McClurken Wiki

<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php</b> on line <b>195</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>571</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>585</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>578</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>603</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>553</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php</b> on line <b>59</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  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 <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>186</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  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 <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>203</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  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 <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>196</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  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 <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>212</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  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 <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>175</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php</b> on line <b>135</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php</b> on line <b>59</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php</b> on line <b>234</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php</b> on line <b>292</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php</b> on line <b>755</b><br />
<br />
<b>Warning</b>:  preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php</b> on line <b>907</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Pager.php</b> on line <b>908</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>627</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>629</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>630</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>631</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>633</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>634</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php</b> on line <b>402</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php</b> on line <b>38</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php</b> on line <b>38</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php</b> on line <b>38</b><br />
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/skins/common/feed.css?303"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Mhimes</id>
		<title>McClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]</title>
		<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Mhimes"/>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Mhimes"/>
		<updated>2026-09-18T22:33:20Z</updated>
		<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
		<generator>MediaWiki 1.22.0</generator>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-02-22T05:34:15Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mhimes: /* The Harsh Conditions of Domestic Service */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;NOTE: If the document/essay you want to write about isn&amp;#039;t listed, add it using the following format: == Author, Title, Year ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Fannie Barrier Williams Describes the &amp;quot;Problem of Employment for Negro Women,&amp;quot; 1903 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Williams&amp;#039; 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&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On page 264 it says that &amp;quot;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&amp;quot; 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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Harriet Brunkhurst Laments the Home Problems of &amp;quot;Business Girls,&amp;quot; 1910 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;She could earn her own living, but she could not fight her own battles…&amp;quot; (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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;#039;domestic sphere&amp;#039; 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Vice Commission of Chicago reports on the Working Conditions in Department Stores that Lead Female Employees into Prostitution, 1911 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first part of this one was just hilarious. The beginning two paragraphs were especially ridiculous--the idea that &amp;quot;highly speeded modern life must stimulate these organisms?&amp;quot; (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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;ll bring up an issue I had with the section on Married Men in particular as &amp;quot;Married men are among the worst offenders against salesgirls (272)&amp;quot;. 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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Harsh Conditions of Domestic Service ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;…when I hear so much said about our unreliability, our untrustworthiness, and even our vices&amp;quot; (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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;m not sure if minimum wage existed at this time, but even if it was I doubt it would&amp;#039;ve been enforced for the benefit of these workers. --Sarah Smethurst&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;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 &amp;quot;more than two-thirds of the negroes of the town where I live are menial servants of one kind or another...&amp;quot;(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 &amp;quot;service pan.&amp;quot; White women thought they had it tough but it seems clear that they probably didn&amp;#039;t even know what the word tough meant.  -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Ellen Carol DuBois on &amp;quot;Harriet Stanton Blatch and the New York Woman Suffrage Movement, 1894-1909&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So the fight for women&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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 &amp;quot;respectable.&amp;quot; -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Female Perspectives on the Great Migration==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading these letters to the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Chicago Defender&amp;#039;&amp;#039; 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Marie Jenny Howe and an &amp;quot;Anti-Suffrage Monologue&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;s interesting to discover that people used humor to make their points in Howe&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;s hats as a reason to deny them the franchise, they weren&amp;#039;t exactly trying to stick to even remotely reasonable attacks. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;muck and mire of politics&amp;quot; (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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Suffrage Militant Alice Paul Goes to Jail ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;#039;obsession&amp;#039; 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&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mhimes</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-02-22T05:32:27Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mhimes: /* Suffrage Militant Alice Paul Goes to Jail */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;NOTE: If the document/essay you want to write about isn&amp;#039;t listed, add it using the following format: == Author, Title, Year ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Fannie Barrier Williams Describes the &amp;quot;Problem of Employment for Negro Women,&amp;quot; 1903 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Williams&amp;#039; 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&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On page 264 it says that &amp;quot;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&amp;quot; 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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Harriet Brunkhurst Laments the Home Problems of &amp;quot;Business Girls,&amp;quot; 1910 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;She could earn her own living, but she could not fight her own battles…&amp;quot; (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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;#039;domestic sphere&amp;#039; 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Vice Commission of Chicago reports on the Working Conditions in Department Stores that Lead Female Employees into Prostitution, 1911 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first part of this one was just hilarious. The beginning two paragraphs were especially ridiculous--the idea that &amp;quot;highly speeded modern life must stimulate these organisms?&amp;quot; (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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;ll bring up an issue I had with the section on Married Men in particular as &amp;quot;Married men are among the worst offenders against salesgirls (272)&amp;quot;. 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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Harsh Conditions of Domestic Service ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;…when I hear so much said about our unreliability, our untrustworthiness, and even our vices&amp;quot; (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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;m not sure if minimum wage existed at this time, but even if it was I doubt it would&amp;#039;ve been enforced for the benefit of these workers. --Sarah Smethurst&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;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 &amp;quot;more than two-thirds of the negroes of the town where I live are menial servants of one kind or another...&amp;quot;(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 &amp;quot;service pan.&amp;quot; White women thought they had it tough but it seems clear that they probably didn&amp;#039;t even know what the word tough meant.  -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Ellen Carol DuBois on &amp;quot;Harriet Stanton Blatch and the New York Woman Suffrage Movement, 1894-1909&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So the fight for women&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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 &amp;quot;respectable.&amp;quot; -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Female Perspectives on the Great Migration==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading these letters to the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Chicago Defender&amp;#039;&amp;#039; 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Marie Jenny Howe and an &amp;quot;Anti-Suffrage Monologue&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;s interesting to discover that people used humor to make their points in Howe&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;s hats as a reason to deny them the franchise, they weren&amp;#039;t exactly trying to stick to even remotely reasonable attacks. