular because it applies to both races in the lower class and can even still be applied to a lot of things inherently wrong with society today (and she doesn't sound bitter, rude or condescending in this statement). It also helps her statement that by working these service jobs and highering the status of them, the black race as a whole could race their association with these jobs and in turn their status in life. -SSellers<br />
<br />
In reading this article I began to question Fannie’s race. I thought maybe Fannie may have been white because she isn’t criticizing every other race and complaining about the work that African American women have. I found it unusual for an African American woman to empower her kind and their jobs instead of criticizing the work and people. Fannie doesn’t seen too upset about African American women only having an opportunity in the domestic service industry, and instead of denouncing the trade all together, she finds that only a few changes need to be made. I really enjoyed the fact that Fannie is empowering her women rather than continuing to remind them of the short-falls they will face in their life and the hardships that come with their color. “Our girls must be made to feel that there is no stepping down when they become professional housekeepers. The relative dignity, respectability, and honor of this profession should be first taught in our schools,” (pg. 264). -Morgan M <br />
<br />
I had the same question as Morgan while reading this piece and decided to do a little research. I found out that she was a black woman, with a college education. I could not find anything about her working as a domestic servant. Now I wonder who the intended audience of this piece was. Was it aimed at black domestic servants or other black intellectuals? - J Rowley<br />
<br />
From this source, I feel that Williams feels that she wishes black people were in demand for other jobs besides domestic work but since they are not they should put their hard work ethics to use and take pride in the job they are given. She thinks that women who are educated shouldn't necessarily be upset working as a domestic servant but should be thankful to have a job like this. I thought this part was interesting because I know it would be hard for me to think about going to college for 4+ years and then still having to become a domestic servant. I would definitely be a little upset and not want to take pride in the work I was doing especially if the conditions were not so great. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Harriet Brunkhurst Laments the Home Problems of "Business Girls," 1910 ==<br />
<br />
"She could earn her own living, but she could not fight her own battles…" (p. 267). Many of the problems women faced going in to the workforce are quite obvious to us: low wages, harsh conditions, sexual harassment, etc… But Harriet Brunkhurst's article points out a less obvious problem that many girls faced in America - being treated as working women by their families. Even after working all day, they were still expected to keep up with their chores and responsibilities at home. Yet boys and men in the same situations were not expected to carry as much responsibility at home and were recognized for the hours they spent working outside the home. Yet again, there is this difficulty of separating women from the private sphere. And I think that even today some women are expected to carry more responsibilities within the home, even if they work outside of the home. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I agree here that a women in the working world can experience added stress when she is at home. A woman can go to work, but she is still expected to manage the 'domestic sphere' when she returns home and this can place a lot of stress on women. For example, in this excerpt, the girl is expected to work all day, then when she comes home, she gets grief for not helping out with the household chores. It can be very difficult to balance life in the working world with the home front, and women are often expected to do a lot in both fields. -afrisk<br />
<br />
This article by far is my favorite this year because I found so many examples in it that are still present in us women today. The notion that we as women, who are independent, still come home to more work while the men of the house are allowed their “rest and relaxation” because they are said to do more. That is so untrue. Why is that women why work a job, attend school, or have any other daunting task that takes up most her of her time, is expected to return home after such a day to the “domestic sphere” and must continue to maintain it? I find that very unfair and it hits home personally for women in today’s age as well. I feel that today it is just as terrible a situation as it was 100 years ago, if not worse. Because of the many facets of life today, women tend to take on many different tasks in the “public sphere” of life and yet must also maintain the “domestic sphere”. As I’m sure every women has gone through this more than once in her life, all women can attest to the stress and anguish one can feel because of such. There are exceptions to the rule however, such as Maud’s mother, who speaks in her daughter’s defense to a neighbor as “when I would have been on the sofa or comfortably in bed, she trudges bravely away,” (pg. 267). I think that it takes a strong woman like Maud’s mother to stick up for her daughter to another women’s criticism. -Morgan M.<br />
<br />
== The Vice Commission of Chicago reports on the Working Conditions in Department Stores that Lead Female Employees into Prostitution, 1911 ==<br />
<br />
This one’s a doozey. What was the cause of prostitution? Apparently, there were a few causes. Poor sanitary conditions in the working world affected the nervous system causing women to be more susceptible to weakened morality, fast paced modern life lead to eroticism, and poor pay meant a working girl couldn’t afford life’s necessities. I’d say there’s a grain of truth to these claims, poor pay in particular being a problem. Also, young women who worked in department stores were regularly exposed to unsavory individuals who wanted to sully their purity. Again there’s a bit truth, but the most realistic argument here is the case of male employers sexually exploiting girls. However, most of the other examples described seem less like prostitution and more like a girl trying to have a good time. Perhaps the vice commission couldn’t handle the idea of a sexual liberated women. Finally, I have to ask, what was the point of this report? Was it a cry for better working conditions and for better wages? Or was it an argument to keep women out of the working world in order to protect their virtue? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
The first part of this one was just hilarious. The beginning two paragraphs were especially ridiculous--the idea that "highly speeded modern life must stimulate these organisms?" (271) is so stupid that I just have to laugh at it. It claims that being busy and having a fast-paced life arouses women sexually, and then makes the equally odd jump that sexual arousal leads directly to prostitution. Some of the other points of the article are closer to the truth; the various ways in which a girl could get involved in prostitution (as her own boss or under a pimp) probably actually happened. That this kind of income was usually a supplement to the wages that were too low to live on is not a surprise (minimum wage is still too low to cover the cost of living today, as well). The specific stories of the women that were interviewed for the article gives scads more credibility than the ludicrous blanket statements of the beginning (who was this written by, anyways?). --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
I agree with the absurdity of this article that Taylor and Sarah both did a good job at conveying and in order to not be redundant I'll bring up an issue I had with the section on Married Men in particular as "Married men are among the worst offenders against salesgirls (272)". SERIOUSLY?? I mean, I know that there are instances were one who is married, male or female, oversteps flirtation boundaries (although not always intentional)without desiring to have anything come by the banter but when the situation states that if these women do not reciprocate the married man's wishes they would complain and say their business was neglected? I thought men in this time were supposed to be arrogant, secure, strong and not easily offended by someone not returning their favor. If this accusation of the married men is true for the majority of married men at this time, maybe it was the male sex that was weak, insecure and irrational? -Ssellers<br />
<br />
== The Harsh Conditions of Domestic Service ==<br />
<br />
"…when I hear so much said about our unreliability, our untrustworthiness, and even our vices" (p. 54). I think it is pretty amazing that strongly held prejudices in the South guaranteed extremely low wages for domestic servants for so long. These jobs were probably difficult to obtain, since jobs were very limited for African Americans, so they would work hard to keep them. So for an employer to claim their domestic servant is unreliable or untrustworthy? Or to complain about stereotypes of the race? I don't blame the woman who wrote this article for being offended. I am sure she worked extremely hard, for barely any money and at the expense of never seeing her own children, and she could not believe the insensitivity of whites when it came to her job. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I, too, am offended, but not terribly surprised, at the prejudice that obviously existed in the South when the article was written. I am surprised at how much lower the black family's income was than the women department store workers we read about. They could stand to make $24 a month at their much easier jobs, which was the total amount for the entire black Southern family (7-15 people! on a salary too meager for one!). The math there is just astounding. But, as the author points out, there wasn't much she or the black community could do to fight this. If they protested at all, or even requested that their employers use more respectful titles, they were fired, blacklisted, and immediately replaced by another woman who would work for that wage or even less. I'm not sure if minimum wage existed at this time, but even if it was I doubt it would've been enforced for the benefit of these workers. --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
I thought this source about domestic service was very interesting and also a little sad. Reading about how the conditions were different for black women and white women in the workforce didn't surprise me, however. The white women were able to eventually obtain jobs other than being a domestic servant. African American women were not so lucky. The woman in the source said that "more than two-thirds of the negroes of the town where I live are menial servants of one kind or another..."(54) The conditions for these women were not always the best either. The wages they earned were usually lower than that of their white counterparts, they rarely got to see their children, they never even were able to go out for entertainment, and they relied on something known as the "service pan." White women thought they had it tough but it seems clear that they probably didn't even know what the word tough meant. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
From this article I actually felt the hatred and frustration that this anonymous woman felt. Just the thought of making merely enough to get by on, with the help of a service pan, daunting and very overwhelming. It’s reminds me of looking into the future weeks of school and seeing all of the work that lays ahead, knowing that some will not get done, that feeling of failure and there being no way out. For example, if and African American left a servitude job, finding another would be almost impossible, which is so very unfair. “If we did object, we should be driven out without the least ceremony, and in applying for work in other places, we should find it very hard to procure another situation,” (pg. 55). I was very upset with the white women as well, not letting this woman bring her children around the house to see her when she wasn’t allowed to see them but “only once in two weeks, every other Sunday afternoon,” (pg. 54). I feel that the white families do not want to think or believe that an African American servant has children and a family to support; I think that they like to see her as an animal. -Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I was bewildered to read this. The treatment the domestic servant had received by her employer was total disregard to recognize her as a human being. She was taking care of her employers own children and they could not show a little compassion towards her and realize that her family needed her too. As a mother, it would be unbearable to not see my children for that long period of time. It took a strong woman to endure that. This servant nursed their baby, nursed in what sense, like to suckle a baby? If so, was this a common expectation? -MHimes<br />
<br />
==Ellen Carol DuBois on "Harriet Stanton Blatch and the New York Woman Suffrage Movement, 1894-1909"==<br />
<br />
So the fight for women's rights was divided not only over the issue of race, but also over socioeconomic status. Harriet Stanton Blatch tried to erase some of that hostility by reminding women of all classes that their different livelihoods depended on one another. The educated professional women wanted to consider themselves of a higher order, more prepared for civic responsibility. But by putting down the intelligence and ability of women working for wages, they were disparaging the image of all women who worked outside the home, a group that they themselves were a part of. Both groups of women had a stake in society's opinion of women working and so needed to work together to force society to overcome the idea that working women were somehow less than "respectable." -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
==Female Perspectives on the Great Migration==<br />
<br />
Reading these letters to the ''Chicago Defender'' makes a person realize how desperate the lives of many southern blacks were at the time. They all seem so anxious to get to Chicago, but I have to wonder how much they knew about the city and what life was like there. Here are women asking for any sort of job they can get so that they can support their families, but from our other readings we can infer that all that will be offered to them, if anything, will be difficult and low paying domestic service work. And the more black women who went North, the more they probably competed against one another and drove down their own potential wages. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I do wonder if the Chicago that was portrayed in the ''Defender'' was anything like what the Southern men and women found when they actually got there. Regardless, Mary Ann is right in pointing out the tones of desperation in these letters being such a telling indicator of the financial and cultural hardships that black men and women found in the South. I'd sort of be interested to know how effective this newspaper was at actually placing people in jobs and housing and how much migration it inspired. -Erin B.''<br />
<br />
==Marie Jenny Howe and an "Anti-Suffrage Monologue"==<br />
<br />
It was almost impossible to keep a straight face while reading this particular article and I had to read a passage to my roomate and he was also laughing hysterically. This is the first intense anti-suffrage argument that I have come accross with this much candor and I found it incredibly interesting. Marie Jenny Howe essentially gives her gender no credit and claims they hardly posses any intellectual capacity and are even incapable of doing something as simple as placing a ballot in a box. She wants to continue with the established order and keep women down in the domestic sphere because "some one must wash the dishes." She continues to take a very conservative approach to women's roles and even mentions the Bible as reason to keep women suppressed. Myself, and others I am sure do not agree with Howe's view of women as an imcompetent gender and beleive women should have never been suppressed like they were. -afrisk <br />
<br />
I have to admit to getting some strange looks from my roommate because I was laughing to myself while reading this one. Howe manages to outline the arguments made in favor of denying women the right to vote while simultaneously making each and every one of them sound ridiculous. It reads like a modern political satire, and it's interesting to discover that people used humor to make their points in Howe's time as well. Her decision to structure her work in couplets especially emphasizes the bizarre dichotomies that women became trapped in. They were angels and depraved, vicious individuals all at once. I suspect that class differences accounted for some of the disparity. Women of the upper class would have been to angelic and innocent to involved themselves in politics, while working class women would be too ignorant to deal with politics properly. When phrased this way, it's hard to see how anyone could have continued to employ these arguments against women voting, but I suppose if the anti-suffragists were really using women's hats as a reason to deny them the franchise, they weren't exactly trying to stick to even remotely reasonable attacks. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I, too, found myself laughing at this article, particularly the line “Besides, when I look around me at the men, I feel that God never meant us women to be too particular” (p 104). The pamphlet provided a clever way to point out the ridiculous and contradictory arguments put forth by anti-suffragists without aggressively attacking them. However, I do wonder if this pamphlet helped to change anyone’s mind about suffrage, or if it was mainly an amusing piece for those already committed to the cause. – Alice W<br />
<br />
I also found this article extremely entertaining. I like how Howe stated her arguments in a nonthreatening manner while also proving how ridiculous the arguments of the anti suffragists were. One point that particularly intrigued me was how many believed many women should non be exposed to the "muck and mire of politics" (101) in the public sphere. Many women were already working outside of the home in dangerous factories with terrible conditions and long hours. Could the scandalous nature of politics be much worse? --Anna K Holman<br />
<br />
I think this reading was very amusing. “If you don’t like one you can take the other“, for Howe meant there were so many reasons why a woman should not vote. Interesting that she thought it was more dignified for a woman to tease, nag, cry, or make a scene to get what she wanted rather than vote for it. - Mhimes<br />
<br />
Besides the fact that Howe begins her monologue by calling herself a "modern up-to-date woman" (106), this piece seems to come from a man's point of view. Throughout the monologue she continues to refer to women as 'they' rather than 'we'. The fact that it seems like a man's point of view indicates to me that it is attacking the masculinity of anti-suffragists. - J Rowley<br />
<br />
This is like the Colbert Report for the suffrage movement. "Once I saw a woman driving a horse, and the horse ran away with her. Isn't that just like a woman?" Hilarious. I'm with Alice, though, on this probably not being a persuasive piece or even widely read by those outside of the suffrage movement. - Erin B.<br />
<br />
Just like all the other posts stated, I found this article more comical than persuasive. Howe tries to argue that women do not need the right to vote using by a lot of (in my opinion) ridiculous points. I particularly liked how she stated "I don't care about facts. I ask for proof." I think that suffragists at this time were trying hard to push for rights for women, and that should be Howe's proof. She seems to really embody the idea that women are passive creatures which is almost, in a sense, degrading to women, especially when she states "I am a creature of impulse, instinct and intuition- and I glory in it." -abratchi<br />
<br />
== Suffrage Militant Alice Paul Goes to Jail ==<br />
<br />
I have encountered Alice Paul before in general American History classes, but I had never actually read any of what she wrote about her experience in jail so this was very interesting. While it is a testament to her organizations strength and determination, it also provides an insight into the horrible conditions of jails at this time. Not that jails are meant to be five star resorts, but the lack of ventilation, the inedible food, and the uncleanly atmosphere is appalling. What’s worse is that these women were treated like they were mentally deficient, when that was clearly not the case, and the authorities just needed a way to control them. Events like this got the suffragettes media attention though, which they needed in order to garner support for the movement, so even though what these women had to go through was awful, they knew it was necessary. - Alice W<br />
<br />
I found it appalling how Alice Paul was immediately suspected of mental illness after embarking on her hunger strike. The jail warden and psychologists were obviously looking for any reason to have her committed. The most convenient excuse was an 'obsession' with President Wilson, who Paul mentioned only in reference to her beliefs about gaining suffrage. As Alice W stated, the only way authorities could control these powerful women was through lies. This proves how frightened and intimidated many men were of suffragists. They would use any means to control women, even forging insanity. -Anna Holman <br />
<br />
==Open-Air Meetings: A New Suffrage Tactic, Florence Luscomb==<br />
<br />
The one sentence that stood out to me in this essay, "We even reveled in dog-fights; for, as our chief remarked while we were enjoying one such experience, 'After all, there is nothing to draw a crowd like a dog-fight,'...(100). My first thought was Michael Vick and how much the media paid attention to his role in dog-fights yet women suffragists were right at home among dogs and thought of them as admirers. How society has changed over the years...-Megan W.</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments2010-02-22T22:02:37Z<p>Megan3088: </p>
<hr />
<div>NOTE: If the document/essay you want to write about isn't listed, add it using the following format: == Author, Title, Year ==<br />
<br />
==Working Women Write the Jewish Daily Forward==<br />
While this essay was not too long in length I found interesting the early day versions of advice columns in newspapers. Women, specifically Jewish women were able to write about their struggles and stories in search of advice instead of just relying on a diary to record their thoughts. It reminded me of reading American Girl magazine when I was younger and learning about different girls stories and how they expressed any concern with their lives. I found it great that the advice given back to girls, much like today, was for the betterment of women. The advice encouraged women to step forward and have a voice in the workplace and home. -Megan W. <br />
<br />
== The Burden of Rural Women's Lives, 1900-1901 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Reading the Burdens of Rural Women’s Lives the author states that she learned two things from her life on the farm. First, the work never kills. Second, that work must be calculated beforehand to figure out ways to be more efficient. I think these two things are emphasized throughout her description of her life. Not only did these rural women have to worry about keeping the home, but they also had to work on the farm. The lives of rural women were tough, and I would argue that they as tough if not tougher than urban working class women’s lives because they worked the same, if not longer hours as the working class urban women, but they also had to do household tasks without the appliances that were available in the cities and without electricity. Based off of the author’s description of her life, I think that these two lessons that she is passing on were probably essential in getting by as a rural farm woman. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
These women's lives totally interest me. As plainly as she tells her life story, as pertaining to work, you get a real sense of the pride that she felt in being so industrious and in being so good at what she did. She even mentions the books she read while she used to churn butter. She was constantly occupied and never (except when she taught before she was married, presumably) for a wage. But by most measures, she and her husband led very successful lives. They provided for their five kids and sent them to school, one even to Cornell. And at 58, it sounds like she even gets to "retire". The values of rural living seem very different than those of urban living. As more and more people moved into urban areas, i wonder how this affected the lifestyles of farm families. -Erin B.<br />
<br />
== Agnes Nestor, The Story of a Glove Maker ==<br />
<br />
After reading Burdens of Rural Women’s Lives I thought that the rural farm woman’s life was incredibly difficult and I stated that it was as tough if not tougher than urban working class women’s lives. However, after reading The Story of a Glove Maker I think I changed my mind. Urban working women had to work in factories with irregular pay and irregular hours all they while they were threatened by their male superiors who could fire them at a moments notice. Not only did they have to worry about keeping their jobs, but they had to worry about being sexually exploited. All the while, these women, too, had to worry about keeping their homes. They also seemed to have fewer opportunities for advancement than the rural farm women. The farm women worked incredibly hard, but the author of Burdens of Rural Women’s Lives had the ability to be educated and have her children be educated, one of her children was at Cornell University! She also seemed to have a lot to show for her work, while it seems that urban women were working hard just to get by. I don’t know if it is fair to compare and contrast, but these women all had difficult lives. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin on a lot of the points she made. This piece captured my attention because of the harsh conditions that these women were forced to work in. I found in particularly difficult to not feel bad for the girls because stress they had to endure by working in industrial places like a glove factory. Nestor references how the girls tried to find ways to produce more gloves in an hour and would sometimes even work during their breaks just to get more done. She also revealed how the women were afraid of the machine breaking because it meant they could not make more gloves, which meant they would not get their payment. Nestor shows the effect of industry on the working woman and it's effects. I wonder how women at this time dealt with professions like this without getting extremely frustrated. -abratchi<br />
<br />
== Fannie Barrier Williams Describes the "Problem of Employment for Negro Women," 1903 ==<br />
<br />
As so many black women worked in domestic service and were in contact with whites, Williams preferred to see the elevation of domestic service into respectable work and a recognized profession, believing that it would raise the race in general. But she suggests that there was a tendency to look down on domestic service within the black community, though I think it may not all have been a result of the demeaning nature of the work itself, but rather that the women who worked in domestic service were essentially working for the betterment of white people in a very direct way. Williams wrote, “If our girls work for wages in a nice home, rather than in a factory or over a counter, they are ruthlessly scorned by their friends and acquaintances” (263). For instance, factory work as compared to domestic service also required manual labor, but while it’s products were more to the benefit of whites, it was in a way less obviously so than domestic service. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I found Williams' views on domestic service to be quite interesting. For example, she thought that domestic service would eventually become a profession and there would training for it as if it were a normal job. Obviously domestic service never became a profession and looking back on that thought today, many of us would probably laugh at the idea. However, for that time period, I don't think her ideas were too out of place because of the incredibly limited employment opportunities for black women at this time. Domestic service was one of their few options, therefore I think Williams was almost forced into beleiving this because she didn't know anything else. Also, she thought that domestic servants should be looked upon in the same light as women in the working world. Again, it is tough to agree or disagree because domestic service is all black women really know and therefore they can almost only beleive that there work is equal to that of white women in society. -afrisk<br />
<br />
On page 264 it says that "the everyday man and woman who make society must change their foolish notions as to what is the polite thing for a young woman to do... my only plea is that we shall protect and respect our girls who honestly and intelligently enter this service, either from preference or necessity" and I find that quote to be loaded with so many things that she has to say. First, I applaud her for realizing that it is not always the role of the woman that needs to change, but societies perception of that role. Then, she also describes how sometimes good, smart people have terrible jobs (college kids waitress-ing???)because of their situation and realization that it would be the best opportunity they could have to get themselves the glory of never having to have to do that terrible work again. I enjoy this quote from the reading in particular because it applies to both races in the lower class and can even still be applied to a lot of things inherently wrong with society today (and she doesn't sound bitter, rude or condescending in this statement). It also helps her statement that by working these service jobs and highering the status of them, the black race as a whole could race their association with these jobs and in turn their status in life. -SSellers<br />
<br />
In reading this article I began to question Fannie’s race. I thought maybe Fannie may have been white because she isn’t criticizing every other race and complaining about the work that African American women have. I found it unusual for an African American woman to empower her kind and their jobs instead of criticizing the work and people. Fannie doesn’t seen too upset about African American women only having an opportunity in the domestic service industry, and instead of denouncing the trade all together, she finds that only a few changes need to be made. I really enjoyed the fact that Fannie is empowering her women rather than continuing to remind them of the short-falls they will face in their life and the hardships that come with their color. “Our girls must be made to feel that there is no stepping down when they become professional housekeepers. The relative dignity, respectability, and honor of this profession should be first taught in our schools,” (pg. 264). -Morgan M <br />
<br />
I had the same question as Morgan while reading this piece and decided to do a little research. I found out that she was a black woman, with a college education. I could not find anything about her working as a domestic servant. Now I wonder who the intended audience of this piece was. Was it aimed at black domestic servants or other black intellectuals? - J Rowley<br />
<br />
From this source, I feel that Williams feels that she wishes black people were in demand for other jobs besides domestic work but since they are not they should put their hard work ethics to use and take pride in the job they are given. She thinks that women who are educated shouldn't necessarily be upset working as a domestic servant but should be thankful to have a job like this. I thought this part was interesting because I know it would be hard for me to think about going to college for 4+ years and then still having to become a domestic servant. I would definitely be a little upset and not want to take pride in the work I was doing especially if the conditions were not so great. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Harriet Brunkhurst Laments the Home Problems of "Business Girls," 1910 ==<br />
<br />
"She could earn her own living, but she could not fight her own battles…" (p. 267). Many of the problems women faced going in to the workforce are quite obvious to us: low wages, harsh conditions, sexual harassment, etc… But Harriet Brunkhurst's article points out a less obvious problem that many girls faced in America - being treated as working women by their families. Even after working all day, they were still expected to keep up with their chores and responsibilities at home. Yet boys and men in the same situations were not expected to carry as much responsibility at home and were recognized for the hours they spent working outside the home. Yet again, there is this difficulty of separating women from the private sphere. And I think that even today some women are expected to carry more responsibilities within the home, even if they work outside of the home. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I agree here that a women in the working world can experience added stress when she is at home. A woman can go to work, but she is still expected to manage the 'domestic sphere' when she returns home and this can place a lot of stress on women. For example, in this excerpt, the girl is expected to work all day, then when she comes home, she gets grief for not helping out with the household chores. It can be very difficult to balance life in the working world with the home front, and women are often expected to do a lot in both fields. -afrisk<br />
<br />
This article by far is my favorite this year because I found so many examples in it that are still present in us women today. The notion that we as women, who are independent, still come home to more work while the men of the house are allowed their “rest and relaxation” because they are said to do more. That is so untrue. Why is that women why work a job, attend school, or have any other daunting task that takes up most her of her time, is expected to return home after such a day to the “domestic sphere” and must continue to maintain it? I find that very unfair and it hits home personally for women in today’s age as well. I feel that today it is just as terrible a situation as it was 100 years ago, if not worse. Because of the many facets of life today, women tend to take on many different tasks in the “public sphere” of life and yet must also maintain the “domestic sphere”. As I’m sure every women has gone through this more than once in her life, all women can attest to the stress and anguish one can feel because of such. There are exceptions to the rule however, such as Maud’s mother, who speaks in her daughter’s defense to a neighbor as “when I would have been on the sofa or comfortably in bed, she trudges bravely away,” (pg. 267). I think that it takes a strong woman like Maud’s mother to stick up for her daughter to another women’s criticism. -Morgan M.<br />
<br />
== The Vice Commission of Chicago reports on the Working Conditions in Department Stores that Lead Female Employees into Prostitution, 1911 ==<br />
<br />
This one’s a doozey. What was the cause of prostitution? Apparently, there were a few causes. Poor sanitary conditions in the working world affected the nervous system causing women to be more susceptible to weakened morality, fast paced modern life lead to eroticism, and poor pay meant a working girl couldn’t afford life’s necessities. I’d say there’s a grain of truth to these claims, poor pay in particular being a problem. Also, young women who worked in department stores were regularly exposed to unsavory individuals who wanted to sully their purity. Again there’s a bit truth, but the most realistic argument here is the case of male employers sexually exploiting girls. However, most of the other examples described seem less like prostitution and more like a girl trying to have a good time. Perhaps the vice commission couldn’t handle the idea of a sexual liberated women. Finally, I have to ask, what was the point of this report? Was it a cry for better working conditions and for better wages? Or was it an argument to keep women out of the working world in order to protect their virtue? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
The first part of this one was just hilarious. The beginning two paragraphs were especially ridiculous--the idea that "highly speeded modern life must stimulate these organisms?" (271) is so stupid that I just have to laugh at it. It claims that being busy and having a fast-paced life arouses women sexually, and then makes the equally odd jump that sexual arousal leads directly to prostitution. Some of the other points of the article are closer to the truth; the various ways in which a girl could get involved in prostitution (as her own boss or under a pimp) probably actually happened. That this kind of income was usually a supplement to the wages that were too low to live on is not a surprise (minimum wage is still too low to cover the cost of living today, as well). The specific stories of the women that were interviewed for the article gives scads more credibility than the ludicrous blanket statements of the beginning (who was this written by, anyways?). --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
I agree with the absurdity of this article that Taylor and Sarah both did a good job at conveying and in order to not be redundant I'll bring up an issue I had with the section on Married Men in particular as "Married men are among the worst offenders against salesgirls (272)". SERIOUSLY?? I mean, I know that there are instances were one who is married, male or female, oversteps flirtation boundaries (although not always intentional)without desiring to have anything come by the banter but when the situation states that if these women do not reciprocate the married man's wishes they would complain and say their business was neglected? I thought men in this time were supposed to be arrogant, secure, strong and not easily offended by someone not returning their favor. If this accusation of the married men is true for the majority of married men at this time, maybe it was the male sex that was weak, insecure and irrational? -Ssellers<br />
<br />
== The Harsh Conditions of Domestic Service ==<br />
<br />
"…when I hear so much said about our unreliability, our untrustworthiness, and even our vices" (p. 54). I think it is pretty amazing that strongly held prejudices in the South guaranteed extremely low wages for domestic servants for so long. These jobs were probably difficult to obtain, since jobs were very limited for African Americans, so they would work hard to keep them. So for an employer to claim their domestic servant is unreliable or untrustworthy? Or to complain about stereotypes of the race? I don't blame the woman who wrote this article for being offended. I am sure she worked extremely hard, for barely any money and at the expense of never seeing her own children, and she could not believe the insensitivity of whites when it came to her job. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I, too, am offended, but not terribly surprised, at the prejudice that obviously existed in the South when the article was written. I am surprised at how much lower the black family's income was than the women department store workers we read about. They could stand to make $24 a month at their much easier jobs, which was the total amount for the entire black Southern family (7-15 people! on a salary too meager for one!). The math there is just astounding. But, as the author points out, there wasn't much she or the black community could do to fight this. If they protested at all, or even requested that their employers use more respectful titles, they were fired, blacklisted, and immediately replaced by another woman who would work for that wage or even less. I'm not sure if minimum wage existed at this time, but even if it was I doubt it would've been enforced for the benefit of these workers. --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
I thought this source about domestic service was very interesting and also a little sad. Reading about how the conditions were different for black women and white women in the workforce didn't surprise me, however. The white women were able to eventually obtain jobs other than being a domestic servant. African American women were not so lucky. The woman in the source said that "more than two-thirds of the negroes of the town where I live are menial servants of one kind or another..."(54) The conditions for these women were not always the best either. The wages they earned were usually lower than that of their white counterparts, they rarely got to see their children, they never even were able to go out for entertainment, and they relied on something known as the "service pan." White women thought they had it tough but it seems clear that they probably didn't even know what the word tough meant. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
From this article I actually felt the hatred and frustration that this anonymous woman felt. Just the thought of making merely enough to get by on, with the help of a service pan, daunting and very overwhelming. It’s reminds me of looking into the future weeks of school and seeing all of the work that lays ahead, knowing that some will not get done, that feeling of failure and there being no way out. For example, if and African American left a servitude job, finding another would be almost impossible, which is so very unfair. “If we did object, we should be driven out without the least ceremony, and in applying for work in other places, we should find it very hard to procure another situation,” (pg. 55). I was very upset with the white women as well, not letting this woman bring her children around the house to see her when she wasn’t allowed to see them but “only once in two weeks, every other Sunday afternoon,” (pg. 54). I feel that the white families do not want to think or believe that an African American servant has children and a family to support; I think that they like to see her as an animal. -Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I was bewildered to read this. The treatment the domestic servant had received by her employer was total disregard to recognize her as a human being. She was taking care of her employers own children and they could not show a little compassion towards her and realize that her family needed her too. As a mother, it would be unbearable to not see my children for that long period of time. It took a strong woman to endure that. This servant nursed their baby, nursed in what sense, like to suckle a baby? If so, was this a common expectation? -MHimes<br />
<br />
==Ellen Carol DuBois on "Harriet Stanton Blatch and the New York Woman Suffrage Movement, 1894-1909"==<br />
<br />
So the fight for women's rights was divided not only over the issue of race, but also over socioeconomic status. Harriet Stanton Blatch tried to erase some of that hostility by reminding women of all classes that their different livelihoods depended on one another. The educated professional women wanted to consider themselves of a higher order, more prepared for civic responsibility. But by putting down the intelligence and ability of women working for wages, they were disparaging the image of all women who worked outside the home, a group that they themselves were a part of. Both groups of women had a stake in society's opinion of women working and so needed to work together to force society to overcome the idea that working women were somehow less than "respectable." -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
==Female Perspectives on the Great Migration==<br />
<br />
Reading these letters to the ''Chicago Defender'' makes a person realize how desperate the lives of many southern blacks were at the time. They all seem so anxious to get to Chicago, but I have to wonder how much they knew about the city and what life was like there. Here are women asking for any sort of job they can get so that they can support their families, but from our other readings we can infer that all that will be offered to them, if anything, will be difficult and low paying domestic service work. And the more black women who went North, the more they probably competed against one another and drove down their own potential wages. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I do wonder if the Chicago that was portrayed in the ''Defender'' was anything like what the Southern men and women found when they actually got there. Regardless, Mary Ann is right in pointing out the tones of desperation in these letters being such a telling indicator of the financial and cultural hardships that black men and women found in the South. I'd sort of be interested to know how effective this newspaper was at actually placing people in jobs and housing and how much migration it inspired. -Erin B.''<br />
<br />
==Marie Jenny Howe and an "Anti-Suffrage Monologue"==<br />
<br />
It was almost impossible to keep a straight face while reading this particular article and I had to read a passage to my roomate and he was also laughing hysterically. This is the first intense anti-suffrage argument that I have come accross with this much candor and I found it incredibly interesting. Marie Jenny Howe essentially gives her gender no credit and claims they hardly posses any intellectual capacity and are even incapable of doing something as simple as placing a ballot in a box. She wants to continue with the established order and keep women down in the domestic sphere because "some one must wash the dishes." She continues to take a very conservative approach to women's roles and even mentions the Bible as reason to keep women suppressed. Myself, and others I am sure do not agree with Howe's view of women as an imcompetent gender and beleive women should have never been suppressed like they were. -afrisk <br />
<br />
I have to admit to getting some strange looks from my roommate because I was laughing to myself while reading this one. Howe manages to outline the arguments made in favor of denying women the right to vote while simultaneously making each and every one of them sound ridiculous. It reads like a modern political satire, and it's interesting to discover that people used humor to make their points in Howe's time as well. Her decision to structure her work in couplets especially emphasizes the bizarre dichotomies that women became trapped in. They were angels and depraved, vicious individuals all at once. I suspect that class differences accounted for some of the disparity. Women of the upper class would have been to angelic and innocent to involved themselves in politics, while working class women would be too ignorant to deal with politics properly. When phrased this way, it's hard to see how anyone could have continued to employ these arguments against women voting, but I suppose if the anti-suffragists were really using women's hats as a reason to deny them the franchise, they weren't exactly trying to stick to even remotely reasonable attacks. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I, too, found myself laughing at this article, particularly the line “Besides, when I look around me at the men, I feel that God never meant us women to be too particular” (p 104). The pamphlet provided a clever way to point out the ridiculous and contradictory arguments put forth by anti-suffragists without aggressively attacking them. However, I do wonder if this pamphlet helped to change anyone’s mind about suffrage, or if it was mainly an amusing piece for those already committed to the cause. – Alice W<br />
<br />
I also found this article extremely entertaining. I like how Howe stated her arguments in a nonthreatening manner while also proving how ridiculous the arguments of the anti suffragists were. One point that particularly intrigued me was how many believed many women should non be exposed to the "muck and mire of politics" (101) in the public sphere. Many women were already working outside of the home in dangerous factories with terrible conditions and long hours. Could the scandalous nature of politics be much worse? --Anna K Holman<br />
<br />
I think this reading was very amusing. “If you don’t like one you can take the other“, for Howe meant there were so many reasons why a woman should not vote. Interesting that she thought it was more dignified for a woman to tease, nag, cry, or make a scene to get what she wanted rather than vote for it. - Mhimes<br />
<br />
Besides the fact that Howe begins her monologue by calling herself a "modern up-to-date woman" (106), this piece seems to come from a man's point of view. Throughout the monologue she continues to refer to women as 'they' rather than 'we'. The fact that it seems like a man's point of view indicates to me that it is attacking the masculinity of anti-suffragists. - J Rowley<br />
<br />
This is like the Colbert Report for the suffrage movement. "Once I saw a woman driving a horse, and the horse ran away with her. Isn't that just like a woman?" Hilarious. I'm with Alice, though, on this probably not being a persuasive piece or even widely read by those outside of the suffrage movement. - Erin B.<br />
<br />
Just like all the other posts stated, I found this article more comical than persuasive. Howe tries to argue that women do not need the right to vote using by a lot of (in my opinion) ridiculous points. I particularly liked how she stated "I don't care about facts. I ask for proof." I think that suffragists at this time were trying hard to push for rights for women, and that should be Howe's proof. She seems to really embody the idea that women are passive creatures which is almost, in a sense, degrading to women, especially when she states "I am a creature of impulse, instinct and intuition- and I glory in it." -abratchi<br />
<br />
== Suffrage Militant Alice Paul Goes to Jail ==<br />
<br />
I have encountered Alice Paul before in general American History classes, but I had never actually read any of what she wrote about her experience in jail so this was very interesting. While it is a testament to her organizations strength and determination, it also provides an insight into the horrible conditions of jails at this time. Not that jails are meant to be five star resorts, but the lack of ventilation, the inedible food, and the uncleanly atmosphere is appalling. What’s worse is that these women were treated like they were mentally deficient, when that was clearly not the case, and the authorities just needed a way to control them. Events like this got the suffragettes media attention though, which they needed in order to garner support for the movement, so even though what these women had to go through was awful, they knew it was necessary. - Alice W<br />
<br />
I found it appalling how Alice Paul was immediately suspected of mental illness after embarking on her hunger strike. The jail warden and psychologists were obviously looking for any reason to have her committed. The most convenient excuse was an 'obsession' with President Wilson, who Paul mentioned only in reference to her beliefs about gaining suffrage. As Alice W stated, the only way authorities could control these powerful women was through lies. This proves how frightened and intimidated many men were of suffragists. They would use any means to control women, even forging insanity. -Anna Holman</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_4_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 4 Questions/Comments2010-02-04T02:10:03Z<p>Megan3088: /* Linda Gordon, “Black and White Visions of Welfare: Women’s Welfare Activism, 1890-1945” */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Linda Gordon, “Black and White Visions of Welfare: Women’s Welfare Activism, 1890-1945” ==<br />
<br />
On page 23 Linda Gordon states that "Black welfare reformers were more concerned to combine the development of protective institutions for women with an antirape discourse. Among whites, rape was not an important topic of discussion during this period, and in protective work for women and girls, male sexuality was treated as natural and irrepressible" and I understand that the times were completely different but how did society of the time use this to justify rape? Infidelity and Adultery I could possibly understand this being used, but not rape. She even uses the word "girls" which to me suggests children. Was it still okay then? From the rest of the document by Linda Gordon I also take it that everything that is wrong with the welfare reform system today was put in place by the white reformers--Maybe they should have left the social work up to the Black reformers? -Ssellers<br />
<br />
The welfare activism article notes that a fair amount of the black women involved in welfare were married, and it was more generally acceptable for black women to be involved in public life than white women, which I suppose is partly due to their positions as heads of families during slavery’s heyday and the fact that many black women had to work outside the home due to economic necessity (except these reform women who were pretty well off). However, Anna J. Cooper seemed to believe that black men were not supportive of women outside the home and didn’t recognize their value in politics and reform. What accounts for this disparity? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I thought it was cool how even though black women may not have had the advantages that white women had in the reform movement, they made the best out of it. White women raised money but they also were able to gain support or recognition from people in congress. Black women were not so fortunate but they did not let that stop them; they had bake sales, church dinners, and other such functions to raise money and awareness. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
Like Amy, I noticed the differences between how black and white women raised money for their causes. It seems like white women relied far more on their status and privilege to gain access to (mostly white men) policy makers and other influential leaders who could help them. Black women, for the most part, did not have this option. So they turned to their communities for support, in much the same way as they had turned voting and politics into community activities. Black women already had a solid tradition of getting the community to rally around them for a cause, so when the need arose for schools and public health measures and other programs, women again banded to together for the good of the group as a whole. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I found the most intriguing part, and yet a short piece, of Linda Gordon’s article to be on the Lesbianism and homosexual escapades. Different from black women’s dependence on their community and occasionally their husbands, white women greatly relied on one-another rather than their husbands or families. “The great majority of white women were single-34 percent had ever been married, and only 18 percent remained married during their peak political activity,” (pg. 229). To this effect women Gordon gives the fact that “28 percent were in relationships with other women…called Boston marriages,” (pg. 229). I think that we as a generation think that Lesbianism is a new trend/ideal, and yet these women were practicing it in the 18th-19th century. This was probably not seen as a controversial idea to these women, so why is it such a big issue today when is a part of history? ---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I don't believe that rape was ever "justified" by anyone, and it has always been seen as a barbarism, even when it was performed ritualistically by warring states. Just because a society's dialogue doesn't include rape doesn't mean that it was accepted, by any means. Also, to encapsulate human nature as such is not a dismissal, as is evident even in our so-enlightened society when we "dismiss" the actions of men that is at times chauvinistic or derogatory as "boys will be boys"--does that mean that such behavior, speaking in broad terms, justified? I would think no. Also, while it seems as though black women did not have the kind of access to politicized power as white women did, Gordon points out, perhaps in contradiction to some of her conclusions, that half of the African American women who were married (85%) had influential husbands. I don't really see much difference between what the African American women did in comparison to WASP women, despite Gordon's attempts to highlight them. To me, it seems as though the only thing that really differed, notwithstanding the race issue (which I'm not dismissing), was the time that had elapsed between emancipation and what was then contemporary times. Like WASP women's groups, black women's societies were exclusionary, and it seems that if a few more generations had elapsed then the black women would be just as focused on maintaining social hierarchies as white women were. Perhaps they're concentration in the rural South maintained this as immigrants seldom ventured South and therefore black women would not have a class of "others" to perform activism on. But then again the entire African American community was persecuted against so I'm sure it's not as simplistic as that. I found the "white view" as a class issue, which I agree with and that the WASP women who were single and had a great deal of autonomy assumed that this was a class privilege and something that would not be desirable for poorer women. -schang <br />
<br />