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;muck and mire of politics&amp;quot; (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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Suffrage Militant Alice Paul Goes to Jail ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;#039;obsession&amp;#039; 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&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mhimes</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-02-22T05:32:08Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mhimes: /* Marie Jenny Howe and an &amp;quot;Anti-Suffrage Monologue&amp;quot; */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;NOTE: If the document/essay you want to write about isn&amp;#039;t listed, add it using the following format: == Author, Title, Year ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Fannie Barrier Williams Describes the &amp;quot;Problem of Employment for Negro Women,&amp;quot; 1903 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Williams&amp;#039; 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&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On page 264 it says that &amp;quot;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&amp;quot; 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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Harriet Brunkhurst Laments the Home Problems of &amp;quot;Business Girls,&amp;quot; 1910 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;She could earn her own living, but she could not fight her own battles…&amp;quot; (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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;#039;domestic sphere&amp;#039; 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Vice Commission of Chicago reports on the Working Conditions in Department Stores that Lead Female Employees into Prostitution, 1911 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first part of this one was just hilarious. The beginning two paragraphs were especially ridiculous--the idea that &amp;quot;highly speeded modern life must stimulate these organisms?&amp;quot; (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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;ll bring up an issue I had with the section on Married Men in particular as &amp;quot;Married men are among the worst offenders against salesgirls (272)&amp;quot;. 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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Harsh Conditions of Domestic Service ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;…when I hear so much said about our unreliability, our untrustworthiness, and even our vices&amp;quot; (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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;m not sure if minimum wage existed at this time, but even if it was I doubt it would&amp;#039;ve been enforced for the benefit of these workers. --Sarah Smethurst&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;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 &amp;quot;more than two-thirds of the negroes of the town where I live are menial servants of one kind or another...&amp;quot;(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 &amp;quot;service pan.&amp;quot; White women thought they had it tough but it seems clear that they probably didn&amp;#039;t even know what the word tough meant.  -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Ellen Carol DuBois on &amp;quot;Harriet Stanton Blatch and the New York Woman Suffrage Movement, 1894-1909&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So the fight for women&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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 &amp;quot;respectable.&amp;quot; -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Female Perspectives on the Great Migration==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading these letters to the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Chicago Defender&amp;#039;&amp;#039; 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Marie Jenny Howe and an &amp;quot;Anti-Suffrage Monologue&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;s interesting to discover that people used humor to make their points in Howe&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;s hats as a reason to deny them the franchise, they weren&amp;#039;t exactly trying to stick to even remotely reasonable attacks. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;muck and mire of politics&amp;quot; (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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Suffrage Militant Alice Paul Goes to Jail ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;#039;obsession&amp;#039; 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mhimes</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-02-22T04:32:44Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mhimes: /* Suffrage Militant Alice Paul Goes to Jail */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;NOTE: If the document/essay you want to write about isn&amp;#039;t listed, add it using the following format: == Author, Title, Year ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Fannie Barrier Williams Describes the &amp;quot;Problem of Employment for Negro Women,&amp;quot; 1903 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Williams&amp;#039; 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&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On page 264 it says that &amp;quot;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&amp;quot; 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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Harriet Brunkhurst Laments the Home Problems of &amp;quot;Business Girls,&amp;quot; 1910 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;She could earn her own living, but she could not fight her own battles…&amp;quot; (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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;#039;domestic sphere&amp;#039; 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Vice Commission of Chicago reports on the Working Conditions in Department Stores that Lead Female Employees into Prostitution, 1911 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first part of this one was just hilarious. The beginning two paragraphs were especially ridiculous--the idea that &amp;quot;highly speeded modern life must stimulate these organisms?&amp;quot; (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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;ll bring up an issue I had with the section on Married Men in particular as &amp;quot;Married men are among the worst offenders against salesgirls (272)&amp;quot;. 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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Harsh Conditions of Domestic Service ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;…when I hear so much said about our unreliability, our untrustworthiness, and even our vices&amp;quot; (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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;m not sure if minimum wage existed at this time, but even if it was I doubt it would&amp;#039;ve been enforced for the benefit of these workers. --Sarah Smethurst&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;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 &amp;quot;more than two-thirds of the negroes of the town where I live are menial servants of one kind or another...&amp;quot;(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 &amp;quot;service pan.&amp;quot; White women thought they had it tough but it seems clear that they probably didn&amp;#039;t even know what the word tough meant.  -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Ellen Carol DuBois on &amp;quot;Harriet Stanton Blatch and the New York Woman Suffrage Movement, 1894-1909&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So the fight for women&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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 &amp;quot;respectable.&amp;quot; -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Female Perspectives on the Great Migration==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading these letters to the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Chicago Defender&amp;#039;&amp;#039; 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Marie Jenny Howe and an &amp;quot;Anti-Suffrage Monologue&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;s interesting to discover that people used humor to make their points in Howe&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;s hats as a reason to deny them the franchise, they weren&amp;#039;t exactly trying to stick to even remotely reasonable attacks. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;muck and mire of politics&amp;quot; (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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Suffrage Militant Alice Paul Goes to Jail ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;#039;obsession&amp;#039; 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mhimes</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_4_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 4 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_4_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-02-03T17:27:27Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mhimes: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Linda Gordon, “Black and White Visions of Welfare: Women’s Welfare Activism, 1890-1945,” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On page 23 Linda Gordon states that &amp;quot;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&amp;quot; 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 &amp;quot;girls&amp;quot; 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Judy Yung, The Social Awakening of Chinese American Women as Reported in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Chung Sai Yat Po&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 1900-1911 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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, &amp;quot;Educated women make better wives and mothers; better wives and mothers make better families and citizens; better families and citizens make a stronger China.&amp;quot; Even though I don&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;s education and higher education was finally accepted. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 1 – Visions of the New Woman ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Nellie Bly, Why go around the world, 1890&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;s not masculine, it&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Bertha Palmer: The Fair Women, Chicago, 1893&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Anna Cooper: Black Women Plan to Lead Their Race, 1892&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Ida B. Wells&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; – &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Frances Willard&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;–&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Anzia Yezierska&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; – Immigrant Daughter and the Possibilities of the New World&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Edith Eudora Ammons&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; – A Woman Homesteader&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 2 – Expanding Horizons for Educated Women ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Molly Dewson writes home from Wellesley (1894-96)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Jane Addams discusses the early days of Hull House (1910)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Alice Hamilton explores the dangerous trades (1943)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.    &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Mamie Garvin Fields –Af-Am Women enter the Teaching profession (1983) &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Mary Ritter Beard – Women and progressive politics. (1915)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 4—Feminists, Anarchists, and Other Rebel Girls ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Mother Jones and striking Colorado Mine workers (about 1903 strike)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Charlotte Perkins Gilman – a Feminist challenge to the privatized home&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Josephine Conger-Koneko – Wages for housework – 1913&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;s husband&amp;#039;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?&lt;br /&gt;
-Anna K Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Margaret Sanger’s epiphany over birth control – 1936&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Emma Goldman – A Radical view of women’s emancipation – 1911&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mhimes</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_4_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 4 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_4_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-02-03T17:22:57Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mhimes: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Linda Gordon, “Black and White Visions of Welfare: Women’s Welfare Activism, 1890-1945,” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On page 23 Linda Gordon states that &amp;quot;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&amp;quot; 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 &amp;quot;girls&amp;quot; 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Judy Yung, The Social Awakening of Chinese American Women as Reported in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Chung Sai Yat Po&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 1900-1911 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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, &amp;quot;Educated women make better wives and mothers; better wives and mothers make better families and citizens; better families and citizens make a stronger China.&amp;quot; Even though I don&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;s education and higher education was finally accepted. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 1 – Visions of the New Woman ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Nellie Bly, Why go around the world, 1890&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;s not masculine, it&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Bertha Palmer: The Fair Women, Chicago, 1893&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Anna Cooper: Black Women Plan to Lead Their Race, 1892&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Ida B. Wells&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; – &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Frances Willard&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;–&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Anzia Yezierska&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; – Immigrant Daughter and the Possibilities of the New World&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Edith Eudora Ammons&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; – A Woman Homesteader&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 2 – Expanding Horizons for Educated Women ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Molly Dewson writes home from Wellesley (1894-96)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Jane Addams discusses the early days of Hull House (1910)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Alice Hamilton explores the dangerous trades (1943)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.    &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Mamie Garvin Fields –Af-Am Women enter the Teaching profession (1983) &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Mary Ritter Beard – Women and progressive politics. (1915)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 4—Feminists, Anarchists, and Other Rebel Girls ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Mother Jones and striking Colorado Mine workers (about 1903 strike)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Charlotte Perkins Gilman – a Feminist challenge to the privatized home&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Josephine Conger-Koneko – Wages for housework – 1913&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;s husband&amp;#039;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?&lt;br /&gt;
-Anna K Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Margaret Sanger’s epiphany over birth control – 1936&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Emma Goldman – A Radical view of women’s emancipation – 1911&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mhimes</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_3_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 3 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_3_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-01-27T15:32:36Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mhimes: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== US, 178-193, Devon Mihesuah, “’Too Dark to Be Angels’: The Class System among the Cherokees at the Female Seminary” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;mixed-blood&amp;quot; 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;s just that, as the article states, &amp;quot;there were differences in opinion as to what a Cherokee really was.&amp;quot; -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;white&amp;quot;, 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 &amp;quot;expressed his impatience with the full-blood girls by referring to the mixed-bloods as &amp;quot;whiter&amp;quot; and therefore &amp;quot;more intellectual&amp;quot;.  I think these schools were set up to Americanize the Native American population, rather than instill Cherokee ideals. -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== US, 194-220, Paige Raibmon, “The Practice of Everyday Colonialism: Indigenous Women at Work in the Hop Fields and Tourist Industry of Puget Sound” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;endure childbirth painlessly&amp;quot; (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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;#039;savages&amp;#039; 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 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== MP, 252-258-- Deena Gonzalez, “Life and Legend of Gertrudis Barcelo in 19th C. Sante Fe” (2005) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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, &amp;quot;They could judge the locals firsthand and could observe a community&amp;#039;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...&amp;quot;(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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Susan Shelby Magoffin’s diary about her first days in Santa Fe, 1846 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rape of Indian women in CA, 1862 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-1876 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was interesting to read this account after reading &amp;quot;Too Dark to be Angels.&amp;quot; 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&amp;#039;s telling that the little girl compares herself to the &amp;quot;young of a wild creature&amp;quot; (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 &amp;quot;fewer real Dakotas&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;more palefaces&amp;quot; (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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mrs. A. M. Green’s account of Frontier Life, 1887 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Violet Cragg, Ex-Slave and Former Army Nurse, requests an Army Pension, 1908 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mhimes</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_3_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 3 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_3_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-01-27T15:31:28Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mhimes: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== US, 178-193, Devon Mihesuah, “’Too Dark to Be Angels’: The Class System among the Cherokees at the Female Seminary” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;mixed-blood&amp;quot; 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;s just that, as the article states, &amp;quot;there were differences in opinion as to what a Cherokee really was.&amp;quot; -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;white&amp;quot;, 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 &amp;quot;expressed his impatience with the full-blood girls by referring to the mixed-bloods as &amp;quot;whiter&amp;quot; and therefore &amp;quot;more intellectual&amp;quot;.  I think these schools were set up to Americanize the Native American population, rather than instill Cherokee ideals. -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== US, 194-220, Paige Raibmon, “The Practice of Everyday Colonialism: Indigenous Women at Work in the Hop Fields and Tourist Industry of Puget Sound” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;endure childbirth painlessly&amp;quot; (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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;#039;savages&amp;#039; 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 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== MP, 252-258-- Deena Gonzalez, “Life and Legend of Gertrudis Barcelo in 19th C. Sante Fe” (2005) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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, &amp;quot;They could judge the locals firsthand and could observe a community&amp;#039;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...&amp;quot;(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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Susan Shelby Magoffin’s diary about her first days in Santa Fe, 1846 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rape of Indian women in CA, 1862 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-1876 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was interesting to read this account after reading &amp;quot;Too Dark to be Angels.&amp;quot; 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&amp;#039;s telling that the little girl compares herself to the &amp;quot;young of a wild creature&amp;quot; (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 &amp;quot;fewer real Dakotas&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;more palefaces&amp;quot; (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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mrs. A. M. Green’s account of Frontier Life, 1887 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Violet Cragg, Ex-Slave and Former Army Nurse, requests an Army Pension, 1908 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mhimes</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_2_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 2 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_2_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-01-20T02:53:28Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mhimes: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;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 &amp;quot;masculanized culture&amp;quot; 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&amp;#039;s roles on the battlefield, yet women&amp;#039;s roles on and off the battlefield cannot be forgotten.  It is interesting how literature giving credit to women must be labeled as &amp;quot;feminist&amp;quot; literature, when in reality, they should be given the same treatment as men.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
-Afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 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 &amp;quot;serious discussion&amp;quot; regarding the suffrage of women was reliant upon the presence of black delegates in support of the woman&amp;#039;s suffrage movement. -SSellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It&amp;#039;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 &amp;quot;white&amp;quot; ideals. - Alice W&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can&amp;#039;t help but think about &amp;quot;Gone With the Wind&amp;quot; whenever they mentioned southern woman&amp;#039;s literature after the war (which they eventually did mention in the reading)&lt;br /&gt;
I know that the depiction found within that novel is unrealistic, but the romanticizing of the civil war and the southern woman&amp;#039;s role in it IS interesting to read and find relations to even in today&amp;#039;s non-antebellum southern world..... -Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems as time moved on after the Civil War it increasingly became to be defined as a &amp;quot;Man&amp;#039;s War&amp;quot;, specifically a &amp;quot;White Man&amp;#039;s War&amp;quot;. 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also completely agree with Erin Sanderson&amp;#039;s statement in which she discusses how after men returned from the war, the literature market increasingly became dominated by men&amp;#039;s war stories. The interests of women were again pushed away for those of men. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;s roles.  In these stories about women you see the emotional side and in men&amp;#039;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&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mhimes</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_1_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 1 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_1_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-01-13T18:39:56Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mhimes: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;I think the reading was great! -- mdvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yeah, me too!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So apparently I&amp;#039;m the first to comment, yay. In &amp;quot;Defining &amp;quot;American Women&amp;#039;s History&amp;quot; I really liked the concept on page 6 that &amp;quot;if gender is created rather than assumed... then so too is race, ethinicity, health, age, work, social status, sexuality, and so on.&amp;quot; I found it interesting to think about Women&amp;#039;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 &amp;quot;inferior&amp;quot; race AND gender and how that affects them. --SSellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kind of going along with the first statement, it was interesting to see that some historians balk at including race, class, etc., in women&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;re going to study women, don&amp;#039;t you have to study real women&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It also seems like a Catch-22 to be in this course now. Learning about Women&amp;#039;s history separate from &amp;quot;men&amp;#039;s&amp;quot; history empowers the women by allowing them to be a distinct categorization, but also segregates Women&amp;#039;s history and makes it seemingly inferior to Men&amp;#039;s history. I have no idea where to stand on the separation... --SSellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;s perspective. I am not sure if that makes women&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;s studies course to discover where women fit into the world during any given time. --Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The debate between &amp;quot;equality&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;difference&amp;quot; in terms of women in Gisela Bock&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall in this reading, I was interested in how each author defined women. “Definining ‘American Women’s History&amp;#039;” 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the changing dynamics of women&amp;#039;s history to be incredibly interesting. According to Kate Haulman, in the past only &amp;quot;notable women&amp;quot; were written about. Even being characterized as a &amp;quot;notable woman&amp;quot; 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&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;s lives. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I completely agree with Anna Holman&amp;#039;s comment above. It was fascinating to read about the evolution of women&amp;#039;s history and made me wonder how it will continue to evolve in the future. Hopefully as we move forward, women&amp;#039;s history will be able to be studied without male domination and we can define ourselves. -- Kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Adding onto Erin Sanderson&amp;#039;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 &amp;quot;woman&amp;quot;, and how it intersects the other aspects of their identity, such as their unique race and ethnicity. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I was reading, I was intrigued by Kate Haulman&amp;#039;s statement about the definition of &amp;quot;American.&amp;quot; It did seem like the term would be uncomplicated, simply refering to residents of the United States. The fact that &amp;quot;American&amp;quot; could refer (maybe, should refer) to anyone in the Americas was something I had never considered before. --Kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mhimes</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_15_Questions/Comments-327_09</id>
		<title>Week 15 Questions/Comments-327 09</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_15_Questions/Comments-327_09"/>
				<updated>2009-12-02T14:38:59Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mhimes: /* Amelia Barr, (novelist and married) 1896, Speaks out against female suffrage */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Woloch, Chapter 13, Urban Wage Earners&amp;#039;&amp;#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Helen Campbell, 1893, study on NY wage laborers, “Shop Girls and Piece Workers” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Lucy Maynard Salmon, 1897, Vassar Historian who studied domestic service ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Isabel Eaton, 1899, research on black servants in Philadelphia ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Clara Lanza, 1891, defends the female office clerk in NY ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree a lot with Erin. Ms. Lanza states in the beginning of her response that &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot; While I think expected gender roles play a large part- the exactness of women&amp;#039;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 &amp;quot;sex&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;gender&amp;quot;, 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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Leonara Barry, on what the Knights of Labor are doing for women, 1888 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sadie Frome, 1902, “Story of a Sweatshop Girl” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really liked Sadie&amp;#039;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 &amp;quot;new&amp;quot; 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Woloch, Chapter 16, Woman Suffrage/Women’s Rights&amp;#039;&amp;#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Julia Ward Howe, 1899, Reminiscences ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Stanton and Anthony, 1882, piece in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;History of Woman Suffrage&amp;#039;&amp;#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;s gender roles. I can see why this could be appealing for some and scary for others. –Erin Sanderson  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Frances Ellen (Watkins) Harper, 1866 Woman’s Rights convention ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Shoe women of Lynn, MA, 1874 ==&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Amelia Barr, (novelist and married) 1896, Speaks out against female suffrage ==&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;t consider those two examples as doing &amp;quot;the work of the virile virtues of men.&amp;quot; - Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Anna Garlin Spencer, 1898, response to anti-suffrage attacks ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Charlotte Perkins Gilman, 20th Century feminist, 1903, The Home ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Charlotte Perkins Gilman&amp;#039;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 &amp;quot;home-husband&amp;quot; was a funny concept. She said, and I agree, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot; 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&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mhimes</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_15_Questions/Comments-327_09</id>
		<title>Week 15 Questions/Comments-327 09</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_15_Questions/Comments-327_09"/>
				<updated>2009-12-02T14:37:10Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mhimes: /* Shoe women of Lynn, MA, 1874 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Woloch, Chapter 13, Urban Wage Earners&amp;#039;&amp;#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Helen Campbell, 1893, study on NY wage laborers, “Shop Girls and Piece Workers” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Lucy Maynard Salmon, 1897, Vassar Historian who studied domestic service ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Isabel Eaton, 1899, research on black servants in Philadelphia ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Clara Lanza, 1891, defends the female office clerk in NY ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree a lot with Erin. Ms. Lanza states in the beginning of her response that &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot; While I think expected gender roles play a large part- the exactness of women&amp;#039;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 &amp;quot;sex&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;gender&amp;quot;, 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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Leonara Barry, on what the Knights of Labor are doing for women, 1888 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sadie Frome, 1902, “Story of a Sweatshop Girl” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really liked Sadie&amp;#039;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 &amp;quot;new&amp;quot; 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Woloch, Chapter 16, Woman Suffrage/Women’s Rights&amp;#039;&amp;#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Julia Ward Howe, 1899, Reminiscences ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Stanton and Anthony, 1882, piece in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;History of Woman Suffrage&amp;#039;&amp;#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;s gender roles. I can see why this could be appealing for some and scary for others. –Erin Sanderson  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Frances Ellen (Watkins) Harper, 1866 Woman’s Rights convention ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Shoe women of Lynn, MA, 1874 ==&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Amelia Barr, (novelist and married) 1896, Speaks out against female suffrage ==&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;t consider those two examples as doing &amp;quot;the work of the virile virtues of men.&amp;quot; - Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Anna Garlin Spencer, 1898, response to anti-suffrage attacks ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Charlotte Perkins Gilman, 20th Century feminist, 1903, The Home ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Charlotte Perkins Gilman&amp;#039;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 &amp;quot;home-husband&amp;quot; was a funny concept. She said, and I agree, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot; 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&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mhimes</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_13-14_Questions/Comments-327_09</id>