While I agree with the comments above noticing the differences between black and white women's approaches to fundraising I found interesting how they worked together as well. According to the article women seemed to be the ringleaders not only for rights for themselves but for equality by working together against race riots, ie. Chicago 1919 p. 224. Even more interesting were women in the South working together, where they suffered racial violence constantly. It was not common to see women of both races working together for a cause but both races had common interests, each was under the domestic sphere and both had to fight for not only themselves but generations to come. I did think the way black women worked together was more effective, even without government support they were able to come together without the support of men and build a bond through sisterhood and charity. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Judy Yung, "The Social Awakening of Chinese American Women as Reported in ''Chung Sai Yat Po'', 1900-1911" ==<br />
<br />
It’s ironic that in the early 20th century China was trying to emulate the Western world, including increasing women’s rights, to get out from under the hand of the West, and Chinese Americans emulated those reforms going on in China and not in their own country because they were so excluded from American life that they felt a closer kinship to China. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
<br />
I think it was interesting how the reasons why people decided it was a good idea for women to have an education in America paralleled the decision for Chinese women to become educated. On page 263 Yung writes, "Educated women make better wives and mothers; better wives and mothers make better families and citizens; better families and citizens make a stronger China." Even though I don't think this should be a number one reason for a woman to be given an education, at the time I would have been happy that women's education and higher education was finally accepted. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
Chinese Americans were witnessing freedoms in America that were not offered to them as Chinese Americans in America or China. Binding the feet was an example of their oppression to that of their husband. It’s interesting that binding of the feet was compared to binding of an American woman corset. They felt education was the key to stop the oppression. Chinese American lineage was to their home where their families were so they naturally felt the need to change things back at home. --Mhimes<br />
<br />
The CSYP was a very effective source to bringing light to the atrocities that Chinese American faced and the changes that needed to take place. Chinese American women could speak out through these journals in order to reach out to others and make changes. As Judy Yung noted though a lot did not read these articles, the news spread. Women talk and share their thoughts with other woman evoking their spirit and that brings change for them. --Mhimes<br />
<br />
Interesting reading, yes--new information, not really, at least to me. Why is it ironic that China saw the way out of Western domination as its emulation? That mentality has been repeated throughout history, from the Egyptians adopting chariots to overthrow the Hyksos to Afghan and Iraqi insurgents being found with US manuals on unconventional warfare. Also, it would seem only natural that the suppression of entry into the political sphere of an immigrant population would foster the desire to interact with the mother country. An aside--my own use of that term, "mother country" fascinates me in that nations have almost always been characterized as feminine and wonder what that kind of gendered language indicates about the pervasiveness of such gendered dichotomies in everyday life. Other things I found "interesting"--the actions of politicians and probably most likely liberal-minded reformers from the Progressive Era directly contributed to the high rate of prostitution among Chinese women as they barred further immigration in California and other western states. Also found significant the direction that these women's reform actions were aimed at--the revitalization of China as a nation, rather than the individualistic aims of many female reformers in America--kind of reminiscent of the African American women from the previous reading and their focus on universal rights etc. than their white female counterparts. -schang<br />
<br />
== Chapter 1 – Visions of the New Woman ==<br />
'''Nellie Bly, Why go around the world, 1890'''<br />
<br />
It is unfortunate that in order to prove that she was capable of doing something that was believed to only have been able to be done by a man she had to wear the same outfit for close to 3 months straight. That's not masculine, it's disgusting. This definitely was one of the most interesting documents that we had to read and I love that at the end she talked about how she packed too much, versus too little. It was like, in trying to prove that as a female she could do something she became an inspiration. It even still is pretty inspirational to me at least. -Ssellers<br />
<br />
At first reading this article I initially thought, “How did Nellie think that she could actually do this in 1890? Was it even possible then?” Thinking more into it I can see why. She wanted to do something ambitious, that would make for a great story, but also make for a great experience, so why shouldn’t she as a woman be able to travel the world? Like Sarah, I feel bad that Nellie had to travel in one outfit for three months, but as she describes she is able to fit a good amount of clothing into her one hand-satchel, “two traveling caps…a pair of slippers, a dressing gown, tennis blazer…several changes of underwear,” (pg. 7). I would hope that priority number one would be the underwear. At the end of the article, I found that Nellie seems to indicate that she may have some sort of “baggage” in her life and I may be reading too much into it, but the way she speaks of the “the responsibilities and worries I escaped by not having a lot of trunks and boxes to look after,(pg. 7), seems to be a hidden meaning to her own emotional baggage.---Morgan M. <br />
<br />
Here is a woman ready to trek around the world, alone, with only the contents of a little bag. She has the gumption to convince her boss that she can make the trip, yet she still falls back on the idea that if she conducts herself 'properly' she will "always find men ready to protect" (pg. 7) her. I don't fault her for wanting this protection, travel always entails a certain degree of danger, but I do wonder at her assumptions as to what constitutes proper behavior. In making the trip, hasn't she already broken several social norms concerning appropriate womanly conduct? And did she believe that men the world over would hold the same ideas about women and their behavior? What of her safety if her conduct was deemed improper? -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I found this article really interesting because Nellie seems like a very independent and confident woman. That is why it was such a surprise to me that she quit journalism to marry a 72 year old man!! Perhaps she loved him, or maybe she thought that her job couldn't last forever and she needed someone to support her? It did also say that she shed a few years off her age to make herself seem more youthful. Maybe there was a common thought in society that once a woman got too old, she wasn't useful anymore. If that is true, then it must have been quite a strong societal expectation in order to get Nellie to stop what she loved doing. I think its also important to notice that Nellie had to stop her job when she got married. She obviously loved doing because she wanted to go back to it when her husband died, so there must have been some pressure on her to quit and spend her time being a wife. -- Angie<br />
<br />
I was also shocked at ther marriage to the rather old man, thats old today, so I'm sure back then that had to be quite an old guy. I feel that Nellie is a perfect example of this New Woman, out embracing the world without a care or fear in the world, ready to tackle any man's job. Good for her. - Christine L<br />
<br />
'''Bertha Palmer: The Fair Women, Chicago, 1893'''<br />
<br />
I was actually surprised that Bertha Palmer used her speech at the World Fair to both honor women and criticise men's attitudes towards women. Women had been allowed a space at the Fair to display their own creativity, but it was within a well defined and controlled "sphere" designated by men. With Palmer's speech, we are getting to see a woman recognize the inequality of the separate spheres doctrine and publicly push for the inclusion of women in more than restrictive "spheres" constructed by men. After all, how can a woman truly be free when she is being oppressed by men in all that she does? -- CBrau<br />
<br />
'''Anna Cooper: Black Women Plan to Lead Their Race, 1892'''<br />
<br />
In the reading by Anna J. Cooper, “Black Women Plan to Lead Their Race,” I was surprised to find that African American women were a part of the club movement as much as white women. Though the clubs were separate, they paralleled each other. I think it is interesting that the reform movement was so big among black women because they were breaking out of their presumed role more so than white women because of their race. Not only did they have to worry about being women, but they also had to worry because they were black. During this time racism was an issue, and some would argue that these women should be worried about the advancement of their race rather than being part of the reform movement. However, Anna J. Cooper argues that (page 13) “To be a woman in such an age carries with it a privilege and an opportunity never implied before. But to be a woman of the Negro race in America, and to be able to grasp the deep significance of the possibilities of the crisis, is to have a heritage, it seems to me, unique in the ages.” In my opinion, Cooper believes that it is BECAUSE these women are black that they have the opportunity to make big changes. Being part of the reform movement seems to be a way for black women to seek opportunities that they may not have otherwise had. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Ida B. Wells''' – <br />
<br />
'''Frances Willard'''–<br />
<br />
'''Anzia Yezierska''' – Immigrant Daughter and the Possibilities of the New World<br />
<br />
Immigrant women like Anzia and her fictional heroine Sara faced unique challenges at the turn of the century. They were caught between the growing American emphasis on education and more independence for women and their tradition bound fathers and husbands. Men like Sara's father in the reading probably saw their daughters' rebellious streaks as not only a threat to their patriarchal authority but also to the culture and customs they brought from their countries of origin. When immigrant daughters went to school or moved out on their own they joined an 'American' movement that their parents may not have understood or feared for its ability to remove their daughters from an acceptably ethnic upbringing. -Mary Ann <br />
<br />
I strongly agree with Mary Ann, I think fathers especially immigrant fathers wanted the "American Dream" and felt that when they arrived it was hard to achieve so held onto the one stable condition they always knew as being heads of the household. Men, like Sara's father used a different tactic to establish authority through the use of religion,"It says in the Torah, only through a man has a woman an existence." (22) contradicting the idea in America where women were normally seen as morally superior. This made me wonder if the influence of new religions and cultures in America helped bring about the women's movement? Did statements such as the one Sara's father made cause women to rebel more and prove they did not need a man nor his religion to survive. -Megan W. <br />
<br />
'''Edith Eudora Ammons''' – A Woman Homesteader<br />
<br />
When I have pictured manifest destiny, I have hardly pictured Edith Ammons and her sister, two women, moving in to the West alone to build up new lives together. Of course, I would never think of the West in the 19th century as a place of freedom and new beginnings because I know how rough it was from studying history. Ammons herself admits, "This was not the West as I had dreamed it... It was a desolate, forgotten land, without vegetation save for the dry, crackling grass, without visible tokens of fertility" (p. 26). Yet, the sisters toughed it out, taking on hardship after hardship in exchange for their freedom to live where they wanted and do what they wanted. I think that with our comforts of today, it is often hard to imagine women putting themselves through such trials to achieve the freedom they desired. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
== Chapter 2 – Expanding Horizons for Educated Women ==<br />
<br />
'''Molly Dewson writes home from Wellesley (1894-96)'''<br />
<br />
One thing I really liked about this story was how Molly talked about how she struggled with her studies. I thought this was important because it shows that girls weren't just sent away to learn how to become good wives, but they were actually taught things. They actually had to learn science and practice experiments. Molly seems like a completely modern college girl in the way she complains about her classes! She also talks about her social life quite openly. Girls were willing to dress up like boys in order to go out and have fun. Its nice to see that all girls of that period weren't prim and proper like we are sometimes led to believe. -- Angie<br />
<br />
'''Jane Addams discusses the early days of Hull House (1910)'''<br />
<br />
In class we spoke some of this issue that the “New Woman” faced about what to do after leaving college. Here I found what Jane Addams and Ellen Starr do very admirable, such as creating the famous Hall House. In today’s world you don’t see many women, especially white, moving into “bad” parts of cities to truly help the people there. But these women I found fearless of being in Chicago such as the incident with them leaving the side door left open and “were much pleased in the morning to find that we possessed a fine illustration of the honesty and kindliness of our new neighbors,” (pg. 36). I would have been so upset that I had risked my home and self, just being in a new place for the first night is nerve-racking, but leaving a door open would make me even more paranoid. These women were actually asked to “wash the newborn babies, and to prepare the dead for burial, to nurse the sick, and to ‘mind the children’,” (pg. 36). Where there no others to do these tasks, such as a mortician, hospital, or baby-sitters? I know to remember that these people were of the poorest of the city, but these women were asked to prepare the dead, really? Ew.---Morgan M. <br />
<br />
'''Alice Hamilton explores the dangerous trades (1943)'''<br />
<br />
The first piece of this article I saw was that it parallels to the Jane Addams Article in that Alice Hamilton spent time at the Hull House. In her writing Alice actually mentions the Hull House, other than her biography at the beginning stating that she had spent time there and that she truly learned something from her time at the Hull House gives more evidence to the fact of Jane creating something great. “Life at Hull-House had accustomed me to going straight to the homes of people whom I wished to learn something and talking to them in their own surroundings, where they have courage to speak out what is in their minds,” (pg. 39). The Hull House taught Alice how to relate to people and I can see this consideration being very important, essential, to her profession of being a physician. In addition to her being a physician I think that a certain level of arrogance blossomed as well. Alice tends to look down on people at times, but at the same time being understanding; an example being her take on the reason for immigrants to take jobs to support their families after coming to American; “of course they took the first job they could find and if it proved to be one that weakened and crippled them---well, that was their bad luck!” (pg. 39). I found this a bit uncharacteristic of the women who spent time in the Hull House, but that is entirely my take. I’m sure being a women physician is something to be quite proud of, but to look down on immigrants who you are caring for because they are trying to make the best of the life they have been dealt, seems a bit harsh. ---Morgan M. <br />
<br />
'''Mamie Garvin Fields –Af-Am Women enter the Teaching profession (1983) '''<br />
<br />
'''Mary Ritter Beard – Women and progressive politics. (1915)'''<br />
<br />
== Chapter 4—Feminists, Anarchists, and Other Rebel Girls ==<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Mother Jones and striking Colorado Mine workers (about 1903 strike)'''<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading Mother Jones. Her writing is very strong and passionate, and its hard not to have emotions dredged up while reading about this strike. I found it interesting that she went and stayed with the families working in the mine to witness first-hand the hardships they endure. The conditions seemed to be not too far off of what miners dealt with in more recent times which is saddening. - Christine L<br />
<br />
'''Charlotte Perkins Gilman – a Feminist challenge to the privatized home'''<br />
<br />
After reading “A Feminist Challenge to the Privatized Home” I am fairly certain that Charlotte Perkins Gilman hated to cook. Perhaps it is because of some culinary incident that happened to her during her first marriage where she ended up going crazy and leaving her husband and child and eventually marrying her cousin. Regardless of what happened, she is obviously traumatized. She believes that people should live in their private homes or apartments, but should also have communal areas (such as a kitchen) as well, and this will pretty much solve all problems of the world. Gilman’s ideas are actually quite smart when you put aside some of her obvious biases. The separation of labor when it comes to housework is really smart and efficient. If women were able to choose what task they wanted to perform (cook, clean, etc.) and they just focused on that task, things would get done much faster and much better. According to Gilman, this would lead to a more productive society overall because women would have the time to use their minds. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
'''Josephine Conger-Koneko – Wages for housework – 1913'''<br />
<br />
I thought that it was interesting how Josephine Conger-Koneko believed so strongly that women should be payed for housework. I especially thought that it was interesting how she expected a woman's husband's boss to pay her for her house labor, as it was the woman who made it possible for the man to work. However, she brings about a point she never truly expands upon; although it was unusual, not every working man did marry eventually. What about these men? They still managed to attend work without a wife taking care of their home. And if Conger-Koneko received her wish and women were paid for their labor at home, should these men be paid double for attending work and for taking care of their home?<br />
-Anna K Holman<br />
<br />
I found this article the most interesting out of all of them. Josephine Conger-Koneko takes a very hard line on the position that women should be paid for their housework. I also found it interesting how she equivocated a woman's life in the home doing housework for her husband as the life of a slave. She seems to be a bit radical in her discussion of women being paid for household duties. I also found it striking that Koneko argues that a husband should go to his employer and ask for wages for his wife at home doing the housework and how men getting married is actually benefical more for the employer because then he will have a continuing work force. Did women during this time believe they should be paid for work, and if after reading this, did woman's groups advocate paid labor for women working in the home? -abratchi<br />
<br />
'''Margaret Sanger’s epiphany over birth control – 1936'''<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this particular article. I like how Sanger used a personal story to make birth control, which was typically thought of as a female issue, a family and medical issue. By bringing in the husband and children of Sadie Sachs, Sanger made it obvious that the situation didn't just affect the mother, but her family as well. She also reflected what a desperate situation it truly was to have another mouth to feed in a poor, working class family. I also liked how she illustrated the point that many men were irresponsible about birth control, so it should be up to the responsible woman to decide whether or not she should have a child. -Anna K Holman<br />
<br />
I thought the Sanger article was very interesting. I like how Sanger is able to use the story of Mrs. Sachs to show the rising need and importance for birth control. I think it presents birth control as more of a social issue, rather than just an issue of liberating woman's sexuality. She demonstrates that birth control is a necessity because of all the hurt, poverty and death that is occurring due to a lack of birth control. At this time, one had to have enough money for doctors who they could pay to tell them about birth control options/abortion due to the Comstock Laws, and I think this is important for why Sanger decides to advocate birth control, especially to the poorer classes. -abratchi<br />
<br />
'''Emma Goldman – A Radical view of women’s emancipation – 1911'''</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_4_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 4 Questions/Comments2010-02-04T01:43:46Z<p>Megan3088: /* Chapter 1 – Visions of the New Woman */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Linda Gordon, “Black and White Visions of Welfare: Women’s Welfare Activism, 1890-1945” ==<br />
<br />
On page 23 Linda Gordon states that "Black welfare reformers were more concerned to combine the development of protective institutions for women with an antirape discourse. Among whites, rape was not an important topic of discussion during this period, and in protective work for women and girls, male sexuality was treated as natural and irrepressible" and I understand that the times were completely different but how did society of the time use this to justify rape? Infidelity and Adultery I could possibly understand this being used, but not rape. She even uses the word "girls" which to me suggests children. Was it still okay then? From the rest of the document by Linda Gordon I also take it that everything that is wrong with the welfare reform system today was put in place by the white reformers--Maybe they should have left the social work up to the Black reformers? -Ssellers<br />
<br />
The welfare activism article notes that a fair amount of the black women involved in welfare were married, and it was more generally acceptable for black women to be involved in public life than white women, which I suppose is partly due to their positions as heads of families during slavery’s heyday and the fact that many black women had to work outside the home due to economic necessity (except these reform women who were pretty well off). However, Anna J. Cooper seemed to believe that black men were not supportive of women outside the home and didn’t recognize their value in politics and reform. What accounts for this disparity? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I thought it was cool how even though black women may not have had the advantages that white women had in the reform movement, they made the best out of it. White women raised money but they also were able to gain support or recognition from people in congress. Black women were not so fortunate but they did not let that stop them; they had bake sales, church dinners, and other such functions to raise money and awareness. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
Like Amy, I noticed the differences between how black and white women raised money for their causes. It seems like white women relied far more on their status and privilege to gain access to (mostly white men) policy makers and other influential leaders who could help them. Black women, for the most part, did not have this option. So they turned to their communities for support, in much the same way as they had turned voting and politics into community activities. Black women already had a solid tradition of getting the community to rally around them for a cause, so when the need arose for schools and public health measures and other programs, women again banded to together for the good of the group as a whole. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I found the most intriguing part, and yet a short piece, of Linda Gordon’s article to be on the Lesbianism and homosexual escapades. Different from black women’s dependence on their community and occasionally their husbands, white women greatly relied on one-another rather than their husbands or families. “The great majority of white women were single-34 percent had ever been married, and only 18 percent remained married during their peak political activity,” (pg. 229). To this effect women Gordon gives the fact that “28 percent were in relationships with other women…called Boston marriages,” (pg. 229). I think that we as a generation think that Lesbianism is a new trend/ideal, and yet these women were practicing it in the 18th-19th century. This was probably not seen as a controversial idea to these women, so why is it such a big issue today when is a part of history? ---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I don't believe that rape was ever "justified" by anyone, and it has always been seen as a barbarism, even when it was performed ritualistically by warring states. Just because a society's dialogue doesn't include rape doesn't mean that it was accepted, by any means. Also, to encapsulate human nature as such is not a dismissal, as is evident even in our so-enlightened society when we "dismiss" the actions of men that is at times chauvinistic or derogatory as "boys will be boys"--does that mean that such behavior, speaking in broad terms, justified? I would think no. Also, while it seems as though black women did not have the kind of access to politicized power as white women did, Gordon points out, perhaps in contradiction to some of her conclusions, that half of the African American women who were married (85%) had influential husbands. I don't really see much difference between what the African American women did in comparison to WASP women, despite Gordon's attempts to highlight them. To me, it seems as though the only thing that really differed, notwithstanding the race issue (which I'm not dismissing), was the time that had elapsed between emancipation and what was then contemporary times. Like WASP women's groups, black women's societies were exclusionary, and it seems that if a few more generations had elapsed then the black women would be just as focused on maintaining social hierarchies as white women were. Perhaps they're concentration in the rural South maintained this as immigrants seldom ventured South and therefore black women would not have a class of "others" to perform activism on. But then again the entire African American community was persecuted against so I'm sure it's not as simplistic as that. I found the "white view" as a class issue, which I agree with and that the WASP women who were single and had a great deal of autonomy assumed that this was a class privilege and something that would not be desirable for poorer women. -schang<br />
<br />
== Judy Yung, "The Social Awakening of Chinese American Women as Reported in ''Chung Sai Yat Po'', 1900-1911" ==<br />
<br />
It’s ironic that in the early 20th century China was trying to emulate the Western world, including increasing women’s rights, to get out from under the hand of the West, and Chinese Americans emulated those reforms going on in China and not in their own country because they were so excluded from American life that they felt a closer kinship to China. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
<br />
I think it was interesting how the reasons why people decided it was a good idea for women to have an education in America paralleled the decision for Chinese women to become educated. On page 263 Yung writes, "Educated women make better wives and mothers; better wives and mothers make better families and citizens; better families and citizens make a stronger China." Even though I don't think this should be a number one reason for a woman to be given an education, at the time I would have been happy that women's education and higher education was finally accepted. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
Chinese Americans were witnessing freedoms in America that were not offered to them as Chinese Americans in America or China. Binding the feet was an example of their oppression to that of their husband. It’s interesting that binding of the feet was compared to binding of an American woman corset. They felt education was the key to stop the oppression. Chinese American lineage was to their home where their families were so they naturally felt the need to change things back at home. --Mhimes<br />
<br />
The CSYP was a very effective source to bringing light to the atrocities that Chinese American faced and the changes that needed to take place. Chinese American women could speak out through these journals in order to reach out to others and make changes. As Judy Yung noted though a lot did not read these articles, the news spread. Women talk and share their thoughts with other woman evoking their spirit and that brings change for them. --Mhimes<br />
<br />
Interesting reading, yes--new information, not really, at least to me. Why is it ironic that China saw the way out of Western domination as its emulation? That mentality has been repeated throughout history, from the Egyptians adopting chariots to overthrow the Hyksos to Afghan and Iraqi insurgents being found with US manuals on unconventional warfare. Also, it would seem only natural that the suppression of entry into the political sphere of an immigrant population would foster the desire to interact with the mother country. An aside--my own use of that term, "mother country" fascinates me in that nations have almost always been characterized as feminine and wonder what that kind of gendered language indicates about the pervasiveness of such gendered dichotomies in everyday life. Other things I found "interesting"--the actions of politicians and probably most likely liberal-minded reformers from the Progressive Era directly contributed to the high rate of prostitution among Chinese women as they barred further immigration in California and other western states. Also found significant the direction that these women's reform actions were aimed at--the revitalization of China as a nation, rather than the individualistic aims of many female reformers in America--kind of reminiscent of the African American women from the previous reading and their focus on universal rights etc. than their white female counterparts. -schang<br />
<br />
== Chapter 1 – Visions of the New Woman ==<br />
'''Nellie Bly, Why go around the world, 1890'''<br />
<br />
It is unfortunate that in order to prove that she was capable of doing something that was believed to only have been able to be done by a man she had to wear the same outfit for close to 3 months straight. That's not masculine, it's disgusting. This definitely was one of the most interesting documents that we had to read and I love that at the end she talked about how she packed too much, versus too little. It was like, in trying to prove that as a female she could do something she became an inspiration. It even still is pretty inspirational to me at least. -Ssellers<br />
<br />
At first reading this article I initially thought, “How did Nellie think that she could actually do this in 1890? Was it even possible then?” Thinking more into it I can see why. She wanted to do something ambitious, that would make for a great story, but also make for a great experience, so why shouldn’t she as a woman be able to travel the world? Like Sarah, I feel bad that Nellie had to travel in one outfit for three months, but as she describes she is able to fit a good amount of clothing into her one hand-satchel, “two traveling caps…a pair of slippers, a dressing gown, tennis blazer…several changes of underwear,” (pg. 7). I would hope that priority number one would be the underwear. At the end of the article, I found that Nellie seems to indicate that she may have some sort of “baggage” in her life and I may be reading too much into it, but the way she speaks of the “the responsibilities and worries I escaped by not having a lot of trunks and boxes to look after,(pg. 7), seems to be a hidden meaning to her own emotional baggage.---Morgan M. <br />
<br />
Here is a woman ready to trek around the world, alone, with only the contents of a little bag. She has the gumption to convince her boss that she can make the trip, yet she still falls back on the idea that if she conducts herself 'properly' she will "always find men ready to protect" (pg. 7) her. I don't fault her for wanting this protection, travel always entails a certain degree of danger, but I do wonder at her assumptions as to what constitutes proper behavior. In making the trip, hasn't she already broken several social norms concerning appropriate womanly conduct? And did she believe that men the world over would hold the same ideas about women and their behavior? What of her safety if her conduct was deemed improper? -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I found this article really interesting because Nellie seems like a very independent and confident woman. That is why it was such a surprise to me that she quit journalism to marry a 72 year old man!! Perhaps she loved him, or maybe she thought that her job couldn't last forever and she needed someone to support her? It did also say that she shed a few years off her age to make herself seem more youthful. Maybe there was a common thought in society that once a woman got too old, she wasn't useful anymore. If that is true, then it must have been quite a strong societal expectation in order to get Nellie to stop what she loved doing. I think its also important to notice that Nellie had to stop her job when she got married. She obviously loved doing because she wanted to go back to it when her husband died, so there must have been some pressure on her to quit and spend her time being a wife. -- Angie<br />
<br />
I was also shocked at ther marriage to the rather old man, thats old today, so I'm sure back then that had to be quite an old guy. I feel that Nellie is a perfect example of this New Woman, out embracing the world without a care or fear in the world, ready to tackle any man's job. Good for her. - Christine L<br />
<br />
'''Bertha Palmer: The Fair Women, Chicago, 1893'''<br />
<br />
I was actually surprised that Bertha Palmer used her speech at the World Fair to both honor women and criticise men's attitudes towards women. Women had been allowed a space at the Fair to display their own creativity, but it was within a well defined and controlled "sphere" designated by men. With Palmer's speech, we are getting to see a woman recognize the inequality of the separate spheres doctrine and publicly push for the inclusion of women in more than restrictive "spheres" constructed by men. After all, how can a woman truly be free when she is being oppressed by men in all that she does? -- CBrau<br />
<br />
'''Anna Cooper: Black Women Plan to Lead Their Race, 1892'''<br />
<br />
In the reading by Anna J. Cooper, “Black Women Plan to Lead Their Race,” I was surprised to find that African American women were a part of the club movement as much as white women. Though the clubs were separate, they paralleled each other. I think it is interesting that the reform movement was so big among black women because they were breaking out of their presumed role more so than white women because of their race. Not only did they have to worry about being women, but they also had to worry because they were black. During this time racism was an issue, and some would argue that these women should be worried about the advancement of their race rather than being part of the reform movement. However, Anna J. Cooper argues that (page 13) “To be a woman in such an age carries with it a privilege and an opportunity never implied before. But to be a woman of the Negro race in America, and to be able to grasp the deep significance of the possibilities of the crisis, is to have a heritage, it seems to me, unique in the ages.” In my opinion, Cooper believes that it is BECAUSE these women are black that they have the opportunity to make big changes. Being part of the reform movement seems to be a way for black women to seek opportunities that they may not have otherwise had. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Ida B. Wells''' – <br />
<br />
'''Frances Willard'''–<br />
<br />
'''Anzia Yezierska''' – Immigrant Daughter and the Possibilities of the New World<br />
<br />
Immigrant women like Anzia and her fictional heroine Sara faced unique challenges at the turn of the century. They were caught between the growing American emphasis on education and more independence for women and their tradition bound fathers and husbands. Men like Sara's father in the reading probably saw their daughters' rebellious streaks as not only a threat to their patriarchal authority but also to the culture and customs they brought from their countries of origin. When immigrant daughters went to school or moved out on their own they joined an 'American' movement that their parents may not have understood or feared for its ability to remove their daughters from an acceptably ethnic upbringing. -Mary Ann <br />
<br />
I strongly agree with Mary Ann, I think fathers especially immigrant fathers wanted the "American Dream" and felt that when they arrived it was hard to achieve so held onto the one stable condition they always knew as being heads of the household. Men, like Sara's father used a different tactic to establish authority through the use of religion,"It says in the Torah, only through a man has a woman an existence." (22) contradicting the idea in America where women were normally seen as morally superior. This made me wonder if the influence of new religions and cultures in America helped bring about the women's movement? Did statements such as the one Sara's father made cause women to rebel more and prove they did not need a man nor his religion to survive. -Megan W. <br />
<br />
'''Edith Eudora Ammons''' – A Woman Homesteader<br />
<br />
When I have pictured manifest destiny, I have hardly pictured Edith Ammons and her sister, two women, moving in to the West alone to build up new lives together. Of course, I would never think of the West in the 19th century as a place of freedom and new beginnings because I know how rough it was from studying history. Ammons herself admits, "This was not the West as I had dreamed it... It was a desolate, forgotten land, without vegetation save for the dry, crackling grass, without visible tokens of fertility" (p. 26). Yet, the sisters toughed it out, taking on hardship after hardship in exchange for their freedom to live where they wanted and do what they wanted. I think that with our comforts of today, it is often hard to imagine women putting themselves through such trials to achieve the freedom they desired. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
== Chapter 2 – Expanding Horizons for Educated Women ==<br />
<br />
'''Molly Dewson writes home from Wellesley (1894-96)'''<br />
<br />
'''Jane Addams discusses the early days of Hull House (1910)'''<br />
<br />
In class we spoke some of this issue that the “New Woman” faced about what to do after leaving college. Here I found what Jane Addams and Ellen Starr do very admirable, such as creating the famous Hall House. In today’s world you don’t see many women, especially white, moving into “bad” parts of cities to truly help the people there. But these women I found fearless of being in Chicago such as the incident with them leaving the side door left open and “were much pleased in the morning to find that we possessed a fine illustration of the honesty and kindliness of our new neighbors,” (pg. 36). I would have been so upset that I had risked my home and self, just being in a new place for the first night is nerve-racking, but leaving a door open would make me even more paranoid. These women were actually asked to “wash the newborn babies, and to prepare the dead for burial, to nurse the sick, and to ‘mind the children’,” (pg. 36). Where there no others to do these tasks, such as a mortician, hospital, or baby-sitters? I know to remember that these people were of the poorest of the city, but these women were asked to prepare the dead, really? Ew.---Morgan M. <br />
<br />
'''Alice Hamilton explores the dangerous trades (1943)'''<br />
<br />
The first piece of this article I saw was that it parallels to the Jane Addams Article in that Alice Hamilton spent time at the Hull House. In her writing Alice actually mentions the Hull House, other than her biography at the beginning stating that she had spent time there and that she truly learned something from her time at the Hull House gives more evidence to the fact of Jane creating something great. “Life at Hull-House had accustomed me to going straight to the homes of people whom I wished to learn something and talking to them in their own surroundings, where they have courage to speak out what is in their minds,” (pg. 39). The Hull House taught Alice how to relate to people and I can see this consideration being very important, essential, to her profession of being a physician. In addition to her being a physician I think that a certain level of arrogance blossomed as well. Alice tends to look down on people at times, but at the same time being understanding; an example being her take on the reason for immigrants to take jobs to support their families after coming to American; “of course they took the first job they could find and if it proved to be one that weakened and crippled them---well, that was their bad luck!” (pg. 39). I found this a bit uncharacteristic of the women who spent time in the Hull House, but that is entirely my take. I’m sure being a women physician is something to be quite proud of, but to look down on immigrants who you are caring for because they are trying to make the best of the life they have been dealt, seems a bit harsh. ---Morgan M. <br />
<br />
'''Mamie Garvin Fields –Af-Am Women enter the Teaching profession (1983) '''<br />
<br />
'''Mary Ritter Beard – Women and progressive politics. (1915)'''<br />
<br />
== Chapter 4—Feminists, Anarchists, and Other Rebel Girls ==<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Mother Jones and striking Colorado Mine workers (about 1903 strike)'''<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading Mother Jones. Her writing is very strong and passionate, and its hard not to have emotions dredged up while reading about this strike. I found it interesting that she went and stayed with the families working in the mine to witness first-hand the hardships they endure. The conditions seemed to be not too far off of what miners dealt with in more recent times which is saddening. - Christine L<br />
<br />
'''Charlotte Perkins Gilman – a Feminist challenge to the privatized home'''<br />
<br />
After reading “A Feminist Challenge to the Privatized Home” I am fairly certain that Charlotte Perkins Gilman hated to cook. Perhaps it is because of some culinary incident that happened to her during her first marriage where she ended up going crazy and leaving her husband and child and eventually marrying her cousin. Regardless of what happened, she is obviously traumatized. She believes that people should live in their private homes or apartments, but should also have communal areas (such as a kitchen) as well, and this will pretty much solve all problems of the world. Gilman’s ideas are actually quite smart when you put aside some of her obvious biases. The separation of labor when it comes to housework is really smart and efficient. If women were able to choose what task they wanted to perform (cook, clean, etc.) and they just focused on that task, things would get done much faster and much better. According to Gilman, this would lead to a more productive society overall because women would have the time to use their minds. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
'''Josephine Conger-Koneko – Wages for housework – 1913'''<br />
<br />
I thought that it was interesting how Josephine Conger-Koneko believed so strongly that women should be payed for housework. I especially thought that it was interesting how she expected a woman's husband's boss to pay her for her house labor, as it was the woman who made it possible for the man to work. However, she brings about a point she never truly expands upon; although it was unusual, not every working man did marry eventually. What about these men? They still managed to attend work without a wife taking care of their home. And if Conger-Koneko received her wish and women were paid for their labor at home, should these men be paid double for attending work and for taking care of their home?<br />
-Anna K Holman<br />
<br />
I found this article the most interesting out of all of them. Josephine Conger-Koneko takes a very hard line on the position that women should be paid for their housework. I also found it interesting how she equivocated a woman's life in the home doing housework for her husband as the life of a slave. She seems to be a bit radical in her discussion of women being paid for household duties. I also found it striking that Koneko argues that a husband should go to his employer and ask for wages for his wife at home doing the housework and how men getting married is actually benefical more for the employer because then he will have a continuing work force. Did women during this time believe they should be paid for work, and if after reading this, did woman's groups advocate paid labor for women working in the home? -abratchi<br />
<br />
'''Margaret Sanger’s epiphany over birth control – 1936'''<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this particular article. I like how Sanger used a personal story to make birth control, which was typically thought of as a female issue, a family and medical issue. By bringing in the husband and children of Sadie Sachs, Sanger made it obvious that the situation didn't just affect the mother, but her family as well. She also reflected what a desperate situation it truly was to have another mouth to feed in a poor, working class family. I also liked how she illustrated the point that many men were irresponsible about birth control, so it should be up to the responsible woman to decide whether or not she should have a child. -Anna K Holman<br />
<br />
I thought the Sanger article was very interesting. I like how Sanger is able to use the story of Mrs. Sachs to show the rising need and importance for birth control. I think it presents birth control as more of a social issue, rather than just an issue of liberating woman's sexuality. She demonstrates that birth control is a necessity because of all the hurt, poverty and death that is occurring due to a lack of birth control. At this time, one had to have enough money for doctors who they could pay to tell them about birth control options/abortion due to the Comstock Laws, and I think this is important for why Sanger decides to advocate birth control, especially to the poorer classes. -abratchi<br />
<br />
'''Emma Goldman – A Radical view of women’s emancipation – 1911'''</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_3_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 3 Questions/Comments2010-01-28T01:56:27Z<p>Megan3088: /* Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-1876 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== US, 178-193, Devon Mihesuah, “’Too Dark to Be Angels’: The Class System among the Cherokees at the Female Seminary” ==<br />
<br />
One of the things that stood out to me in this article was the paradoxes. This was full of them regarding cherokee values as well as teachings. There seems to be great confusion between the pure bloods and mixed-bloods. For example, there were many mixed-blood instructors, but no traditional cherokee teachers, yet the school was based on cherokee values. Also, many of the teachers repressed Cherokee values, which seems to defeat the purpose of a cherokee boarding school. Also, a girl named Na-Li defended her honor in claiming that both of her parents were full cherokee, but many of the teachers did not teach traditional values so it seems like a frivolous concern. It appears to obtain a traditional cherokee eduaction when there were so many paradoxes between the people.-Afrisk<br />
<br />
<br />
I was struck by the difference between the attitude towards Native American ancestry of the girls at the Cherokee Female Seminary (and for that matter, of the Cherokee nation as a whole during the 1800s) and modern Americans. In the nineteenth century, it was a desirable thing to have white blood, as it indicated that one was more civilized, and whiter Cherokees held a higher status than more full-blooded ones. Education at the seminary served to help the girls, even those who were full-blooded, become “whiter.” Now, white Americans, when discussing their ancestry, are extremely proud of even the tiniest bit of Native American blood they might contain. I can think of very few people with whom I’ve discussed ancestry with that don’t claim to have at least one Native American in the family, myself included. I think that perhaps it has something to do with our romantic view of Native Americans and a desire to show that we don’t feel animosity towards them any longer. - Alice W<br />
<br />
I agree with Alice on her analysis in regards to pride about having Native American ancestry. There are also a number of other things that surprised me while reading this. I was surprised that the "mixed-blood" families were more accepted in society and received better. Though I understand their skin was lighter, in many cases even today, biracial or people with a variety of ethnic backgrounds are ostracized from both groups. I was also slightly surprised by the division among the Cherokee. Whether mixed-blood or not, I was expecting some sense of unity that did not occur. Looking back into history, many people remember their roots or where they came from, this is not the case in this situation. This alone could have proved detrimental to the efforts of Native Americans at this time.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
On page 190 of “Too Dark to be Angles,” I found these two sentences to be contradictory to the rest of the article. First, “The girls’ seminary experiences helped to strengthen their identities as Cherokees…” Second, “Both the progressive and the traditional tribal members considered themselves to be more Cherokee than the other group.” I think the reason that these sentences threw me off is because throughout the reading I the author gave numerous examples of how full-blooded Cherokees were discriminated against within the seminary. Those Cherokees that were mixed blooded were considered more intelligent because they were whiter. So, it just seems a little contradictory to argue that the seminary schools (that didn’t teach anything of the Cherokee language or culture) brought about a strong Cherokee identity to its students. -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think that the school did work to develop a Cherokee identity in its students, just not a traditional identity and not one that we would imagine as Cherokee today. Yes, some of the girls only had trace amounts of Cherokee ancestry, but they still identified strongly as Cherokee. It's just that they identified with an assimilated form of Cherokee identity, one that emulated white society. They ridiculed the darker, less assimilated girls not for being Cherokee per se, but for not embracing their version of what it meant to be Cherokee. As for the girls being bullied for their skin tone and traditions, they may have come to identify more strongly with their traditional Cherokee roots in the face of opposition. So both groups did maintain a connection to a Cherokee identity, it's just that, as the article states, "there were differences in opinion as to what a Cherokee really was." -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
While reading the article “Too Dark to Be Angels” I found that it parallels to the story of “Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884”. Both speak about the Indian women’s seminaries, it isn’t our-right spoken in Zitkala-Sa’s article, but it’s implied in her wanting to go East “crossed the Missouri in the evening…we stopped before a massive brick building,” (pg.241). I also found a parallel that men have taken advantage of women as objects here as well. “The Cherokee National Council was controlled by progressive, educated, mixed-blood tribesmen,” (pg. 178). Once again dictating what women learn about or shall act while in such seminary; to mold and bend them into what they see fit. ---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
Another point I did not understand at first was why the darker girls, who had more Cherokee blood were being made fun of because of it. “Mixed-blood students frequently scorned those girls who had less white blood and darker skin,” (pg.180). Is this not a school for assimilation for the Cherokee girls? Reading further in I found that the women and girls of this school strive to be “equal” to white women, as “anything ‘white’ was ideal” stated Kate O’Donald Ringland, (pg.181). For this fact, to be as white as possible, the seminary’s repressed all Cherokee values and “offered no courses focusing on Cherokee culture,” (pg.178). ---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I think Erin brings up a great point that I did not catch myself. Although the schools did seem to instill a sense of Cherokee within in the women, I think the schools main accomplishment was the desire to be more "white", as Morgan points out. I think this was really emphasized through the perceptions of intelligence among the girls at the seminary and the teaching that was going on. As quoted on page 181, Albert Sydney Wyly "expressed his impatience with the full-blood girls by referring to the mixed-bloods as "whiter" and therefore "more intellectual". I think these schools were set up to Americanize the Native American population, rather than instill Cherokee ideals. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I found it truly disturbing that female teachers exemplified multiple cases of insensitivity throughout this reading. The teachers, though white, should have recognized the similarities between themselves and the Cherokee girls they were responsible for. At this point in time, women had few rights, neither did the Cherokee. It would have been more productive to encourage the young girls, in turn making it easier for them to assimilate, if that was in fact their main goal.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
What I thought was interesting about the Cherokee Indian Seminary for girls was that there was class difference within that Cherokee society. Those that looked more white versus those that did not basing emphasis on what amount of Cherokee the girls had in them. The more white blood in them, the better status they had at the seminary. Some of the girls did not even know their native language and others did might help explain some of the division. I don’t think the teachers helped with that either. These girls had pressures from what was expected of them in “white” roles and at the same time trying to maintain their traditional roles in Native American society. These girls being defined as either “full blooded“ and “mixed blood” became intermingled with the pressures to fit in. --Mhimes<br />
<br />
I found it surprising that the Cherokee National Council was made up Cherokee that were mostly mixed blood and prescribed to upper-class Southern antebellum values. Many of the girls who attended the seminary were from slave holding families. Considering that many of them ascribed to white values and had the appearance of whites, why did they even acknowledge themselves as Cherokee when they felt that Cherokee were inferior to whites? Why didn’t these girls just go to a regular school, leaving the more traditional, “uneducated” girls who wanted to learn about white society to go to the Cherokee seminaries? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I found it interesting in “Too Dark to be Angels,” that despite how many girls could have been traumatized by the racism against them, the seminary actually helped many girls get ahead in life. At the very end of the article, Mihesuah says “despite its shortcomings, the Cherokee seminary was unquestionably the catalyst for the prosperity of many Cherokee women and their families.” (p. 191) Yes, the seminary made it almost impossible to keep one’s culture, but at the same time, it made it possible for many girls to succeed who would not previously have been able to. The school taught subjects like latin and math that other white schools would have been teaching, thereby allowing Cherokee girls to take part in mainstream society. -- Angie<br />
<br />
I liked reading the essay "Too Dark to Be Angels." I thought there were multiple interesting points in the article. In particular I thought how the full-blood Cherokee girls were treated resembled what can be found at high schools even today. Some students today are still picked on because of their race or because they are of lower class. The reading talked about how the girls were sometimes left out because they were falling behind academically and were not able to go on outings with the older high school girls and also were unable to afford party clothes and/or after-dinner snacks. These types of things made the full-blood Cherokee girls feel inferior and they can also make girls in schools today feel left out or inferior to the upper class or other white females. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I really liked Amy's point above. Even back in 19th century Cherokee seminaries, there were still mean girl cliques. A tale as old as time... Also, I have the same questions as Taylor. Why did the girls consider themselves Cherokee still if they resembled and lived like the white southerners and felt inferior to them for being Cherokees.. I was astounded as to how European the girls in the photos looked, and then I read the captions where one stated the girls pictured were 1/32 Cherokee. I was quite shocked to learn how even those very distantly-related Cherokee girls considered themselves Cherokee even when they had never even heard the language or witnessed any tribal functions/ceremonies. - christine l<br />
<br />
It is interesting that both the mixed-blood and full-blood Cherokee girls in seminary identified with their Cherokee origins, and that each felt that they were the more “in touch” with their lineage than the other group. It seems that one’s perception of their identity had more of an impact on who they became than solely genetic factors. Those who had lighter skin knew that they had more options socially than those who were darker, because they fit in better with the notion that the white society was the more desirable. Yet at the same time, they did not identify completely with the white culture they sought to mix into, instead they wanted to be identified as Cherokee. I find it interesting as well that the society that had previously held the “one drop” policy that restricted African Americans did not seem to have the same effect on schooling for Native Americans (perhaps I missed that section in the readings but that struck me as slightly different)--jmarshal <br />
<br />
I agree with Christine L. the cliques inside the seminary were similar to the cliques we see today in movies such as Mean Girls, it shows that we have not changed much throughout history and that the class system exists with the influence of monetary status. The girls who were full-blood were not open to the full possibilites education had to offer because they were not able to attend primary school, but I found it interesting that they were still able to maintain good grades. While, some of the girls could not stay long in the seminary due to family or financial reasons they still maintained grades close to the mixed girls. I wondered how many students the seminary accepted? If there was a limit and even with the comments from the superintendent why were so many full-blooded girls accepted when they faced criticism for being themselves? -Megan W. <br />
<br />
== US, 194-220, Paige Raibmon, “The Practice of Everyday Colonialism: Indigenous Women at Work in the Hop Fields and Tourist Industry of Puget Sound” ==<br />
<br />
Like Alice, I was struck at how the view of Native Americans has changed. Paige Raibmon mentions in her article how Native American women in the 19th century were seen a subhuman because they could "endure childbirth painlessly" (199). This excuse was used to justify using them for hard manual labor. I was also shocked to discover that the Native Americans picking hops were not seen as laborers, but instead were objects for tourists to gawk at. Finally, Mihesuah mentions in her article several times that the Native Americans saw themselves as being less intelligent and less culturally valuable than whites. As Alice mentions, now many Americans glorify their Native American heritage. It seems that now we are still influenced by the same views as the white 19th century tourists were. Many Americans see their Native American ancestry as a sense of freedom and a reminder of simpler times and simply ignore the hardships their ancestors went through.--Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I found the act that a pregnancy didn’t slow down Indigenous women from working and that the managers would pay their workers for giving birth for working. “Ezra Meeker, who paid a dollar to employees who gave birth while working on his farm, new mothers where back in the fields within two days, babies at their sides,” (pg.199). I cannot believe that this really happened!---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I found that the Indigenous women were also seen as a tourist attraction too, “the spectacle of authentic Indians,” (pg.201) as if people had never seen such a thing. These people, who use to dominate the population of their American homeland were now the minority and seen as passive tourist luxuries. The “curios” that the Indigenous women created were now being bought by white women and seen as a foreign object to add to the look of their homes, “no home is complete now-a-days without a neat and artistically arranged Indian basket corner,” (pg.203). These women really seen as a sideshow in that “viewing and assessing migrant Indian women’s labor and lives became one of the pleasurable acts of public consumption through with women constituted themselves as modern,” (pg.203).---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
To me, this article highlighted a change in the way that Americans viewed Native Americans. In the span of a few decades, white Americans went from fearing the 'savages' to planning vacations around watching the newly docile Native Americans working on the hops farms. And the perception of Native American women played a large role in that shift. Women were often the ones in the fields working, picking hops with babies and children nearby and so providing a domestic front that replaced the old warrior image. Women also made many of the crafts that became popular with the white tourists. Their work became the must have pieces in white middle class homes, and suddenly Native Americans were seen as the producers of mildly exotic talking pieces rather than a threat to family and farm. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Indigenous women workers were often engaged in “traditional culture” and “modern labor” at the same time. But what defines “traditional?” The author writes, “workers frequently used income from ‘modern’ wage labor to meet ‘traditional’ obligations to kin and community and to invest in Indigenous economies” (196). Wage labor didn’t assimilate these Indians, as they just used the money to maintain their culture. But in the case of meeting obligations to kin, Indian wage laborers weren’t really different than any other wage laborer. Also, couldn’t an Indian woman who gets paid to pick hops but also weaves a basket to sell be comparable to a white woman who gets paid to work in a factory but also sews a quilt to sell? Both weaving and sewing could be considered "traditional" activities, so wouldn't that mean that whites could also simultaneously engage in "traditional culture" and "modern labor?" -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
"Squaw drudges who failed to embody the proper gendered division of labor were implicitly to blame for both their own oppression and men's dissolution" (p. 199). These working class Indigenous women were trying to support their families in any way possible, but of course they were still expected to remain in the home, in the private sphere. When they were seen working harder than men, they were immediately blamed for all of the men's laziness instead of being praised for their hard labor and determintion to support their families. They were especially looked down on when they accepted money from tourists who treated them as "tourist attractions" (p. 201). However, as the article mentions, this income was often more reliable than what they received for fieldwork. I think this gives us a good glimpse at the society of the late nineteenth century, where people expected the impossible and never considered the reality. Today these women are known for all the hard labor they went through to support their families and to survive, hardly what they were known for during their time. I think we also try to remember the discrimination and obstacles they faced as an indigenous peoples. They were not seen as normal, everyday people, but as "field hands,"vanishing Indians" (p.201), tourist attractions, "subjects" for photographs (p. 202), and manual laborers. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I was really struck by the way the author said that indigenous women at this time were “dehumanized.” I had never really thought about it in that context, but it is true with the way white women thought about Indians. Because they were closely affiliated with nature and because of the belief that they didn’t feel pain during childbirth, they were no longer women or even really human. This is why it was so easy for white women to treat them as a sort of spectacle as opposed to real people. They acted the complete opposite from how women were supposed to act. - Angie<br />
<br />
I really couldn't believe the way the indigenous people, women in particular were viewed and treated by the white people. I can't believe that groups of people actually went to where the laborers were working to watch and see a "real" "tradtional" Native American. So these white families or individuals went to look at them for fun and then scrutinized those same workers for what they bought with their money, what clothes they wore, and how they tried to act more "white?" I thought that was crazy. I think the white Americans should really have thought of something better to do with their time. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== MP, 252-258-- Deena Gonzalez, “Life and Legend of Gertrudis Barcelo in 19th C. Sante Fe” (2005) ==<br />
<br />
In reading "The Life and Legend of Getrudis Barcelo in the Ninteenth-Century Santa Fe," I was very intrigued how different life seemed to be out in the western United States. He mentions how people like Barcelo had simply gone into a town and were occassionally able to change it. Gonzalez openly discusses brothels, gambling, and other activities that were not seen as much in the eastern United States. The most interesting fact was that "women were expected to defer to men but did not." This appears very different to the rest of the U.S. where the gender roles were very strict. It seems that out west it was much easier to live a more care-free life.-Afrisk<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that Gertrudis Barceló was a really cool woman for her time! She was a smart businesswoman who made a lot of money and owned a lot of property. One of her more profitable endeavors was opening a saloon (p255), “she made the saloon the hub of the town’s social and economic life and at the hall she kept abreast of the latest political developments.” Her success gave her independence, but also violated female codes of behavior of the time. However, the author gives Gertrudis Barceló a lot of credit that the saloon was an establishment where men who spoke different languages could come together and gamble and drink, and as they did this stereotypes were broken and fears and prejudices eroded. I am curious as to how intentional this was on the part of Gertrudis Barceló. Was she truly trying to break barriers, or was she looking to capitalize on the situation and make money? Does it really matter? – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I just wanted to throw in that I googled Gertrudis Barceló after doing the reading, and I found it interesting that she sided with the Americans during the war. She gave the Americans valuable information and even loaned them money. I think it is pretty clear that she was incredibly intelligent. (source: http://www.britannica.com/hispanic_heritage/article-9124916) -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed the story of Doña Gertrudis Barceló in that she was a woman who took charge and made something of herself unlike the white women who were quick to subdue themselves to men. “her success as a business women and gambler gave her unique independence ordinarily denied women,” (pg.254). Even as a women she was seen as so successful and powerful that “politicians and military officers alike went seeking her opinion or involved her in their discussions about trade or the army,” (pg.255). Never before have I heard of a women being consulted by military men and political men! Barceló also helped in integrating people among different cultures, “she set the stage as well for the second, when women began marrying the newcomers,” (pg.257). I really see Barceló as a role model type no matter if she was into gambling and possibly running a brothel, she was able to make a name for herself even as a woman.---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I found this reading on Gertrudis Barcelo very, very interesting! Her story seemed very inspiring and I thought her impact on the Euro-American settlers was quite profound. I think an important point that was made in the piece is how quick American settlers were to judge peoples they had never met. I liked how Barcelo was a woman who was able to help these new protestant men adapt, for lack of a better term to a new society, "They could judge the locals firsthand and could observe a community's values and habits through a single activity, After they had a few drinks, their initial fears and prejudices gradually yielded to the relaxed, sociable atmosphere of the gambling hall..."(257) Although, I do think it is important to realize that this is just one snapshot of a woman going above and beyond what was typically expected of a woman. I agree with Morgan, she was definitely able to make a name for herself, especially in the presence of white men who probably viewed themselves as racially and culturally superior. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I thought Gertrudis Barceló was very interesting because she was innovative and smart. She was Spanish and stood out from those traditional female American roles. I don’t think she bought into that same notion that some women did of what was expected of them. Her business was a lucrative one and she seized opportunities to make money. If she had been a man we would have never heard about her. --MHimes<br />
<br />
I thought that the thing that stood out from this article the most wasn't just her personal account of what had happened to her, but rather the statement on page 256 "To the protestant mind, nothing short of the complete elimination of gambling would lift New Mexicans out of their servility and make them worthy of United States citizenship. The Jacksonian Americans wanted to replace gambling with industry and enterprise" because this statement can be tweaked in so many different ways throughout American history so that the "(White) Protestants" can use their alleged superiority to promote morals within a different racial or ethnic group. Yet, I'd be willing to believe that white protestants could be found partaking in said gambling. --Ssellers<br />
<br />
Gertrudis Barceló was undeniably a fascinating, intelligent and successful woman. One of the things that amused me as I read her story was the reasoning behind her antagonists' animosity. For her fellow Spanish-American women, jealous of her success and freedom, slandered her whenever they could (p. 254). I also found it interesting that for some Protestants, despite the fact that she was industrious and resourceful, the means of her wealth made her unworthy of her praise. While for others, like Josiah Gregg, Barceló was admirable, despite the saloon and gambling, because her money "eventually helped elevate her moral character" (253). -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
== Susan Shelby Magoffin’s diary about her first days in Santa Fe, 1846 ==<br />
<br />
Susan Shelby seems to find the positive in living in and travelling through New Mexico and the West, unlike Mrs. A. M. Green. This is probably due to the fact that she keeps herself busy with housework, improving her Spanish, and getting to know the locals. I enjoyed reading the prejudices Shelby believes of the Mexicans. She is surprised to find that her Mexican servant, who she was quick to call "one of the numbskulls" (p. 234), is actually quite smart and picks up on things very quickly. She also realizes the Mexicans' intelligence when they offer her useful help and advice with things that Shelby believes may be "the first of the kind they have ever seen" (p. 235). Shelby also seems to imply that the Mexicans are gaudy and extravagant with their parties when she is describing the managerie. It is important to note that she is surprised to discover that when rich Mexicans "attend a place of the kind to take a servant along and while sitting to use them as an article of furniture" (p. 236). To me, this appears to be the point where Shelby is realizing that even the Mexicans have a hierarchal system; they are not all stupid servants. Another highlight of Shelby's diary is where she points out her place in society - well, more like her place in the home, really. On Friday the 4th, she writes about putting all of her energy, and her servant's energy in to cleaning the house. She is determined to do her "duty so well so as to gain one bright smile and sweet kiss from [her] good, kind husband" (p. 234). I think this is a great example of the separate spheres and the idea that these women had of making the homes perfect, romanticized places for their husbands to return. Apparently it is so serious, she may not receive her husband's acceptance and affection when he returns home! Although, it seems like that would be due to her punishing herself rather than a punishment from her husband. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
== Rape of Indian women in CA, 1862 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
The anonymous account of the Rape of Indian women was interesting and upsetting. The writer is obviously outraged by the egregious acts of the “supposed” United States Officers and their utter lack of respect for the Native Americans. In my opinion there were two messages posted in this letter. The obvious issue with the rape of course, but the writer also makes a point to note “Whether he found a fit subject to practice his virtuous and civilizing purposes, the writer in not informed.” (p 237) This seems like an intentional dig at the “civilizing” practices of the Americans in regards to the natives. The writer illustrates the irony in these practices through his letter; rape is an uncivilized and immoral act, in this case perpetrated by the very people who are attempting to “civilize” the native people of the land. –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
I was surprised to see that this was published in a newspaper. While it is upsetting, disgusting, immoral, etc. I wouldn't think that newspapers of the time would have had the courage to publish such a piece against the stationed soldiers. It does go to show that people were taking note of the uncivilized nature of the Americans (as Caryn said) and the irony of the whole situation. Would something like this be followed up on by law enforcement, or simply shrugged off? - christine l<br />
<br />
== Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-1876 ==<br />
<br />
Through the whole of the Sale of Chinese Prostitutes documents the women were used as objects of prostitution to their owners to which they owed money to. What I do not understand is why did these women so easily give over the use of their body for such little owed money for such a long period of time? And I highly doubt any of the three women actually fulfilled their time of four years thus adding more years onto the sentence. And why would they let themselves be prostituted for borrowing such a little amount of money? $630, $470, $503, all under a thousand and yet they had to serve for 4 years in each instance. Shouldn’t they stick up for themselves and get an actual job to pay back the loan? That brings me to another idea, why did these loaners want prostitution for re-payment and not let them get a job to pay it back, possibly quicker?---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with what Morgan said for the most part, but I wonder if the women weren't giving themselves up so easily, but rather they were ignorant to the fact that the sum of money they were receiving was so little. I also found it very offensive that the bills mentioned that if a woman got pregnant while she was serving as a prostitute she would have a lengthened period when 1- she didn't get pregnant by herself (meaning that the future child could be of benefit to the father in some way, or is at least still his responsibility) and 2- you can still have sex and be a prostitute while you are pregnant.... -Ssellers<br />
<br />
I think an important fact for us to consider while reading "Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes" is that these amounts owed were a lot more back then. I do not believe any of these women wanted to sell themselves, but had no other option. America was the land of opportunity and even if they had to be indebted and prostituted first, nothing would keep them from these opportunities. As for Morgan's question about prostitution for re-payment, the mistresses probably made decent money from their prostitutes. I wondered if perhaps the mistresses kept the immigrants for four years because they might have been able to use the immigrants’ ignorance and accrue more money than was actually owed. --kokeefe<br />
<br />
I agree that in 1875-1876 $630 a lot of money. I googled the historical value of money and $1 was worth about $14.85 meaning that $630 was equivalent to over $9300. It is unfortunate that these women had to sell themselves but that may have been the only option that they could see for themselves at the time. –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
I can't speak to Chinese attitudes towards prostitution in the second half of the nineteenth century, but we talked about prostitution and courtesans in my Gender in Chinese History class during the eighteenth century, and they had a different view of it than we do. Certainly, they felt that it was best to be a respectable wife and mother, but courtesans and prostitutes weren't merely sex objects, most were educated and trained in the fine arts. Sometimes they didn't even sleep with their clients, but would just sit down and write poetry or play music with them. Many of these women were famous for their beauty and learning, even their morality. Of course, I'm not by any means trying to glorify prostitution, but still, these immigrant Chinese women may have come to the United States with a different idea of what being a prostitute meant, and that's why they agreed to it, combined with the practical concern of getting themselves to America. - Alice W<br />
<br />
I agree with many of the comments above regarding money and how at the time it was quite a large amount to spend but I found interesting how the numbers were so precise, ie. with Loi Yau her amount was $503 for four and half years(p. 238). How did the mistresses come up with the numbers, was $503 the exact amount for travel, lodging, etc.? I also question if the women really understood everything they were in for, like kokeefe mentioned America was the land for opportunity-it may have been a better life here than in China. The women were able to live in America without debt and be free to do as they pleased once their servitude was complete. I do not think prostitution is the way to go or an ideal life choice, but for the women maybe it was a means of escape. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884 ==<br />
<br />
It was interesting to read this account after reading "Too Dark to be Angels." To me it is sad that this little girl was so eager to go, but kids I guess are naturally curious, and on top of that she had probably already subconsciously absorbed much of the pressure to assimilate. It's telling that the little girl compares herself to the "young of a wild creature" (241) while on the train to school. The mother decides to send her daughter to the school because she knows there will one day soon be "fewer real Dakotas" and "more palefaces" (240), an environment that would force her daughter to assimilate. Perhaps she thought sending her to school at such a young age would save her the pain of having to give up her traditions later in life. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== Mrs. A. M. Green’s account of Frontier Life, 1887 ==<br />
<br />
I think that Mrs. A. M. Green’s account of frontier life is really touching because it is probably an example of what so many other women were going through. Although some probably had the sense of adventure to want to go exploring out west, I’m sure many were perfectly fine staying in the east with their families. Green’s sadness but resolve to put on a happy face for her husband is an example of how women were the rock of their families and despite severe emotional turmoil, they were forced to overcome it and remain the strong person that would hold the family together. - Angie<br />
<br />
I agree Angie, it is hard to imagine the shock that Mrs. Green felt moving to such an unfamiliar territory with her husband and two young children. This account did portray her as a brave woman persevering in a rather bleak situation. She could have accepted her husband’s offer to return home but her loyalty was stronger than her desire for comfort. I also appreciate the candid nature of this entry because she does express vulnerability and tenderness. -Caryn<br />
<br />
== Violet Cragg, Ex-Slave and Former Army Nurse, requests an Army Pension, 1908 ==<br />
<br />
I was intrigued about the article on Violet Cragg’s travels, because I wrote a paper on the United States Sanitary Commission last semester, and Violet was a former army nurse. It was evident that life in the army was very hectic as she traveled many places and moved around constantly. It made sense that she traveled so much for nursing because women were essentially the only nurses at the time and helped bring it to the forefront as a profession- Afrisk<br />
<br />
In Violet’s article I saw her being an object of politics, such as her being sold and moved so many times. I also suspect that she was raped especially because of the tone around the situation of her daughter’s birth that she describes: “the father of my daughter, Mrs. Ella Taylor, was Howard Whitney, a white man. I was never supported by him and was never know as his wife and never lived with him as his wife,” (pg.243). In her appeal for a pension I didn't quite understand why she decided to write so much about her life, is this because she wanted to Pension Office as much information as possible? I found that she's also quite demeaning of herself, such as stating plainly “I cannot write,” (pg. 245). She seems to think very little of herself, when she should think highly of herself having been dealt with so many trial and tribulations in her life.---Morgan M.</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_3_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 3 Questions/Comments2010-01-28T01:45:21Z<p>Megan3088: /* US, 178-193, Devon Mihesuah, “’Too Dark to Be Angels’: The Class System among the Cherokees at the Female Seminary” */</p>
<hr />
<div>== US, 178-193, Devon Mihesuah, “’Too Dark to Be Angels’: The Class System among the Cherokees at the Female Seminary” ==<br />
<br />
One of the things that stood out to me in this article was the paradoxes. This was full of them regarding cherokee values as well as teachings. There seems to be great confusion between the pure bloods and mixed-bloods. For example, there were many mixed-blood instructors, but no traditional cherokee teachers, yet the school was based on cherokee values. Also, many of the teachers repressed Cherokee values, which seems to defeat the purpose of a cherokee boarding school. Also, a girl named Na-Li defended her honor in claiming that both of her parents were full cherokee, but many of the teachers did not teach traditional values so it seems like a frivolous concern. It appears to obtain a traditional cherokee eduaction when there were so many paradoxes between the people.-Afrisk<br />
<br />
<br />
I was struck by the difference between the attitude towards Native American ancestry of the girls at the Cherokee Female Seminary (and for that matter, of the Cherokee nation as a whole during the 1800s) and modern Americans. In the nineteenth century, it was a desirable thing to have white blood, as it indicated that one was more civilized, and whiter Cherokees held a higher status than more full-blooded ones. Education at the seminary served to help the girls, even those who were full-blooded, become “whiter.” Now, white Americans, when discussing their ancestry, are extremely proud of even the tiniest bit of Native American blood they might contain. I can think of very few people with whom I’ve discussed ancestry with that don’t claim to have at least one Native American in the family, myself included. I think that perhaps it has something to do with our romantic view of Native Americans and a desire to show that we don’t feel animosity towards them any longer. - Alice W<br />
<br />
I agree with Alice on her analysis in regards to pride about having Native American ancestry. There are also a number of other things that surprised me while reading this. I was surprised that the "mixed-blood" families were more accepted in society and received better. Though I understand their skin was lighter, in many cases even today, biracial or people with a variety of ethnic backgrounds are ostracized from both groups. I was also slightly surprised by the division among the Cherokee. Whether mixed-blood or not, I was expecting some sense of unity that did not occur. Looking back into history, many people remember their roots or where they came from, this is not the case in this situation. This alone could have proved detrimental to the efforts of Native Americans at this time.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
On page 190 of “Too Dark to be Angles,” I found these two sentences to be contradictory to the rest of the article. First, “The girls’ seminary experiences helped to strengthen their identities as Cherokees…” Second, “Both the progressive and the traditional tribal members considered themselves to be more Cherokee than the other group.” I think the reason that these sentences threw me off is because throughout the reading I the author gave numerous examples of how full-blooded Cherokees were discriminated against within the seminary. Those Cherokees that were mixed blooded were considered more intelligent because they were whiter. So, it just seems a little contradictory to argue that the seminary schools (that didn’t teach anything of the Cherokee language or culture) brought about a strong Cherokee identity to its students. -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think that the school did work to develop a Cherokee identity in its students, just not a traditional identity and not one that we would imagine as Cherokee today. Yes, some of the girls only had trace amounts of Cherokee ancestry, but they still identified strongly as Cherokee. It's just that they identified with an assimilated form of Cherokee identity, one that emulated white society. They ridiculed the darker, less assimilated girls not for being Cherokee per se, but for not embracing their version of what it meant to be Cherokee. As for the girls being bullied for their skin tone and traditions, they may have come to identify more strongly with their traditional Cherokee roots in the face of opposition. So both groups did maintain a connection to a Cherokee identity, it's just that, as the article states, "there were differences in opinion as to what a Cherokee really was." -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
While reading the article “Too Dark to Be Angels” I found that it parallels to the story of “Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884”. Both speak about the Indian women’s seminaries, it isn’t our-right spoken in Zitkala-Sa’s article, but it’s implied in her wanting to go East “crossed the Missouri in the evening…we stopped before a massive brick building,” (pg.241). I also found a parallel that men have taken advantage of women as objects here as well. “The Cherokee National Council was controlled by progressive, educated, mixed-blood tribesmen,” (pg. 178). Once again dictating what women learn about or shall act while in such seminary; to mold and bend them into what they see fit. ---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
Another point I did not understand at first was why the darker girls, who had more Cherokee blood were being made fun of because of it. “Mixed-blood students frequently scorned those girls who had less white blood and darker skin,” (pg.180). Is this not a school for assimilation for the Cherokee girls? Reading further in I found that the women and girls of this school strive to be “equal” to white women, as “anything ‘white’ was ideal” stated Kate O’Donald Ringland, (pg.181). For this fact, to be as white as possible, the seminary’s repressed all Cherokee values and “offered no courses focusing on Cherokee culture,” (pg.178). ---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I think Erin brings up a great point that I did not catch myself. Although the schools did seem to instill a sense of Cherokee within in the women, I think the schools main accomplishment was the desire to be more "white", as Morgan points out. I think this was really emphasized through the perceptions of intelligence among the girls at the seminary and the teaching that was going on. As quoted on page 181, Albert Sydney Wyly "expressed his impatience with the full-blood girls by referring to the mixed-bloods as "whiter" and therefore "more intellectual". I think these schools were set up to Americanize the Native American population, rather than instill Cherokee ideals. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I found it truly disturbing that female teachers exemplified multiple cases of insensitivity throughout this reading. The teachers, though white, should have recognized the similarities between themselves and the Cherokee girls they were responsible for. At this point in time, women had few rights, neither did the Cherokee. It would have been more productive to encourage the young girls, in turn making it easier for them to assimilate, if that was in fact their main goal.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
What I thought was interesting about the Cherokee Indian Seminary for girls was that there was class difference within that Cherokee society. Those that looked more white versus those that did not basing emphasis on what amount of Cherokee the girls had in them. The more white blood in them, the better status they had at the seminary. Some of the girls did not even know their native language and others did might help explain some of the division. I don’t think the teachers helped with that either. These girls had pressures from what was expected of them in “white” roles and at the same time trying to maintain their traditional roles in Native American society. These girls being defined as either “full blooded“ and “mixed blood” became intermingled with the pressures to fit in. --Mhimes<br />
<br />
I found it surprising that the Cherokee National Council was made up Cherokee that were mostly mixed blood and prescribed to upper-class Southern antebellum values. Many of the girls who attended the seminary were from slave holding families. Considering that many of them ascribed to white values and had the appearance of whites, why did they even acknowledge themselves as Cherokee when they felt that Cherokee were inferior to whites? Why didn’t these girls just go to a regular school, leaving the more traditional, “uneducated” girls who wanted to learn about white society to go to the Cherokee seminaries? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I found it interesting in “Too Dark to be Angels,” that despite how many girls could have been traumatized by the racism against them, the seminary actually helped many girls get ahead in life. At the very end of the article, Mihesuah says “despite its shortcomings, the Cherokee seminary was unquestionably the catalyst for the prosperity of many Cherokee women and their families.” (p. 191) Yes, the seminary made it almost impossible to keep one’s culture, but at the same time, it made it possible for many girls to succeed who would not previously have been able to. The school taught subjects like latin and math that other white schools would have been teaching, thereby allowing Cherokee girls to take part in mainstream society. -- Angie<br />
<br />
I liked reading the essay "Too Dark to Be Angels." I thought there were multiple interesting points in the article. In particular I thought how the full-blood Cherokee girls were treated resembled what can be found at high schools even today. Some students today are still picked on because of their race or because they are of lower class. The reading talked about how the girls were sometimes left out because they were falling behind academically and were not able to go on outings with the older high school girls and also were unable to afford party clothes and/or after-dinner snacks. These types of things made the full-blood Cherokee girls feel inferior and they can also make girls in schools today feel left out or inferior to the upper class or other white females. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I really liked Amy's point above. Even back in 19th century Cherokee seminaries, there were still mean girl cliques. A tale as old as time... Also, I have the same questions as Taylor. Why did the girls consider themselves Cherokee still if they resembled and lived like the white southerners and felt inferior to them for being Cherokees.. I was astounded as to how European the girls in the photos looked, and then I read the captions where one stated the girls pictured were 1/32 Cherokee. I was quite shocked to learn how even those very distantly-related Cherokee girls considered themselves Cherokee even when they had never even heard the language or witnessed any tribal functions/ceremonies. - christine l<br />
<br />
It is interesting that both the mixed-blood and full-blood Cherokee girls in seminary identified with their Cherokee origins, and that each felt that they were the more “in touch” with their lineage than the other group. It seems that one’s perception of their identity had more of an impact on who they became than solely genetic factors. Those who had lighter skin knew that they had more options socially than those who were darker, because they fit in better with the notion that the white society was the more desirable. Yet at the same time, they did not identify completely with the white culture they sought to mix into, instead they wanted to be identified as Cherokee. I find it interesting as well that the society that had previously held the “one drop” policy that restricted African Americans did not seem to have the same effect on schooling for Native Americans (perhaps I missed that section in the readings but that struck me as slightly different)--jmarshal <br />
<br />
I agree with Christine L. the cliques inside the seminary were similar to the cliques we see today in movies such as Mean Girls, it shows that we have not changed much throughout history and that the class system exists with the influence of monetary status. The girls who were full-blood were not open to the full possibilites education had to offer because they were not able to attend primary school, but I found it interesting that they were still able to maintain good grades. While, some of the girls could not stay long in the seminary due to family or financial reasons they still maintained grades close to the mixed girls. I wondered how many students the seminary accepted? If there was a limit and even with the comments from the superintendent why were so many full-blooded girls accepted when they faced criticism for being themselves? -Megan W. <br />
<br />
== US, 194-220, Paige Raibmon, “The Practice of Everyday Colonialism: Indigenous Women at Work in the Hop Fields and Tourist Industry of Puget Sound” ==<br />
<br />
Like Alice, I was struck at how the view of Native Americans has changed. Paige Raibmon mentions in her article how Native American women in the 19th century were seen a subhuman because they could "endure childbirth painlessly" (199). This excuse was used to justify using them for hard manual labor. I was also shocked to discover that the Native Americans picking hops were not seen as laborers, but instead were objects for tourists to gawk at. Finally, Mihesuah mentions in her article several times that the Native Americans saw themselves as being less intelligent and less culturally valuable than whites. As Alice mentions, now many Americans glorify their Native American heritage. It seems that now we are still influenced by the same views as the white 19th century tourists were. Many Americans see their Native American ancestry as a sense of freedom and a reminder of simpler times and simply ignore the hardships their ancestors went through.--Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I found the act that a pregnancy didn’t slow down Indigenous women from working and that the managers would pay their workers for giving birth for working. “Ezra Meeker, who paid a dollar to employees who gave birth while working on his farm, new mothers where back in the fields within two days, babies at their sides,” (pg.199). I cannot believe that this really happened!---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I found that the Indigenous women were also seen as a tourist attraction too, “the spectacle of authentic Indians,” (pg.201) as if people had never seen such a thing. These people, who use to dominate the population of their American homeland were now the minority and seen as passive tourist luxuries. The “curios” that the Indigenous women created were now being bought by white women and seen as a foreign object to add to the look of their homes, “no home is complete now-a-days without a neat and artistically arranged Indian basket corner,” (pg.203). These women really seen as a sideshow in that “viewing and assessing migrant Indian women’s labor and lives became one of the pleasurable acts of public consumption through with women constituted themselves as modern,” (pg.203).---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
To me, this article highlighted a change in the way that Americans viewed Native Americans. In the span of a few decades, white Americans went from fearing the 'savages' to planning vacations around watching the newly docile Native Americans working on the hops farms. And the perception of Native American women played a large role in that shift. Women were often the ones in the fields working, picking hops with babies and children nearby and so providing a domestic front that replaced the old warrior image. Women also made many of the crafts that became popular with the white tourists. Their work became the must have pieces in white middle class homes, and suddenly Native Americans were seen as the producers of mildly exotic talking pieces rather than a threat to family and farm. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Indigenous women workers were often engaged in “traditional culture” and “modern labor” at the same time. But what defines “traditional?” The author writes, “workers frequently used income from ‘modern’ wage labor to meet ‘traditional’ obligations to kin and community and to invest in Indigenous economies” (196). Wage labor didn’t assimilate these Indians, as they just used the money to maintain their culture. But in the case of meeting obligations to kin, Indian wage laborers weren’t really different than any other wage laborer. Also, couldn’t an Indian woman who gets paid to pick hops but also weaves a basket to sell be comparable to a white woman who gets paid to work in a factory but also sews a quilt to sell? Both weaving and sewing could be considered "traditional" activities, so wouldn't that mean that whites could also simultaneously engage in "traditional culture" and "modern labor?" -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
"Squaw drudges who failed to embody the proper gendered division of labor were implicitly to blame for both their own oppression and men's dissolution" (p. 199). These working class Indigenous women were trying to support their families in any way possible, but of course they were still expected to remain in the home, in the private sphere. When they were seen working harder than men, they were immediately blamed for all of the men's laziness instead of being praised for their hard labor and determintion to support their families. They were especially looked down on when they accepted money from tourists who treated them as "tourist attractions" (p. 201). However, as the article mentions, this income was often more reliable than what they received for fieldwork. I think this gives us a good glimpse at the society of the late nineteenth century, where people expected the impossible and never considered the reality. Today these women are known for all the hard labor they went through to support their families and to survive, hardly what they were known for during their time. I think we also try to remember the discrimination and obstacles they faced as an indigenous peoples. They were not seen as normal, everyday people, but as "field hands,"vanishing Indians" (p.201), tourist attractions, "subjects" for photographs (p. 202), and manual laborers. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I was really struck by the way the author said that indigenous women at this time were “dehumanized.” I had never really thought about it in that context, but it is true with the way white women thought about Indians. Because they were closely affiliated with nature and because of the belief that they didn’t feel pain during childbirth, they were no longer women or even really human. This is why it was so easy for white women to treat them as a sort of spectacle as opposed to real people. They acted the complete opposite from how women were supposed to act. - Angie<br />
<br />
I really couldn't believe the way the indigenous people, women in particular were viewed and treated by the white people. I can't believe that groups of people actually went to where the laborers were working to watch and see a "real" "tradtional" Native American. So these white families or individuals went to look at them for fun and then scrutinized those same workers for what they bought with their money, what clothes they wore, and how they tried to act more "white?" I thought that was crazy. I think the white Americans should really have thought of something better to do with their time. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== MP, 252-258-- Deena Gonzalez, “Life and Legend of Gertrudis Barcelo in 19th C. Sante Fe” (2005) ==<br />
<br />
In reading "The Life and Legend of Getrudis Barcelo in the Ninteenth-Century Santa Fe," I was very intrigued how different life seemed to be out in the western United States. He mentions how people like Barcelo had simply gone into a town and were occassionally able to change it. Gonzalez openly discusses brothels, gambling, and other activities that were not seen as much in the eastern United States. The most interesting fact was that "women were expected to defer to men but did not." This appears very different to the rest of the U.S. where the gender roles were very strict. It seems that out west it was much easier to live a more care-free life.-Afrisk<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that Gertrudis Barceló was a really cool woman for her time! She was a smart businesswoman who made a lot of money and owned a lot of property. One of her more profitable endeavors was opening a saloon (p255), “she made the saloon the hub of the town’s social and economic life and at the hall she kept abreast of the latest political developments.” Her success gave her independence, but also violated female codes of behavior of the time. However, the author gives Gertrudis Barceló a lot of credit that the saloon was an establishment where men who spoke different languages could come together and gamble and drink, and as they did this stereotypes were broken and fears and prejudices eroded. I am curious as to how intentional this was on the part of Gertrudis Barceló. Was she truly trying to break barriers, or was she looking to capitalize on the situation and make money? Does it really matter? – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I just wanted to throw in that I googled Gertrudis Barceló after doing the reading, and I found it interesting that she sided with the Americans during the war. She gave the Americans valuable information and even loaned them money. I think it is pretty clear that she was incredibly intelligent. (source: http://www.britannica.com/hispanic_heritage/article-9124916) -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed the story of Doña Gertrudis Barceló in that she was a woman who took charge and made something of herself unlike the white women who were quick to subdue themselves to men. “her success as a business women and gambler gave her unique independence ordinarily denied women,” (pg.254). Even as a women she was seen as so successful and powerful that “politicians and military officers alike went seeking her opinion or involved her in their discussions about trade or the army,” (pg.255). Never before have I heard of a women being consulted by military men and political men! Barceló also helped in integrating people among different cultures, “she set the stage as well for the second, when women began marrying the newcomers,” (pg.257). I really see Barceló as a role model type no matter if she was into gambling and possibly running a brothel, she was able to make a name for herself even as a woman.---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I found this reading on Gertrudis Barcelo very, very interesting! Her story seemed very inspiring and I thought her impact on the Euro-American settlers was quite profound. I think an important point that was made in the piece is how quick American settlers were to judge peoples they had never met. I liked how Barcelo was a woman who was able to help these new protestant men adapt, for lack of a better term to a new society, "They could judge the locals firsthand and could observe a community's values and habits through a single activity, After they had a few drinks, their initial fears and prejudices gradually yielded to the relaxed, sociable atmosphere of the gambling hall..."(257) Although, I do think it is important to realize that this is just one snapshot of a woman going above and beyond what was typically expected of a woman. I agree with Morgan, she was definitely able to make a name for herself, especially in the presence of white men who probably viewed themselves as racially and culturally superior. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I thought Gertrudis Barceló was very interesting because she was innovative and smart. She was Spanish and stood out from those traditional female American roles. I don’t think she bought into that same notion that some women did of what was expected of them. Her business was a lucrative one and she seized opportunities to make money. If she had been a man we would have never heard about her. --MHimes<br />
<br />
I thought that the thing that stood out from this article the most wasn't just her personal account of what had happened to her, but rather the statement on page 256 "To the protestant mind, nothing short of the complete elimination of gambling would lift New Mexicans out of their servility and make them worthy of United States citizenship. The Jacksonian Americans wanted to replace gambling with industry and enterprise" because this statement can be tweaked in so many different ways throughout American history so that the "(White) Protestants" can use their alleged superiority to promote morals within a different racial or ethnic group. Yet, I'd be willing to believe that white protestants could be found partaking in said gambling. --Ssellers<br />
<br />
Gertrudis Barceló was undeniably a fascinating, intelligent and successful woman. One of the things that amused me as I read her story was the reasoning behind her antagonists' animosity. For her fellow Spanish-American women, jealous of her success and freedom, slandered her whenever they could (p. 254). I also found it interesting that for some Protestants, despite the fact that she was industrious and resourceful, the means of her wealth made her unworthy of her praise. While for others, like Josiah Gregg, Barceló was admirable, despite the saloon and gambling, because her money "eventually helped elevate her moral character" (253). -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
== Susan Shelby Magoffin’s diary about her first days in Santa Fe, 1846 ==<br />
<br />
Susan Shelby seems to find the positive in living in and travelling through New Mexico and the West, unlike Mrs. A. M. Green. This is probably due to the fact that she keeps herself busy with housework, improving her Spanish, and getting to know the locals. I enjoyed reading the prejudices Shelby believes of the Mexicans. She is surprised to find that her Mexican servant, who she was quick to call "one of the numbskulls" (p. 234), is actually quite smart and picks up on things very quickly. She also realizes the Mexicans' intelligence when they offer her useful help and advice with things that Shelby believes may be "the first of the kind they have ever seen" (p. 235). Shelby also seems to imply that the Mexicans are gaudy and extravagant with their parties when she is describing the managerie. It is important to note that she is surprised to discover that when rich Mexicans "attend a place of the kind to take a servant along and while sitting to use them as an article of furniture" (p. 236). To me, this appears to be the point where Shelby is realizing that even the Mexicans have a hierarchal system; they are not all stupid servants. Another highlight of Shelby's diary is where she points out her place in society - well, more like her place in the home, really. On Friday the 4th, she writes about putting all of her energy, and her servant's energy in to cleaning the house. She is determined to do her "duty so well so as to gain one bright smile and sweet kiss from [her] good, kind husband" (p. 234). I think this is a great example of the separate spheres and the idea that these women had of making the homes perfect, romanticized places for their husbands to return. Apparently it is so serious, she may not receive her husband's acceptance and affection when he returns home! Although, it seems like that would be due to her punishing herself rather than a punishment from her husband. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
== Rape of Indian women in CA, 1862 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
The anonymous account of the Rape of Indian women was interesting and upsetting. The writer is obviously outraged by the egregious acts of the “supposed” United States Officers and their utter lack of respect for the Native Americans. In my opinion there were two messages posted in this letter. The obvious issue with the rape of course, but the writer also makes a point to note “Whether he found a fit subject to practice his virtuous and civilizing purposes, the writer in not informed.” (p 237) This seems like an intentional dig at the “civilizing” practices of the Americans in regards to the natives. The writer illustrates the irony in these practices through his letter; rape is an uncivilized and immoral act, in this case perpetrated by the very people who are attempting to “civilize” the native people of the land. –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
I was surprised to see that this was published in a newspaper. While it is upsetting, disgusting, immoral, etc. I wouldn't think that newspapers of the time would have had the courage to publish such a piece against the stationed soldiers. It does go to show that people were taking note of the uncivilized nature of the Americans (as Caryn said) and the irony of the whole situation. Would something like this be followed up on by law enforcement, or simply shrugged off? - christine l<br />
<br />
== Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-1876 ==<br />
<br />
Through the whole of the Sale of Chinese Prostitutes documents the women were used as objects of prostitution to their owners to which they owed money to. What I do not understand is why did these women so easily give over the use of their body for such little owed money for such a long period of time? And I highly doubt any of the three women actually fulfilled their time of four years thus adding more years onto the sentence. And why would they let themselves be prostituted for borrowing such a little amount of money? $630, $470, $503, all under a thousand and yet they had to serve for 4 years in each instance. Shouldn’t they stick up for themselves and get an actual job to pay back the loan? That brings me to another idea, why did these loaners want prostitution for re-payment and not let them get a job to pay it back, possibly quicker?---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with what Morgan said for the most part, but I wonder if the women weren't giving themselves up so easily, but rather they were ignorant to the fact that the sum of money they were receiving was so little. I also found it very offensive that the bills mentioned that if a woman got pregnant while she was serving as a prostitute she would have a lengthened period when 1- she didn't get pregnant by herself (meaning that the future child could be of benefit to the father in some way, or is at least still his responsibility) and 2- you can still have sex and be a prostitute while you are pregnant.... -Ssellers<br />
<br />
I think an important fact for us to consider while reading "Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes" is that these amounts owed were a lot more back then. I do not believe any of these women wanted to sell themselves, but had no other option. America was the land of opportunity and even if they had to be indebted and prostituted first, nothing would keep them from these opportunities. As for Morgan's question about prostitution for re-payment, the mistresses probably made decent money from their prostitutes. I wondered if perhaps the mistresses kept the immigrants for four years because they might have been able to use the immigrants’ ignorance and accrue more money than was actually owed. --kokeefe<br />
<br />