		<title>Week 13-14 Questions/Comments-327 09</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_13-14_Questions/Comments-327_09"/>
				<updated>2009-11-20T13:47:53Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mhimes: /* Mary Livermore, [Northern women on farm during war], 1890 -- Woloch and Major Problems readings. */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Louisa May Alcott, Hospital Sketches, 1862-1863 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mary Livermore, [Northern women on farm during war], 1890 -- Woloch and Major Problems readings. ==&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting that Mary Livermore&amp;#039;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 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Louticia Jackson’s letter in 1863 ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Eva Jones to Mary Jones, her mother-in-law, 1865 ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Accounts of former slaves, 1865-1937 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== VA woman, recorded by abolitionist Laura Haviland in 1866 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Harriet Tubman, from her white female biographer, Sarah Bradford, 1886 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Clara Burdett, to notary in Union camp in KY, March 1865 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Fanny Berry, in Weevils in the Wheat, 1937 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Tennessee Woman, 1929 [TN Nanny] ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mary Anderson, NC ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Katie Darling, in TX ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sarah and Lucy Chase, Teaching the Freedmen, 1866-1868 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Susie King Taylor, Reminiscences of My Life in Camp, 1902 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Ada Bacot, Confederate Nurse, 1862 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Maria Daly, 1862, Northerner in the South (New Orleans) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sarah Morgan, 1863, Teen diary ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Cornelia Hancock, Union Nurse, 1863 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Caroline Kirkland, 1863, defends Northern women’s support of Northern men ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas, January 1865 ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mhimes</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_13-14_Questions/Comments-327_09</id>
		<title>Week 13-14 Questions/Comments-327 09</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_13-14_Questions/Comments-327_09"/>
				<updated>2009-11-20T13:47:34Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mhimes: /* Mary Livermore, [Northern women on farm during war], 1890 -- Woloch and Major Problems readings. */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Louisa May Alcott, Hospital Sketches, 1862-1863 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mary Livermore, [Northern women on farm during war], 1890 -- Woloch and Major Problems readings. ==&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting that Mary Livermore&amp;#039;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 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Modern Problems, Mary Livermore spoke of the work of women.  She sets 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Louticia Jackson’s letter in 1863 ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Eva Jones to Mary Jones, her mother-in-law, 1865 ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Accounts of former slaves, 1865-1937 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== VA woman, recorded by abolitionist Laura Haviland in 1866 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Harriet Tubman, from her white female biographer, Sarah Bradford, 1886 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Clara Burdett, to notary in Union camp in KY, March 1865 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Fanny Berry, in Weevils in the Wheat, 1937 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Tennessee Woman, 1929 [TN Nanny] ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mary Anderson, NC ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Katie Darling, in TX ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sarah and Lucy Chase, Teaching the Freedmen, 1866-1868 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Susie King Taylor, Reminiscences of My Life in Camp, 1902 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Ada Bacot, Confederate Nurse, 1862 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Maria Daly, 1862, Northerner in the South (New Orleans) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sarah Morgan, 1863, Teen diary ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Cornelia Hancock, Union Nurse, 1863 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Caroline Kirkland, 1863, defends Northern women’s support of Northern men ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas, January 1865 ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mhimes</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_13-14_Questions/Comments-327_09</id>
		<title>Week 13-14 Questions/Comments-327 09</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_13-14_Questions/Comments-327_09"/>
				<updated>2009-11-20T13:46:51Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mhimes: /* Mary Livermore, [Northern women on farm during war], 1890 -- Woloch and Major Problems readings. */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Louisa May Alcott, Hospital Sketches, 1862-1863 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mary Livermore, [Northern women on farm during war], 1890 -- Woloch and Major Problems readings. ==&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting that Mary Livermore&amp;#039;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 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Modern Problems, Mary Livermore speaks of the work of women.  She sets 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Louticia Jackson’s letter in 1863 ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Eva Jones to Mary Jones, her mother-in-law, 1865 ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Accounts of former slaves, 1865-1937 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== VA woman, recorded by abolitionist Laura Haviland in 1866 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Harriet Tubman, from her white female biographer, Sarah Bradford, 1886 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Clara Burdett, to notary in Union camp in KY, March 1865 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Fanny Berry, in Weevils in the Wheat, 1937 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Tennessee Woman, 1929 [TN Nanny] ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mary Anderson, NC ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Katie Darling, in TX ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sarah and Lucy Chase, Teaching the Freedmen, 1866-1868 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Susie King Taylor, Reminiscences of My Life in Camp, 1902 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Ada Bacot, Confederate Nurse, 1862 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Maria Daly, 1862, Northerner in the South (New Orleans) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sarah Morgan, 1863, Teen diary ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Cornelia Hancock, Union Nurse, 1863 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Caroline Kirkland, 1863, defends Northern women’s support of Northern men ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas, January 1865 ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mhimes</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_12_Questions/Comments-327_09</id>
		<title>Week 12 Questions/Comments-327 09</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_12_Questions/Comments-327_09"/>
				<updated>2009-11-11T15:53:58Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mhimes: /* Letter to Liberator from Andover Female Antislavery Society, 1836 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Comparative source questions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Advocate of Moral Reform, 1838 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Maria Stewart, 1831, “O, Ye Daughters of Africa, Awake!” in the Liberator. ==&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Letter to Liberator from Andover Female Antislavery Society, 1836 ==&lt;br /&gt;
Referring to the meetings of the Female Antislavery Society, this woman was stressing the importance of a woman&amp;#039;s role in reform.  It was women&amp;#039;s Godly duty to reform those in the south, who believed in slavery.  Using such words as &amp;quot;scourged sisters&amp;quot; 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 &amp;quot;darkness.&amp;quot;  -Marsha Himes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sarah Grimke’s response to the Mass Clergy, 1837 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Declaration of Sentiments at Seneca Falls, 1848 (written by Elizabeth Cady Stanton) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Lucy Stone (and Henry Blackwell)’s Marriage Protest, 1855 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sojourner Truth (Isabella Van Wagener), 1851 (Ohio Convention). ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Isablle Graham and Society for Relief of Poor Widows, 1806 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Anti-Slavery Convention of American Women, 1837 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== American Female Reform Society Warns Mothers of “Solitary Vice”, 1839 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 1848, Elizabeth McClintock and Elizabeth Cady Stanton defend the Declaration of Sentiments and the 1848 convention ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 1852, Sarah Josepha Hale, editor of Godey’s Lady’s Book ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Julie Roy Jeffrey, “Ordinary Women in the Antislavery Movement,” in the Introduction to &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Great Silent Army of Abolitionism: Ordinary Women in the Anti-slavery Movement&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 1998. ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Nancy Isenberg’s “Women’s Rights and the Politics of Church and State in Antebellum America,” (1998) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Shirley Yee, “Free Black Women in the Abolitionist Movement,” in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Black Women Abolitionists: A Study in Activism, 1828-1860&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, (1992). ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mhimes</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_12_Questions/Comments-327_09</id>