I agree that in 1875-1876 $630 a lot of money. I googled the historical value of money and $1 was worth about $14.85 meaning that $630 was equivalent to over $9300. It is unfortunate that these women had to sell themselves but that may have been the only option that they could see for themselves at the time. –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
I can't speak to Chinese attitudes towards prostitution in the second half of the nineteenth century, but we talked about prostitution and courtesans in my Gender in Chinese History class during the eighteenth century, and they had a different view of it than we do. Certainly, they felt that it was best to be a respectable wife and mother, but courtesans and prostitutes weren't merely sex objects, most were educated and trained in the fine arts. Sometimes they didn't even sleep with their clients, but would just sit down and write poetry or play music with them. Many of these women were famous for their beauty and learning, even their morality. Of course, I'm not by any means trying to glorify prostitution, but still, these immigrant Chinese women may have come to the United States with a different idea of what being a prostitute meant, and that's why they agreed to it, combined with the practical concern of getting themselves to America. - Alice W<br />
<br />
== Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884 ==<br />
<br />
It was interesting to read this account after reading "Too Dark to be Angels." To me it is sad that this little girl was so eager to go, but kids I guess are naturally curious, and on top of that she had probably already subconsciously absorbed much of the pressure to assimilate. It's telling that the little girl compares herself to the "young of a wild creature" (241) while on the train to school. The mother decides to send her daughter to the school because she knows there will one day soon be "fewer real Dakotas" and "more palefaces" (240), an environment that would force her daughter to assimilate. Perhaps she thought sending her to school at such a young age would save her the pain of having to give up her traditions later in life. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== Mrs. A. M. Green’s account of Frontier Life, 1887 ==<br />
<br />
I think that Mrs. A. M. Green’s account of frontier life is really touching because it is probably an example of what so many other women were going through. Although some probably had the sense of adventure to want to go exploring out west, I’m sure many were perfectly fine staying in the east with their families. Green’s sadness but resolve to put on a happy face for her husband is an example of how women were the rock of their families and despite severe emotional turmoil, they were forced to overcome it and remain the strong person that would hold the family together. - Angie<br />
<br />
I agree Angie, it is hard to imagine the shock that Mrs. Green felt moving to such an unfamiliar territory with her husband and two young children. This account did portray her as a brave woman persevering in a rather bleak situation. She could have accepted her husband’s offer to return home but her loyalty was stronger than her desire for comfort. I also appreciate the candid nature of this entry because she does express vulnerability and tenderness. -Caryn<br />
<br />
== Violet Cragg, Ex-Slave and Former Army Nurse, requests an Army Pension, 1908 ==<br />
<br />
I was intrigued about the article on Violet Cragg’s travels, because I wrote a paper on the United States Sanitary Commission last semester, and Violet was a former army nurse. It was evident that life in the army was very hectic as she traveled many places and moved around constantly. It made sense that she traveled so much for nursing because women were essentially the only nurses at the time and helped bring it to the forefront as a profession- Afrisk<br />
<br />
In Violet’s article I saw her being an object of politics, such as her being sold and moved so many times. I also suspect that she was raped especially because of the tone around the situation of her daughter’s birth that she describes: “the father of my daughter, Mrs. Ella Taylor, was Howard Whitney, a white man. I was never supported by him and was never know as his wife and never lived with him as his wife,” (pg.243). In her appeal for a pension I didn't quite understand why she decided to write so much about her life, is this because she wanted to Pension Office as much information as possible? I found that she's also quite demeaning of herself, such as stating plainly “I cannot write,” (pg. 245). She seems to think very little of herself, when she should think highly of herself having been dealt with so many trial and tribulations in her life.---Morgan M.</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_2_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 2 Questions/Comments2010-01-20T21:14:38Z<p>Megan3088: /* Elsa Barkley Brown, “To Catch the Vision of Freedom: Reconstructing Southern Black Women’s Political History, 1865-1880” */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Comments/questions comparing the articles ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Alice Fahs, “The Feminized Civil War: Gender, Northern Popular Literature, and the Memory of War, 1861-1900” ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Based on a paper I wrote on the United States Sanitary Commission last semester, this was a very interesting essay to read. Fahs mentions that the war still follows the "masculanized culture" that was in place at the time and through my research I discovered the same things. Much of the standard literature was centered around the fighting and the man's roles on the battlefield, yet women's roles on and off the battlefield cannot be forgotten. It is interesting how literature giving credit to women must be labeled as "feminist" literature, when in reality, they should be given the same treatment as men. -- Afrisk<br />
<br />
I also found it very interesting how she discusses the different type of surrering that women endured. Men endured the horrors of war and their suffering was very physical and visual. Women, however, also suffered but they experienced strictly emotional suffering. They were cut deeply by these emotional wounds of not knowing weather their loved-ones were safe on the battlefield and some argued that these wounds cut deeper than those of men. Where men simply died on the battlefield, women had to endure the death of a loved one, while still remaining strong, and now being forced to provide for themselves. -- Afrisk<br />
<br />
It's interesting how Civil War literature shifted from a focus on the tribulations of northern women to those of southern women. And despite a strong emphasis on realistic literature, southern women and antebellum plantation life was highly romanticized. This probably came in part from a desire to both remember a time when the nation was united (which can also be seen in the popularity of stories centered around the Revolution)and to try to create a new identity centered around northern and southern reconciliation and "white" ideals. - Alice W<br />
<br />
I can't help but think about "Gone With the Wind" whenever they mentioned southern woman's literature after the war (which they eventually did mention in the reading)<br />
I know that the depiction found within that novel is unrealistic, but the romanticizing of the civil war and the southern woman's role in it IS interesting to read and find relations to even in today's non-antebellum southern world..... -Ssellers<br />
<br />
I think it is important to keep in mind that literature is largely written for an audience, and yet, this literature is what shapes the public memory of an event. The dominant forms of fiction at the outset of the war were women’s domestic novels. This impacts what type of literature was written during the war. It should come as no surprise that during the war, “the literary marketplace supported an outpouring of popular literature portraying women’s domestic participation in the war.” This domestic participation includes working, sacrifice, and loss, some even argue that the women sacrificed more than the men who were fighting. However, there was a shift in literature with the rise of Civil War veterans organizations. This led to a shift in who were the bearers of the war’s memory from women to veterans. It is amazing how the Civil War has become, “a white male conflict, rather than a cataclysmic event that rent and remade the fabric of life for all Americans.” – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
Throughout the reading on the Feminized Civil War, I kept asking myself where the women had gone; it was as if their memory of the Civil War had disappeared entirely. I was pleased when I came across Mary Livermore who, in 1887, spoke out against where the literature about the civil war was going. She argued that the story of Northern women was missing. Then, in 1889 Edward Bellamy, stated that, “many pictures of battles have been painted, but no true one yet, for the pictures contain only men. The women are unaccountably left out.” Finally, there was Elizabeth Stuart Phelps who actually “undermined stereotypes of veterans” and “challenged the veteran dominated culture of remembrance itself.” I was just happy to see that women were not entirely forgotten in the decades following the Civil War. I am curious as to how the majority of women felt when their impacts on the war became largely overlooked, especially after all of the pain and loss that they had experienced. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
It seems as time moved on after the Civil War it increasingly became to be defined as a "Man's War", specifically a "White Man's War". All of the domestic issues women faced, such as caring for children, the home, and earning a living, faded with the passage of time. It appears that a romanticized portrait of the war was painted in which much of the heart-ache and problems women faced on an everyday basis were pushed to the wayside in favor of remembering the great battles and generals of the day. This is yet another example of how women were forgotten in the shadow of their men. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I agree with Anna Holman's approach that the Civil War had largely (and unfortunately) came to be defined as a "Man's War." I also found it interesting that they begin to recognize the importance of the woman in everyday life, thought the focus was only on the mother initially. On page 133, Fahs points out that, "women especially mothers, personalized the nation, that they link the private and public realms." Not only does Fahs point out that women were in a sense the backbone of the nation, but they were also able to tie together the separate spheres. --MDvorak <br />
<br />
I also completely agree with Erin Sanderson's statement in which she discusses how after men returned from the war, the literature market increasingly became dominated by men's war stories. The interests of women were again pushed away for those of men. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I was surprised to find out that the Civil War was so feminized during the war and directly following it. The war has definitely become masculine in the public memory, and it makes me want to take a look at how the public images of other wars have changed. Why was there a focus on the Northern women’s war in Civil War literature in the first place? Was it because they were the only ones around that had the opportunity to read it? Many Northern men would have been fighting, and in the South, both men and women would have had larger concerns than publishing and reading literature. How come when the war once again entered popular memory in the 1880s, it became focused on the masculine aspects of the war? The article mentions a shift away from Victorian feminine literature towards realist literature. Was there some sort of demographic change in readership? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
It seems as though the media played a larger role during and after the civil war. From the material read, it seemed to have expressed sadness, pride, and Patriotism of people’s experiences of the War. Women's writing was more prominent because the men were away in war. But when the men came home their stories needed to be told. I think this symbolizes men returning to the public sphere. I think the type of stories told says something about men and women's roles. In these stories about women you see the emotional side and in men's stories they were more about glory and valor. The change from fiction to more non-fiction stories is interesting. Could this have been because people had just dealt with real emotions, those including pain and sorrow, were ready for something real? Was it something they could better relate to? --Mhimes<br />
<br />
I too was initially a little surprised to find that stories about women dominated much of the media at the time, but it really makes sense considering women were the ones remaining home and actually buying and reading the publications of the day. These women understandably wanted stories that they could relate to and that emphasized the importance of their own contributions to the war effort. It also may have been a not so subtle nudge on behalf of the powers-that-be to encourage women, for purely practical reasons, to continue to support the men at war. After all, soldiers who had the support of their families, even if the women believed in the war effort for romanticized reasons, were less likely to desert or to not enlist at all. After the war was over, the pressing need to maintain that support base fell off, and so did the feminized literature. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I really liked the Tony Horwitz quote that Fahs included (and not just because he might be one of my favorite authors). She said that in the late nineteenth century Americans "reclaimed a past of their own creation." It's so important for us to remember that collective memory is constantly changing. Perceptions of the Civil War changed with the changing attitudes about war and women of the time. It makes some sense that, postwar, women's stories might be pushed to the side in favor of more masculine stories about the front. Returning veterans were a very visible part of post-war life; women's suffering, while obviously still with them, was no longer front and center. So, perceptions shifted, and they continued to change with the country, eventually colliding with the force-to-be-reckoned-with that was Gone with the Wind. I think it's safe to say that many Americans hold certain ideas about the Civil War based on that novel alone, as well as ideas from all of the other Civil War books and movies produced over the past few decades. Not all of these memories are accurate, maybe most are not, but they represent something very real to the society that holds them as well as an interesting challenge to historians fighting to keep a semblance of reality, as experienced by women and men, both Northern and Southern, in the conversation. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed finally reading something about how women's work and contributions were acknowledged and became part of a major event in US history. The essay said frequently that women's role in the war effort was vital and influential. The literature at the time included feminized literature that "involved a distinctive, sentimentalized patriotism." A good bit of the literature also centered on the woman's responsibility to "sacrifice their men for their country." The stories and articles seemed to focus on either persuading women to act patriotic to support their country or describe the emotions, struggles, and experiences of women or the "woman's war." It was sad to see that once the men came back from war the focus shifted more towards the masculinized war. Maybe it was to showcase the men for their bravery and patriotism for their country. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
Before reading this, I had never thought about how much late 19th century Civil War literature focuses on Southern women, and not Northern women. Of course, this is probably mainly due to the fact that I had no idea just how important of a role Northern Women had played during the War. I can understand why their role was overshadowed after the war. After all, the war came to be redefined by the war stories of men and honoring great officers and soldiers. As for literature on Southern Women, I think it was appealing because it was greatly idealized, versus the more realistic literature from the North. However, I think that it is amazing that Historians have also been fooled in to this misconception in their analysis of the both the Civil War and the literature of the time. We are not living in the 19th century, so we should have an objective point of view, right? -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I agree with CBrau I myself was very suprised at the lack of literature we typically see for Northern women throughout the Civil War. I have only paid attention to literature from Southern women, due to the amount of fighting in the South and how their lives were completely destroyed, but women's lives in the North were strongly affected as well. The literature and quotes from Northern mothers hit home to me as I have watched my mom proudly tell family members and friends that her son will serve the United States. As stated by New York Times, a mother after shopping with her son for his military equipment said, " This, my son, is all that I can do. I have given you up to serve your country, and may God go with you! It is all a mother can do." I know this was stated by a Northern woman but I wondered if mothers felt this way all over the country and this unified them in their efforts to support not only the "woman's" war but the Civil War as well? ie. through sending supplies, flying flags in faces of opposing generals, etc. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I find it super interesting how quickly the important contributions of women were forgotten. During the actual war it was fine for the media to have such a high percentage of feminized literature because the contributions that women were making were right there in front of them and not easily ignored. This might have also been because women probably dominated the audience, since they were the ones at home and able to get a magazine or paper. It seems that as the years passed after the end of the war, the emotions of the war were forgotten and men wanted to read about their battles and their leaders as opposed to the private and emotional battles that women fought, even if they were just as difficult and important. Fahs talks about how idealized southern white women's literature was more popular, and this was probably because people did not want to face the reality of what really happened in the war. -- Angie<br />
<br />
== Elsa Barkley Brown, “To Catch the Vision of Freedom: Reconstructing Southern Black Women’s Political History, 1865-1880” ==<br />
<br />
I beleive this is the most important question asked in this essay: After the war, should the enfranchisement of black women, or of all women take place? This question is central to many of the political struggles in the late 19th century. Black women almost seperated themselves into a community to bond, which made overall suffrage more difficult.<br />
-Afrisk<br />
<br />
Going with the question of the enfranchisement of women... I really was encouraged by the fact that although the book explicitly states that Black men also felt that women were inferior to men in their social positions it was later stated that "serious discussion" regarding the suffrage of women was reliant upon the presence of black delegates in support of the woman's suffrage movement. -SSellers<br />
<br />
I thought chapter 10 brought up a good question, which was how the transition from slavery to freedom was expected to function. If I remember correctly the majority of white Americans still viewed African Americans as inferior and it was mainly a small percentage of Northern Radicals that were trying to achieve equality for them in their meaning of freedom. As history shows it would still take a long time for freedom to mean anything for freed slaves. So my question is after the Civil War ended what kind of life could African Americans find without having any rights? ---David Fitch<br />
<br />
African American women saw the vote as a collective possession between men and women based on the belief within the African American community of collective responsibility. Republican black males supported this belief. Maybe I’m being too cynical, but the impression I got was that it wasn’t necessarily because they believed in any kind of “autonomy as one” thing but because the women could help keep black men from voting as Democrats, which helped keep the Republicans in power. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
-Taylor, would the men have voted Democratic if their wives hadn't insisted on Republican? I'm not sure, but I feel like many would have continued to vote Republican because of the party's strong ties to Lincoln. Perhaps the issue would have been whether they voted at all if their wives had not forced them to get to the polls. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The idea of collective responsibility is very interesting. That it takes a whole family sometimes including fictive kin to survive. The idea that when one makes a decision it effects the whole family especially including political decisions. Did the importance of community and family stem from the fact that they had been divided in slavery? --Mhimes<br />
<br />
I found it really striking that African American women worked so hard to ensure that the men in their lives voted, and voted Republican. And that it was a family vote, not a man's vote on behalf of his family says a lot about the system of community many seemed to operate under. In answer to Mhimes, I would say that yes, a lot of the importance of family probably stemmed from generations of families being torn apart. Now that these individuals could house their families under one roof a strong desire to do everything they could to protect that family meant weighing every decision, including of course the political ones, carefully. And slaves, out of necessity, had long built families out of unrelated community members so I imagine that the same sense of self-preservation felt for blood relatives carried over for the community as a whole. The women did not want to see hard won freedom taken away by a lack of awareness and participation. And, as the author points out, some of the women's involvement was even to ensure the physical safety of the voting men. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting when the essay talked about how even though black men had finally gained rights to vote they still were not completely supportive of women having the right to vote. Maybe it is a stupid assumption but I would think that since they knew how it felt to have less rights than others they would show more sympathy towards women. They didn't think it was as absurd as white men did but why wouldn't they fight for them harder, especially if that meant all African American people would finally have their rights and freedoms? Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
The changing narratives following the war was not something that I was aware of. The literature during and just following the war focused a great deal on women's issues, yet changed in the 1880's and 1890's to a more masculinized story. I wonder why the Southern women's narrative has remained as the most compelling story of the Civil War to this day.-efritz<br />
<br />
The author posits that women's suffering was equal to or greater than that of men fighting in the war. Although women suffered great emotional trauma with the loss of their spouses or children, I don't think that you can compare this emotional suffering to what the men were exposed to in battle. They all suffered in their individual way, but the emotional and physical toll the men faced daily cannot be compared to that of women's suffering back home.-efritz<br />
<br />
I was surprised to see African American women's roles in voting before women's suffrage. Before college, we are taught that women were not able to vote, therefore they did not. However, Brown clearly contradicts this in her article. African American women in Richmond were publicly participating in politics, even voting at the community/local level, while others took it upon themselves to view their husband's right to vote as a collective, rather than individual, vote. These women were going to vote, whether or not they were legally able to do so. And yet, historians tend to look at this part of history as black and white; African American women were either able to physically vote in the polling booths, or they were not. Clearly, we need to look at the entire issue differently to understand the importance of African American women in 19th century politics. -- CBrau <br />
<br />
I strongly agree with Amy's point, black men had suffered right alongside women the harsh reality of being a lower citizen in society and yet once they were allowed to vote they did not think it was the right place for a woman. Only men could be responsible for serious and political matters. Is this a reason why black women formed such close knit bonds with others? Were women more capable of supporting one another even if it only involved giving someone a roof over their head? I would have thought black men would of understood women's struggles but that appeared to be a difficult concept once men were able to make a mark. -Megan W.</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_2_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 2 Questions/Comments2010-01-20T20:51:26Z<p>Megan3088: /* Alice Fahs, “The Feminized Civil War: Gender, Northern Popular Literature, and the Memory of War, 1861-1900” */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Comments/questions comparing the articles ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Alice Fahs, “The Feminized Civil War: Gender, Northern Popular Literature, and the Memory of War, 1861-1900” ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Based on a paper I wrote on the United States Sanitary Commission last semester, this was a very interesting essay to read. Fahs mentions that the war still follows the "masculanized culture" that was in place at the time and through my research I discovered the same things. Much of the standard literature was centered around the fighting and the man's roles on the battlefield, yet women's roles on and off the battlefield cannot be forgotten. It is interesting how literature giving credit to women must be labeled as "feminist" literature, when in reality, they should be given the same treatment as men. -- Afrisk<br />
<br />
I also found it very interesting how she discusses the different type of surrering that women endured. Men endured the horrors of war and their suffering was very physical and visual. Women, however, also suffered but they experienced strictly emotional suffering. They were cut deeply by these emotional wounds of not knowing weather their loved-ones were safe on the battlefield and some argued that these wounds cut deeper than those of men. Where men simply died on the battlefield, women had to endure the death of a loved one, while still remaining strong, and now being forced to provide for themselves. -- Afrisk<br />
<br />
It's interesting how Civil War literature shifted from a focus on the tribulations of northern women to those of southern women. And despite a strong emphasis on realistic literature, southern women and antebellum plantation life was highly romanticized. This probably came in part from a desire to both remember a time when the nation was united (which can also be seen in the popularity of stories centered around the Revolution)and to try to create a new identity centered around northern and southern reconciliation and "white" ideals. - Alice W<br />
<br />
I can't help but think about "Gone With the Wind" whenever they mentioned southern woman's literature after the war (which they eventually did mention in the reading)<br />
I know that the depiction found within that novel is unrealistic, but the romanticizing of the civil war and the southern woman's role in it IS interesting to read and find relations to even in today's non-antebellum southern world..... -Ssellers<br />
<br />
I think it is important to keep in mind that literature is largely written for an audience, and yet, this literature is what shapes the public memory of an event. The dominant forms of fiction at the outset of the war were women’s domestic novels. This impacts what type of literature was written during the war. It should come as no surprise that during the war, “the literary marketplace supported an outpouring of popular literature portraying women’s domestic participation in the war.” This domestic participation includes working, sacrifice, and loss, some even argue that the women sacrificed more than the men who were fighting. However, there was a shift in literature with the rise of Civil War veterans organizations. This led to a shift in who were the bearers of the war’s memory from women to veterans. It is amazing how the Civil War has become, “a white male conflict, rather than a cataclysmic event that rent and remade the fabric of life for all Americans.” – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
Throughout the reading on the Feminized Civil War, I kept asking myself where the women had gone; it was as if their memory of the Civil War had disappeared entirely. I was pleased when I came across Mary Livermore who, in 1887, spoke out against where the literature about the civil war was going. She argued that the story of Northern women was missing. Then, in 1889 Edward Bellamy, stated that, “many pictures of battles have been painted, but no true one yet, for the pictures contain only men. The women are unaccountably left out.” Finally, there was Elizabeth Stuart Phelps who actually “undermined stereotypes of veterans” and “challenged the veteran dominated culture of remembrance itself.” I was just happy to see that women were not entirely forgotten in the decades following the Civil War. I am curious as to how the majority of women felt when their impacts on the war became largely overlooked, especially after all of the pain and loss that they had experienced. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
It seems as time moved on after the Civil War it increasingly became to be defined as a "Man's War", specifically a "White Man's War". All of the domestic issues women faced, such as caring for children, the home, and earning a living, faded with the passage of time. It appears that a romanticized portrait of the war was painted in which much of the heart-ache and problems women faced on an everyday basis were pushed to the wayside in favor of remembering the great battles and generals of the day. This is yet another example of how women were forgotten in the shadow of their men. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I agree with Anna Holman's approach that the Civil War had largely (and unfortunately) came to be defined as a "Man's War." I also found it interesting that they begin to recognize the importance of the woman in everyday life, thought the focus was only on the mother initially. On page 133, Fahs points out that, "women especially mothers, personalized the nation, that they link the private and public realms." Not only does Fahs point out that women were in a sense the backbone of the nation, but they were also able to tie together the separate spheres. --MDvorak <br />
<br />
I also completely agree with Erin Sanderson's statement in which she discusses how after men returned from the war, the literature market increasingly became dominated by men's war stories. The interests of women were again pushed away for those of men. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I was surprised to find out that the Civil War was so feminized during the war and directly following it. The war has definitely become masculine in the public memory, and it makes me want to take a look at how the public images of other wars have changed. Why was there a focus on the Northern women’s war in Civil War literature in the first place? Was it because they were the only ones around that had the opportunity to read it? Many Northern men would have been fighting, and in the South, both men and women would have had larger concerns than publishing and reading literature. How come when the war once again entered popular memory in the 1880s, it became focused on the masculine aspects of the war? The article mentions a shift away from Victorian feminine literature towards realist literature. Was there some sort of demographic change in readership? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
It seems as though the media played a larger role during and after the civil war. From the material read, it seemed to have expressed sadness, pride, and Patriotism of people’s experiences of the War. Women's writing was more prominent because the men were away in war. But when the men came home their stories needed to be told. I think this symbolizes men returning to the public sphere. I think the type of stories told says something about men and women's roles. In these stories about women you see the emotional side and in men's stories they were more about glory and valor. The change from fiction to more non-fiction stories is interesting. Could this have been because people had just dealt with real emotions, those including pain and sorrow, were ready for something real? Was it something they could better relate to? --Mhimes<br />
<br />
I too was initially a little surprised to find that stories about women dominated much of the media at the time, but it really makes sense considering women were the ones remaining home and actually buying and reading the publications of the day. These women understandably wanted stories that they could relate to and that emphasized the importance of their own contributions to the war effort. It also may have been a not so subtle nudge on behalf of the powers-that-be to encourage women, for purely practical reasons, to continue to support the men at war. After all, soldiers who had the support of their families, even if the women believed in the war effort for romanticized reasons, were less likely to desert or to not enlist at all. After the war was over, the pressing need to maintain that support base fell off, and so did the feminized literature. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I really liked the Tony Horwitz quote that Fahs included (and not just because he might be one of my favorite authors). She said that in the late nineteenth century Americans "reclaimed a past of their own creation." It's so important for us to remember that collective memory is constantly changing. Perceptions of the Civil War changed with the changing attitudes about war and women of the time. It makes some sense that, postwar, women's stories might be pushed to the side in favor of more masculine stories about the front. Returning veterans were a very visible part of post-war life; women's suffering, while obviously still with them, was no longer front and center. So, perceptions shifted, and they continued to change with the country, eventually colliding with the force-to-be-reckoned-with that was Gone with the Wind. I think it's safe to say that many Americans hold certain ideas about the Civil War based on that novel alone, as well as ideas from all of the other Civil War books and movies produced over the past few decades. Not all of these memories are accurate, maybe most are not, but they represent something very real to the society that holds them as well as an interesting challenge to historians fighting to keep a semblance of reality, as experienced by women and men, both Northern and Southern, in the conversation. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed finally reading something about how women's work and contributions were acknowledged and became part of a major event in US history. The essay said frequently that women's role in the war effort was vital and influential. The literature at the time included feminized literature that "involved a distinctive, sentimentalized patriotism." A good bit of the literature also centered on the woman's responsibility to "sacrifice their men for their country." The stories and articles seemed to focus on either persuading women to act patriotic to support their country or describe the emotions, struggles, and experiences of women or the "woman's war." It was sad to see that once the men came back from war the focus shifted more towards the masculinized war. Maybe it was to showcase the men for their bravery and patriotism for their country. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
Before reading this, I had never thought about how much late 19th century Civil War literature focuses on Southern women, and not Northern women. Of course, this is probably mainly due to the fact that I had no idea just how important of a role Northern Women had played during the War. I can understand why their role was overshadowed after the war. After all, the war came to be redefined by the war stories of men and honoring great officers and soldiers. As for literature on Southern Women, I think it was appealing because it was greatly idealized, versus the more realistic literature from the North. However, I think that it is amazing that Historians have also been fooled in to this misconception in their analysis of the both the Civil War and the literature of the time. We are not living in the 19th century, so we should have an objective point of view, right? -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I agree with CBrau I myself was very suprised at the lack of literature we typically see for Northern women throughout the Civil War. I have only paid attention to literature from Southern women, due to the amount of fighting in the South and how their lives were completely destroyed, but women's lives in the North were strongly affected as well. The literature and quotes from Northern mothers hit home to me as I have watched my mom proudly tell family members and friends that her son will serve the United States. As stated by New York Times, a mother after shopping with her son for his military equipment said, " This, my son, is all that I can do. I have given you up to serve your country, and may God go with you! It is all a mother can do." I know this was stated by a Northern woman but I wondered if mothers felt this way all over the country and this unified them in their efforts to support not only the "woman's" war but the Civil War as well? ie. through sending supplies, flying flags in faces of opposing generals, etc. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Elsa Barkley Brown, “To Catch the Vision of Freedom: Reconstructing Southern Black Women’s Political History, 1865-1880” ==<br />
<br />
I beleive this is the most important question asked in this essay: After the war, should the enfranchisement of black women, or of all women take place? This question is central to many of the political struggles in the late 19th century. Black women almost seperated themselves into a community to bond, which made overall suffrage more difficult.<br />
-Afrisk<br />
<br />
Going with the question of the enfranchisement of women... I really was encouraged by the fact that although the book explicitly states that Black men also felt that women were inferior to men in their social positions it was later stated that "serious discussion" regarding the suffrage of women was reliant upon the presence of black delegates in support of the woman's suffrage movement. -SSellers<br />
<br />
I thought chapter 10 brought up a good question, which was how the transition from slavery to freedom was expected to function. If I remember correctly the majority of white Americans still viewed African Americans as inferior and it was mainly a small percentage of Northern Radicals that were trying to achieve equality for them in their meaning of freedom. As history shows it would still take a long time for freedom to mean anything for freed slaves. So my question is after the Civil War ended what kind of life could African Americans find without having any rights? ---David Fitch<br />
<br />
African American women saw the vote as a collective possession between men and women based on the belief within the African American community of collective responsibility. Republican black males supported this belief. Maybe I’m being too cynical, but the impression I got was that it wasn’t necessarily because they believed in any kind of “autonomy as one” thing but because the women could help keep black men from voting as Democrats, which helped keep the Republicans in power. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
-Taylor, would the men have voted Democratic if their wives hadn't insisted on Republican? I'm not sure, but I feel like many would have continued to vote Republican because of the party's strong ties to Lincoln. Perhaps the issue would have been whether they voted at all if their wives had not forced them to get to the polls. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The idea of collective responsibility is very interesting. That it takes a whole family sometimes including fictive kin to survive. The idea that when one makes a decision it effects the whole family especially including political decisions. Did the importance of community and family stem from the fact that they had been divided in slavery? --Mhimes<br />
<br />
I found it really striking that African American women worked so hard to ensure that the men in their lives voted, and voted Republican. And that it was a family vote, not a man's vote on behalf of his family says a lot about the system of community many seemed to operate under. In answer to Mhimes, I would say that yes, a lot of the importance of family probably stemmed from generations of families being torn apart. Now that these individuals could house their families under one roof a strong desire to do everything they could to protect that family meant weighing every decision, including of course the political ones, carefully. And slaves, out of necessity, had long built families out of unrelated community members so I imagine that the same sense of self-preservation felt for blood relatives carried over for the community as a whole. The women did not want to see hard won freedom taken away by a lack of awareness and participation. And, as the author points out, some of the women's involvement was even to ensure the physical safety of the voting men. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting when the essay talked about how even though black men had finally gained rights to vote they still were not completely supportive of women having the right to vote. Maybe it is a stupid assumption but I would think that since they knew how it felt to have less rights than others they would show more sympathy towards women. They didn't think it was as absurd as white men did but why wouldn't they fight for them harder, especially if that meant all African American people would finally have their rights and freedoms? Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
The changing narratives following the war was not something that I was aware of. The literature during and just following the war focused a great deal on women's issues, yet changed in the 1880's and 1890's to a more masculinized story. I wonder why the Southern women's narrative has remained as the most compelling story of the Civil War to this day.-efritz<br />
<br />
The author posits that women's suffering was equal to or greater than that of men fighting in the war. Although women suffered great emotional trauma with the loss of their spouses or children, I don't think that you can compare this emotional suffering to what the men were exposed to in battle. They all suffered in their individual way, but the emotional and physical toll the men faced daily cannot be compared to that of women's suffering back home.-efritz<br />
<br />
I was surprised to see African American women's roles in voting before women's suffrage. Before college, we are taught that women were not able to vote, therefore they did not. However, Brown clearly contradicts this in her article. African American women in Richmond were publicly participating in politics, even voting at the community/local level, while others took it upon themselves to view their husband's right to vote as a collective, rather than individual, vote. These women were going to vote, whether or not they were legally able to do so. And yet, historians tend to look at this part of history as black and white; African American women were either able to physically vote in the polling booths, or they were not. Clearly, we need to look at the entire issue differently to understand the importance of African American women in 19th century politics. -- CBrau</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_1_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 1 Questions/Comments2010-01-14T03:48:10Z<p>Megan3088: </p>
<hr />
<div>So apparently I'm the first to comment, yay. In "Defining "American Women's History" I really liked the concept on page 6 that "if gender is created rather than assumed... then so too is race, ethinicity, health, age, work, social status, sexuality, and so on." I found it interesting to think about Women's history in that sense especially when correlated with the later readings on black women in the United States and their association with both (what is considered to be) an "inferior" race AND gender and how that affects them. --SSellers<br />
<br />
Kind of going along with the first statement, it was interesting to see that some historians balk at including race, class, etc., in women's history because they seem to feel that it will ultimately remove the gender aspect from the discipline in favor of a focus on race or another variable. Yet if you're going to study women, don't you have to study real women's lives, as complex or as multifaceted as they may be? To claim that all women can be put into the same category risks losing the richness of understanding that comes with exploring the differences as well as the similarities among groups or individuals, as Leslie M. Alexander points out. And it would also turn many people away from studying the subject, just as women can feel excluded by traditional, male-focused history. -MMackey<br />
<br />
It also seems like a Catch-22 to be in this course now. Learning about Women's history separate from "men's" history empowers the women by allowing them to be a distinct categorization, but also segregates Women's history and makes it seemingly inferior to Men's history. I have no idea where to stand on the separation... --SSellers<br />
<br />
In response to SSellers, I think it is important to remember that up until recently, history has been dominated by men because men were the ones who were literate. Therefore, history came from the male's perspective. I am not sure if that makes women's history inferior, just harder because it takes deeper analysis to find where women fit into history and how they felt. I mean, men and women share the same history. Their roles within it, however, were different and it takes a women's studies course to discover where women fit into the world during any given time. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
Also commenting on SSellers and in agreement with Erin, just because women's history is a somewhat new classification of history, doesn't mean its "inferior." Studied, accepted history is in the eyes and pens of white, European men. What we study and learn starting in kindergarten is what they (those white men) wanted us to know about their lives and times. Studying women's history, or any other classification of history (black, native american, chinese, etc.) isn't segregating any one group. You can't learn about anything by looking at it strictly in isolation. You must take these primary sources and examine them for hidden meanings, context, perspectives, goals, etc. In this course we are not simply learning what women did, we are learning what they did in comparison to what was going on in the rest of the country and population, and what was expected previously and currently of them. (I don't know if being in the first half of this class has made me biased, but there ya go!!) - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
I think that these are very interesting comments on the issue of inferiority between men's and women's history. Is men's history be superior because there is more written information, because certain historical men had larger political influence than most women did, or because of how history is taught today? I know we can't really understand women's history without looking at men's history, but couldn't the same be said for men's history? - J Rowley<br />
<br />
The debate between "equality" and "difference" in terms of women in Gisela Bock's article stood out to me as well. The groups in support of both singular approaches have valid points, but I would say that they are not mutually exclusive. The knee-jerk reaction is often that different equals inferior or bad, but I think its possible to acknowledge something as different without demeaning it. Maybe it ultimately comes down to the fact that every individual is different, so determining and highlighting some great difference women supposedly possess or some manly standard women should be aiming for seems silly in light of how varied women, and men, are. -MMackey<br />
<br />
Overall in this reading, I was interested in how each author defined women. “Definining ‘American Women’s History'” by Kate Haulman, shows how complex American Women’s History is just by looking at the separate words: “American” “Women’s” and “History.” Focusing on the “Women” aspect, Kate Haulman mainly looks at the word “women” in opposition to men and a lump category that all individuals who identify themselves as women fit into. Gisela Bock in “Challenging Dichotomies in Women’s History” looks at the word “women” in terms of the dichotomy of sex versus gender and how people identify themselves (“sex” being biological, “gender” being social). As I read Antonia Castañeda’s essay, “Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History” the definition of “women” became even more complex in very important ways because she argues that you can’t look at women as one lump category, you have to reject the idea of a common sisterhood, because such a thing does not exist. Castañeda states, “Women’s gender experiences and definitions were as divers as the cultures from which they came”. Based off of these readings it is clear that no two scholars have the same definitions, so it is important to realize that categories and definitions are dynamic, changing with time and interpretation. -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I found the changing dynamics of women's history to be incredibly interesting. According to Kate Haulman, in the past only "notable women" were written about. Even being characterized as a "notable woman" was defined by male terms in a male dominated society. However, there was a great shift in the study of women from these notable women to the everyday woman. Even so, this study of the everyday woman was still dominated by male terms, as Gisela Bock notes. All of women's activities were judged by the male standard, which was deemed valuable. The spheres that the study of women were divided into, suck as Public vs. Private, were still male dominated. It seems that males have dominated almost every aspect of women's history. Males are the standard upon which women are judged, they decide which women are important enough to be studied, and they define all spheres of the women's lives. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Anna Holman's comment above. It was fascinating to read about the evolution of women's history and made me wonder how it will continue to evolve in the future. Hopefully as we move forward, women's history will be able to be studied without male domination and we can define ourselves. -- Kokeefe<br />
<br />
Adding onto Erin Sanderson's statement, I found it interesting how Kate Haulman stated that gender was created and fluid. It is fascinating to understand how people identify with the term "woman", and how it intersects the other aspects of their identity, such as their unique race and ethnicity. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
As I was reading, I was intrigued by Kate Haulman's statement about the definition of "American." It did seem like the term would be uncomplicated, simply refering to residents of the United States. The fact that "American" could refer (maybe, should refer) to anyone in the Americas was something I had never considered before. --Kokeefe<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting how Kate Haulman pointed out that women's history started out focused on notable women, as if they suitably represented other women of their time. Yet, these women were, and are, often notable because they either went against the norms of society to accomplish something great for women or society in general. Obviously, that is not something most women do. And then, fo course, one has to consider how much is being seen from a male's point of view. So, I definitely believe it is important to study all kinds of women, not just notable figures, in order to get a more realistic picture of women throughout history. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
In accumulating the readings, I found that they similarly shared underlying factors. Those factors being race and ethnicity, gender, class, and locality. What I thought was interesting was that even though race and gender do not change, but perspectives towards race and gender do change over time. Naturally writings reflect changes in one’s perspective. --MHimes <br />
<br />
I found the same similarities of race, class, culture, community, and sexual orientation throughout the reading. All these factors seem to be the cornerstone for uncovering women's history. I agree with MHimes that perspectives do change over time, as does history. After reading this first chapter I have realized that Women's History is a completely different field of study told differently than other history subjects, both because we now live in a age where women have equality, and that scholars are coming to understand the history of women. ---David Fitch<br />
<br />
In Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American History, under the “gender first” policy, Alexander makes an valid point. I thought it was interesting when she said that you cannot divorce Black Women from the community or you will not understand the Black Woman. Black women had to hurdle racial inequality before they could focus on their own empowerment as a woman. They did not have that same leisure as a white woman. At the same time, you can’t explain women’s history without including black women. Black women were an intricate part of white women’s lives as servants or field laborers. Black Woman slaves relieved a lot of White Women’s duties so they could focus on raising their children. --MHimes<br />
<br />
I was interested in the statements made about black women and their roles in Women's History. Most of the time, people tend to combine all women into one category and forget that it is still important to focus on individual groups separately also. Historians may want to homogenize all women together when studying or writing about women but the reality is that they do have a separate history to that of white women. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I was particularly interested in Kate Haulman's idea that identifying factors such as gender and race are created and fluid rather than having a sort of naturally fixed meaning. This notion gives richer meaning to the larger social and cultural narrative of any nation or people. -Erin B.<br />
<br />
The two most interesting articles to me were Kate Haulman's article and Leslie Alexander's. I agree with Erin about Haulman's approach. I found Haulman's article reminiscent of an article written by George Kennan. The article written by Kennan describes the difficulty in describing history because there is no specific beginning or end. I thought that theme was pertinent throughout Haulman's reading. The last reading written by Alexander made some good arguments and had an interesting approach. At first I was surprised by her resistance to grouping both black and white women together as a "homogeneous womanhood," but after pondering for a few minutes it makes sense. --MDvorak<br />
<br />
I think equality based on the sameness between men and women versus equality with a recognition of the differences between men and women is an interesting concept, one that was likely very important and dividing as women were defining their expectations of equality. We’ve come to expect that women be treated the same as men, but to what extend is appropriate? Under the equality of sameness sometimes women who are on maternity leave are listed as being on disabled leave. It’s a little insulting to infer that pregnancy is a disability (though I’m sure a few people would argue that it is). -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
The focus on women's history as opposed to studying men and women in history combined is an important distinction. Gisela Bock's essay and dichotomies describe how distinct men really are from women. Men and women are different in many ways including "working" at home or at the office and whether taking care of the family is considered work. The terms "sex" and "gender" are also scrutinized for one relates more to motherhood and being able to give birth than the other. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