		<title>Week 12 Questions/Comments-327 09</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_12_Questions/Comments-327_09"/>
				<updated>2009-11-11T13:54:40Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mhimes: /* Maria Stewart, 1831, “O, Ye Daughters of Africa, Awake!” in the Liberator. */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Comparative source questions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Advocate of Moral Reform, 1838 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Maria Stewart, 1831, “O, Ye Daughters of Africa, Awake!” in the Liberator. ==&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Letter to Liberator from Andover Female Antislavery Society, 1836 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sarah Grimke’s response to the Mass Clergy, 1837 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Declaration of Sentiments at Seneca Falls, 1848 (written by Elizabeth Cady Stanton) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Lucy Stone (and Henry Blackwell)’s Marriage Protest, 1855 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sojourner Truth (Isabella Van Wagener), 1851 (Ohio Convention). ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Isablle Graham and Society for Relief of Poor Widows, 1806 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Anti-Slavery Convention of American Women, 1837 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== American Female Reform Society Warns Mothers of “Solitary Vice”, 1839 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 1848, Elizabeth McClintock and Elizabeth Cady Stanton defend the Declaration of Sentiments and the 1848 convention ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 1852, Sarah Josepha Hale, editor of Godey’s Lady’s Book ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Julie Roy Jeffrey, “Ordinary Women in the Antislavery Movement,” in the Introduction to &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Great Silent Army of Abolitionism: Ordinary Women in the Anti-slavery Movement&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 1998. ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Nancy Isenberg’s “Women’s Rights and the Politics of Church and State in Antebellum America,” (1998) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Shirley Yee, “Free Black Women in the Abolitionist Movement,” in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Black Women Abolitionists: A Study in Activism, 1828-1860&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, (1992). ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mhimes</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_11_Questions/Comments-327_09</id>
		<title>Week 11 Questions/Comments-327 09</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_11_Questions/Comments-327_09"/>
				<updated>2009-11-05T14:29:45Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mhimes: /* Xin Jin&amp;#039;s Contract, 1886 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Mary Anne Sadlier&amp;#039;s Bessy Conway ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;s goal in writing this story?  -- Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the mixed chapters we read of Bessy&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;s dismissal was this normal in America? Did Americans fear religious takeover from the Irish immigrants? -Megan W. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the pictures of the starving people was awful and it was hard to read the chapter about Bessy&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Jannicke Saehle, 1847, Norwegian immigrant’s letters ==&lt;br /&gt;
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. &lt;br /&gt;
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. &lt;br /&gt;
One question, though, how common were the museums that she described with wild animals?  –Megan Mc&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== William Sanger, New York Prostitutes, 1858 ==&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;s lives.  -Marsha Himes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found Dr. Sanger&amp;#039;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 &amp;quot;environmental determinism&amp;quot; (or the idea that your environment and surroundings have a major impact on who you are as a person) versus &amp;quot;environmental possibilism&amp;quot;, 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 &amp;quot;Inclination&amp;quot; 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 &amp;quot;pure&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;chaste&amp;quot;, while only men could actually have sexual desires and emotions. Dr. Sanger states, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot; Thus, he still, in many ways, is reinforcing the belief that women (while acknowledging that they might actually have &amp;quot;desires&amp;quot;- shocking!)should keep these repressed and private. -Allison Godart&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;pure&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;chaste&amp;quot;. Obviously, they really weren&amp;#039;t so pure and chaste. I mean I definitely don&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;s more to it than just that their husbands and fathers failed them. -Katelyn Lease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I didn&amp;#039;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 &amp;quot;profession&amp;quot;.  - Christine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Xin Jin&amp;#039;s Contract, 1886 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-76 ==&lt;br /&gt;
I still think it&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;t know. The terms for this &amp;quot;occupation&amp;quot; was usually for a few years. These women must have been in real need; I don&amp;#039;t think selling my body would ever be worth coming to America for me.  -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;escape and be recovered&amp;quot; (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 &amp;quot;sickness&amp;quot; (p. 238); was pregnancy common with concubines? Granted, I doubt that a servant&amp;#039;s mistress would be too concerned with the latest birth control methods. -Seth Mintzer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;owners&amp;quot; of these women were practicing safe sex. Were disease and pregnancy a big problem for prostitutes at this time? - Katelyn Lease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Susan Shelby Magoffin in Santa Fe, 1846 ==&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it comical that Susan Shelby Magoffin thought she needed to &amp;quot;be more expert in ... Spanish&amp;quot; (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 &amp;quot;only traderess&amp;quot; (p. 235) at the American-thrown Spanish ball. - Seth Mintzer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Citizen protest of rape of Indian women in California, 1862 ==&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;pretend Lieut.&amp;quot; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;white men&amp;quot; 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&amp;#039;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 &amp;quot;iron horse&amp;quot; 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 &amp;quot;foreigner&amp;quot; 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 &amp;quot;lonely figure&amp;quot; of her mother vanish as she drives away, and then feels as &amp;quot;frightened and bewildered as the captured young of a wild creature.&amp;quot; (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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With reference to Allison&amp;#039;s comment about Zitkala-Sa&amp;#039;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 &amp;quot;westernized&amp;quot;. The differences with astonishing- I bet when Dawee came back to visit, his mother didn&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;educated.&amp;quot; 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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mrs. A. M. Greene, in Colorado Territory -- Frontier life – 1887 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mrs. Greene&amp;#039;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 &amp;quot;Go without you, no, never.&amp;quot; (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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Violet Cragg requests an Army Pension, 1908 ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mhimes</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_11_Questions/Comments-327_09</id>
		<title>Week 11 Questions/Comments-327 09</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_11_Questions/Comments-327_09"/>
				<updated>2009-11-04T05:52:27Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mhimes: /* William Sanger, New York Prostitutes, 1858 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Mary Anne Sadlier&amp;#039;s Bessy Conway ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;s goal in writing this story?  -- Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Jannicke Saehle, 1847, Norwegian immigrant’s letters ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== William Sanger, New York Prostitutes, 1858 ==&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;s lives.  -Marsha Himes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Xin Jin&amp;#039;s Contract, 1886 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-76 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Susan Shelby Magoffin in Santa Fe, 1846 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Citizen protest of rape of Indian women in California, 1862 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mrs. A. M. Greene, in Colorado Territory -- Frontier life – 1887 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Violet Cragg requests an Army Pension, 1908 ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mhimes</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_11_Questions/Comments-327_09</id>
		<title>Week 11 Questions/Comments-327 09</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_11_Questions/Comments-327_09"/>
				<updated>2009-11-04T05:12:34Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mhimes: /* Mary Anne Sadlier&amp;#039;s Bessy Conway */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Mary Anne Sadlier&amp;#039;s Bessy Conway ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;s goal in writing this story?  -- Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Jannicke Saehle, 1847, Norwegian immigrant’s letters ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== William Sanger, New York Prostitutes, 1858 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Xin Jin&amp;#039;s Contract, 1886 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-76 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Susan Shelby Magoffin in Santa Fe, 1846 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Citizen protest of rape of Indian women in California, 1862 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mrs. A. M. Greene, in Colorado Territory -- Frontier life – 1887 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Violet Cragg requests an Army Pension, 1908 ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mhimes</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_10_Questions/Comments-327_09</id>
		<title>Week 10 Questions/Comments-327 09</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_10_Questions/Comments-327_09"/>
				<updated>2009-10-28T14:16:20Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mhimes: /* Thelma Jennings, “Sexual Exploitation of African American Slave Women,” 1990 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Sarah Haynesworth Gayle, “An Alabama Diary,” 1828, 1833 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Angelina Grimké Weld, 1839, “The Cruel Mistress” ==&lt;br /&gt;
I think it&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Louisa S. Cheeves McCord, “Review of Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” 1853 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mary Boykin Chestnut’s diary, 1861 ==&lt;br /&gt;
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, &amp;amp; so quiets my nerves that I can calmly reason &amp;amp; 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rose Williams’s Story in the Federal Writers’ Project Interviews, 1941. ==&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Lucinda, a free woman, requests reenslavement, 1813 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Connecticut woman asks other free black women to sign anti-slavery petitions, 1839 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 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 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mrs. Virginia Hayes Shepherd’s memories, 1937 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Thelma Jennings, “Sexual Exploitation of African American Slave Women,” 1990 ==&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mhimes</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_10_Questions/Comments-327_09</id>
		<title>Week 10 Questions/Comments-327 09</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_10_Questions/Comments-327_09"/>
				<updated>2009-10-27T20:06:12Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mhimes: /* Angelina Grimké Weld, 1839, “The Cruel Mistress” */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Sarah Haynesworth Gayle, “An Alabama Diary,” 1828, 1833 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Angelina Grimké Weld, 1839, “The Cruel Mistress” &lt;br /&gt;
I think it&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Louisa S. Cheeves McCord, “Review of Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” 1853 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mary Boykin Chestnut’s diary, 1861 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rose Williams’s Story in the Federal Writers’ Project Interviews, 1941. ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Lucinda, a free woman, requests reenslavement, 1813 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Connecticut woman asks other free black women to sign anti-slavery petitions, 1839 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 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 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mrs. Virginia Hayes Shepherd’s memories, 1937 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Thelma Jennings, “Sexual Exploitation of African American Slave Women,” 1990 ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mhimes</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_9_Questions/Comments-327_09</id>
		<title>Week 9 Questions/Comments-327 09</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_9_Questions/Comments-327_09"/>
				<updated>2009-10-21T20:40:22Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mhimes: /* Miss Burnham’s Report, “A Choctaw Mission School,” 1824 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;General Questions&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
---------------------------------------------------------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Chapter 7 &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Emma Willard, “Matrimonial Risks,” 1815 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Caroline Gilman, “The Deferential Wife,” 1838 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Catharine Beecher, “System and Order,” 1841 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Catharine Sedgwick, “First to None,” 1828 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sarah Connell Ayer, “The Widowed State,” 1832-33 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Chapter 8 – School and Mill&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Eliza Ann Mulford, “Rules of the School,” 1814 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Emma Willard, “A Rationale for Female Education,” 1819 ==&lt;br /&gt;
I think this work is interesting because Emma Willard&amp;#039;s goal was to educate women on the same subjects that were taught at men&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Miss Burnham’s Report, “A Choctaw Mission School,” 1824 ==&lt;br /&gt;
As I was reading Miss Burnam&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Letters from Teachers, “Reports on Western Schools,” 1847 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rules of the Mill from Lowell and Lancaster, 1820-1840 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Harriet Farley, “A Letter from Lowell,” 1844 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Voice of Industry, “A Spirit of Protest,” 1846 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Chapter 9 – Western Frontiers&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Amelia Stewart Knight, “Crossing the Plains,” 1853 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mary Ballou, “A Woman’s View of the Gold Rush,” 1852 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Petitions of the Cherokee Women’s Council on Removal, 1817, 1818 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sarah Winnemucca, “Life Among the Paiutes,” 1883 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== A Sioux Tale, “A Woman Kills Her Daughter” ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mhimes</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_9_Questions/Comments-327_09</id>
		<title>Week 9 Questions/Comments-327 09</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_9_Questions/Comments-327_09"/>
				<updated>2009-10-21T16:01:02Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mhimes: /* Emma Willard, “A Rationale for Female Education,” 1819 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;General Questions&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
---------------------------------------------------------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Chapter 7 &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Emma Willard, “Matrimonial Risks,” 1815 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Caroline Gilman, “The Deferential Wife,” 1838 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Catharine Beecher, “System and Order,” 1841 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Catharine Sedgwick, “First to None,” 1828 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sarah Connell Ayer, “The Widowed State,” 1832-33 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Chapter 8 – School and Mill&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Eliza Ann Mulford, “Rules of the School,” 1814 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Emma Willard, “A Rationale for Female Education,” 1819 ==&lt;br /&gt;
I think this work is interesting because Emma Willard&amp;#039;s goal was to educate women on the same subjects that were taught at men&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Miss Burnham’s Report, “A Choctaw Mission School,” 1824 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Letters from Teachers, “Reports on Western Schools,” 1847 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rules of the Mill from Lowell and Lancaster, 1820-1840 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Harriet Farley, “A Letter from Lowell,” 1844 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Voice of Industry, “A Spirit of Protest,” 1846 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Chapter 9 – Western Frontiers&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Amelia Stewart Knight, “Crossing the Plains,” 1853 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mary Ballou, “A Woman’s View of the Gold Rush,” 1852 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Petitions of the Cherokee Women’s Council on Removal, 1817, 1818 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sarah Winnemucca, “Life Among the Paiutes,” 1883 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== A Sioux Tale, “A Woman Kills Her Daughter” ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mhimes</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_8_Questions/Comments-327_09</id>
		<title>Week 8 Questions/Comments-327 09</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_8_Questions/Comments-327_09"/>
				<updated>2009-10-14T21:23:48Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mhimes: /* Mass, 1675-1680 – Women in county courts */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Antenuptial contract, Mass, 1653 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;modern&amp;quot; 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&amp;#039;s death. What if her children had reached adulthood prior to Mr. Jewett&amp;#039;s death? -Katelyn Lease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== New England Divorce, CT, 1655-1678; MD, 1680 ==&lt;br /&gt;
What caught my attention the most in this piece was the case of Robert Wade (1657). First, I love how they write, &amp;quot;in refrence to his wives unworthy, sinfull, yea, unnatural cariage towards him...&amp;quot; As if the woman is a complete monster. And, in the other cases (which were all of women divorcing their husbands), they do not say anything about the husbands were so horrible just that they did something wrong or have been gone, etc. and that is it. Obviously, the courts must have thought that if a woman deserted her husband then that is much more horrible than if the man deserted his wife. &lt;br /&gt;
The other thing that caught my eye was the fact that this is a man asking for a divorce, and all the others are women asking for the divorce. I would bet that the men may have thought it beneath them to ask for a divorce, even if they wanted it, and that is why man asking for a divorce is much less common. -Kristina.S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== SC feme sole trader acts, 1712, 1744 ==&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;t exactly known for being liberal today. -Katelyn Lease&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mass, 1675-1680 – Women in county courts ==&lt;br /&gt;
In the Malefactors and Complaints there seems to be a general way of punishment.  You were either whipped, sent away, and or had to pay a fine.  The women seemed to be treated much more harshly then men and they tended to be made an example of, in particular Margaret Brewster.  It seems harsh for a women to be stripped from waste down, tide to a cart and to have received 20 stripes for coming to church not looking appropriate for the occasion.  The way she was described she almost sounds as if she&amp;#039;s homeless.  John Man was sentenced with bond of 200 lbs for his good behavior for beating of his servant but received no stripes (which would have seemed fitting for what he had done to her.)  Then again she was a woman and a servant though it does state she was set free from her indenture. - Marsha Himes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Virginia, 1642, NY 1721-1759 – Widows, Wills and Dower Rights ==&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Women’s Estates, Mass, 1664, NY 1747-1759 ==&lt;br /&gt;