All women aren’t united under the cause of women’s rights because they have had different experiences that have resulted from race, class, socio-economic status, and more, which according to Leslie Alexander also extends into the study and interpretation of women’s history by historians. She focuses on the particular issues of race and argues that the feminist movement is only useful as a lens for studying the experiences of white women, not the experiences of black women. While her view certainly has merit, by dismissing feminism’s use to black women in the manner she does it almost seems like she’s suggesting that the feminist movement is useful for considering all white women in general, while I would argue that it is most useful in regards to only a certain group of white women, particularly of the middle-class. Similarly, there is no simple lens to study the experiences of black women, as they are also influenced by a variety of factors beyond that of race alone. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I agree completely with Taylor's above comments. It is easy to see where Alexander comes from in contrasting Black women's history against those of what is generally thought of as Women's history. However, black women do fall under the umbrella of women's history, just as african-americans and women fall under the umbrella of history. There can always be subdivisions/classifications within different fields of study. There's always going to be at least one (but probably more) group or culture that is overlooked and one that is the focus. While women's history is focused on generally the upper-middle class of white women, thats primarily because those were the people leaving primary sources behind. We can't go back and teach slaves and later generations to write in diaries or send letters, so it is increasingly difficult to find sources from the time documenting their experiences. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
<br />
I found Gisela Bock's essay on dichotomies the most intriguing of all. By using these comparisons, I found that she fantastically described many of the social and political struggles that women face while describing different categories that scholars study women under. My favorite was the dichotomy of Integration vs. Autonomy because I had no idea that there was such argument going on about where Women's History should be included in a course of study as well as what it should include in itself. This argument of whether Women's History should be autonomous or integrated with such things as Gender History seemed like a parallel to feminist controversies in modern day social and work settings. I have often heard the argument that if women want to be integrated with men, then they should be treated the same, no special exceptions. But, if they want to keep things like maternity leave and not getting drafted, then they should remain autonomous with perhaps less benefits than men receive. I think that Bock definitely provided some interesting parallels between womens history controversies and modern social controversies. -- Angie W.<br />
<br />
Leslie Alexander puts forth an interesting idea when she says that "the recognition that Black and White women are culturally different opens a Pandora's box..." (p. 20) because it is something that many young feminists never consider, but when they do, they realize that is so very true. If historians and feminists were to recognize this, then their theory of one, strong womanhood would be attacked. Like Alexander said, Black women often name their race as their main identifying factor while most white women, especially feminists, put woman. If women's history scholars were to recognize this, then they would have to take another look at women's history and perhaps separate not just separate women from men, but also from each other based on their class, race, and even sexual orientation. This would put a whole new spin on feminism and women's studies. -- Angie W.<br />
<br />
One of the key components in the study of women's history is the recognition and understanding that different cultures expose women to different challenges. Alexander notes in her essay that to acknowledge the black and white women have different histories because of cultural differences seems to be obvious. We do not assume that George Washington and Abraham Lincoln have a bond simply because they were both of the same gender. It would be ludicrous to assume that all women have experienced the same histories and lives. - efritz<br />
<br />
efritz certainly makes some good points. There are definitely similarities between white and black women, the simplest being they are both women. However, I strongly disagree with having a universal image for women. Even white women are different from each other, based on things like their environment, family upbringing, or culture. So, of course white women and black women would vary from each other. When Alexander talked about it being obvious for these women to have different histories, I agreed. I had been surprised to find that historians had thought differently until it was strongly pointed out to them! -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I agree with Taylors interpretation of equality between the sexes. The women's movement of the 1970's was a tremendous boost to elevating the status of women in society. It assisted in raising wages of women to be closer to those of men, and allowed women to enter into occupations traditionally held by men. But how far do we want to go with equality? Men and women are different physically and physiologically for a reason. Women should be valued the same as men but I think that to deny that there are differences is also incorrect. -efritz<br />
<br />
I thoroughly enjoyed this reading. I particularly liked how class and race were emphasized in all four of the essays. The essay by Gisela Bock was interesting and raised a lot of good questions. As Angie pointed out, Bock does cover some of the basic struggles women face today and how scholars interpret these struggles, a point I found intriguing. A question I have, based off the reading is how each of the dichotomies she listed are specifically present today (as far as where), how much of an impact do they have on women in society and how much of an impact they currently have on the writing of women's history? I agree with the statement posted by efritz on equality. Although I do believe men and women should have equal opportunity, I think there should be a clear distinction between both men and women. -abratchi<br />
<br />
Leslie M. Alexander raised a lot of great points as well. I agree with Mmackey's statement that grouping all women together as a whole without the emphasis on the black woman (race, more broadly. In my opinion, ignoring Alexander's intricate tie to the community would hurt the writing of women's history, especially in terms of race and class. A challenge, I believe, that comes into play when writing Black women's history is the lack of sources available to accurately depict a Black women's lives (more specifically and broadly, women classified as other than 'white') throughout the late nineteenth and twentieth century. A question I have is what sources are currently available and in what quantity? How hard is it to accurately write a history of black women versus white women when a limited number of sources are available and, are scholars able to work through this lack of material? -abratchi<br />
<br />
In regards to Kate Haulman's reading I found her comments regarding woman's work versus mans work on page 5, "knitting as woman's work versus carpentry as man's" interesting. She attempts to redefine gender roles and challenge how we view women and men in society. I agree with efritz's comment the roles should not be stereotyped by gender males and females can perform the same duty and have a common goal of providing for themselves/family. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I also agree with Erin S.'s comments earlier on Bock's definitions of women, she looks at them in two separate spheres but the last sentence in her reading stood out the most to me. She is defining women as being in the home by baking the cake and making sure everyone else is satisfied before she even helps herself. Bock does recognize different approaches need to be taken in studying women but do other historians believe women have always acted this way? Or is this the role women were suppose to play as the provider for the family, never putting her needs before anyone elses? - Megan W.</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_1_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 1 Questions/Comments2010-01-14T03:38:00Z<p>Megan3088: </p>
<hr />
<div>So apparently I'm the first to comment, yay. In "Defining "American Women's History" I really liked the concept on page 6 that "if gender is created rather than assumed... then so too is race, ethinicity, health, age, work, social status, sexuality, and so on." I found it interesting to think about Women's history in that sense especially when correlated with the later readings on black women in the United States and their association with both (what is considered to be) an "inferior" race AND gender and how that affects them. --SSellers<br />
<br />
Kind of going along with the first statement, it was interesting to see that some historians balk at including race, class, etc., in women's history because they seem to feel that it will ultimately remove the gender aspect from the discipline in favor of a focus on race or another variable. Yet if you're going to study women, don't you have to study real women's lives, as complex or as multifaceted as they may be? To claim that all women can be put into the same category risks losing the richness of understanding that comes with exploring the differences as well as the similarities among groups or individuals, as Leslie M. Alexander points out. And it would also turn many people away from studying the subject, just as women can feel excluded by traditional, male-focused history. -MMackey<br />
<br />
It also seems like a Catch-22 to be in this course now. Learning about Women's history separate from "men's" history empowers the women by allowing them to be a distinct categorization, but also segregates Women's history and makes it seemingly inferior to Men's history. I have no idea where to stand on the separation... --SSellers<br />
<br />
In response to SSellers, I think it is important to remember that up until recently, history has been dominated by men because men were the ones who were literate. Therefore, history came from the male's perspective. I am not sure if that makes women's history inferior, just harder because it takes deeper analysis to find where women fit into history and how they felt. I mean, men and women share the same history. Their roles within it, however, were different and it takes a women's studies course to discover where women fit into the world during any given time. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
Also commenting on SSellers and in agreement with Erin, just because women's history is a somewhat new classification of history, doesn't mean its "inferior." Studied, accepted history is in the eyes and pens of white, European men. What we study and learn starting in kindergarten is what they (those white men) wanted us to know about their lives and times. Studying women's history, or any other classification of history (black, native american, chinese, etc.) isn't segregating any one group. You can't learn about anything by looking at it strictly in isolation. You must take these primary sources and examine them for hidden meanings, context, perspectives, goals, etc. In this course we are not simply learning what women did, we are learning what they did in comparison to what was going on in the rest of the country and population, and what was expected previously and currently of them. (I don't know if being in the first half of this class has made me biased, but there ya go!!) - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
I think that these are very interesting comments on the issue of inferiority between men's and women's history. Is men's history be superior because there is more written information, because certain historical men had larger political influence than most women did, or because of how history is taught today? I know we can't really understand women's history without looking at men's history, but couldn't the same be said for men's history? - J Rowley<br />
<br />
The debate between "equality" and "difference" in terms of women in Gisela Bock's article stood out to me as well. The groups in support of both singular approaches have valid points, but I would say that they are not mutually exclusive. The knee-jerk reaction is often that different equals inferior or bad, but I think its possible to acknowledge something as different without demeaning it. Maybe it ultimately comes down to the fact that every individual is different, so determining and highlighting some great difference women supposedly possess or some manly standard women should be aiming for seems silly in light of how varied women, and men, are. -MMackey<br />
<br />
Overall in this reading, I was interested in how each author defined women. “Definining ‘American Women’s History'” by Kate Haulman, shows how complex American Women’s History is just by looking at the separate words: “American” “Women’s” and “History.” Focusing on the “Women” aspect, Kate Haulman mainly looks at the word “women” in opposition to men and a lump category that all individuals who identify themselves as women fit into. Gisela Bock in “Challenging Dichotomies in Women’s History” looks at the word “women” in terms of the dichotomy of sex versus gender and how people identify themselves (“sex” being biological, “gender” being social). As I read Antonia Castañeda’s essay, “Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History” the definition of “women” became even more complex in very important ways because she argues that you can’t look at women as one lump category, you have to reject the idea of a common sisterhood, because such a thing does not exist. Castañeda states, “Women’s gender experiences and definitions were as divers as the cultures from which they came”. Based off of these readings it is clear that no two scholars have the same definitions, so it is important to realize that categories and definitions are dynamic, changing with time and interpretation. -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I found the changing dynamics of women's history to be incredibly interesting. According to Kate Haulman, in the past only "notable women" were written about. Even being characterized as a "notable woman" was defined by male terms in a male dominated society. However, there was a great shift in the study of women from these notable women to the everyday woman. Even so, this study of the everyday woman was still dominated by male terms, as Gisela Bock notes. All of women's activities were judged by the male standard, which was deemed valuable. The spheres that the study of women were divided into, suck as Public vs. Private, were still male dominated. It seems that males have dominated almost every aspect of women's history. Males are the standard upon which women are judged, they decide which women are important enough to be studied, and they define all spheres of the women's lives. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Anna Holman's comment above. It was fascinating to read about the evolution of women's history and made me wonder how it will continue to evolve in the future. Hopefully as we move forward, women's history will be able to be studied without male domination and we can define ourselves. -- Kokeefe<br />
<br />
Adding onto Erin Sanderson's statement, I found it interesting how Kate Haulman stated that gender was created and fluid. It is fascinating to understand how people identify with the term "woman", and how it intersects the other aspects of their identity, such as their unique race and ethnicity. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
As I was reading, I was intrigued by Kate Haulman's statement about the definition of "American." It did seem like the term would be uncomplicated, simply refering to residents of the United States. The fact that "American" could refer (maybe, should refer) to anyone in the Americas was something I had never considered before. --Kokeefe<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting how Kate Haulman pointed out that women's history started out focused on notable women, as if they suitably represented other women of their time. Yet, these women were, and are, often notable because they either went against the norms of society to accomplish something great for women or society in general. Obviously, that is not something most women do. And then, fo course, one has to consider how much is being seen from a male's point of view. So, I definitely believe it is important to study all kinds of women, not just notable figures, in order to get a more realistic picture of women throughout history. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
In accumulating the readings, I found that they similarly shared underlying factors. Those factors being race and ethnicity, gender, class, and locality. What I thought was interesting was that even though race and gender do not change, but perspectives towards race and gender do change over time. Naturally writings reflect changes in one’s perspective. --MHimes <br />
<br />
I found the same similarities of race, class, culture, community, and sexual orientation throughout the reading. All these factors seem to be the cornerstone for uncovering women's history. I agree with MHimes that perspectives do change over time, as does history. After reading this first chapter I have realized that Women's History is a completely different field of study told differently than other history subjects, both because we now live in a age where women have equality, and that scholars are coming to understand the history of women. ---David Fitch<br />
<br />
In Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American History, under the “gender first” policy, Alexander makes an valid point. I thought it was interesting when she said that you cannot divorce Black Women from the community or you will not understand the Black Woman. Black women had to hurdle racial inequality before they could focus on their own empowerment as a woman. They did not have that same leisure as a white woman. At the same time, you can’t explain women’s history without including black women. Black women were an intricate part of white women’s lives as servants or field laborers. Black Woman slaves relieved a lot of White Women’s duties so they could focus on raising their children. --MHimes<br />
<br />
I was interested in the statements made about black women and their roles in Women's History. Most of the time, people tend to combine all women into one category and forget that it is still important to focus on individual groups separately also. Historians may want to homogenize all women together when studying or writing about women but the reality is that they do have a separate history to that of white women. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I was particularly interested in Kate Haulman's idea that identifying factors such as gender and race are created and fluid rather than having a sort of naturally fixed meaning. This notion gives richer meaning to the larger social and cultural narrative of any nation or people. -Erin B.<br />
<br />
The two most interesting articles to me were Kate Haulman's article and Leslie Alexander's. I agree with Erin about Haulman's approach. I found Haulman's article reminiscent of an article written by George Kennan. The article written by Kennan describes the difficulty in describing history because there is no specific beginning or end. I thought that theme was pertinent throughout Haulman's reading. The last reading written by Alexander made some good arguments and had an interesting approach. At first I was surprised by her resistance to grouping both black and white women together as a "homogeneous womanhood," but after pondering for a few minutes it makes sense. --MDvorak<br />
<br />
I think equality based on the sameness between men and women versus equality with a recognition of the differences between men and women is an interesting concept, one that was likely very important and dividing as women were defining their expectations of equality. We’ve come to expect that women be treated the same as men, but to what extend is appropriate? Under the equality of sameness sometimes women who are on maternity leave are listed as being on disabled leave. It’s a little insulting to infer that pregnancy is a disability (though I’m sure a few people would argue that it is). -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
The focus on women's history as opposed to studying men and women in history combined is an important distinction. Gisela Bock's essay and dichotomies describe how distinct men really are from women. Men and women are different in many ways including "working" at home or at the office and whether taking care of the family is considered work. The terms "sex" and "gender" are also scrutinized for one relates more to motherhood and being able to give birth than the other. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
All women aren’t united under the cause of women’s rights because they have had different experiences that have resulted from race, class, socio-economic status, and more, which according to Leslie Alexander also extends into the study and interpretation of women’s history by historians. She focuses on the particular issues of race and argues that the feminist movement is only useful as a lens for studying the experiences of white women, not the experiences of black women. While her view certainly has merit, by dismissing feminism’s use to black women in the manner she does it almost seems like she’s suggesting that the feminist movement is useful for considering all white women in general, while I would argue that it is most useful in regards to only a certain group of white women, particularly of the middle-class. Similarly, there is no simple lens to study the experiences of black women, as they are also influenced by a variety of factors beyond that of race alone. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I agree completely with Taylor's above comments. It is easy to see where Alexander comes from in contrasting Black women's history against those of what is generally thought of as Women's history. However, black women do fall under the umbrella of women's history, just as african-americans and women fall under the umbrella of history. There can always be subdivisions/classifications within different fields of study. There's always going to be at least one (but probably more) group or culture that is overlooked and one that is the focus. While women's history is focused on generally the upper-middle class of white women, thats primarily because those were the people leaving primary sources behind. We can't go back and teach slaves and later generations to write in diaries or send letters, so it is increasingly difficult to find sources from the time documenting their experiences. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
<br />
I found Gisela Bock's essay on dichotomies the most intriguing of all. By using these comparisons, I found that she fantastically described many of the social and political struggles that women face while describing different categories that scholars study women under. My favorite was the dichotomy of Integration vs. Autonomy because I had no idea that there was such argument going on about where Women's History should be included in a course of study as well as what it should include in itself. This argument of whether Women's History should be autonomous or integrated with such things as Gender History seemed like a parallel to feminist controversies in modern day social and work settings. I have often heard the argument that if women want to be integrated with men, then they should be treated the same, no special exceptions. But, if they want to keep things like maternity leave and not getting drafted, then they should remain autonomous with perhaps less benefits than men receive. I think that Bock definitely provided some interesting parallels between womens history controversies and modern social controversies. -- Angie W.<br />
<br />
Leslie Alexander puts forth an interesting idea when she says that "the recognition that Black and White women are culturally different opens a Pandora's box..." (p. 20) because it is something that many young feminists never consider, but when they do, they realize that is so very true. If historians and feminists were to recognize this, then their theory of one, strong womanhood would be attacked. Like Alexander said, Black women often name their race as their main identifying factor while most white women, especially feminists, put woman. If women's history scholars were to recognize this, then they would have to take another look at women's history and perhaps separate not just separate women from men, but also from each other based on their class, race, and even sexual orientation. This would put a whole new spin on feminism and women's studies. -- Angie W.<br />
<br />
One of the key components in the study of women's history is the recognition and understanding that different cultures expose women to different challenges. Alexander notes in her essay that to acknowledge the black and white women have different histories because of cultural differences seems to be obvious. We do not assume that George Washington and Abraham Lincoln have a bond simply because they were both of the same gender. It would be ludicrous to assume that all women have experienced the same histories and lives. - efritz<br />
<br />
efritz certainly makes some good points. There are definitely similarities between white and black women, the simplest being they are both women. However, I strongly disagree with having a universal image for women. Even white women are different from each other, based on things like their environment, family upbringing, or culture. So, of course white women and black women would vary from each other. When Alexander talked about it being obvious for these women to have different histories, I agreed. I had been surprised to find that historians had thought differently until it was strongly pointed out to them! -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I agree with Taylors interpretation of equality between the sexes. The women's movement of the 1970's was a tremendous boost to elevating the status of women in society. It assisted in raising wages of women to be closer to those of men, and allowed women to enter into occupations traditionally held by men. But how far do we want to go with equality? Men and women are different physically and physiologically for a reason. Women should be valued the same as men but I think that to deny that there are differences is also incorrect. -efritz<br />
<br />
I thoroughly enjoyed this reading. I particularly liked how class and race were emphasized in all four of the essays. The essay by Gisela Bock was interesting and raised a lot of good questions. As Angie pointed out, Bock does cover some of the basic struggles women face today and how scholars interpret these struggles, a point I found intriguing. A question I have, based off the reading is how each of the dichotomies she listed are specifically present today (as far as where), how much of an impact do they have on women in society and how much of an impact they currently have on the writing of women's history? I agree with the statement posted by efritz on equality. Although I do believe men and women should have equal opportunity, I think there should be a clear distinction between both men and women. -abratchi<br />
<br />
Leslie M. Alexander raised a lot of great points as well. I agree with Mmackey's statement that grouping all women together as a whole without the emphasis on the black woman (race, more broadly. In my opinion, ignoring Alexander's intricate tie to the community would hurt the writing of women's history, especially in terms of race and class. A challenge, I believe, that comes into play when writing Black women's history is the lack of sources available to accurately depict a Black women's lives (more specifically and broadly, women classified as other than 'white') throughout the late nineteenth and twentieth century. A question I have is what sources are currently available and in what quantity? How hard is it to accurately write a history of black women versus white women when a limited number of sources are available and, are scholars able to work through this lack of material? -abratchi<br />
<br />
In regards to Kate Haulman's reading I found her comments regarding woman's work versus mans work on page 5, "knitting as woman's work versus carpentry as man's" interesting. She attempts to redefine gender roles and challenge how we view women and men in society. I agree with efritz's comment the roles should not be stereotyped by gender males and females can perform the same duty and have a common goal of providing for themselves/family. -Megan W.</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_15_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 15 Questions/Comments-327 092009-12-03T06:27:55Z<p>Megan3088: /* Frances Ellen (Watkins) Harper, 1866 Woman’s Rights convention */</p>
<hr />
<div>== ''Comparative source questions'' ==<br />
<br />
I’m curious to what extent women truly believed that they were morally superior to men. They certainly used it to justify women taking a part in activities that were not typically approved of for women. For instance, one of Clara Lanza’s arguments for women working outside the home in clerical positions was that women’s morality would improve the business world. Some women’s rights activists also used that argument for why women should be able to vote. Were they consciously manipulating the rhetoric of the day or did they just naturally assume it to be the truth? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
== ''Woloch, Chapter 13, Urban Wage Earners'' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Helen Campbell, 1893, study on NY wage laborers, “Shop Girls and Piece Workers” ==<br />
I thought it was interesting how she said that the girls who worked in the shops: "she knows far better what constitutes the life of the rich than the rich ever know of the life of the poor...of the woman she so often despises, even when longing the most to be one of them. She imitates where she can..."(bottom of page 294). This is further emphasizing the desire of lower-class women to be like the upper class, to strive for that 'perfect life.' It is a striking contrast that the girl hates the rich women, yet longs to be like them. -Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
== Lucy Maynard Salmon, 1897, Vassar Historian who studied domestic service ==<br />
<br />
I noticed a difference in the way that working women were described in comparison to the language used about domestic women. Working women saw themselves as being immersed in society and into the world but a domestic woman "never read and does not know what is going on in the world." (P. 298) The working women also describe domestic women as having so much time on their hands, almost insinuating that domestic women's work is not equal to theirs. It was interesting how the working women say they enjoy their job more than they would being a domestic woman. They enjoy the freedom they have to go out and work, but then come home and do whatever they please. Their work and home lives are completely separate. Oppositely, domestic women are always around their work, continuously tending to the family and the house whenever it is needed. There are not set hours of work for domestic women.... their work is their life. --- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
I agree with Alex on her ideas about working women. They saw themselves as in the world and intouch with society and it made me wonder if they were the real reason behind the push for women's rights? I know middle class women were heavily involved in shaping women's rights but did the efforts of the working class women make a difference? Working class women were proud of what they accomplished and according to this article boasted about what they could do, I agree a woman can do anything she sets her mind to but in a way didn't all women shape the womens rights movement? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Isabel Eaton, 1899, research on black servants in Philadelphia ==<br />
Unlike the white women urban workers we read about for this week, this piece shows how little choice black women urban workers had in occupations. Most were domestic servants. Even those who were educated or had other job training could not get the jobs they wanted and were qualified for. The racial discrimination they experienced kept them locked into a job they felt was socially degrading and that provided little personal freedom and low wages. Due to being turned down, or even the fear of being turned down, most were kept them from seeking jobs outside of domestic service. So while white women with an education or job training could afford to be independent and had new job opportunities opened to them, black women were less likely to be able to experience this type of independence.<br />
--Nancy Lee<br />
<br />
This article is sad because it shows us how race oriented people were even after the Civil War, but it is already a well known that Blacks did not reach any kind of true equality until the 20th century though. Actually, while I was reading this, I came up with kind of a random but related question: In the Antebellum South, when there was still slavery, the slaves would "fight back" in any way they could, including pretending to be really stupid so that they may screw up the task assigned to them, etc. So, I was wondering if this form of retaliation might have had any sort of negative impact after the Civil War for blacks searching for jobs (mostly in the south since that is where such things usually took place)? -Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
== Clara Lanza, 1891, defends the female office clerk in NY ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Looking at The Office Clerk by Clara Lanza many things stand out to me. This piece is justifying the use of women as clerks. However, this justification feeds into the women’s assumed gender roles during that time period as much as the men’s justification as to why women should not be clerks. Both arguments use the overarching gender roles of the time. Men argue that women should remain in the home and be good wives and raise their children, they also argue that women fidget, they become anxious, they are temperamental, they giggle, and so on… these characteristics all fit into what women were presumed to be like. The counter this argument, Clara Lanza believes that women are more reliable than men, they come to work when sick, they don’t complain, and they can do all of this while being great wives. Both sides to this argument use what everyone would agree are characteristics of women of that time and the roles people expected them to play, just in different ways. This is similar to the arguments for and against women abolitionists and reformers, it is very interesting how gender roles can be used as justifications for different things. Based off of the readings about women’s roles as activists for women’s rights I can tell that the same use of gender roles as justifications for and against the movement being used here as well. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I agree a lot with Erin. Ms. Lanza states in the beginning of her response that "Among the woman workers in New York there are none who afford a more interesting study than the vast army of clerks, the work of a clerk being admirably adapted to the sex." While I think expected gender roles play a large part- the exactness of women's work, their reliability, and the ways in which they can be trusted- I also wonder if, at this time, there were beginning to be notions of differences between "sex" and "gender", one of the arguments, I think, of the feminist movement during the 20th Century, with gender being thought of as very much socially constructed. It almost seems like Ms. Lanza would make many of those in the women's movement at the time or the feminist movement today kind of angry- it seems as if in many ways she is very much defending the gender roles and stereotypes about women. -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
== Leonara Barry, on what the Knights of Labor are doing for women, 1888 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sadie Frome, 1902, “Story of a Sweatshop Girl” ==<br />
<br />
I really liked Sadie's story. I thought it was neat how she talked about her social activities outside of work- going to school at night and to the synagogue, having her fortune read by a fortune teller, and going out with Henry, to the theater, or dancing or to Coney Island. She seems like the quintessential "new" young woman of the early twentieth century- she is independent, able to save her money, and not ready to settle down and marry Henry, even though he wants her to. She seems very content with her situation right now and her life as it is- as if she is not ready for things to change just yet and is enjoying the benefits of her hard work and her independence. I really kind of admire her! -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
I loved Sadie's story. She is a very practical person. She saves money and she knows how to have fun. I was a little disturbed by the matter or fact way she talks about getting her finger caught in the needle and how it could result in a broken bone or dismemberment. She did not seem concerned that it could happen to her. I think it is funny that she keeps putting Henry off and that she does not want to get married. I admire her independence. LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
Just like LeAnn and Allison said, I also enjoyed reading Sadie's story. It amazed me how she lived such a simple life, yet she was so content because she was independent and making money for herself. I found it interesting how she could only live on $2 a week! She even went on to say she could "have lived cheaper, but we are both fond of good things and felt that we could afford them." (P. 308) $2 a week! That is literally impossible now a days. But Sadie claimed the $2 was enough for her to get by on and live comfortably. I noticed the marriage decision she made. It is interesting to see the progression over the course of the centuries. Women insisted on waiting instead of being married in their teenage years. Could it be because they were making a life for themselves and wanted to establish their own independence before getting married? --- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
I also very much enjoyed Sadie’s story, as she really lived the American dream. Having found trouble in her homeland, her mother and her moved to America, and with the help of family members here, was able to set up a home, find a job, save money, and live decently well. I can understand her desire to hold off on marriage, as she was successful in gaining independence and personal autonomy, which would most likely be revoked upon her marriage. Her desire for nice clothes was endearing as it reminded me much of the desires of young women today, and because she was also successful in saving there was no reason for her not to have nicer clothes, especially since she believed that a “girl who does not dress well is stuck in the corner” (311). Her independence and savvyness allows her that luxury and because of that - no one puts Sadie in the corner. -- Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
== ''Woloch, Chapter 16, Woman Suffrage/Women’s Rights'' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Julia Ward Howe, 1899, Reminiscences ==<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading Julia's Reminiscences as she tells her little story. When she said that part about when she said " 'I am with you' I have been with them ever since" I found that very touching. That and the last line about how although she gave a lot to the cause, it was repaid to her thousandfold. She was very proud of the work done as she should have been. She spoke of how the first 2/3 of her life were spent believing the masculine ideal of character as the only one... I liked the whole thing. She just seemed really endearing and heartfelt. - Christine<br />
<br />
== Stanton and Anthony, 1882, piece in ''History of Woman Suffrage'' ==<br />
<br />
Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony in Political Lessons take a unique and direct approach to gain women’s suffrage. Based off of their arguments, I can see why they may have been threatening. They argue that women, in all actuality, are quiet geniuses, unable to voice their opinions and they are frustrated. This goes completely against the gender roles of the time, which perceive women to be inferior people who were meant to stay home and care for her family who didn’t really have any real political opinions of her own and who followed their husband’s views. I also think that it was very bold for them to bring up topics such as class and race, and relate them to women's gender roles. I can see why this could be appealing for some and scary for others. –Erin Sanderson <br />
<br />
<br />
== Frances Ellen (Watkins) Harper, 1866 Woman’s Rights convention ==<br />
"We are all bound up together in one great bundle of humanity, and society cannot trample on the weakest and feeblest of its members without receiving the curse in its own soul." Strong words that people still need to come terms with today. I really enjoyed reading her speech. I feel so much more for the black woman of the time because they were fighting a double fight: race and gender rights were needed. Bringing up the "wrongs" done to the blacks by the whites was a powerful message, especially when she contrasted it to the "rights" that the "white women" keep takling about. - christine<br />
<br />
I felt deeply sorry for Frances Harper, not only was she a woman but also a black widow who inherited the role of provider for four children, only one of whom she was the true mother to. She quickly points out that if she was a man, she would not have been violated in the same terms and would have been as seen as more equal before law. I think her message of saying giving women the right to vote would not cure all injustice against women, and race would be a big factor. She knows the terms of the country and understands that while big steps are needed the country would work a step at a time to achieve equality. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Shoe women of Lynn, MA, 1874 ==<br />
In Shoemakers of Lynn, these women seemed very robust and seemed to want to do things that man does (such as chew tobacco and spit on the floor) and not be judged that it was not a “lady like” thing to do. It’s interesting that she refers to women as slaves to men. What I thought stood out was when she spoke about women who are married, that they have no need for anything and have no idea the oppression that those who were not married had to face. -Marsha<br />
<br />
Americus provides an interesting counter to women’s suffrage that I hadn’t considered. She wrote that the day she takes the ballot “will bring with it a conviction that the judgment I rely on has failed me, and the arm upon which I lean, is powerless to protect (367).” She felt that women’s suffrage would ultimately question female judgment. Women relied on their husbands willingly, but suggesting that they needed to vote would also suggest that their husbands weren’t what they trusted them to be, and that perhaps women couldn’t trust themselves either if they were able to be so completely deceived. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
In many ways, the women’s rights movement was elitist. Wealthy women who had the leisure time to campaign for suffrage often asserted that they should vote to help counteract the votes of the working class. Working class women were less likely to participate in the women’s rights movement, therefore I thought Ella A. Little’s letter was pretty awesome. Her argument was that wealthy women did not really understand oppression and that working class women who had to “battle” to “earn their livelihood” were in more desperate need for the right to vote. I think it is really sad that this opinion is not often heard in the women’s rights movement. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
== Amelia Barr, (novelist and married) 1896, Speaks out against female suffrage ==<br />
I still think that it is a little weird whenever I hear about a woman who did not want rights or did not see them as important to have. Maybe they couldn't miss something they never had? In the document, she argued that if women were given rights they would have become tools, made irrational decisions, and be less likely to defend the nation. She also says that women are born graceful and soft and therefore could never do the work that rough men do. If I were a woman in the late Nineteenth Century, I would have just wanted to be seen as an equal to men and know that I would be treated fairly in court or receive an equal distribution of property or wealth from my deceased husband. I wouldn't consider those two examples as doing "the work of the virile virtues of men." - Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I found what Amelia Barr wrote very interesting. She’s not against discontented women in the working class fighting for better wages but rather against women in the political realm. I think she’s saying women are too fickle to make political decisions like decisions of war and that law would be in danger in the hands of women. Another point, I think she tried to make is that when a women steps out of the “domestic sphere” she put herself at risk for being criticized by a man (creating animosity) and Barr believed only women should criticize other women. - Marsha<br />
<br />
I disagree with pretty much everything she has to say but I can totally see the women of her time agreeing with her. She promotes stereotypes which annoys me. She asks if women get what they want and if they are allowed to work as men whether they will be happy. She asks if men's work is less tiresome then women's. Basically, isn't work just work? These are definitely interesting questions. LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
I can understand why Amelia Barr would have followers, even though I totally disagree, as her arguments are written very well and she has arguments that attack women’s moral and sensible duties, such as their religion, their obligation to their families, and their femininity. Specifically her writing about women’s ability to vote and work and that her desire for knowledge was unnecessary and will take away her femininity was interesting to me, and made me wonder what she, or others like her, would think of the women of today? Would she see our accomplishments as really our failure as women? -- Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
== Anna Garlin Spencer, 1898, response to anti-suffrage attacks ==<br />
<br />
Spencer's reasoning for why women should have the right to vote was unique. She claimed that once the government began to get involved in matters dealing with "any form of educative, charitable or personally helpful work, it entered the area of distinctive feminine training and power." Once the government entered that woman's sphere, it became involved in women's lives, which meant women had a say in what the government did, especially in that female sphere. She made it seem like women had the right to be involved because of the government's entrance into their lives. She also implied that without women's suffrage, the government could not adequately function/make beneficial decisions in the woman's sphere of influence. --- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
== Charlotte Perkins Gilman, 20th Century feminist, 1903, The Home ==<br />
<br />
In Charlotte Perkins Gilman's piece, the reader gets the idea that she obviously thinks there is more to women than being housewives and mothers. She argues that women should be able to participate in society and not be stuck at home. The idea of a "home-husband" was a funny concept. She said, and I agree, "Never was any such idiot on earth as this hypothetical home-husband. It was not in him to stay in such primitive restrictions. But he has been quite willing to leave his wife in that interestingly remote period." Men are so adamant about keeping females inside the home but having the roles be reversed would be out of the question. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I think in order for the women’s rights movement to proceed, people had to move beyond the idea that women were “naturally” moral and nurturing. I don’t think nineteenth-century Americans saw gender as fluid and dynamic, instead it was prescribed by God. In order to change, they needed to learn to see it as less of a biological function, and more of a result of socialization. Radicals such as Charlotte Perkins Gilman lead the way with ideas that women’s forced isolation in the home made them less capable for a public role rather than a natural lack of abilities. -Allison Luthern</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_15_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 15 Questions/Comments-327 092009-12-03T06:11:10Z<p>Megan3088: /* Lucy Maynard Salmon, 1897, Vassar Historian who studied domestic service */</p>
<hr />
<div>== ''Comparative source questions'' ==<br />
<br />
I’m curious to what extent women truly believed that they were morally superior to men. They certainly used it to justify women taking a part in activities that were not typically approved of for women. For instance, one of Clara Lanza’s arguments for women working outside the home in clerical positions was that women’s morality would improve the business world. Some women’s rights activists also used that argument for why women should be able to vote. Were they consciously manipulating the rhetoric of the day or did they just naturally assume it to be the truth? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
== ''Woloch, Chapter 13, Urban Wage Earners'' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Helen Campbell, 1893, study on NY wage laborers, “Shop Girls and Piece Workers” ==<br />
I thought it was interesting how she said that the girls who worked in the shops: "she knows far better what constitutes the life of the rich than the rich ever know of the life of the poor...of the woman she so often despises, even when longing the most to be one of them. She imitates where she can..."(bottom of page 294). This is further emphasizing the desire of lower-class women to be like the upper class, to strive for that 'perfect life.' It is a striking contrast that the girl hates the rich women, yet longs to be like them. -Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
== Lucy Maynard Salmon, 1897, Vassar Historian who studied domestic service ==<br />
<br />
I noticed a difference in the way that working women were described in comparison to the language used about domestic women. Working women saw themselves as being immersed in society and into the world but a domestic woman "never read and does not know what is going on in the world." (P. 298) The working women also describe domestic women as having so much time on their hands, almost insinuating that domestic women's work is not equal to theirs. It was interesting how the working women say they enjoy their job more than they would being a domestic woman. They enjoy the freedom they have to go out and work, but then come home and do whatever they please. Their work and home lives are completely separate. Oppositely, domestic women are always around their work, continuously tending to the family and the house whenever it is needed. There are not set hours of work for domestic women.... their work is their life. --- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
I agree with Alex on her ideas about working women. They saw themselves as in the world and intouch with society and it made me wonder if they were the real reason behind the push for women's rights? I know middle class women were heavily involved in shaping women's rights but did the efforts of the working class women make a difference? Working class women were proud of what they accomplished and according to this article boasted about what they could do, I agree a woman can do anything she sets her mind to but in a way didn't all women shape the womens rights movement? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Isabel Eaton, 1899, research on black servants in Philadelphia ==<br />
Unlike the white women urban workers we read about for this week, this piece shows how little choice black women urban workers had in occupations. Most were domestic servants. Even those who were educated or had other job training could not get the jobs they wanted and were qualified for. The racial discrimination they experienced kept them locked into a job they felt was socially degrading and that provided little personal freedom and low wages. Due to being turned down, or even the fear of being turned down, most were kept them from seeking jobs outside of domestic service. So while white women with an education or job training could afford to be independent and had new job opportunities opened to them, black women were less likely to be able to experience this type of independence.<br />
--Nancy Lee<br />
<br />
This article is sad because it shows us how race oriented people were even after the Civil War, but it is already a well known that Blacks did not reach any kind of true equality until the 20th century though. Actually, while I was reading this, I came up with kind of a random but related question: In the Antebellum South, when there was still slavery, the slaves would "fight back" in any way they could, including pretending to be really stupid so that they may screw up the task assigned to them, etc. So, I was wondering if this form of retaliation might have had any sort of negative impact after the Civil War for blacks searching for jobs (mostly in the south since that is where such things usually took place)? -Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
== Clara Lanza, 1891, defends the female office clerk in NY ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Looking at The Office Clerk by Clara Lanza many things stand out to me. This piece is justifying the use of women as clerks. However, this justification feeds into the women’s assumed gender roles during that time period as much as the men’s justification as to why women should not be clerks. Both arguments use the overarching gender roles of the time. Men argue that women should remain in the home and be good wives and raise their children, they also argue that women fidget, they become anxious, they are temperamental, they giggle, and so on… these characteristics all fit into what women were presumed to be like. The counter this argument, Clara Lanza believes that women are more reliable than men, they come to work when sick, they don’t complain, and they can do all of this while being great wives. Both sides to this argument use what everyone would agree are characteristics of women of that time and the roles people expected them to play, just in different ways. This is similar to the arguments for and against women abolitionists and reformers, it is very interesting how gender roles can be used as justifications for different things. Based off of the readings about women’s roles as activists for women’s rights I can tell that the same use of gender roles as justifications for and against the movement being used here as well. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I agree a lot with Erin. Ms. Lanza states in the beginning of her response that "Among the woman workers in New York there are none who afford a more interesting study than the vast army of clerks, the work of a clerk being admirably adapted to the sex." While I think expected gender roles play a large part- the exactness of women's work, their reliability, and the ways in which they can be trusted- I also wonder if, at this time, there were beginning to be notions of differences between "sex" and "gender", one of the arguments, I think, of the feminist movement during the 20th Century, with gender being thought of as very much socially constructed. It almost seems like Ms. Lanza would make many of those in the women's movement at the time or the feminist movement today kind of angry- it seems as if in many ways she is very much defending the gender roles and stereotypes about women. -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
== Leonara Barry, on what the Knights of Labor are doing for women, 1888 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sadie Frome, 1902, “Story of a Sweatshop Girl” ==<br />
<br />
I really liked Sadie's story. I thought it was neat how she talked about her social activities outside of work- going to school at night and to the synagogue, having her fortune read by a fortune teller, and going out with Henry, to the theater, or dancing or to Coney Island. She seems like the quintessential "new" young woman of the early twentieth century- she is independent, able to save her money, and not ready to settle down and marry Henry, even though he wants her to. She seems very content with her situation right now and her life as it is- as if she is not ready for things to change just yet and is enjoying the benefits of her hard work and her independence. I really kind of admire her! -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
I loved Sadie's story. She is a very practical person. She saves money and she knows how to have fun. I was a little disturbed by the matter or fact way she talks about getting her finger caught in the needle and how it could result in a broken bone or dismemberment. She did not seem concerned that it could happen to her. I think it is funny that she keeps putting Henry off and that she does not want to get married. I admire her independence. LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
Just like LeAnn and Allison said, I also enjoyed reading Sadie's story. It amazed me how she lived such a simple life, yet she was so content because she was independent and making money for herself. I found it interesting how she could only live on $2 a week! She even went on to say she could "have lived cheaper, but we are both fond of good things and felt that we could afford them." (P. 308) $2 a week! That is literally impossible now a days. But Sadie claimed the $2 was enough for her to get by on and live comfortably. I noticed the marriage decision she made. It is interesting to see the progression over the course of the centuries. Women insisted on waiting instead of being married in their teenage years. Could it be because they were making a life for themselves and wanted to establish their own independence before getting married? --- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
I also very much enjoyed Sadie’s story, as she really lived the American dream. Having found trouble in her homeland, her mother and her moved to America, and with the help of family members here, was able to set up a home, find a job, save money, and live decently well. I can understand her desire to hold off on marriage, as she was successful in gaining independence and personal autonomy, which would most likely be revoked upon her marriage. Her desire for nice clothes was endearing as it reminded me much of the desires of young women today, and because she was also successful in saving there was no reason for her not to have nicer clothes, especially since she believed that a “girl who does not dress well is stuck in the corner” (311). Her independence and savvyness allows her that luxury and because of that - no one puts Sadie in the corner. -- Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
== ''Woloch, Chapter 16, Woman Suffrage/Women’s Rights'' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Julia Ward Howe, 1899, Reminiscences ==<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading Julia's Reminiscences as she tells her little story. When she said that part about when she said " 'I am with you' I have been with them ever since" I found that very touching. That and the last line about how although she gave a lot to the cause, it was repaid to her thousandfold. She was very proud of the work done as she should have been. She spoke of how the first 2/3 of her life were spent believing the masculine ideal of character as the only one... I liked the whole thing. She just seemed really endearing and heartfelt. - Christine<br />
<br />
== Stanton and Anthony, 1882, piece in ''History of Woman Suffrage'' ==<br />
<br />
Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony in Political Lessons take a unique and direct approach to gain women’s suffrage. Based off of their arguments, I can see why they may have been threatening. They argue that women, in all actuality, are quiet geniuses, unable to voice their opinions and they are frustrated. This goes completely against the gender roles of the time, which perceive women to be inferior people who were meant to stay home and care for her family who didn’t really have any real political opinions of her own and who followed their husband’s views. I also think that it was very bold for them to bring up topics such as class and race, and relate them to women's gender roles. I can see why this could be appealing for some and scary for others. –Erin Sanderson <br />
<br />
<br />
== Frances Ellen (Watkins) Harper, 1866 Woman’s Rights convention ==<br />
"We are all bound up together in one great bundle of humanity, and society cannot trample on the weakest and feeblest of its members without receiving the curse in its own soul." Strong words that people still need to come terms with today. I really enjoyed reading her speech. I feel so much more for the black woman of the time because they were fighting a double fight: race and gender rights were needed. Bringing up the "wrongs" done to the blacks by the whites was a powerful message, especially when she contrasted it to the "rights" that the "white women" keep takling about. - christine<br />
<br />
== Shoe women of Lynn, MA, 1874 ==<br />
In Shoemakers of Lynn, these women seemed very robust and seemed to want to do things that man does (such as chew tobacco and spit on the floor) and not be judged that it was not a “lady like” thing to do. It’s interesting that she refers to women as slaves to men. What I thought stood out was when she spoke about women who are married, that they have no need for anything and have no idea the oppression that those who were not married had to face. -Marsha<br />
<br />
Americus provides an interesting counter to women’s suffrage that I hadn’t considered. She wrote that the day she takes the ballot “will bring with it a conviction that the judgment I rely on has failed me, and the arm upon which I lean, is powerless to protect (367).” She felt that women’s suffrage would ultimately question female judgment. Women relied on their husbands willingly, but suggesting that they needed to vote would also suggest that their husbands weren’t what they trusted them to be, and that perhaps women couldn’t trust themselves either if they were able to be so completely deceived. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
In many ways, the women’s rights movement was elitist. Wealthy women who had the leisure time to campaign for suffrage often asserted that they should vote to help counteract the votes of the working class. Working class women were less likely to participate in the women’s rights movement, therefore I thought Ella A. Little’s letter was pretty awesome. Her argument was that wealthy women did not really understand oppression and that working class women who had to “battle” to “earn their livelihood” were in more desperate need for the right to vote. I think it is really sad that this opinion is not often heard in the women’s rights movement. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
== Amelia Barr, (novelist and married) 1896, Speaks out against female suffrage ==<br />
I still think that it is a little weird whenever I hear about a woman who did not want rights or did not see them as important to have. Maybe they couldn't miss something they never had? In the document, she argued that if women were given rights they would have become tools, made irrational decisions, and be less likely to defend the nation. She also says that women are born graceful and soft and therefore could never do the work that rough men do. If I were a woman in the late Nineteenth Century, I would have just wanted to be seen as an equal to men and know that I would be treated fairly in court or receive an equal distribution of property or wealth from my deceased husband. I wouldn't consider those two examples as doing "the work of the virile virtues of men." - Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I found what Amelia Barr wrote very interesting. She’s not against discontented women in the working class fighting for better wages but rather against women in the political realm. I think she’s saying women are too fickle to make political decisions like decisions of war and that law would be in danger in the hands of women. Another point, I think she tried to make is that when a women steps out of the “domestic sphere” she put herself at risk for being criticized by a man (creating animosity) and Barr believed only women should criticize other women. - Marsha<br />
<br />
I disagree with pretty much everything she has to say but I can totally see the women of her time agreeing with her. She promotes stereotypes which annoys me. She asks if women get what they want and if they are allowed to work as men whether they will be happy. She asks if men's work is less tiresome then women's. Basically, isn't work just work? These are definitely interesting questions. LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
I can understand why Amelia Barr would have followers, even though I totally disagree, as her arguments are written very well and she has arguments that attack women’s moral and sensible duties, such as their religion, their obligation to their families, and their femininity. Specifically her writing about women’s ability to vote and work and that her desire for knowledge was unnecessary and will take away her femininity was interesting to me, and made me wonder what she, or others like her, would think of the women of today? Would she see our accomplishments as really our failure as women? -- Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
== Anna Garlin Spencer, 1898, response to anti-suffrage attacks ==<br />
<br />
Spencer's reasoning for why women should have the right to vote was unique. She claimed that once the government began to get involved in matters dealing with "any form of educative, charitable or personally helpful work, it entered the area of distinctive feminine training and power." Once the government entered that woman's sphere, it became involved in women's lives, which meant women had a say in what the government did, especially in that female sphere. She made it seem like women had the right to be involved because of the government's entrance into their lives. She also implied that without women's suffrage, the government could not adequately function/make beneficial decisions in the woman's sphere of influence. --- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
== Charlotte Perkins Gilman, 20th Century feminist, 1903, The Home ==<br />
<br />
In Charlotte Perkins Gilman's piece, the reader gets the idea that she obviously thinks there is more to women than being housewives and mothers. She argues that women should be able to participate in society and not be stuck at home. The idea of a "home-husband" was a funny concept. She said, and I agree, "Never was any such idiot on earth as this hypothetical home-husband. It was not in him to stay in such primitive restrictions. But he has been quite willing to leave his wife in that interestingly remote period." Men are so adamant about keeping females inside the home but having the roles be reversed would be out of the question. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I think in order for the women’s rights movement to proceed, people had to move beyond the idea that women were “naturally” moral and nurturing. I don’t think nineteenth-century Americans saw gender as fluid and dynamic, instead it was prescribed by God. In order to change, they needed to learn to see it as less of a biological function, and more of a result of socialization. Radicals such as Charlotte Perkins Gilman lead the way with ideas that women’s forced isolation in the home made them less capable for a public role rather than a natural lack of abilities. -Allison Luthern</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_13-14_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 13-14 Questions/Comments-327 092009-11-23T21:45:12Z<p>Megan3088: /* Louticia Jackson’s letter in 1863 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Louisa May Alcott, Hospital Sketches, 1862-1863 ==<br />
<br />
A Union Nurse, shows the experience of Louisa May Alcott as a nurse in the Union Hotel Hospital in Washington, D.C. One thing that stood out to me was Dorthea Dix’s call for women nurses. She was specific in that she was looking for “women between 30 and 50 years old, single, sober, hard-working, moral, and plain looking.” At first I thought that the age of 30 was a little old to be a cut off considering there must have been so many single, sober, hard-working, moral, and plain looking girls that were between 20 and 30 that would not have families to worry about so they would have the ability to become nurses. But then I realized that perhaps the act of being a young woman and working in close proximity with men would be considered immoral in and of itself. I am curious if they sent any women away because they were too good looking! –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I also thought it was really interesting that Dorthea Dix wanted women between the age of 30-50. I agree with Erin that women probably had to be atleast 30 because it would be seen as inappropriate for a younger women to be working with men. I think that Dix extended the age to 50 because there were probably a lot of widows in their 40's. I thought the requirement that the women be plain looking was funny, but I guess it makes sense. If the nurse was too good looking, the patients would probably be hitting on her all day long. On the other hand, if the patients had not been able to pay for prostitutes, they probably would be hitting on their nurses even if they were "plain looking". -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
== Mary Livermore, [Northern women on farm during war], 1890 -- Woloch and Major Problems readings. ==<br />
I thought it was interesting that Mary Livermore's observation of the women working in the fields at first bothered her. Livermore compared women’s devotion to their family life and maintaining their farms to men’s devotion to the war when she said, “the women had enlisted in the war.” This gave women some gender equality and these responsibilities were accepted because it was in the name of family, home, and country. -Marsha <br />
<br />
I really liked the quote "the women had enlisted in the war". While most women were not in battle or even serving as nurses, the Civil War changed their lives. They had to take on completely new responsiblities. I wonder if the women knew how much their lives would be changed by the war. I think they were caught up in the glory of the war. I bet if they knew how much their life would change, or in the instance of southern women that the war would be in their backyard, they would not have pushed the men to fight. I don't think that they realized what they were getting themselves into at all. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
In Modern Problems, Mary Livermore spoke of the work of women. She set a strong and emotional tone that women set forth in the war. I think she was saying that the men in the war were given hope through the inspiring women and “ministering angels.” She also compares women’s “relief societies” to regiments in the war. -Marsha<br />
<br />
<br />
I liked the end of Mary Livermore's selection when she is comparing harvesting and domestic chores. She explains that harvesting is not any harder than "typical" women's work and so females should be able/allowed to do it. She also wants men to know that women are serving the country in the fields doing the harvest in the same way men are in the war serving. The examples she gives help prove her statement that "women had enlisted for the war." I feel she is also trying to make the point that men's opinions about women working in the field does not matter because under the circumstances the women are the only ones able to do the work that is necessary in keeping up the estate or home. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Louticia Jackson’s letter in 1863 ==<br />
<br />
Despite the fact Louticia is having a problem with slaves <br />
who are taking advantage of having no white man in<br />
charge of them I still find her letter interesting. <br />
She is clearly struggling with the fact that her "servants" <br />
are not helping her. I did not like how when Willes the slave <br />
yelled she took to her bed cause it "excited" her. Stop whining <br />
and yell back. I know women would never do that but <br />
I say desperate times call for desperate measures. LeAnn T.<br />
<br />
I think this letter demonstrates how unprepared most southern women probably were when left to deal with the slaves on their own, especially male slaves. Since most of these women had been dominated by their husbands, it is not hard to understand that they would not be able to deal with a male slave who, essentially, was exhibiting the same type of behavior as their husbands had. When white masters left, did they give certain slaves more authority in making sure the plantation work continued on during their absence? Also, the relationship between Louticia and Willes seems interesting, especially the part about her taking care of him while he was sick (even bathing and rubbing him with her own hands). Was it just that she thought he was that valuable of a slave to her or was something else going on? Was it common for white women to take this much interest in their slaves?--Nancy Lee<br />
<br />
Women all over the south, like Louticia, had problems with slaves when their husbands left because in the slaves eyes their masters left, women were subservient to their husbands (masters) and so were slaves; so who were they going to listen to? In this case I do not agree with how Willes treated Louticia. I agree with LeAnn yell back, stick up for yourself, times had changed with their husbands at war so do whatever it takes to survive. I also wonder why her son could not protect her? Did he not want to or did he fear a slave uprising if he tried to give out orders? His actions appeared to contradict how white men acted in the Confederate south. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Eva Jones to Mary Jones, her mother-in-law, 1865 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Accounts of former slaves, 1865-1937 ==<br />
<br />
== VA woman, recorded by abolitionist Laura Haviland in 1866 ==<br />
<br />
== Harriet Tubman, from her white female biographer, Sarah Bradford, 1886 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Clara Burdett, to notary in Union camp in KY, March 1865 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Fanny Berry, in Weevils in the Wheat, 1937 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Tennessee Woman, 1929 [TN Nanny] ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mary Anderson, NC ==<br />
<br />
== Katie Darling, in TX ==<br />
<br />
== Sarah and Lucy Chase, Teaching the Freedmen, 1866-1868 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading Sarah Chase and Lucy Chase’s letters because I did a lot of research on the topic of white northern women going south to teach newly freed blacks for my second paper and I was able to draw parallels between the Chase sisters and Mary Ames (who I focused on for my paper). The Chase sisters were from a wealthy family Massachusetts, and had been against slavery since before the war began, and went to Savannah after the war ended as teachers. In the letters, I can tell that becoming teachers in the south was not just about teaching the basics of reading and writing but it was about teaching new ways of life. These teachers thought that it was their responsibility to show the newly freed blacks how to be religious, self-sufficient, and how to be good people (by their standards). I have no doubt that the teachers had the best intentions, but I wonder if these rich white women were setting unattainable expectations and standards on black families and what this meant for them. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I thought these letters really showed the complexity of life in the South after the Civil War. Sarah Chase stated that she could hardly see the possibility of the North and South united because the South had an “intensely bitter” feeling “against anything Northern.” White people of the South resented all that Northern educators were doing for freed blacks since many white Southerners were uneducated themselves. However, Southern white people would rather not attend school at all than go to desegregated schools. Sarah Chase is an excellent example of the common racist feelings among abolitionists. She stated that her purpose was not to make black people equal to white people; she wished that white people always have a higher social standing. Even those trying to help the freed slaves were racist! Given the completely pervasive racism, it is not hard for me to realize how difficult life would be for black people after the Civil War. I can see how the Civil War really required a later Civil Rights Movement. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
I agree that these letters really show the complexity of the South after the Civil War. These letters do a good job of showing just how bitter the South was over losing the war. I also think it was great the women like Sarah and Lucy went to the South to educate the freed slaves. If they hadn't, I'm sure these freed slaves would have remained uneducated because I highly doubt that the southerners would have helped them. At least, most of them would not have helped. I think it is easy for us to look back at these letters and think "wow, even the women that taught these freed slaves were racist". However, you have to remember that almost every white American, even abolitionists, considered themselves to be superior. For all of their lives, African-Americans had been held down and considered inferior. I do not think Lucy and Sarah would have considered themselves to be racist. I think that African-American inferiority is all they had known all of their lives. They probably thought that they were doing a great thing to help the freed slaves. I think the whole nation, even most Northerners, were pretty racist at this time following the Civil War. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
== Susie King Taylor, Reminiscences of My Life in Camp, 1902 ==<br />
<br />
== Ada Bacot, Confederate Nurse, 1862 ==<br />
I cannot imagine working with wounded men some of them enemies. Ada says she is not sure that she can treat Yankee soldiers the same as Confederate soldiers. At first my reaction was what kind of person wouldn't help out a wounded man he deserves treatment like everyone else. Then I thought about it. That soldier you are helping could have killed your father or brother or son. I would like to think I would treat everyone the same but I am not sure I could. I think Ada is a good person for at least making the effort to help humanity despite the fact they are the enemy. LeAnn T.<br />
<br />
== Maria Daly, 1862, Northerner in the South (New Orleans) ==<br />
<br />
== Sarah Morgan, 1863, Teen diary ==<br />
This diary entry reminded me of the Abigail Adams letters we read earlier in the course because I think both are severely out of context. The editors chose the most radical thing Abigail Adams and Sarah Morgan ever said and placed only those quotes in this book. I researched Sarah Morgan’s diary for the second paper in this class. I discovered that Sarah Morgan expressed support and desire for traditional gender roles of domestic female dependence much more often than her imaginations of fighting as a soldier. Later in the diary, she even renounced women expressing strong patriotic emotions. She said that her brothers’ political thought and action spoke for her. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
== Cornelia Hancock, Union Nurse, 1863 ==<br />
In Cornelia's letters I found it interesting how she exposed the care of soldiers for their fallen comrades, "Help my neighbor first he is worse." (206). With the shortage of surgeons and even fewer nurses soldiers waited five days before a surgeon even passed by them or they gained something to eat besides tack. Cornelia glorified her work and said when she was sick she was treated like a "princess" and awarded a medal for her work. This makes me wonder if the romantic ideals of war stemmed from letters like hers? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Caroline Kirkland, 1863, defends Northern women’s support of Northern men ==<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting to read about a women who was defending the involvement Northern women had during the Civil War. She seemed very passionate about explaining the good they were doing and how they were helping in a positive way. Caroline Kirkland believed in her view so much as to say that if Southern women acted more like Northern women, the war may not have taken place.I thought that was a bold statement. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas, January 1865 ==</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_13-14_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 13-14 Questions/Comments-327 092009-11-23T21:36:49Z<p>Megan3088: /* Cornelia Hancock, Union Nurse, 1863 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Louisa May Alcott, Hospital Sketches, 1862-1863 ==<br />
<br />
A Union Nurse, shows the experience of Louisa May Alcott as a nurse in the Union Hotel Hospital in Washington, D.C. One thing that stood out to me was Dorthea Dix’s call for women nurses. She was specific in that she was looking for “women between 30 and 50 years old, single, sober, hard-working, moral, and plain looking.” At first I thought that the age of 30 was a little old to be a cut off considering there must have been so many single, sober, hard-working, moral, and plain looking girls that were between 20 and 30 that would not have families to worry about so they would have the ability to become nurses. But then I realized that perhaps the act of being a young woman and working in close proximity with men would be considered immoral in and of itself. I am curious if they sent any women away because they were too good looking! –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I also thought it was really interesting that Dorthea Dix wanted women between the age of 30-50. I agree with Erin that women probably had to be atleast 30 because it would be seen as inappropriate for a younger women to be working with men. I think that Dix extended the age to 50 because there were probably a lot of widows in their 40's. I thought the requirement that the women be plain looking was funny, but I guess it makes sense. If the nurse was too good looking, the patients would probably be hitting on her all day long. On the other hand, if the patients had not been able to pay for prostitutes, they probably would be hitting on their nurses even if they were "plain looking". -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
== Mary Livermore, [Northern women on farm during war], 1890 -- Woloch and Major Problems readings. ==<br />
I thought it was interesting that Mary Livermore's observation of the women working in the fields at first bothered her. Livermore compared women’s devotion to their family life and maintaining their farms to men’s devotion to the war when she said, “the women had enlisted in the war.” This gave women some gender equality and these responsibilities were accepted because it was in the name of family, home, and country. -Marsha <br />
<br />
I really liked the quote "the women had enlisted in the war". While most women were not in battle or even serving as nurses, the Civil War changed their lives. They had to take on completely new responsiblities. I wonder if the women knew how much their lives would be changed by the war. I think they were caught up in the glory of the war. I bet if they knew how much their life would change, or in the instance of southern women that the war would be in their backyard, they would not have pushed the men to fight. I don't think that they realized what they were getting themselves into at all. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
In Modern Problems, Mary Livermore spoke of the work of women. She set a strong and emotional tone that women set forth in the war. I think she was saying that the men in the war were given hope through the inspiring women and “ministering angels.” She also compares women’s “relief societies” to regiments in the war. -Marsha<br />
<br />
<br />
I liked the end of Mary Livermore's selection when she is comparing harvesting and domestic chores. She explains that harvesting is not any harder than "typical" women's work and so females should be able/allowed to do it. She also wants men to know that women are serving the country in the fields doing the harvest in the same way men are in the war serving. The examples she gives help prove her statement that "women had enlisted for the war." I feel she is also trying to make the point that men's opinions about women working in the field does not matter because under the circumstances the women are the only ones able to do the work that is necessary in keeping up the estate or home. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Louticia Jackson’s letter in 1863 ==<br />
<br />
Despite the fact Louticia is having a problem with slaves <br />
who are taking advantage of having no white man in<br />
charge of them I still find her letter interesting. <br />
She is clearly struggling with the fact that her "servants" <br />
are not helping her. I did not like how when Willes the slave <br />
yelled she took to her bed cause it "excited" her. Stop whining <br />
and yell back. I know women would never do that but <br />
I say desperate times call for desperate measures. LeAnn T.<br />
<br />
I think this letter demonstrates how unprepared most southern women probably were when left to deal with the slaves on their own, especially male slaves. Since most of these women had been dominated by their husbands, it is not hard to understand that they would not be able to deal with a male slave who, essentially, was exhibiting the same type of behavior as their husbands had. When white masters left, did they give certain slaves more authority in making sure the plantation work continued on during their absence? Also, the relationship between Louticia and Willes seems interesting, especially the part about her taking care of him while he was sick (even bathing and rubbing him with her own hands). Was it just that she thought he was that valuable of a slave to her or was something else going on? Was it common for white women to take this much interest in their slaves?--Nancy Lee<br />
<br />
== Eva Jones to Mary Jones, her mother-in-law, 1865 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Accounts of former slaves, 1865-1937 ==<br />
<br />
== VA woman, recorded by abolitionist Laura Haviland in 1866 ==<br />
<br />
== Harriet Tubman, from her white female biographer, Sarah Bradford, 1886 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Clara Burdett, to notary in Union camp in KY, March 1865 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Fanny Berry, in Weevils in the Wheat, 1937 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Tennessee Woman, 1929 [TN Nanny] ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mary Anderson, NC ==<br />
<br />
== Katie Darling, in TX ==<br />
<br />
== Sarah and Lucy Chase, Teaching the Freedmen, 1866-1868 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading Sarah Chase and Lucy Chase’s letters because I did a lot of research on the topic of white northern women going south to teach newly freed blacks for my second paper and I was able to draw parallels between the Chase sisters and Mary Ames (who I focused on for my paper). The Chase sisters were from a wealthy family Massachusetts, and had been against slavery since before the war began, and went to Savannah after the war ended as teachers. In the letters, I can tell that becoming teachers in the south was not just about teaching the basics of reading and writing but it was about teaching new ways of life. These teachers thought that it was their responsibility to show the newly freed blacks how to be religious, self-sufficient, and how to be good people (by their standards). I have no doubt that the teachers had the best intentions, but I wonder if these rich white women were setting unattainable expectations and standards on black families and what this meant for them. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I thought these letters really showed the complexity of life in the South after the Civil War. Sarah Chase stated that she could hardly see the possibility of the North and South united because the South had an “intensely bitter” feeling “against anything Northern.” White people of the South resented all that Northern educators were doing for freed blacks since many white Southerners were uneducated themselves. However, Southern white people would rather not attend school at all than go to desegregated schools. Sarah Chase is an excellent example of the common racist feelings among abolitionists. She stated that her purpose was not to make black people equal to white people; she wished that white people always have a higher social standing. Even those trying to help the freed slaves were racist! Given the completely pervasive racism, it is not hard for me to realize how difficult life would be for black people after the Civil War. I can see how the Civil War really required a later Civil Rights Movement. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
I agree that these letters really show the complexity of the South after the Civil War. These letters do a good job of showing just how bitter the South was over losing the war. I also think it was great the women like Sarah and Lucy went to the South to educate the freed slaves. If they hadn't, I'm sure these freed slaves would have remained uneducated because I highly doubt that the southerners would have helped them. At least, most of them would not have helped. I think it is easy for us to look back at these letters and think "wow, even the women that taught these freed slaves were racist". However, you have to remember that almost every white American, even abolitionists, considered themselves to be superior. For all of their lives, African-Americans had been held down and considered inferior. I do not think Lucy and Sarah would have considered themselves to be racist. I think that African-American inferiority is all they had known all of their lives. They probably thought that they were doing a great thing to help the freed slaves. I think the whole nation, even most Northerners, were pretty racist at this time following the Civil War. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
== Susie King Taylor, Reminiscences of My Life in Camp, 1902 ==<br />
<br />
== Ada Bacot, Confederate Nurse, 1862 ==<br />
I cannot imagine working with wounded men some of them enemies. Ada says she is not sure that she can treat Yankee soldiers the same as Confederate soldiers. At first my reaction was what kind of person wouldn't help out a wounded man he deserves treatment like everyone else. Then I thought about it. That soldier you are helping could have killed your father or brother or son. I would like to think I would treat everyone the same but I am not sure I could. I think Ada is a good person for at least making the effort to help humanity despite the fact they are the enemy. LeAnn T.<br />
<br />
== Maria Daly, 1862, Northerner in the South (New Orleans) ==<br />
<br />
== Sarah Morgan, 1863, Teen diary ==<br />
This diary entry reminded me of the Abigail Adams letters we read earlier in the course because I think both are severely out of context. The editors chose the most radical thing Abigail Adams and Sarah Morgan ever said and placed only those quotes in this book. I researched Sarah Morgan’s diary for the second paper in this class. I discovered that Sarah Morgan expressed support and desire for traditional gender roles of domestic female dependence much more often than her imaginations of fighting as a soldier. Later in the diary, she even renounced women expressing strong patriotic emotions. She said that her brothers’ political thought and action spoke for her. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
== Cornelia Hancock, Union Nurse, 1863 ==<br />
In Cornelia's letters I found it interesting how she exposed the care of soldiers for their fallen comrades, "Help my neighbor first he is worse." (206). With the shortage of surgeons and even fewer nurses soldiers waited five days before a surgeon even passed by them or they gained something to eat besides tack. Cornelia glorified her work and said when she was sick she was treated like a "princess" and awarded a medal for her work. This makes me wonder if the romantic ideals of war stemmed from letters like hers? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Caroline Kirkland, 1863, defends Northern women’s support of Northern men ==<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting to read about a women who was defending the involvement Northern women had during the Civil War. She seemed very passionate about explaining the good they were doing and how they were helping in a positive way. Caroline Kirkland believed in her view so much as to say that if Southern women acted more like Northern women, the war may not have taken place.I thought that was a bold statement. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas, January 1865 ==</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_12_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 12 Questions/Comments-327 092009-11-11T20:08:47Z<p>Megan3088: /* Lucy Stone (and Henry Blackwell)’s Marriage Protest, 1855 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Comparative source questions ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== The Advocate of Moral Reform, 1838 ==<br />
<br />
In The Advocate of Moral Reform I found it interesting that moral reformers were against “the hazard of elopement”. They believed that elopement was an escape from parental authority and “the first step to ruin”. In the story, the girl elopes and is led into prostitution, and is then saved. I am curious how often this type of thing actually happened. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
== Maria Stewart, 1831, “O, Ye Daughters of Africa, Awake!” in the Liberator. ==<br />
Maria Stewart seems out of her time. She is strong and vigile with her words. She recognizes her part in the constitution by saying that all men are free and equal. I think she makes a loud and vigilant statement when she says principles makes the man not the color of the skin. I thought it was interesting also when she wrote that even though many think blacks are an inferior race that God does not look at them that way. Maria Stewart had professed her faith to God. I think she was expressing that blacks allegiance was to their country and faith to God -not their masters. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
== Letter to Liberator from Andover Female Antislavery Society, 1836 ==<br />
Referring to the meetings of the Female Antislavery Society, this woman was stressing the importance of a woman's role in reform. It was women's Godly duty to reform those in the south, who believed in slavery. Using such words as "scourged sisters" at the South, meaning black women are our sisters and are being tortured by the south. The south must be corrected for their wrong doings. Black women are being opressed and we must reform the south to stop the oppression. She saw it as a degradation of women or what she called "darkness." -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
I agree with Marsha in that women stressed their importance in reform. They saw it as their "Christian duty" to help their enslaved sisters. According to these antislavery women, they were justified in condemning slavery because it "robbed women in slavery of virtue". It is interesting that these antislavery women who had their ideals of what it meant to be women believed that slave women had those same ideals. I wonder how southern white women felt about this. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
I think it is always so interesting when people interpret the bible and use it for whatever point they was to make or argue. In this case with the letter, I liked the way the lady wanted to explain how God viewed women-that they had a duty but also that they should not be slaves. I also liked the statement that said it "disregards the relation of husband and wife, brother and sister, parent and child-shuts out the intellect the light of knowledge-whelms hope in despair and ruins the soul." The letter had a lot of good points to make. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Sarah Grimke’s response to the Mass Clergy, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Declaration of Sentiments at Seneca Falls, 1848 (written by Elizabeth Cady Stanton) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Lucy Stone (and Henry Blackwell)’s Marriage Protest, 1855 ==<br />
The marriage protest I compared to a modern day pre-nuptial agreement. With Lucy having this agreement read at her wedding she took a strong stance for women's rights as did her husband and those who attended the wedding. I think her fight against William Blackstone's words, "the existence of the wife is suspended during marriage." spoke louder than any sewing circle. Lucy wanted an equal partnership in her marriage and with this agreement believed she would get it, but I question how was the protest enforced? Did her husband truly agree to all six points in the protest? If so, I strongly commend him for standing by his wife in her fight for women's rights and hope he set a further example for marriages in the 1850s. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Sojourner Truth (Isabella Van Wagener), 1851 (Ohio Convention). ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Isablle Graham and Society for Relief of Poor Widows, 1806 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Anti-Slavery Convention of American Women, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== American Female Reform Society Warns Mothers of “Solitary Vice”, 1839 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== 1848, Elizabeth McClintock and Elizabeth Cady Stanton defend the Declaration of Sentiments and the 1848 convention ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== 1852, Sarah Josepha Hale, editor of Godey’s Lady’s Book ==<br />
<br />
While this passage consisted of only a paragraph, I found it interesting how Mrs. Hale took a stance on voting. She did not think women needed the right to vote when they could influence the men in their lives, yet did the men not have the final say so in the home? I think this passage took a step backwards for the women's movement, while yes women could attempt to influence men did they really? This was not like the Native Americans in which women could keep food from men if things did not go their way. I think this passage serves to represent women as subservient to their husbands and or sons. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Julie Roy Jeffrey, “Ordinary Women in the Antislavery Movement,” in the Introduction to ''The Great Silent Army of Abolitionism: Ordinary Women in the Anti-slavery Movement'', 1998. ==<br />
<br />
I liked this essay by Julie Roy Jeffrey. I liked how she talked about the plain, average woman being a big part of the abolition movement. William Lloyd Garrison Jr said that the "leaders would have been powerless" without their help. Jeffrey talks about individual movements that were created after the national antislavery effort was ended in the mid Nineteenth century. She also mentioned how the involvement in this effort put women outside their sphere like we talked about in class. The end of the essay mentions several women who were a part of this movement that I think was important to include. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Nancy Isenberg’s “Women’s Rights and the Politics of Church and State in Antebellum America,” (1998) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Shirley Yee, “Free Black Women in the Abolitionist Movement,” in ''Black Women Abolitionists: A Study in Activism, 1828-1860'', (1992). ==</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_12_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 12 Questions/Comments-327 092009-11-11T20:02:00Z<p>Megan3088: /* 1852, Sarah Josepha Hale, editor of Godey’s Lady’s Book */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Comparative source questions ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== The Advocate of Moral Reform, 1838 ==<br />
<br />
In The Advocate of Moral Reform I found it interesting that moral reformers were against “the hazard of elopement”. They believed that elopement was an escape from parental authority and “the first step to ruin”. In the story, the girl elopes and is led into prostitution, and is then saved. I am curious how often this type of thing actually happened. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
== Maria Stewart, 1831, “O, Ye Daughters of Africa, Awake!” in the Liberator. ==<br />
Maria Stewart seems out of her time. She is strong and vigile with her words. She recognizes her part in the constitution by saying that all men are free and equal. I think she makes a loud and vigilant statement when she says principles makes the man not the color of the skin. I thought it was interesting also when she wrote that even though many think blacks are an inferior race that God does not look at them that way. Maria Stewart had professed her faith to God. I think she was expressing that blacks allegiance was to their country and faith to God -not their masters. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
== Letter to Liberator from Andover Female Antislavery Society, 1836 ==<br />
Referring to the meetings of the Female Antislavery Society, this woman was stressing the importance of a woman's role in reform. It was women's Godly duty to reform those in the south, who believed in slavery. Using such words as "scourged sisters" at the South, meaning black women are our sisters and are being tortured by the south. The south must be corrected for their wrong doings. Black women are being opressed and we must reform the south to stop the oppression. She saw it as a degradation of women or what she called "darkness." -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
I agree with Marsha in that women stressed their importance in reform. They saw it as their "Christian duty" to help their enslaved sisters. According to these antislavery women, they were justified in condemning slavery because it "robbed women in slavery of virtue". It is interesting that these antislavery women who had their ideals of what it meant to be women believed that slave women had those same ideals. I wonder how southern white women felt about this. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
I think it is always so interesting when people interpret the bible and use it for whatever point they was to make or argue. In this case with the letter, I liked the way the lady wanted to explain how God viewed women-that they had a duty but also that they should not be slaves. I also liked the statement that said it "disregards the relation of husband and wife, brother and sister, parent and child-shuts out the intellect the light of knowledge-whelms hope in despair and ruins the soul." The letter had a lot of good points to make. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Sarah Grimke’s response to the Mass Clergy, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Declaration of Sentiments at Seneca Falls, 1848 (written by Elizabeth Cady Stanton) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Lucy Stone (and Henry Blackwell)’s Marriage Protest, 1855 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sojourner Truth (Isabella Van Wagener), 1851 (Ohio Convention). ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Isablle Graham and Society for Relief of Poor Widows, 1806 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Anti-Slavery Convention of American Women, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== American Female Reform Society Warns Mothers of “Solitary Vice”, 1839 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== 1848, Elizabeth McClintock and Elizabeth Cady Stanton defend the Declaration of Sentiments and the 1848 convention ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== 1852, Sarah Josepha Hale, editor of Godey’s Lady’s Book ==<br />
<br />
While this passage consisted of only a paragraph, I found it interesting how Mrs. Hale took a stance on voting. She did not think women needed the right to vote when they could influence the men in their lives, yet did the men not have the final say so in the home? I think this passage took a step backwards for the women's movement, while yes women could attempt to influence men did they really? This was not like the Native Americans in which women could keep food from men if things did not go their way. I think this passage serves to represent women as subservient to their husbands and or sons. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Julie Roy Jeffrey, “Ordinary Women in the Antislavery Movement,” in the Introduction to ''The Great Silent Army of Abolitionism: Ordinary Women in the Anti-slavery Movement'', 1998. ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Nancy Isenberg’s “Women’s Rights and the Politics of Church and State in Antebellum America,” (1998) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Shirley Yee, “Free Black Women in the Abolitionist Movement,” in ''Black Women Abolitionists: A Study in Activism, 1828-1860'', (1992). ==</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_11_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 11 Questions/Comments-327 092009-11-08T22:06:52Z<p>Megan3088: /* Xin Jin's Contract, 1886 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Mary Anne Sadlier's Bessy Conway ==<br />
<br />
I found it really interesting that Bessy, upon leaving Ireland to come to America, said that she was planning on returning to her family in a few years. Was it common for men and women who left Ireland to plan on returning one day? Also, I thought it was cool that Bessy was able to return home and help her family, it seems very ideal, like this is what the typical Irish immigrant woman would strive to do, leave home on her own (getting her burden off her family) and making enough money to turn around and help support her family. So what was Mary Anne Sadlier's goal in writing this story? -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
It was very obvious that Bessy loved Ireland. I also wonder how many Irish immigrants that wanted to return home one day actually did. The trip to America had to be an extremely long trip. For her to come to America, work hard in difficult circumstances, and then make the trip back to Ireland took a lot of strength and courage. I just wonder how often situations like this actually happened. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
I think that Bessy Conway was one of the lucky ones because she was able to go and had a job lined up for her with a place to live. She was one of those who embraced the myth of so much opportunity in a new world. She was a hard worker and expected the same of others around her (especially the other servants in the house.)-Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
I agree that Bessy did embrace the myth of so much opportunity in America. I wonder how much of this was because she was a character in Mary Anne Sadlier's story. Do you think the all immigrants worked hard and expected the same of those around them? How many actually returned home after making money? I find it hard to imagine going to a new country and making money, then going back to poverty and starvation. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
I found the mixed chapters we read of Bessy's story put a sense of reality on the true plight of young Irish women and men. From the early chapters discussing her families struggles and her earnestness to leave her home to help her family made me wonder if all young immigrants cared the same for Ireland and their families as Bessy? Chapters 6 and 15 stood out the most to me with their discussion of religion and how it was so important eventually leading to Bessy's dismissal was this normal in America? Did Americans fear religious takeover from the Irish immigrants? -Megan W. <br />
<br />
I thought the pictures of the starving people was awful and it was hard to read the chapter about Bessy's starving family. They kept their faith in God and kept saying that God would save them. I cannot imagine having enough food. Bessy was definitely a very lucky girl that she had a good job and earned quite a bit of money. It think it is interesting that Mary Anne Sadlier made Bessy out to be a hard worker which and implied that is why she was successful. Bessy just had a better opportunity then most. The author made the other servant out to be lazy which is why they ultimately were lost to poverty. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
I agree with LeAnn that Bessy was lucky to find a good job where she could earn money. I also think it is interesting that Mary Anne Sadlier made Bessy out to be a hard worker, I think this was a piece that was meant to be the goal for female Irish immigrants who came to the United States. I don't know how realistic the story is, but I think that it gives working Irish immigrant women something to strive for. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
== Jannicke Saehle, 1847, Norwegian immigrant’s letters ==<br />
I enjoyed this piece, it provided a lot of information about immigrants (though certainly not the majority of the poor Irish who suffered an awful journey across the Atlantic.) Jannicke Saehle obviously has some money as she was able to site see once arriving in America. I found her statement about sea sickness, “And after five minutes my turn came, also, to contribute my share to the Atlantic Ocean,” quite humorous. <br />
I also found it interesting her mentioning the abundance of food in America and that Americans tended to toss the extra to swine while people in her homeland starved. I certainly hope Johannes, her brother to whom she was writing, was not one of the starving people for I would hate to hear of all the waste if I were to be one of the starving poor. <br />
One question, though, how common were the museums that she described with wild animals? –Megan Mc<br />
<br />
I didn't realize that museuems of the kind she was describing existed at this time period in New York...I wonder if she was mentioning the Museum of Natural History. I have been there but who is the soldier with no head? I don't remember seeing that last time I went to any history museums. Her story was nice to read, because unlike so many others she truly seems to be living a better life in America. Even her passage over seemed to be blessed with good fortune. the tone of Jannickes story was happy and upbeat making her seem like the type of person who would find the silver lining in ever episode. However I wonder if she was trying to play things up a bit to comfort her family that maybe was worried about her well being?--Emma Peck<br />
<br />
I agree with Emma about liking the tone of the piece. Most tales or accounts of people immigrating to the United States around this time usually are filled with bad tales, deaths, sicknesses etc. It was interesting to point out the fact though that maybe she was not being 100% truthful about it to ease her family's worry. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I agree that the tone of these letters were a nice change of pace. However, I also find it hard to believe that immigration was full of happiness and sunshine. Especially since every other story that I have heard was a lot more negative. I think that the immigrants that wrote these letters were lying to try to keep their families from worrying about them. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
It is an interesting, and very sweet, idea to look at this letter as an example of immigrants to relive their families back home that they are doing well. While reading this I did make note that it was exceptionally perky, and as for Amy’s comment I too question the percentage of honesty in this letter, though it very well may be as Emma stated that she was the type to find the silver lining in every situation. -- Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
I've got to agree with the previous comments that Jannicke doesn't appear to be an average immigrant. Although she came to the United States as a servant, I think she had a better financial situation than most other immigrants. Her ability to write supports this conclusion. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
== William Sanger, New York Prostitutes, 1858 ==<br />
I found it interesting that Sanger sympathizes with the prostitutes in his study and that he blamed fathers, husbands, and families for not doing their job. The immorality is from the failures of these figures in women's lives. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
I also found Dr. Sanger's belief that the women he interviewed were victims of their environment (and not necessarily prostitutes because of a moral flaw in character, etc.) very interesting. I think it could be applied in geographical concepts and ideas, too- for example, the belief in "environmental determinism" (or the idea that your environment and surroundings have a major impact on who you are as a person) versus "environmental possibilism", where your environment can place some limits on you, but you are essentially responsible for who you are and what you do. I also found it interesting that, in discussing the reasons why some of the women would have cited "Inclination" as a reason for their becoming a prostitute, Dr. Sanger also mentioned and acknowledged female desires. In most of what we have discussed in class, we have talked about how women were expected to be "pure" and "chaste", while only men could actually have sexual desires and emotions. Dr. Sanger states, "The force of desire can be neither denied nor disputed, but still in the bosoms of most females that force exists in a slumbering state until aroused by some outside influences." Thus, he still, in many ways, is reinforcing the belief that women (while acknowledging that they might actually have "desires"- shocking!)should keep these repressed and private. -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
I agree that it is very interesting that Sanger blamed husbands, fathers, and the environment for these women becoming prostitutes. I think that a lot of that comes from the fact that women were expected to be so "pure" and "chaste". Obviously, they really weren't so pure and chaste. I mean I definitely don't think a woman would become a prostitute just because she likes sex. The women that Sanger studied were young, poor immigrants. They needed to make money and there were not many job opportunities for them. I think there's more to it than just that their husbands and fathers failed them. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
I didn't find the statistics gathered by Sanger to be other than what I expected. Young, immigrants, poor, etc. I did find it amusing that he (as well as everybody else) was convinced women were passionless and just would not be inclined to do such a "profession". - Christine<br />
<br />
The causes for women turning to prostitution were varied but most were centered around what others did to them. Family abandoning them, violated, alcohol were some of the reasons. I thought what was particularly interesting was the number one reason: they voluntarily went into prostitution to gratify their own sexual passions. If the survey is true, why would Sanger feel sympathetic towards the women? The choice was theirs in most cases. -Amy Van Ness <br />
<br />
I do not think that all of those women choose to go into prostitution for sexual gratification. There was such a taboo against women who sold themselves that none of those women would do it if not for necessity. The women were probably lying. I felt awful that they had to resort to this to support their family. I am surprised that there were so many that said their family turned them out. I cannot imagine getting thrown out of my house. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that a fair number of women seemed to choose “inclination” as the reason they were prostitutes, which basically means they just liked sex. I personally have a hard time understanding why anyone (even people who really like sex) would choose to be a prostitute unless they had no other means to support themselves. So, how many of these women were actually telling the truth? Were they perhaps to proud to admit that they were prostitutes because they were unable to support themselves another way? Wouldn’t it be worse for them to imply that they were lusty and passionate when it was understood that women were uninterested in sex rather than that they were just simply poor and needy? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
To me Dr. Sanger was reinforcing the notion that women were more primative and needy of men, given that many said that they were in the profession to satisfy their own desires and that the powerful impact that men had on their becoming prostitutes. Although it is interesting to see the doctor blaming some of the issue on men. - Will Hechmer<br />
<br />
I also have a problem with the category of inclination. Every one of those examples listed stated that these women became prostitutes due to need for income rather than need for sex. It seems very much like a stretch to me that those women would become a prostitutes in order to “gratify the sexual passions”, and am more inclined to believe in the analysis of inclination for an “easy life” which suggests need for income and goods. Sanger himself did not believe this though he refused it because he was of the notion that white women did not want sex, and that he often blamed the men who should be responsible. He was definitely a man of his time. It was however interesting as it looked into other jobs women did besides keeping house and trying to stay virtuous.-- Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
This article was interesting especially the survey at the beginning listing examples as to why these women became prostitutes. One of the answers that had me questioning was “Too ill to work.” These women would be too ill to work but felt fine enough to have sex for money. Dr. Sangers’ analysis was fascinating as well, he was trying to work out why the women would turn to prostitution. He did not seem to believe the answer of “inclination” as the intro to the article states he saw women as passionless. It seems in many of these historical documents men either saw women as passionless perhaps virtuous or they saw them too passionate and needed to be married in order to keep them in their place. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
This might be naive of me but I noticed a lot of the women who became prostitutes said it was because they were seduced and abandoned by lovers, now that is very unfortunate and all but is it necessary to go into prostitution afterwards? I know that losing ones virginity would "ruin" an unmarried girl but why are these girls telling everyone that they were ruined? Maybe these girls were not being discreet about their "torrid" affairs but I feel like it could have been beneficial for them to lie about them! Obviously in cases where they ended up pregnant this would not be possible but there must have been some cases where they could have gone home and no one would be the wiser! -Emma Peck<br />
<br />
== Xin Jin's Contract, 1886 ==<br />
<br />
I just find it very strange that there were contracts for prostitution. It seems short, but rather thorough. They make sure to include what happens if shes sick, pregnant, or runs away. The three most plausible situations I suppose. - Christine<br />
<br />
While this passage was short, it was clear and concise of the punishments women (Xin Jin)would face if they violated their contracts. I did not find it fair that Xin Jin was brought here and owed the family money but was given no means necessary to fulfill her payment other than prostitution. Did Americans find this to be a valid occupation? After reading this contract I wonder if other immigrants faced the same sort of contract or forms of punishment if they did comply? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
After reading this entry, I wondered if all the terms and conditions these girls had to abide by just for passage to America was really worth the risk. If a girl became sick, she had to work longer; or if she became pregnant, the deal was off and she was sent back to China. I feel like sickness and pregnancy were pretty frequent, and to me, its any wonder that these girls actually put themselves through it. It is understandable though, that they only were prostitutes to pay for their passage and afterwards may lead a normal life, but it just seems like such a traumatic thing to go through. ---- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
I really agree with Alex. These contracts reminded me a lot of the contracts that indentured servants were under when they came to the colonies in the 17th and 18th Centuries, right down to the provisions stated for what would happen if they became pregnant, etc.- extra time would be added in both cases. What were the motivations for these women to come to the United States? Were conditions really that bad in their home countries that they would become prostitutes in order to pay for passage to the United States? Maybe prostitution was looked on differently in Asia and China at this time, perhaps even different from how it was viewed in the United States. Perhaps it was a more accepted practice? -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
The language used in the contract made it sound like the customer was renting a car, rather than dealing with a human being: “if a customer asks to take her out” and “she shall be returned within 100 days (239)” come to mind. I’m curious who wrote up the contracts and ran the brothels? Were they whites or other Chinese? Whites hardly considered the Chinese to be human, so it wouldn’t be a surprise if they considered it like renting out property, but you’d hope the Chinese would have slightly more respect for their own people. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I also thought this contract (and the others like it) was very interesting. I would however, have liked to have known the after stories to go with these contracts. The time at first (four and one half years) seems very small, however like Alex stated, I would think sickness and pregnancy would accumulate a lot of extra time for these ladies. I would like to have known the actual amount of time they had to work, whether they received their freedom, or whether they lived to see the end. Were they in the habit of using birth control? How effective was it? These contracts would be very interesting to see in a much larger context to see how the women fared at the end of them. -- Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
I also would have liked to read a personal story about one of these chinese prostitutes. While reading this article as well as the other similar ones dealing with prostitution in the west as well as in New York I found myself wondering about the women who become pregnant. I know they have a specific clause for that in the Chinese Prostitution bill...but would they have the child and continue to raise it? I found myself wondering what the outcome would be for the prostitutes who became pregnant and for their child. -Emma Peck<br />
<br />
It does seem strange to have a contract for prostitution - but if prostitution was going on in their homeland, it would only seem strange to us. Would the women that were prostituted out see this as an opportunity for them, considering they were told they would eventually have freedom? (even though they were lied to and never given their freedom) Another point, it would seem as a no end situation if they got a disease because I would think their chances of getting a disease are so much higher with multiple partners. -Marsha Himes <br />
<br />
After reading, I wonder if these women every achieved freedom, was prostitution really a better way of life? I want to bring up the same questions as Taylor, who started the contracts and who kept them in "safe-keeping"? I am not sure with all of the risks involved if I would be willing to sell myself to the land of the free. I also wonder if Chinese women sent letters describing their experiences in America? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-76 ==<br />
I still think it's crazy that the price of passage/ food for some Chinese women coming to America was prostitution. I guess if things were worse back in China the option to become a prostitute might seem bright, but I don't know. The terms for this "occupation" was usually for a few years. These women must have been in real need; I don't think selling my body would ever be worth coming to America for me. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
To add to what Amy was saying about the length of time a woman would have to serve her term, I find it excessive that if a woman were to "escape and be recovered" (p.238), at least in the case of Yut Kum, then they were asking for a life sentence. I find this extremely excessive. And also, conception is noted as a "sickness" (p. 238); was pregnancy common with concubines? Granted, I doubt that a servant's mistress would be too concerned with the latest birth control methods. -Seth Mintzer<br />
<br />
What was going on in China that made these women come to America to become prostitutes? I agree with Amy I don't think selling my body would be worth it. And getting freedom while sounds like a good plan is not really. What would they do once they were free. They had no skills for working outside of prostitution so how would them live? Where would they go? - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
The wording of these contracts sounded to me more like slavery than several years of servitude. “Yet Kum consents to prostitute her body to receive company…”; “Ah Ho distinctly agrees to give her body to Mr. Yee for services as a prostitute…”; “She makes her body over to the woman Sep Sam, to serve as a prostitute…”. Each of these contracts emphasizes the fact that the Chinese women no longer owned or controlled their own bodies. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
I agree that these contracts seem more like slavery that several years of servitude. I also wonder how often these women became pregnant. What about STDs? I doubt that the "owners" of these women were practicing safe sex. Were disease and pregnancy a big problem for prostitutes at this time? - Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
To respond to Katelyn's post, I think disease and pregnancy were a big problem. The fact that they had to state them in the contract for prostitutes probably meant that the owners expected these things to happen. I think though, that there was no way to prevent disease and pregnancy so the owners just found ways to deal with it. --- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
== Susan Shelby Magoffin in Santa Fe, 1846 ==<br />
Although the writer of this piece was far from the “civilized” East Coast of the United States, I still found that the cult of domesticity still impacted her. She was very proud of her ability to manage her household, including the servants. In her opinion, success was attained when she could “gain one bright smile and sweet kiss, from my good, kind husband.” She was very concerned with making her home a refuge for her husband when he returned from work. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
I found it comical that Susan Shelby Magoffin thought she needed to "be more expert in ... Spanish" (p. 236) so that she could get advice about men. It is not surprising that she would make the effort to interact with other cultures given her interactions with American women were probably limited. For example, she will be the "only traderess" (p. 235) at the American-thrown Spanish ball. - Seth Mintzer<br />
<br />
== Citizen protest of rape of Indian women in California, 1862 ==<br />
I thought that this was a very interesting piece. I was very happy that a citizen would protest the rape of Native Americans even if the ones committing the crime were officers in the US army. I did find it particularly interesting though that the person refers to one officer as possibly being a "pretend Lieut." I would be curious to know if impersonating soldiers was at all typical if the men could get away with it,(or at least think they could get away with it).-Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
I agree with you Kristina that I liked the fact that someone stood up to white men especially soldiers. I wonder the reasons why someone would be a "pretend Lieutenant" if he really was one. Maybe for cases such as this? Knowing that they could do basically whatever they want as a soldier and not get away with it? -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I agree that it was interesting that an American was defending Native American women that were being raped by American soldiers. It would have been easy to just look the other way. I think it's sad that we hear so many stories of soldiers raping civilians. British soldiers did it during the Revolution. American soldiers raped Native Americans. I just think its incredibly wrong for soldiers to treat civilians, even "enemy" civilians, that way. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
I agree with Kristina, Amy, and Katelyn it is interesting that a white citizen is standing up for Indian women. Most white people thought Indians were inferior to them and it is nice to see that someone does care about them. I think the author used the term "pretend Lieut" because they did not want to think people in the Army could be as cruel as any criminal. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
I'm going to argue the opposite and say that it's possible that these citizens weren’t necessarily standing up for the Native Americans, but rather looking out for themselves. A good reputation and a spot in heaven was reserved for moral and self-controlled citizens, and Native Americans weren’t on par with slaves, so rape couldn’t really be excused as exercising control over your property. Thomas Jefferson didn’t like slavery because he felt it was detrimental to white society, not because he felt that blacks were equal to whites. Perhaps these complaining citizens felt that raping Indian women was detrimental to white society and not because they were concerned about the Indians. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
In response to the questions about the “pretend lieutenant” What I think they were hinting at was not that they were civilians pretending to be military, but that they were possibly pretending to be of a higher rank, potentially to have more influence and power to command a situation- such as access to an Indian rancheria. Also, I don’t know if I necessarily agree with Taylor. Yes, Indians were considered much lower to whites and non-citizens, but I would like to believe that there was some human decency to see that rape (no matter to whom) was wrong, and that the military ought to have better control over such situations. When reading this I got that it was a woman writing this and so I hope that this person was standing up for honest reason reasons of humanity. -- Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
I agree that the "pretend lieutenant" possibly referred to someone pretending to be this rank. A couple of things in this letter stood out as a possible reason the writer was so upset. For one, the writer states that these were "peaceful and domesticated Indian residents." The fact that the attack was on peaceful and domesticated Indians could have been a reason for the writer's feelings regarding it. Another point was the purpose for the military being there in the first place--to protect the citizens from the Indians. The actions taken by the soldiers contradict the values the army is supposed to uphold. I think the writer is genuinely concerned about the Indians and also about the misuse of power perpetrated by these men.--Nancy Lee<br />
<br />
== Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884 ==<br />
<br />
This piece made me kind of sad, especially for the mother, who I feel like realizes what her daughter wants to do and knows that getting an education will be good and beneficial for her, but still does not want to let her go. I feel like the mother in many ways perhaps feels cautious towards the "white men" and the missionaries and distrusts them, and yet, despite this, she sees the merits of an education for her daughter, as well as her daughter's excitement, and feels she must let her go. I think this relates a lot to what we talked about in class about possible tensions within families as a result of attempts at assimilation, especially between generations. The daughter is excited for this opportunity and to ride on the "iron horse" and to see the land where there are plenty of red apples to eat for everybody, while the mother is watching her traditional world rapidly change all around her because of the white settlers and missionaries- she has to give up her wigwam and now live in a log house, for example. She is a "foreigner" in her own home. At the same time, I also feel sorry for the daughter, as well. After all her excitement at the opportunity to go East, she watches the "lonely figure" of her mother vanish as she drives away, and then feels as "frightened and bewildered as the captured young of a wild creature." (p.241) I wonder if this was her first time being away from home and all by herself? I feel as if maybe her mother knew exactly what the daughter was getting herself into, but she still let her go- maybe so the daughter could realize it for herself? It is a hard lesson. -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
One of the first things that I noticed when reading this piece was the absence of a father. Her brother Dawee does not seem to be old enough to be part of the decision making process. When faced with the decision, her mother seems very reluctant to let Zitkala-Sa go away but is unable to make a firm decision. Do you think this situation would have been different if there was a father figure? Would he have let Zitkala-Sa go away to the white-run school as easily as the mother did? Would she have been as eager to go? - John Rowley<br />
<br />
With reference to Allison's comment about Zitkala-Sa's mother feeling like a foreigner in her own home, I can only imagine that when Zitkala-Sa returns to her mother, that feeling will strengthen. The assimilation process at these white-run schools were designed to reinvent the children and discouraged any practice of native traditions that might be waiting for her upon her return to her mother. One time I saw pictures of students when they first arrived to a school and after they were "westernized". The differences with astonishing- I bet when Dawee came back to visit, his mother didn't even recognize him! Additionally, the pictures only portrayed physical changes (i.e. a haircut), but I bet these were negligible compared to the spiritual changes of religious conversion. -Seth Mintzer<br />
<br />
Seth, it’s interesting to hear about pictures before and after the children went to these schools. Do you have any links to them? I wonder why precisely whites even bothered to run these schools if there was a widespread belief that the Chinese couldn’t be assimilated. How could they justify that belief if these schools proved that Chinese could be Westernized? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
Actually in response to Seth’s comment about the physical changes being negligible compared to the spiritual changes, the physical changes were a really really large issue. For most tribes, hair was only cut during times of mourning, and it was expressed in practically all the children’s stories coming out of schools like Carlisle that having their hair cut was one of the most tragic things. Hair and clothing expressed identity, which is why the government enforced these things, and why it was so traumatic for kids who were in a sense losing their identity for a white one. To Taylor, just google image Carlisle Indian School. The pictures Seth talks about are numerous and very well known. You should be able to find many examples. -- Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
I agree with Allison, this was a very sad piece, both for the mother and Zitkala-Sa. It was interesting that the mother did not trust the missionaries and stated that they lie, yet she finally decides to let her eight year old child go with them. I also found it interesting that her mother makes the housing changes after Dawee comes back from being "educated." So the influence of the education is indeed working through the children in the efforts to change the way that the Native Americans lived. The fact that even Dawee, having been through the education experience provided by the missionaries, does not think Zitkala-Sa should go makes me wonder why the mother and even Zitkala-Sa did not listen to him. At the end, when Zitkala-Sa gets to the school, her description of how frightened she was was very sad. The men who came to Zitkala-Sa's village are referred to as missionaries. At this point, how large of a role did religious organizations play in taking Native American children to schools for the purpose of assimilation? Or was it a combined religious and educational purpose? Also, what kind of education they received at these schools would be interesting to know? -Nancy Lee<br />
<br />
Reading this piece, I felt very sad for both the mother and the daughter. It must have been such a difficult decision for Zitkala-Sa's mother to make. On one, hand, she already lost three years out of her sons life, and I'm sure he came home as a very different person from what he was like when he left, but on the other hand, the educational opportunities for Zitkala-Sa must have been hard to ignore. I thought the aunt's foresight on the issue was interesting, when she commented that as Zitkala-Sa grew up there would be fewer and fewer real Dakota and more white men. That recognition of the slow decline of her culture just struck me as very sad, and it made me wonder if that was a common viewpoint among the adults of the tribe. Finally, It was interesting to see how the missionaries tempted Zitkala-Sa into going with them, and how little enticement was actually needed before she was willing to go to the missionary school. ~Melissa Patterson<br />
<br />
When I wrote that, I didn't even think about Seth's comment that perhaps the young Indian children would undergo physical changes, as well- but it makes a lot of sense and opens up a lot more questions. I guess I was thinking more about the emotional aspect of things. I can't imagine sending your child off to go to school and then having him or her come home with a new haircut and perhaps different clothes. I can only think that it must have increased the tension and generation differences in the household even more. I think her mother could have felt perhaps a bit helpless by these changes- she is supposed to be the provider and caregiver for her children (along with perhaps the tribal community as a whole), and yet she is watching as the white men and missionaries take her children away and they return changed, both physically and perhaps emotionally. I wonder how the children reacted to these changes- did they welcome them and the process of assimilation, or did they wish they were back with their parents and family, and tribe? I wonder if, like Zitkala-Sa, at first they were excited but then came to realize it was very different than what they expected. -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
== Mrs. A. M. Greene, in Colorado Territory -- Frontier life – 1887 ==<br />
<br />
Mrs. Greene's writing about the life in Colorado was very interesting. She was willing to do anything for her husband, even if it meant sacrificing her own comfort and happiness. She clearly hated where they had moved to, and missed her family greatly. It would seem that she would have picked up and moved if given the chance. But the funny thing is, when she is given the chance by her husband, she refuses and says "Go without you, no, never." (P. 242) I feel as though Mrs. Greene focused on the landscape and other tangible things, instead of looking at the glass half full and realizing she was safe, with her family, etc. But it was probably extrremely hard to leave your home land and move cross country, enduring a rough journey, only to find a place where there was nothing but desert and where you were isolated from everything and everyone. That was probably the hardest part for her. ---- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
I agree that the isolation seems to be the hardest part for Mrs. Greene. It is definetly apparent that she misses her family. She says at one point that "never" sounds in her ears when she thinks of seeing her family again. It does not sound like she has very much interaction with other women either. This piece does not tell us what her life was like before the move west, but since we know most people had to have some money in order to make the trip, it is probably likely that the family lived at least comfortably. The drastic change in living arrangements and the hardships of the climate were definitely taking a toll on her spirit. I think living in a tent that blew over everyday and with sand blowing in and trying to keep it off of a baby would be, to say the least, difficult. Her husband does give her a chance to leave without him, but I wonder where exactly would she have gone and how would she have managed by herself with two small children? --Nancy Lee<br />
<br />
== Violet Cragg requests an Army Pension, 1908 ==</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_11_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 11 Questions/Comments-327 092009-11-05T01:37:47Z<p>Megan3088: /* Xin Jin's Contract, 1886 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Mary Anne Sadlier's Bessy Conway ==<br />
<br />
I found it really interesting that Bessy, upon leaving Ireland to come to America, said that she was planning on returning to her family in a few years. Was it common for men and women who left Ireland to plan on returning one day? Also, I thought it was cool that Bessy was able to return home and help her family, it seems very ideal, like this is what the typical Irish immigrant woman would strive to do, leave home on her own (getting her burden off her family) and making enough money to turn around and help support her family. So what was Mary Anne Sadlier's goal in writing this story? -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think that Bessy Conway was one of the lucky ones because she was able to go and had a job lined up for her with a place to live. She was one of those who embraced the myth of so much opportunity in a new world. She was a hard worker and expected the same of others around her (especially the other servants in the house.)-Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
I found the mixed chapters we read of Bessy's story put a sense of reality on the true plight of young Irish women and men. From the early chapters discussing her families struggles and her earnestness to leave her home to help her family made me wonder if all young immigrants cared the same for Ireland and their families as Bessy? Chapters 6 and 15 stood out the most to me with their discussion of religion and how it was so important eventually leading to Bessy's dismisal was this normal in America? Did Americans fear religious takeover from the Irish immigrants? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Jannicke Saehle, 1847, Norwegian immigrant’s letters ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== William Sanger, New York Prostitutes, 1858 ==<br />
I found it interesting that Sanger sympathizes with the prostitutes in his study and that he blamed fathers, husbands, and families for not doing their job. The immorality is from the failures of these figures in women's lives. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
I also found Dr. Sanger's belief that the women he interviewed were victims of their environment (and not necessarily prostitutes because of a moral flaw in character, etc.) very interesting. I think it could be applied in geographical concepts and ideas, too- for example, the belief in "environmental determinism" (or the idea that your environment and surroundings have a major impact on who you are as a person) versus "environmental possibilism", where your environment can place some limits on you, but you are essentially responsible for who you are and what you do. I also found it interesting that, in discussing the reasons why some of the women would have cited "Inclination" as a reason for their becoming a prostitute, Dr. Sanger also mentioned and acknowledged female desires. In most of what we have discussed in class, we have talked about how women were expected to be "pure" and "chaste", while only men could actually have sexual desires and emotions. Dr. Sanger states, "The force of desire can be neither denied nor disputed, but still in the bosoms of most females that force exists in a slumbering state until aroused by some outside influences." Thus, he still, in many ways, is reinforcing the belief that women (while acknowledging that they might actually have "desires"- shocking!)should keep these repressed and private. -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
I didn't find the statistics gathered by Sanger to be other than what I expected. Young, immigrants, poor, etc. I did find it amusing that he (as well as everybody else) was convinced women were passionless and just would not be inclined to do such a "profession". - Christine<br />
<br />
The causes for women turning to prostitution were varied but most were centered around what others did to them. Family abandoning them, violated, alcohol were some of the reasons. I thought what was particularly interesting was the number one reason: they voluntarily went into prostitution to gratify their own sexual passions. If the survey is true, why would Sanger feel sympathetic towards the women? The choice was theirs in most cases. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Xin Jin's Contract, 1886 ==<br />
<br />
I just find it very strange that there were contracts for prostitution. It seems short, but rather thorough. They make sure to include what happens if shes sick, pregnant, or runs away. The three most plausible situations I suppose. - Christine<br />
<br />
While this passage was short, it was clear and concise of the punishments women (Xin Jin)would face if they violated their contracts. I did not find it fair that Xin Jin was brought here and owed the family money but was given no means necessary to fulfill her payment other than prostitution. Did Americans find this to be a valid occupation? After reading this contract I wonder if other immigrants faced the same sort of contract or forms of punishment if they did comply? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-76 ==<br />
I still think it's crazy that the price of passage/ food for some Chinese women coming to America was prostitution. I guess if things were worse back in China the option to become a prostitute might seem bright, but I don't know. The terms for this "occupation" was usually for a few years. These women must have been in real need; I don't think selling my body would ever be worth coming to America for me. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
To add to what Amy was saying about the length of time a woman would have to serve her term, I find it excessive that if a woman were to "escape and be recovered" (p.238), at least in the case of Yut Kum, then they were asking for a life sentence. I find this extremely excessive. And also, conception is noted as a "sickness" (p. 238); were pregnancies common within concubines? Granted, I doubt that a servant's mistress would be too concerned with the latest birth control methods. -Seth Mintzer<br />
<br />
== Susan Shelby Magoffin in Santa Fe, 1846 ==<br />
Although the writer of this piece was far from the “civilized” East Coast of the United States, I still found that the cult of domesticity still impacted her. She was very proud of her ability to manage her household, including the servants. In her opinion, success was attained when she could “gain one bright smile and sweet kiss, from my good, kind husband.” She was very concerned with making her home a refuge for her husband when he returned from work. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
== Citizen protest of rape of Indian women in California, 1862 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884 ==<br />
<br />
This piece made me kind of sad, especially for the mother, who I feel like realizes what her daughter wants to do and knows that getting an education will be good and beneficial for her, but still does not want to let her go. I feel like the mother in many ways perhaps feels cautious towards the "white men" and the missionaries and distrusts them, and yet, despite this, she sees the merits of an education for her daughter, as well as her daughter's excitement, and feels she must let her go. I think this relates a lot to what we talked about in class about possible tensions within families as a result of attempts at assimilation, especially between generations. The daughter is excited for this opportunity and to ride on the "iron horse" and to see the land where there are plenty of red apples to eat for everybody, while the mother is watching her traditional world rapidly change all around her because of the white settlers and missionaries- she has to give up her wigwam and now live in a log house, for example. She is a "foreigner" in her own home. At the same time, I also feel sorry for the daughter, as well. After all her excitement at the opportunity to go East, she watches the "lonely figure" of her mother vanish as she drives away, and then feels as "frightened and bewildered as the captured young of a wild creature." (p.241) I wonder if this was her first time being away from home and all by herself? I feel as if maybe her mother knew exactly what the daughter was getting herself into, but she still let her go- maybe so the daughter could realize it for herself? It is a hard lesson. -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
One of the first things that I noticed when reading this piece was the absence of a father. Her brother Dawee does not seem to be old enough to be part of the decision making process. When faced with the decision, her mother seems very reluctant to let Zitkala-Sa go away but is unable to make a firm decision. Do you think this situation would have been different if there was a father figure? Would he have let Zitkala-Sa go away to the white-run school as easily as the mother did? Would she have been as eager to go? - John Rowley<br />
<br />
== Mrs. A. M. Greene, in Colorado Territory -- Frontier life – 1887 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Violet Cragg requests an Army Pension, 1908 ==</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_11_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 11 Questions/Comments-327 092009-11-05T01:09:58Z<p>Megan3088: /* Mary Anne Sadlier's Bessy Conway */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Mary Anne Sadlier's Bessy Conway ==<br />
<br />
I found it really interesting that Bessy, upon leaving Ireland to come to America, said that she was planning on returning to her family in a few years. Was it common for men and women who left Ireland to plan on returning one day? Also, I thought it was cool that Bessy was able to return home and help her family, it seems very ideal, like this is what the typical Irish immigrant woman would strive to do, leave home on her own (getting her burden off her family) and making enough money to turn around and help support her family. So what was Mary Anne Sadlier's goal in writing this story? -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think that Bessy Conway was one of the lucky ones because she was able to go and had a job lined up for her with a place to live. She was one of those who embraced the myth of so much opportunity in a new world. She was a hard worker and expected the same of others around her (especially the other servants in the house.)-Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
I found the mixed chapters we read of Bessy's story put a sense of reality on the true plight of young Irish women and men. From the early chapters discussing her families struggles and her earnestness to leave her home to help her family made me wonder if all young immigrants cared the same for Ireland and their families as Bessy? Chapters 6 and 15 stood out the most to me with their discussion of religion and how it was so important eventually leading to Bessy's dismisal was this normal in America? Did Americans fear religious takeover from the Irish immigrants? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Jannicke Saehle, 1847, Norwegian immigrant’s letters ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== William Sanger, New York Prostitutes, 1858 ==<br />
I found it interesting that Sanger sympathizes with the prostitutes in his study and that he blamed fathers, husbands, and families for not doing their job. The immorality is from the failures of these figures in women's lives. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
I also found Dr. Sanger's belief that the women he interviewed were victims of their environment (and not necessarily prostitutes because of a moral flaw in character, etc.) very interesting. I think it could be applied in geographical concepts and ideas, too- for example, the belief in "environmental determinism" (or the idea that your environment and surroundings have a major impact on who you are as a person) versus "environmental possibilism", where your environment can place some limits on you, but you are essentially responsible for who you are and what you do. I also found it interesting that, in discussing the reasons why some of the women would have cited "Inclination" as a reason for their becoming a prostitute, Dr. Sanger also mentioned and acknowledged female desires. In most of what we have discussed in class, we have talked about how women were expected to be "pure" and "chaste", while only men could actually have sexual desires and emotions. Dr. Sanger states, "The force of desire can be neither denied nor disputed, but still in the bosoms of most females that force exists in a slumbering state until aroused by some outside influences." Thus, he still, in many ways, is reinforcing the belief that women (while acknowledging that they might actually have "desires"- shocking!)should keep these repressed and private. -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
<br />
The causes for women turning to prostitution were varied but most were centered around what others did to them. Family abandoning them, violated, alcohol were some of the reasons. I thought what was particularly interesting was the number one reason: they voluntarily went into prostitution to gratify their own sexual passions. If the survey is true, why would Sanger feel sympathetic towards the women? The choice was theirs in most cases. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Xin Jin's Contract, 1886 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-76 ==<br />
I still think it's crazy that the price of passage/ food for some Chinese women coming to America was prostitution. I guess if things were worse back in China the option to become a prostitute might seem bright, but I don't know. The terms for this "occupation" was usually for a few years. These women must have been in real need; I don't think selling my body would ever be worth coming to America for me. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
To add to what Amy was saying about the length of time a woman would have to serve her term, I find it excessive that if a woman were to "escape and be recovered" (p.238), at least in the case of Yut Kum, then they were asking for a life sentence. I find this extremely excessive. And also, conception is noted as a "sickness" (p. 238); were pregnancies common within concubines? Granted, I doubt that a servant's mistress would be too concerned with the latest birth control methods. -Seth Mintzer<br />
<br />
== Susan Shelby Magoffin in Santa Fe, 1846 ==<br />
Although the writer of this piece was far from the “civilized” East Coast of the United States, I still found that the cult of domesticity still impacted her. She was very proud of her ability to manage her household, including the servants. In her opinion, success was attained when she could “gain one bright smile and sweet kiss, from my good, kind husband.” She was very concerned with making her home a refuge for her husband when he returned from work. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
== Citizen protest of rape of Indian women in California, 1862 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884 ==<br />
<br />
This piece made me kind of sad, especially for the mother, who I feel like realizes what her daughter wants to do and knows that getting an education will be good and beneficial for her, but still does not want to let her go. I feel like the mother in many ways perhaps feels cautious towards the "white men" and the missionaries and distrusts them, and yet, despite this, she sees the merits of an education for her daughter, as well as her daughter's excitement, and feels she must let her go. I think this relates a lot to what we talked about in class about possible tensions within families as a result of attempts at assimilation, especially between generations. The daughter is excited for this opportunity and to ride on the "iron horse" and to see the land where there are plenty of red apples to eat for everybody, while the mother is watching her traditional world rapidly change all around her because of the white settlers and missionaries- she has to give up her wigwam and now live in a log house, for example. She is a "foreigner" in her own home. At the same time, I also feel sorry for the daughter, as well. After all her excitement at the opportunity to go East, she watches the "lonely figure" of her mother vanish as she drives away, and then feels as "frightened and bewildered as the captured young of a wild creature." (p.241) I wonder if this was her first time being away from home and all by herself? I feel as if maybe her mother knew exactly what the daughter was getting herself into, but she still let her go- maybe so the daughter could realize it for herself? It is a hard lesson. -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
One of the first things that I noticed when reading this piece was the absence of a father. Her brother Dawee does not seem to be old enough to be part of the decision making process. When faced with the decision, her mother seems very reluctant to let Zitkala-Sa go away but is unable to make a firm decision. Do you think this situation would have been different if there was a father figure? Would he have let Zitkala-Sa go away to the white-run school as easily as the mother did? Would she have been as eager to go? - John Rowley<br />
<br />
== Mrs. A. M. Greene, in Colorado Territory -- Frontier life – 1887 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Violet Cragg requests an Army Pension, 1908 ==</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_10_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 10 Questions/Comments-327 092009-10-28T16:12:01Z<p>Megan3088: /* Mrs. Virginia Hayes Shepherd’s memories, 1937 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Sarah Haynesworth Gayle, “An Alabama Diary,” 1828, 1833 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Angelina Grimké Weld, 1839, “The Cruel Mistress” ==<br />
I think it's interesting Angelina Grimke Weld, when referring to the abuse of the Cruel Mistress towards her house servants, points out that this woman had no shame in the abuse towards them. Weld goes on and on about these horrible atrocities of the abuse and stated throughout this piece that this mistress was a respectable Christian women. This made Weld as an abolitionist stand out as only a few. The abuse of slaves was accepted and probably expected in order to remain in control of them in the eyes of a slave owner. This slave holder without a doubt probably made a spectacle to make sure the slaves remained obedient. This female mistress seems extremely temperamental. The pious and vulgar language used against her slaves was likely her attempt to make sure they knew she was above them in every manor -race, class, and possibly better in Gods eyes as well. I am curious to know how they thought God looked at a black person, did they think God perceived them as they did? -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
== Louisa S. Cheeves McCord, “Review of Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” 1853 ==<br />
Personally, I liked McCords sarcasm, "Bravo! Mrs.Stowe! Your deductions are bold things, and override sense and reason with wonderful facility." She really attacked Stowe pretty hard with this review, though. And, I find it slightly suprising that she would be so pro-slavery, being that she grew up in the North. It seems to me that she should have been a little sympathetic towards slaves. But, perhaps she had slaves in the North too, and it wasn't much different to her than the South. I am curious to know if that may have been the case or not. -Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
== Mary Boykin Chestnut’s diary, 1861 ==<br />
Mary Chesnut, a woman of very high social standing, smoked opium? “It enables me to retain every particle of mind or sense or brains I ever have, & so quiets my nerves that I can calmly reason & take rational views of things otherwise maddening.” (pg 221) She was very clear why she used the drug, but these statements made me curious about the popularity of opium. Did her friends use it too? Was it expensive or hard to obtain? Was there any social stigma against it? –Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
== Rose Williams’s Story in the Federal Writers’ Project Interviews, 1941. ==<br />
The introduction to this narrative stated that it was in a slave woman’s best interest to have children because it decreased her likelihood of being sold. The benefits are not so clear in Rose Williams’s case because her owner did not let her choose her partner. I think this provides a good example to show that slavery could be a quid pro quo relationship. Rose’s owner did something nice for her, bought her along with her parents, and then used that as a bargaining tool to get what he wanted out of her. Of course the slaveholder always had the upper hand, but I think it is important to note that some bargaining occurred. As I was reading for another class, I came across a slave woman who remarked about her master: “I own him and he owns me.” The master-slave relationship was anything but simple. –Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Allison's statements and the second paragraph in this piece sums up slave women perfectly stating, "child-bearing increased her value as a slave..." (226). Slave women were less likely to be separated from their children because slave-owners wanted to keep the mother around for reprodution and to train her children to be the ideal slave for the master. But, in the case of Rose Williams, did she really profit from being sold alongside her parents? The slave-owners and slave relationship appeared to be a give and take, even though the owner normally won slaves learned from masters mistakes. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Lucinda, a free woman, requests reenslavement, 1813 ==<br />
Reading this document made me sad. I can only imagine the turmoil going through Lucinda, deciding to give up her freedom so that she could be with her husband. She must have loved him very much. But I wonder, Perhaps Lucinda did not only stay because of her husband. I mean, that was a big part of it, but she may also have been scared to leave the area that she lived in for so long. Her husband may have been the major factor, but maybe she just really did not want to go to Tennessee. -Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
== Connecticut woman asks other free black women to sign anti-slavery petitions, 1839 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mary Still, black abolitionist, along with other Philadelphia free women, forms “Female Publication Society” to promote the moral uplift of free and slave African Americans, 1861 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mrs. Virginia Hayes Shepherd’s memories, 1937 ==<br />
I found Mrs. Hayes recollection of slavery to be on the mark and amusing. The story of her youth is important to understanding what a former slave family had to go through after the Civil War, but the short paragraphs on Diana stood out the most to me. Diana appeared to be cunning and knew how to outwit the white man, when slaves were thought to be "child-like" Diana outsmarted her master. She knew she could not run away from slavery, but she knew how to manipulate it to her advantage and this proves any slave-owners theory on slaves as false in my eyes. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Thelma Jennings, “Sexual Exploitation of African American Slave Women,” 1990 ==<br />
I agree with Thelma Jennings that African American slave women were sexually exploited. Reading the stories they told of the atrocities imposed by white slave owners was horrifying and at sometimes difficult to read. Jennings stated that the ideology of race played a key role and explained the view white slave owners. Though some slaves were treated better than others, I think it’s important to remember that when slave owners bought a slave they became your property and were looked at as capital. It was the idea of investing in your capital to produce more then they could make more money. African American slaves - particularly women which Jenning’s referred to, were considered as an item not as a person. Though it is twisted to think people are property, they did then, and it allowed white slave owners to take advantage of their slaves in any and every way they could. -Marsha</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_10_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 10 Questions/Comments-327 092009-10-28T16:06:48Z<p>Megan3088: /* Rose Williams’s Story in the Federal Writers’ Project Interviews, 1941. */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Sarah Haynesworth Gayle, “An Alabama Diary,” 1828, 1833 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Angelina Grimké Weld, 1839, “The Cruel Mistress” ==<br />
I think it's interesting Angelina Grimke Weld, when referring to the abuse of the Cruel Mistress towards her house servants, points out that this woman had no shame in the abuse towards them. Weld goes on and on about these horrible atrocities of the abuse and stated throughout this piece that this mistress was a respectable Christian women. This made Weld as an abolitionist stand out as only a few. The abuse of slaves was accepted and probably expected in order to remain in control of them in the eyes of a slave owner. This slave holder without a doubt probably made a spectacle to make sure the slaves remained obedient. This female mistress seems extremely temperamental. The pious and vulgar language used against her slaves was likely her attempt to make sure they knew she was above them in every manor -race, class, and possibly better in Gods eyes as well. I am curious to know how they thought God looked at a black person, did they think God perceived them as they did? -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
== Louisa S. Cheeves McCord, “Review of Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” 1853 ==<br />
Personally, I liked McCords sarcasm, "Bravo! Mrs.Stowe! Your deductions are bold things, and override sense and reason with wonderful facility." She really attacked Stowe pretty hard with this review, though. And, I find it slightly suprising that she would be so pro-slavery, being that she grew up in the North. It seems to me that she should have been a little sympathetic towards slaves. But, perhaps she had slaves in the North too, and it wasn't much different to her than the South. I am curious to know if that may have been the case or not. -Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
== Mary Boykin Chestnut’s diary, 1861 ==<br />
Mary Chesnut, a woman of very high social standing, smoked opium? “It enables me to retain every particle of mind or sense or brains I ever have, & so quiets my nerves that I can calmly reason & take rational views of things otherwise maddening.” (pg 221) She was very clear why she used the drug, but these statements made me curious about the popularity of opium. Did her friends use it too? Was it expensive or hard to obtain? Was there any social stigma against it? –Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
== Rose Williams’s Story in the Federal Writers’ Project Interviews, 1941. ==<br />
The introduction to this narrative stated that it was in a slave woman’s best interest to have children because it decreased her likelihood of being sold. The benefits are not so clear in Rose Williams’s case because her owner did not let her choose her partner. I think this provides a good example to show that slavery could be a quid pro quo relationship. Rose’s owner did something nice for her, bought her along with her parents, and then used that as a bargaining tool to get what he wanted out of her. Of course the slaveholder always had the upper hand, but I think it is important to note that some bargaining occurred. As I was reading for another class, I came across a slave woman who remarked about her master: “I own him and he owns me.” The master-slave relationship was anything but simple. –Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Allison's statements and the second paragraph in this piece sums up slave women perfectly stating, "child-bearing increased her value as a slave..." (226). Slave women were less likely to be separated from their children because slave-owners wanted to keep the mother around for reprodution and to train her children to be the ideal slave for the master. But, in the case of Rose Williams, did she really profit from being sold alongside her parents? The slave-owners and slave relationship appeared to be a give and take, even though the owner normally won slaves learned from masters mistakes. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Lucinda, a free woman, requests reenslavement, 1813 ==<br />
Reading this document made me sad. I can only imagine the turmoil going through Lucinda, deciding to give up her freedom so that she could be with her husband. She must have loved him very much. But I wonder, Perhaps Lucinda did not only stay because of her husband. I mean, that was a big part of it, but she may also have been scared to leave the area that she lived in for so long. Her husband may have been the major factor, but maybe she just really did not want to go to Tennessee. -Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
== Connecticut woman asks other free black women to sign anti-slavery petitions, 1839 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mary Still, black abolitionist, along with other Philadelphia free women, forms “Female Publication Society” to promote the moral uplift of free and slave African Americans, 1861 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mrs. Virginia Hayes Shepherd’s memories, 1937 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Thelma Jennings, “Sexual Exploitation of African American Slave Women,” 1990 ==<br />
I agree with Thelma Jennings that African American slave women were sexually exploited. Reading the stories they told of the atrocities imposed by white slave owners was horrifying and at sometimes difficult to read. Jennings stated that the ideology of race played a key role and explained the view white slave owners. Though some slaves were treated better than others, I think it’s important to remember that when slave owners bought a slave they became your property and were looked at as capital. It was the idea of investing in your capital to produce more then they could make more money. African American slaves - particularly women which Jenning’s referred to, were considered as an item not as a person. Though it is twisted to think people are property, they did then, and it allowed white slave owners to take advantage of their slaves in any and every way they could. -Marsha</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_9_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 9 Questions/Comments-327 092009-10-21T20:59:17Z<p>Megan3088: /* Miss Burnham’s Report, “A Choctaw Mission School,” 1824 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== '''General Questions''' ==<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
---------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
'''Chapter 7 '''<br />
<br />
== Emma Willard, “Matrimonial Risks,” 1815 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Caroline Gilman, “The Deferential Wife,” 1838 ==<br />
<br />
I found Gilman's story to be tragic. In a time when marriage was romanticized and a young women felt leaving her "paternal home" was not something to be dread; the story of Gilman's husband losing all of the romance from the beginning of their marriage is heart-wrenching. I also found that while strides had been made in married life, women such as Gilman, still bit their tongue instead of expressing an annoyance with their husband. The difference between the sexes is made apparent but I did enjoy Gilman stating she wanted marriage to remain romanticized. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Catharine Beecher, “System and Order,” 1841 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Catharine Sedgwick, “First to None,” 1828 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sarah Connell Ayer, “The Widowed State,” 1832-33 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Chapter 8 – School and Mill'''<br />
<br />
<br />
== Eliza Ann Mulford, “Rules of the School,” 1814 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Emma Willard, “A Rationale for Female Education,” 1819 ==<br />
I think this work is interesting because Emma Willard's goal was to educate women on the same subjects that were taught at men's colleges. She was profound in using such words as national prosperity, national and unparalleled glory, a nation wise, and to defend her liberties, to persuade members of the legislature. I think she meant that it was essential to educate women in a way to maintain these liberties. I think when she refered to the shackles that the revolution removed from the nation she also compared the shackles to that on women. She made it evident that it was important to focus on educating women on moral and intellectual importance than frivolous things like dress and fashion. I think she thought women had an obligation to their children, family, and themselves and she took it very seriously - so should those determining education of women. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
== Miss Burnham’s Report, “A Choctaw Mission School,” 1824 ==<br />
As I was reading Miss Burnam's Report, I kept thinking why would the parents of the Native American children bring them to this school? Choctaws were more civilized into American cultures than before but I don't think enough to want to send their children off with strangers that taught a different way of life. I think those parents (in order to survive) knew this was the only way to protect their children and to merge them into American society in a peaceful way. In Miss Burnam's report, she mentioned difficulties with some of the children. They would get emotional because they felt their brother or sister was not getting the same treatment as them. The children were compassionate and concerned for their families. Learning about God gave them a sense of being a sinner and being forgiven, and this made them feel guilty because in the eyes of what they were being taught, it meant their families were sinners. One of the girls said her family was all bad and another girl said her brother was stupid and she worried about him. I think these children were torn by what they learned as young children with their families and what was new and unknown. When your young it sometimes makes it easier to adapt. I think some of these girls adapted well, loved their teachers and attached themselves to them because that did not have their parents around. The teacher became more like a parent to them. - Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
<br />
After reading this report, I compared Native Americans leaving their children at the school to parents leaving their children at college. In both cases it is hard for child and parent, and for a first time generation college student it is even more of an eye opener, much like the Native American children. They were unfamiliar with customs, scared to leave parents, felt they had different treatment than other family memebers, and turned to teachers (college case professors) for guidance and someone to rely on when away from home. I agree with Marsha the children were torn and unsure how to react in a new place with strangers. With time I feel the girls adjusted well and were able to learn and feel comfortable with their surroundings. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Letters from Teachers, “Reports on Western Schools,” 1847 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Rules of the Mill from Lowell and Lancaster, 1820-1840 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Harriet Farley, “A Letter from Lowell,” 1844 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== The Voice of Industry, “A Spirit of Protest,” 1846 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Chapter 9 – Western Frontiers'''<br />
<br />
<br />
== Amelia Stewart Knight, “Crossing the Plains,” 1853 ==<br />
<br />
== Mary Ballou, “A Woman’s View of the Gold Rush,” 1852 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Petitions of the Cherokee Women’s Council on Removal, 1817, 1818 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sarah Winnemucca, “Life Among the Paiutes,” 1883 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== A Sioux Tale, “A Woman Kills Her Daughter” ==</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_9_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 9 Questions/Comments-327 092009-10-21T20:46:59Z<p>Megan3088: /* Caroline Gilman, “The Deferential Wife,” 1838 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== '''General Questions''' ==<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
---------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
'''Chapter 7 '''<br />
<br />
== Emma Willard, “Matrimonial Risks,” 1815 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Caroline Gilman, “The Deferential Wife,” 1838 ==<br />
<br />
I found Gilman's story to be tragic. In a time when marriage was romanticized and a young women felt leaving her "paternal home" was not something to be dread; the story of Gilman's husband losing all of the romance from the beginning of their marriage is heart-wrenching. I also found that while strides had been made in married life, women such as Gilman, still bit their tongue instead of expressing an annoyance with their husband. The difference between the sexes is made apparent but I did enjoy Gilman stating she wanted marriage to remain romanticized. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Catharine Beecher, “System and Order,” 1841 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Catharine Sedgwick, “First to None,” 1828 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sarah Connell Ayer, “The Widowed State,” 1832-33 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Chapter 8 – School and Mill'''<br />
<br />
<br />
== Eliza Ann Mulford, “Rules of the School,” 1814 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Emma Willard, “A Rationale for Female Education,” 1819 ==<br />
I think this work is interesting because Emma Willard's goal was to educate women on the same subjects that were taught at men's colleges. She was profound in using such words as national prosperity, national and unparalleled glory, a nation wise, and to defend her liberties, to persuade members of the legislature. I think she meant that it was essential to educate women in a way to maintain these liberties. I think when she refered to the shackles that the revolution removed from the nation she also compared the shackles to that on women. She made it evident that it was important to focus on educating women on moral and intellectual importance than frivolous things like dress and fashion. I think she thought women had an obligation to their children, family, and themselves and she took it very seriously - so should those determining education of women. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
== Miss Burnham’s Report, “A Choctaw Mission School,” 1824 ==<br />
As I was reading Miss Burnam's Report, I kept thinking why would the parents of the Native American children bring them to this school? Choctaws were more civilized into American cultures than before but I don't think enough to want to send their children off with strangers that taught a different way of life. I think those parents (in order to survive) knew this was the only way to protect their children and to merge them into American society in a peaceful way. In Miss Burnam's report, she mentioned difficulties with some of the children. They would get emotional because they felt their brother or sister was not getting the same treatment as them. The children were compassionate and concerned for their families. Learning about God gave them a sense of being a sinner and being forgiven, and this made them feel guilty because in the eyes of what they were being taught, it meant their families were sinners. One of the girls said her family was all bad and another girl said her brother was stupid and she worried about him. I think these children were torn by what they learned as young children with their families and what was new and unknown. When your young it sometimes makes it easier to adapt. I think some of these girls adapted well, loved their teachers and attached themselves to them because that did not have their parents around. The teacher became more like a parent to them. - Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
== Letters from Teachers, “Reports on Western Schools,” 1847 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Rules of the Mill from Lowell and Lancaster, 1820-1840 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Harriet Farley, “A Letter from Lowell,” 1844 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== The Voice of Industry, “A Spirit of Protest,” 1846 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Chapter 9 – Western Frontiers'''<br />
<br />
<br />
== Amelia Stewart Knight, “Crossing the Plains,” 1853 ==<br />
<br />
== Mary Ballou, “A Woman’s View of the Gold Rush,” 1852 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Petitions of the Cherokee Women’s Council on Removal, 1817, 1818 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sarah Winnemucca, “Life Among the Paiutes,” 1883 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== A Sioux Tale, “A Woman Kills Her Daughter” ==</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_8_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 8 Questions/Comments-327 092009-10-14T20:35:49Z<p>Megan3088: /* Suzanne Lebsock, The Free Women of Petersburg */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Antenuptial contract, Mass, 1653 ==<br />
<br />
I was surprised when reading about the antenuptial contracts. I have never heard of these contracts existing during this time period. I thought that these contracts were a more "modern" idea. The antenuptial contracts during this time made a lot more sense to me after I read some of the stipulations that they entailed. For instance, Woloch says that a well-off father could seek an antenuptial contract for his daughter. Although this contract would protect the women and her property, it still was initiated by a man. In the case of Ann Allen, her children (from a previous husband) could retain their inheritances upon her new husband's death. What if her children had reached adulthood prior to Mr. Jewett's death? -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== New England Divorce, CT, 1655-1678; MD, 1680 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== SC feme sole trader acts, 1712, 1744 ==<br />
It was interesting to read about the feme sole laws in Pennsylvania and South Carolina. Pennsylvania allowed women whose husbands would not support them to become feme soles. That was definitely a positive gain for women whose husbands deserted them or were bankrupt. It makes sense that the women may have had to use their earnings to pay off their deadbeat husband's debts because that is basically like marriage today. If one spouse goes into debt then they are both in debt. I also found in interesting that South Carolina did not specify who could or could not be a feme sole. Of course, a married woman who wanted to become a feme sole would have needed to have written permission from their husband. Still, the idea of allowing a married woman to participate in business shows that South Carolina was pretty liberal at this time. I find it funny that South Carolina was liberal back then, but isn't exactly known for being liberal today. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mass, 1675-1680 – Women in county courts ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Virginia, 1642, NY 1721-1759 – Widows, Wills and Dower Rights ==<br />
I thought it was interesting reading the wills of men. The order of recipients in the wills caught my eye. The majority of the men left their belongings first to their sons, his daughters next, followed by the wife. In very few cases was the wife mentioned first and in them if the wife married someone else the law would decide what she would receive and she would receive very little of the estate. - Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Women’s Estates, Mass, 1664, NY 1747-1759 ==<br />
Comparing these women's wills to the men's in the previous articles, it is obvious that there is a clear distinction. The women commonly left their property to their daughters first and then their sons. I think the women tended to be biased towards the females of their family because they wanted them to receive as much as possible for they would not get to own very much of their own throughout their life. The boys on the other hand would have many rights and own real property of their own. I liked the fact that the women were trying to give the daughters as much as they could after their death.- Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the wills of women to be rather interesting. After reading the previous articles I questioned whether women wrote them or not, seeing as their property was that of their husbands. Women did give to their daughers first and then their sons, but what I found different about women's wills was they were more personal. Women wanted to make sure their children and in some cases grandchildren were taken care of down to the slightest detail of giving a daughter "a set of gold buttons "to the value of a Pistole.""(p. 89). They took care of the smallest details and thought about the family more than themselves. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Suzanne Lebsock, The Free Women of Petersburg ==<br />
<br />
It was interesting to learn that women's deed of gifts and wills were quite different than men in Petersburg. Not only was it out of the ordinary for women to have wills but very interesting to read about what they willed and who they willed it to. Mary Bolling is interesting because she included some of her heirs but excluded others such as her grandson Thomas Shore. The idea that women played favorites and designated who got what instead of most men's wills dividing everything equally among their heirs. I can't help but think about my grandmother when I read this chapter in the book. As we went through her things after she passed, we found little notes with specific names on it willed to that person. These items were not actually in her will but they meant enough in her mind to give it to a specific person. Though the women in Petersburg were in a different time than my grandmother, it gives us a sense of women's thought process. The thought of who would most benefit from receiving that gift, who was grandma's favorite, or who asked first? Women showed their nurturing abilities by denoting some security for their children. Men's wills did not show these specific details. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
<br />
On my other post I had remarked that I found it interesting that women wrote wills during the nineteenth century but through this article I found more interesting how light-hearted women were about wills. "It may have been that women, who looked at death with every pregnancy...had less trouble making preparations for their dying."(p. 134). This statement proved that although women seemed to have more trouble with finances in Petersburg they were willing to be prepared and to protect their assets for their heirs. Women are typically seen as being more caring and watchful over families and through the wills in this article I find it to be true over men. Men just wrote out property (moveable or not) and to whom, women gave thought to the process; was it due to the fact that they were more nurturing or prepared? Did women face death more often than men of the nineteenth century? -Megan W.</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_8_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 8 Questions/Comments-327 092009-10-14T20:26:42Z<p>Megan3088: /* Women’s Estates, Mass, 1664, NY 1747-1759 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Antenuptial contract, Mass, 1653 ==<br />
<br />
I was surprised when reading about the antenuptial contracts. I have never heard of these contracts existing during this time period. I thought that these contracts were a more "modern" idea. The antenuptial contracts during this time made a lot more sense to me after I read some of the stipulations that they entailed. For instance, Woloch says that a well-off father could seek an antenuptial contract for his daughter. Although this contract would protect the women and her property, it still was initiated by a man. In the case of Ann Allen, her children (from a previous husband) could retain their inheritances upon her new husband's death. What if her children had reached adulthood prior to Mr. Jewett's death? -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== New England Divorce, CT, 1655-1678; MD, 1680 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== SC feme sole trader acts, 1712, 1744 ==<br />
It was interesting to read about the feme sole laws in Pennsylvania and South Carolina. Pennsylvania allowed women whose husbands would not support them to become feme soles. That was definitely a positive gain for women whose husbands deserted them or were bankrupt. It makes sense that the women may have had to use their earnings to pay off their deadbeat husband's debts because that is basically like marriage today. If one spouse goes into debt then they are both in debt. I also found in interesting that South Carolina did not specify who could or could not be a feme sole. Of course, a married woman who wanted to become a feme sole would have needed to have written permission from their husband. Still, the idea of allowing a married woman to participate in business shows that South Carolina was pretty liberal at this time. I find it funny that South Carolina was liberal back then, but isn't exactly known for being liberal today. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mass, 1675-1680 – Women in county courts ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Virginia, 1642, NY 1721-1759 – Widows, Wills and Dower Rights ==<br />
I thought it was interesting reading the wills of men. The order of recipients in the wills caught my eye. The majority of the men left their belongings first to their sons, his daughters next, followed by the wife. In very few cases was the wife mentioned first and in them if the wife married someone else the law would decide what she would receive and she would receive very little of the estate. - Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Women’s Estates, Mass, 1664, NY 1747-1759 ==<br />
Comparing these women's wills to the men's in the previous articles, it is obvious that there is a clear distinction. The women commonly left their property to their daughters first and then their sons. I think the women tended to be biased towards the females of their family because they wanted them to receive as much as possible for they would not get to own very much of their own throughout their life. The boys on the other hand would have many rights and own real property of their own. I liked the fact that the women were trying to give the daughters as much as they could after their death.- Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the wills of women to be rather interesting. After reading the previous articles I questioned whether women wrote them or not, seeing as their property was that of their husbands. Women did give to their daughers first and then their sons, but what I found different about women's wills was they were more personal. Women wanted to make sure their children and in some cases grandchildren were taken care of down to the slightest detail of giving a daughter "a set of gold buttons "to the value of a Pistole.""(p. 89). They took care of the smallest details and thought about the family more than themselves. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Suzanne Lebsock, The Free Women of Petersburg ==<br />
<br />
It was interesting to learn that women's deed of gifts and wills were quite different than men in Petersburg. Not only was it out of the ordinary for women to have wills but very interesting to read about what they willed and who they willed it to. Mary Bolling is interesting because she included some of her heirs but excluded others such as her grandson Thomas Shore. The idea that women played favorites and designated who got what instead of most men's wills dividing everything equally among their heirs. I can't help but think about my grandmother when I read this chapter in the book. As we went through her things after she passed, we found little notes with specific names on it willed to that person. These items were not actually in her will but they meant enough in her mind to give it to a specific person. Though the women in Petersburg were in a different time than my grandmother, it gives us a sense of women's thought process. The thought of who would most benefit from receiving that gift, who was grandma's favorite, or who asked first? Women showed their nurturing abilities by denoting some security for their children. Men's wills did not show these specific details. -Marsha Himes</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_6_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 6 Questions/Comments-327 092009-09-30T02:07:47Z<p>Megan3088: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Susanna Haswell Rowson, ''Charlotte: A Tale of Truth'', 1794 ==<br />
<br />
So, this novel was the most popular in America for almost ''sixty years''? Wow. This one's a real bodice ripper, folks. Here we have the 18th century version of the Harlequin novel and a good plot for a Lifetime Original Movie. I would almost call it the worst thing I’ve ever read that's been published, except it was so entertaining. However, I don’t think I was entertained in the same way that 18th century women were (and I very much hope that it was mostly women reading this). I thought it was interesting how the preface says the novel is based on a true story, but the people involved are all dead and the names are changed, and, of course, the “Tale of Truth” bit in the title. Well, it’s nice to know people have been using ''that'' one for so long. Apparently, this book was replaced in popularity by ''Uncle Tom’s Cabin'', so it’s interesting that women seem to have a lot of success with novels in America. Does it have to do with the audience, which I presume is more often women than men? In the case of ''Uncle Tom's Cabin'', I imagine part of the reason it was successful was because it was so controversial. Was ''Charlotte'' considered controversial in it's time? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
This was such I great read I have to comment it on it more! So, what have I learned from this exceptional piece of literature? Do not under any circumstances disobey your parents or you will live a horrible life and then die (God might forgive you though, if you're repentant). If you do promise yourself to a man at the disapproval of your parents, don’t go back on your word or the once dashing officer will turn into Snidely Whiplash and kidnap you to another country, take advantage of you (but it’s not rape if you enjoy it), neglect you, and leave you pregnant and in poverty, and it will be all YOUR fault, because YOU forced him to take action due to your indecisiveness even if he’s the one that manipulated you into agreeing to be with him in the first place. Isn’t it so great that women can be just as and sometimes even more misogynistic than men? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Taylor's comments after reading this piece I was reminded of a modern day soap opera, filled with betrayal, love/lust, and desertion of a husband to take care of the children. I have to ask though how many women of the eighteenth century read this novel, and much less were literate? For a novel that was popular for 60 years I assume it did well, but I do think "Charlotte" was typical of women at the time. She went from the supervision of her father to a world run by her husband and was confined to the home. How did women feel about the novel? Did they agree their lives followed ideals of romance? And child rearing? -Megan W. <br />
<br />
In the piece by Judith Murray, “The Story of Margaretta,” In the introduction it states, “The maze of gender identities created as the views of a girl and a women are filtered through the perspective of a man, who is himself a fictional creation of a woman, adds another layer of meaning to the story.” So in reading this piece, I kept this layer of meaning in mind. I had a hard time reading some sections were blurred out. However, it seemed to me that the male view of Margaretta and her intelligence and education was positive. I am sure this probably wasn’t the overarching view that most males would have had at the time, so I am curious if this would have any impact on the readers at the time. What was Judith Murray going for? --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
On page 79 of the piece by Catherine Scholten what stood out for me was the section where Scholten argued that birth became increasingly regarded as a medical problem to be managed by physicians. This is a complete 180 from the women in the colonial period of the 17th centuries that were expected to have as many children as possible until their death. This is a crucial turning point, from childbirth being celebrated to childbirth being a medical problem. This goes to show that what are considered norms are only a function of society at that particular time. -- Erin Sanderson <br />
<br />
="On the Importance of the Obstetrick Art"=<br />
The change in childbirth from 1760 to 1825 was dramatic and changed the medical field forever. I found the inclusion of men into the field of childbirth as early as the 1750s with Dr. William Shippen Jr. suprising. But I do agree that it led to childbirth becoming more of a private matter rather than one that involved society. The portion of the reading that stood out to me was the exclusion of women in childbirth. Men believed women could no longer be midwives due to their lack of understanding "throughly the profession of medicine as a whole." But men chose to leave out that women were not allowed to attend medical school thus losing any status they had in society when men overtook the practice of childbirth. I do wonder if labor became more private due to women being embarassed with having a male physician or due to husbands threatening doctors if they looked at their wives? To answer my own question I think it became a private matter due to embarassment of a man other than their husband participating in the intimate activity of childbirth. -Megan W.</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_6_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 6 Questions/Comments-327 092009-09-30T01:54:04Z<p>Megan3088: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Susanna Haswell Rowson, ''Charlotte: A Tale of Truth'', 1794 ==<br />
<br />
So, this novel was the most popular in America for almost ''sixty years''? Wow. This one's a real bodice ripper, folks. Here we have the 18th century version of the Harlequin novel and a good plot for a Lifetime Original Movie. I would almost call it the worst thing I’ve ever read that's been published, except it was so entertaining. However, I don’t think I was entertained in the same way that 18th century women were (and I very much hope that it was mostly women reading this). I thought it was interesting how the preface says the novel is based on a true story, but the people involved are all dead and the names are changed, and, of course, the “Tale of Truth” bit in the title. Well, it’s nice to know people have been using ''that'' one for so long. Apparently, this book was replaced in popularity by ''Uncle Tom’s Cabin'', so it’s interesting that women seem to have a lot of success with novels in America. Does it have to do with the audience, which I presume is more often women than men? In the case of ''Uncle Tom's Cabin'', I imagine part of the reason it was successful was because it was so controversial. Was ''Charlotte'' considered controversial in it's time? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
This was such I great read I have to comment it on it more! So, what have I learned from this exceptional piece of literature? Do not under any circumstances disobey your parents or you will live a horrible life and then die (God might forgive you though, if you're repentant). If you do promise yourself to a man at the disapproval of your parents, don’t go back on your word or the once dashing officer will turn into Snidely Whiplash and kidnap you to another country, take advantage of you (but it’s not rape if you enjoy it), neglect you, and leave you pregnant and in poverty, and it will be all YOUR fault, because YOU forced him to take action due to your indecisiveness even if he’s the one that manipulated you into agreeing to be with him in the first place. Isn’t it so great that women can be just as and sometimes even more misogynistic than men? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Taylor's comments after reading this piece I was reminded of a modern day soap opera, filled with betrayal, love/lust, and desertion of a husband to take care of the children. I have to ask though how many women of the eighteenth century read this novel, and much less were literate? For a novel that was popular for 60 years I assume it did well, but I do think "Charlotte" was typical of women at the time. She went from the supervision of her father to a world run by her husband and was confined to the home. How did women feel about the novel? Did they agree their lives followed ideals of romance? And child rearing? -Megan W. <br />
<br />
In the piece by Judith Murray, “The Story of Margaretta,” In the introduction it states, “The maze of gender identities created as the views of a girl and a women are filtered through the perspective of a man, who is himself a fictional creation of a woman, adds another layer of meaning to the story.” So in reading this piece, I kept this layer of meaning in mind. I had a hard time reading some sections were blurred out. However, it seemed to me that the male view of Margaretta and her intelligence and education was positive. I am sure this probably wasn’t the overarching view that most males would have had at the time, so I am curious if this would have any impact on the readers at the time. What was Judith Murray going for? --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
On page 79 of the piece by Catherine Scholten what stood out for me was the section where Scholten argued that birth became increasingly regarded as a medical problem to be managed by physicians. This is a complete 180 from the women in the colonial period of the 17th centuries that were expected to have as many children as possible until their death. This is a crucial turning point, from childbirth being celebrated to childbirth being a medical problem. This goes to show that what are considered norms are only a function of society at that particular time. -- Erin Sanderson</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_5_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 5 Questions/Comments-327 092009-09-23T04:02:17Z<p>Megan3088: New page: I found the writings from Sarah Osborn effective in studying women's roles during the Revolutionary War. At a time when women were still seen as only belonging in the home, she followed he...</p>
<hr />
<div>I found the writings from Sarah Osborn effective in studying women's roles during the Revolutionary War. At a time when women were still seen as only belonging in the home, she followed her husband and the army throughout the colonies. She performed domestic duties such as cleaning, mending clothing, and cooking for soldiers but was also seen as a member of the army. The point I found most interesting was at the surrender in Yorktown when Sarah thought something bad had occurred, asked a question and recieved the reply, "Are not you soldier enough to know what it means?" I found this to mean the soldiers treated her as an equal and should know the rules of the army, "mans world". Sarah Osborn broke traditional ideas of womens work in the eighteenth century and was able to see first hand the building of America. -Megan W. <br />
<br />
An American Woman Asserts Women's Rights, 1780<br />
This passage while short in length summed up womens rights effectively stating women were stronger patriots then men. The writer is asking for equality even though women "[s]ometimes surpass them in our love for the public good." Women surpassed men in their love for country and fight for freedom by willingly allowing their sons and husbands to fight and maybe die for their country. Did all women feel the same as this writer that they were willing to give up vain items (hair accessories) at the end of the Revolution just as they were able to stop drinking tea at the start of the Revolution? -Megan W.</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_4_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 4 Questions/Comments-327 092009-09-16T04:26:06Z<p>Megan3088: </p>
<hr />
<div>Anne Hutchinson is now one of my top 10 favorite women in history. The overall summary of her trial is stated on page 103: she was charged with dishonoring the community fathers, of holding meetings at her home in a manner inappropriate to her sex, and of insulting ministers at a private conference by accusing them of laboring under a Covenant of Works. Anne Hutchinson then admits having a revelation where God told her that he would destroy her prosecutors. This was considered heresy. Anne was then sentenced to banishment from the jurisdiction. Overall, I just found the trial to be hilarious. Some of the accusations were such a stretch. I especially enjoyed the accusation that Anne broke the law of the fifth commandment, honoring your mother and father. It took me a minute to figure out that that they actually thought that this meant honoring the “fathers of the commonwealth” (seriously!? …Yes) the governor states on page 105, “if they be the fathers of the commonwealth, and they of another religion, if you entertain them then you dishonor your parents and are justly punishable.” …wow….<br />
I was also surprised at how blunt the puritan men were about the status of women. When Anne Hutchinson was being sentenced, the governor states: “Mrs. Hutchinson, the sentence of the court you hear is that you are banished from out of our jurisdiction as ''being a women not fit for our society''….” Harsh words. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I had one main question when reading the trial, I had no idea what a Covenant of Works was. I googled it, and I came up with this definition:<br />
<br />
The covenant of works is God's promise to Adam. In return for perfect obedience, he would merit God's reward. The reward in this covenant does not result from grace; rather, it is a debt owed to Adam for keeping his part of the covenant. Unfortunately, Adam failed to keep the covenant and "after the fall, the free gifts on which salvation depends were withdrawn, and natural gifts corrupted and defiled" (Calvin). [[http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/english/melani/novel_18c/defoe/puritanism.html#works]]<br />
<br />
However, I am still confused as to what Anne Hutchinson was being charged with. She was charged with accusing ministers of laboring under a Covenant of Works. What exactly does that mean? -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
A Remarkable Instance of Awakening-Woloch Reading<br />
The ideas ministers had during the Great Awakening seize to amaze me, as in David Brainerd's case he really did believe he was saving the young Indian woman. "This was indeed a suprising day of God's power, and seemed enough to convince an atheist of the truth, importance, and power of God's word." He believed her not being able to control herself nor speak to anyone was a sign that God had reached her and the Anglo way of life was coming forward in Native American culture. My question is did Native Americans really wish to conform? Or did they see it as a way to avoid confrontation, when they were now outnumbered by the settlers? But overall did ministers think they were reaching all the people they saw as "uncivilized"? -Megan W. <br />
<br />
The Salem witch trials I could not help but wonder where they came up with the ridiculous accusations, pigs dying after a visit from a women equaled her being a witch, did any of the citizens ever consider alternatives? I think the magistrate felt they were given a power and to secure general security they would convict a woman for looking at a child the wrong way or muttering a prayer seen as an incantation. In the case of Bridget Bishop, I did wonder did she wish to be seen as a witch?Or did all of the offenses against her make the claim of her being a witch come true? -Megan W.</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_3_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 3 Questions/Comments-327 092009-09-09T19:32:30Z<p>Megan3088: /* Advertisements, Gazettes of VA, PA, SC, NY – 1751-1776 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching/comparative comments ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Katherine Kish Sklar article, “To Use her as His Wife” ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Benjamin Wadsworth, 1712 – Well-Ordered Family ==<br />
Wadsworth begins by talking about how a husband and a wife are supposed to love each other, take care of each other when they are sick..etc. I was surprised when I first read this because it seemed almost like an equal relationship. Of course, then I read the part about the husband being the wife's head and that he is meant to govern over her. Wadsworth says that the "husband's government ought to be gentle and easy, and the wife's obedience ready and cheerful". I think Wadsworth's choice of words is important. He makes it sound that like the husbands gently guide the wives along and that the wives are happy to be told what to do. The influence of religion on married life is very evident. Quarelling is "the Devil's work" and it dishonors God. Today, it's pretty clear that every married couple argues sometimes and that doesn't mean you are doing the "devil's work". -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
I agree with Katelyn. When I first read this, it seemed as if he were counting men and women to be (almost) the same, then he pulls the whole, "man is the woman's head" thing. The quote that really caught my eye was when he was talking to women and said, "God has made him (husband), your head, and set him above you, and made it your duty to love and revere him." So, there is a STRONG implication that men ruling women is a religious decree and anyone who were to break that would then be unholy.-Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
I agree with both of the comments made by Katelyn and Kristina, the article by Wadsworth really struck me. The quote on page 27 stuck out "[f]amily, whatever its liabilities, remained the most important social institution..." Women could not do anything outside of the family, were required to fall back on it, and let her husband have complete rule over her and if he died before her, the eldest son took over the estate. It was a never-ending cycle once a woman was married that she was never to have control over her mind/body/land/or any other asset. Religion was a much stronger contributing factor in those days, but did God really approve of a women becoming completely inferior to her husband? I do not think that is written in the Bible, so did colonists relate problems back to Adam and Eve instead? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Susanna Wesley, 1732, Evangelical Child-Rearing ==<br />
The letter from Susanna Wesley was by far the most impressionable reading, to me, this week. The best way for me to put it is that it really freaked me out. I suppose it is because her methods of child-rearing were a bit alien to the methods of the typical American family today. Yet, I actually found it interesting that I did see some similarities :(on the bottom of page 32) she talks about rewarding children for doing good things, which I think is a relatively good policy. Throughout the reading I felt like she was talking about some well trained dogs that she had, not her children. It was literally as if she were training pets. A particular sentence caught my eye, on page 32, where she said "That civil behavior which made them admired when they were at home by all who saw them was in a great measure lost,..." I can just imagine her friends coming over for lunch one day and commenting on how well trained her children are. Now, I am all for well behaved children, but the methods by which she makes them so well behaved seems a little too excessive. They are not allowed to be kids. They are adults by the time they are old enough to walk. Was this a typical religious family upbringing in the 1700's?-Kristina .S.<br />
<br />
== Eliza Pinckney, 1750s, To Improve in Every Virtue ==<br />
Eliza Pinckney's list of resolutions explains a lot about all of the roles that women were expected to fill in early America. Her first few resolutions are religious. She wanted to be a better Christian and to trust in God. Some of her other resolutions seem similar to many common resolutions today. When she says she wants "to be decent but frugal in my own expences", she sounds like many women who vow to stop spending so much money on themselves. She also vows to be a better wife, mother, daughter, and friend. These resolutions are probably the New Year's resolutions of women today. I think it was important to read the piece by Pinckney. It shows all of the different roles that women are expected to fill, many of which are still relevant today.- Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
== Esther Burr, 1756-57, Tied hand and foot ==<br />
In Esther Burr's journal you can see the basis she has in Puritan traditions. She relies on her faith, family, and her social network of friends. She refers to doing a lot of spinning, taking care of her children and awaiting her husband arrival from trips. She implicates in her letter to her friend that she must marry and not wait so long to do so. Also, at the same time she's not afraid to share her opinion, not that she does it that often. She even astonishes herself when she makes a comment about what Mr. Ewing says about women and friendships. She was not afraid to hold her tongue "I talked him quite silent." The men around her were either appalled by her comments or surprised that she had an opinion on the idea of women not being capable of having friendships. The perception that men had of women was very different then. I think there were women in society (especially those from the elite) that were very intellectual. Were they afraid to show their intellectual abilities in public around males in society? -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
== Abigail Bailey, 1815, Abominable Wickedness ==<br />
Abigail Bailey's memoir was very interesting to read. Laws intended for men and women did not always protect women. Probably not in this case either. Abigail admits her loyalties to her husband but when she realizes her husband is having an incestuous realtionship with their daughter she is unable to ignore it. She confronts him and threatens to take him to justice. She justifies her actions by saying to him that she is "acting on principle and with mature consideration." She knew that if her daughter did not testify against her father that it would be very hard to prove what he had done. She probably felt that one would believe her. Afterall, Abigail was a woman and women should not speak out against their husbands. The value of a man's word over a womans was not the same then. Instead of putting her daughter through the ridicule of the community she confronts her husband. She threatens to use the process of the law to scare him. She believes that the legal system will not uphold the law for her. Abigail uses the one power she does have over her husband - she refuses to be intimate with him. <br />
-Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
== New Spain’s (New Mexico’s) moral code as dictated by the Spanish Crown in 1752 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Laws on Slave Descent in VA and MD, 1662, 1664, 1691, 1692 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Skilled slaves in Maryland, 1748-1763, Maryland Gazette ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Complaint of Elizabeth Sprigs, indentured servant, 1756 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Apprenticeship in PA, 1771-1773, Record of Indentures ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Advertisements, Gazettes of VA, PA, SC, NY – 1751-1776 ==<br />
I was surprised that there were so many advertisements for schools for young women. I found the ad for Mrs. Duneau's boarding school in South Carolina very interesting. Most of the other ads mentioned teaching needlework to the young ladies, but that was one of the only subjects that was taught. However, Mrs. Duneau's school taught French, English, math, geography, writing, and of course, needlework. I was also surprised that many of the school's included gentlemen and young women in their ads. This is probably because many of the schools were opened and operated by women. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the advertisements pretty interesting. I am from Williamsburg so had seen some advertisements for schools for young women before; learning to sew, how to become a proper lady, housewifery, etc, but never had seen one for a young man. I knew they had apprenticeships but did not know they attended schools like women did. I also found interesting how different the ad for a school was compared to that of finding a slave, both adverstisements are looking for people and how women were referred to in a slave ad compared to wanting a young woman, "proper young lady" for a school. -Megan W.</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_3_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 3 Questions/Comments-327 092009-09-09T19:27:36Z<p>Megan3088: /* Benjamin Wadsworth, 1712 – Well-Ordered Family */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching/comparative comments ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Katherine Kish Sklar article, “To Use her as His Wife” ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Benjamin Wadsworth, 1712 – Well-Ordered Family ==<br />
Wadsworth begins by talking about how a husband and a wife are supposed to love each other, take care of each other when they are sick..etc. I was surprised when I first read this because it seemed almost like an equal relationship. Of course, then I read the part about the husband being the wife's head and that he is meant to govern over her. Wadsworth says that the "husband's government ought to be gentle and easy, and the wife's obedience ready and cheerful". I think Wadsworth's choice of words is important. He makes it sound that like the husbands gently guide the wives along and that the wives are happy to be told what to do. The influence of religion on married life is very evident. Quarelling is "the Devil's work" and it dishonors God. Today, it's pretty clear that every married couple argues sometimes and that doesn't mean you are doing the "devil's work". -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
I agree with Katelyn. When I first read this, it seemed as if he were counting men and women to be (almost) the same, then he pulls the whole, "man is the woman's head" thing. The quote that really caught my eye was when he was talking to women and said, "God has made him (husband), your head, and set him above you, and made it your duty to love and revere him." So, there is a STRONG implication that men ruling women is a religious decree and anyone who were to break that would then be unholy.-Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
I agree with both of the comments made by Katelyn and Kristina, the article by Wadsworth really struck me. The quote on page 27 stuck out "[f]amily, whatever its liabilities, remained the most important social institution..." Women could not do anything outside of the family, were required to fall back on it, and let her husband have complete rule over her and if he died before her, the eldest son took over the estate. It was a never-ending cycle once a woman was married that she was never to have control over her mind/body/land/or any other asset. Religion was a much stronger contributing factor in those days, but did God really approve of a women becoming completely inferior to her husband? I do not think that is written in the Bible, so did colonists relate problems back to Adam and Eve instead? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Susanna Wesley, 1732, Evangelical Child-Rearing ==<br />
The letter from Susanna Wesley was by far the most impressionable reading, to me, this week. The best way for me to put it is that it really freaked me out. I suppose it is because her methods of child-rearing were a bit alien to the methods of the typical American family today. Yet, I actually found it interesting that I did see some similarities :(on the bottom of page 32) she talks about rewarding children for doing good things, which I think is a relatively good policy. Throughout the reading I felt like she was talking about some well trained dogs that she had, not her children. It was literally as if she were training pets. A particular sentence caught my eye, on page 32, where she said "That civil behavior which made them admired when they were at home by all who saw them was in a great measure lost,..." I can just imagine her friends coming over for lunch one day and commenting on how well trained her children are. Now, I am all for well behaved children, but the methods by which she makes them so well behaved seems a little too excessive. They are not allowed to be kids. They are adults by the time they are old enough to walk. Was this a typical religious family upbringing in the 1700's?-Kristina .S.<br />
<br />
== Eliza Pinckney, 1750s, To Improve in Every Virtue ==<br />
Eliza Pinckney's list of resolutions explains a lot about all of the roles that women were expected to fill in early America. Her first few resolutions are religious. She wanted to be a better Christian and to trust in God. Some of her other resolutions seem similar to many common resolutions today. When she says she wants "to be decent but frugal in my own expences", she sounds like many women who vow to stop spending so much money on themselves. She also vows to be a better wife, mother, daughter, and friend. These resolutions are probably the New Year's resolutions of women today. I think it was important to read the piece by Pinckney. It shows all of the different roles that women are expected to fill, many of which are still relevant today.- Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
== Esther Burr, 1756-57, Tied hand and foot ==<br />
In Esther Burr's journal you can see the basis she has in Puritan traditions. She relies on her faith, family, and her social network of friends. She refers to doing a lot of spinning, taking care of her children and awaiting her husband arrival from trips. She implicates in her letter to her friend that she must marry and not wait so long to do so. Also, at the same time she's not afraid to share her opinion, not that she does it that often. She even astonishes herself when she makes a comment about what Mr. Ewing says about women and friendships. She was not afraid to hold her tongue "I talked him quite silent." The men around her were either appalled by her comments or surprised that she had an opinion on the idea of women not being capable of having friendships. The perception that men had of women was very different then. I think there were women in society (especially those from the elite) that were very intellectual. Were they afraid to show their intellectual abilities in public around males in society? -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
== Abigail Bailey, 1815, Abominable Wickedness ==<br />
Abigail Bailey's memoir was very interesting to read. Laws intended for men and women did not always protect women. Probably not in this case either. Abigail admits her loyalties to her husband but when she realizes her husband is having an incestuous realtionship with their daughter she is unable to ignore it. She confronts him and threatens to take him to justice. She justifies her actions by saying to him that she is "acting on principle and with mature consideration." She knew that if her daughter did not testify against her father that it would be very hard to prove what he had done. She probably felt that one would believe her. Afterall, Abigail was a woman and women should not speak out against their husbands. The value of a man's word over a womans was not the same then. Instead of putting her daughter through the ridicule of the community she confronts her husband. She threatens to use the process of the law to scare him. She believes that the legal system will not uphold the law for her. Abigail uses the one power she does have over her husband - she refuses to be intimate with him. <br />
-Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
== New Spain’s (New Mexico’s) moral code as dictated by the Spanish Crown in 1752 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Laws on Slave Descent in VA and MD, 1662, 1664, 1691, 1692 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Skilled slaves in Maryland, 1748-1763, Maryland Gazette ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Complaint of Elizabeth Sprigs, indentured servant, 1756 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Apprenticeship in PA, 1771-1773, Record of Indentures ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Advertisements, Gazettes of VA, PA, SC, NY – 1751-1776 ==<br />
I was surprised that there were so many advertisements for schools for young women. I found the ad for Mrs. Duneau's boarding school in South Carolina very interesting. Most of the other ads mentioned teaching needlework to the young ladies, but that was one of the only subjects that was taught. However, Mrs. Duneau's school taught French, English, math, geography, writing, and of course, needlework. I was also surprised that many of the school's included gentlemen and young women in their ads. This is probably because many of the schools were opened and operated by women. -Katelyn Lease</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_2_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 2 Questions/Comments-327 092009-09-02T03:41:35Z<p>Megan3088: </p>
<hr />
<div>For the readings this week I came up with a question that related throughout all of the texts:<br />
1. Why did Native American women's roles offend the Europeans and do we think it still would today? Or have the perceptions the Europeans had of women shape women's traditional roles today? <br />
Also a topic I found important between the articles written by both "Mary's" were the differences/similarities of the women's experiences with the Eastern Woodland Native Americans. How each woman's experience varied based off tribe/age of capture/and release date (if released). -Megan</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_2_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 2 Questions/Comments-327 092009-09-02T03:41:19Z<p>Megan3088: </p>
<hr />
<div>For the readings this week I came up with a question that related throughout all of the texts:<br />
1. Why did Native American women's roles offend the Europeans and do we think it still would today? Or have the perceptions the Europeans had of women shape women's traditional roles today? <br />
Also a topic I found important between the articles written by both "Mary's" were the differences/similarities of the women's experiences with the Eastern Woodland Native Americans. How each woman's experience varied based off tribe/age of capture/and release date (if released).</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Reading_Questions/comments--327_09Reading Questions/comments--327 092009-08-26T00:44:56Z<p>Megan3088: </p>
<hr />
<div>In reference to the reading due Thursday I had a couple of questions in regards to the overall study of American Women's History. <br />
1. Should "American Women's History" look at each word of the phrase individually and incorporate all the meanings into the study of women's history? And or expand beyond women and become gender relations studies to include studies of anyone relevant? <br />
2. Referring to the essay on page 14, where it referenced "women having their cake and eating it too" do historians who study women's history truly believe this? And if so why do historians who study women of color or gender relations in general find many issues with finding equality? --Megan</div>Megan3088https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Reading_Questions/comments--327_09Reading Questions/comments--327 092009-08-26T00:43:21Z<p>Megan3088: New page: In reference to the reading due Thursday I had a couple of questions in regards to the overall study of American Women's History. 1. Should "American Women's History" look at each word of...</p>
<hr />
<div>In reference to the reading due Thursday I had a couple of questions in regards to the overall study of American Women's History. <br />
1. Should "American Women's History" look at each word of the phrase individually and incorporate all the meanings into the study of women's history? And or expand beyond women and become gender relations studies to include studies of anyone relevant? <br />
2. Referring to the essay on page 14, where it referenced "women having their cake and eating it too" do historians who study women's history truly believe this? And if so why do historians who study women of color or gender relations in general find many issues with finding equality?</div>Megan3088 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