Comparing these women&amp;#039;s wills to the men&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;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 &amp;quot;a set of gold buttons &amp;quot;to the value of a Pistole.&amp;quot;&amp;quot;(p. 89). They took care of the smallest details and thought about the family more than themselves. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Suzanne Lebsock, The Free Women of Petersburg ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was interesting to learn that women&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;s wills dividing everything equally among their heirs.  I can&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;s thought process.  The thought of who would most benefit from receiving that gift, who was grandma&amp;#039;s favorite, or who asked first?  Women showed their nurturing abilities by denoting some security for their children. Men&amp;#039;s wills did not show these specific details. -Marsha Himes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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. &amp;quot;It may have been that women, who looked at death with every pregnancy...had less trouble making preparations for their dying.&amp;quot;(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.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mhimes</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_8_Questions/Comments-327_09</id>
		<title>Week 8 Questions/Comments-327 09</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_8_Questions/Comments-327_09"/>
				<updated>2009-10-14T17:41:10Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mhimes: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;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 &amp;quot;modern&amp;quot; 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&amp;#039;s death. What if her children had reached adulthood prior to Mr. Jewett&amp;#039;s death? -Katelyn Lease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;t exactly known for being liberal today. -Katelyn Lease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Suzanne Lebsock, The Free Women of Petersburg&lt;br /&gt;
It was interesting to learn that women&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;s wills dividing everything equally among their heirs.  I can&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;s thought process.  The thought of who would most benefit from receiving that gift, who was grandma&amp;#039;s favorite, or who asked first?  Women showed their nurturing abilities by denoting some security for their children. Men&amp;#039;s wills did not show these specific details. -Marsha Himes&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mhimes</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_6_Questions/Comments-327_09</id>
		<title>Week 6 Questions/Comments-327 09</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_6_Questions/Comments-327_09"/>
				<updated>2009-09-30T16:00:07Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mhimes: /* &amp;quot;On the Importance of the Obstetrick Art&amp;quot; by Catherine Scholten */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Susanna Haswell Rowson, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Charlotte: A Tale of Truth&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 1794 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, this novel was the most popular in America for almost &amp;#039;&amp;#039;sixty years&amp;#039;&amp;#039;? Wow. This one&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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 &amp;#039;&amp;#039;that&amp;#039;&amp;#039; one for so long. Apparently, this book was replaced in popularity by &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Uncle Tom’s Cabin&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 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 &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Uncle Tom&amp;#039;s Cabin&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, I imagine part of the reason it was successful was because it was so controversial. Was &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Charlotte&amp;#039;&amp;#039; considered controversial in it&amp;#039;s time? -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree with Taylor&amp;#039;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 &amp;quot;Charlotte&amp;quot; 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Judith Murray, “The Story of Margaretta,” ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;The Story of Margaretta,&amp;quot; I am not sure if she is writing through the eyes of a man because she thinks it would be read by more people or her agenda was to show Mr. Vigillius view on educating women in hopes that it would have changed things for women.  In the story, a reference was made about Mary not being concerned with a women&amp;#039;s dress though she was still a &amp;quot;complete housewife,&amp;quot; showed that it was more important for Margaretta to be taught things that made her more intellectual.  I think this made her more the exception.  Mary had an extensive plan for Margaretta&amp;#039;s education.  Her education went outside the realm of housewifery duties which Mr. Vigillius stated Margaretta did with proficiency.  Mr. Vigillius was not fond of Mary&amp;#039;s education plans for Margaretta but he let the matter go.  Through Mr Vigillius eyes, he thought in the long run Margaretta will be more intellectual for the education she received, after all a woman was to &amp;quot;inform the future man.&amp;quot;  I think Mr. Vigillius was also an exception because he admitted that in the long run Margaretta&amp;#039;s extensive education would make her life more distinguished. -Marsha H&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;On the Importance of the Obstetrick Art&amp;quot; by Catherine Scholten ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;throughly the profession of medicine as a whole.&amp;quot; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this piece interesting because the one thing women had some control over and dominated was then being transferred to men.  All because physician were men during that time.  This piece raises many questions in my mind.  You have trained midwives and fill in midwives.  Then you have women in suburban areas where midwives delivered most of the babies because there was no doctor around.  In urban areas, there was doctor available if there were any problems arose during childbirth.  Then there was the problem of women being concerned with the presence of a &amp;quot;man&amp;quot; looking at a woman in this &amp;quot;delicate&amp;quot; way.  Another point, it that when you have a midwife with years of a experience delivering babies and a man who is &amp;quot;medically trained&amp;quot; with little experience, what would you feel most comfortable with?  There was a large transition here from women to men in childbirth.  During this time, you had women being more educated and they may have felt they had more choices.  In making these choices do they oust other women out of the arena?  -Marsha Himes&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mhimes</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_6_Questions/Comments-327_09</id>
		<title>Week 6 Questions/Comments-327 09</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_6_Questions/Comments-327_09"/>
				<updated>2009-09-30T15:33:11Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mhimes: /* Judith Murray, “The Story of Margaretta,” */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Susanna Haswell Rowson, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Charlotte: A Tale of Truth&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 1794 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, this novel was the most popular in America for almost &amp;#039;&amp;#039;sixty years&amp;#039;&amp;#039;? Wow. This one&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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 &amp;#039;&amp;#039;that&amp;#039;&amp;#039; one for so long. Apparently, this book was replaced in popularity by &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Uncle Tom’s Cabin&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 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 &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Uncle Tom&amp;#039;s Cabin&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, I imagine part of the reason it was successful was because it was so controversial. Was &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Charlotte&amp;#039;&amp;#039; considered controversial in it&amp;#039;s time? -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree with Taylor&amp;#039;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 &amp;quot;Charlotte&amp;quot; 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Judith Murray, “The Story of Margaretta,” ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;The Story of Margaretta,&amp;quot; I am not sure if she is writing through the eyes of a man because she thinks it would be read by more people or her agenda was to show Mr. Vigillius view on educating women in hopes that it would have changed things for women.  In the story, a reference was made about Mary not being concerned with a women&amp;#039;s dress though she was still a &amp;quot;complete housewife,&amp;quot; showed that it was more important for Margaretta to be taught things that made her more intellectual.  I think this made her more the exception.  Mary had an extensive plan for Margaretta&amp;#039;s education.  Her education went outside the realm of housewifery duties which Mr. Vigillius stated Margaretta did with proficiency.  Mr. Vigillius was not fond of Mary&amp;#039;s education plans for Margaretta but he let the matter go.  Through Mr Vigillius eyes, he thought in the long run Margaretta will be more intellectual for the education she received, after all a woman was to &amp;quot;inform the future man.&amp;quot;  I think Mr. Vigillius was also an exception because he admitted that in the long run Margaretta&amp;#039;s extensive education would make her life more distinguished. -Marsha H&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;On the Importance of the Obstetrick Art&amp;quot; by Catherine Scholten ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;throughly the profession of medicine as a whole.&amp;quot; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mhimes</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_5_Questions/Comments-327_09</id>
		<title>Week 5 Questions/Comments-327 09</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_5_Questions/Comments-327_09"/>
				<updated>2009-09-23T17:52:51Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mhimes: /* Esther DeBerdt Reed, “Sentiments of an American Woman,” 1780 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Comparative questions or comments ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Phillis Wheatley, 1768, An address to George III ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Eliza Wilkinson, Carolina Patriot, 1782 ==&lt;br /&gt;
This reading was very interesting. I felt that Eliza painted the British in a very harsh light (which I know was the point), but she just seemed like a bit of a hypocrite. One sentence really caught my eye: &amp;quot;The Americans are obliged to commit unavoidable acts of cruelty; the defense of their country requires it; you seek their lives and liberties, and they must either kill or be killed.&amp;quot; So, its ok for the Americans can be mean and cruel, but if the English are then that’s ten times worse? Also in this reading, Eliza tells a bit of a story some man told her about someone, (I&amp;#039;m assuming the someone is an analogy for the British and his farm is an analogy for the Americans), encroaching on his farm taking more and more from him. And, at the end he asks, &amp;quot;is this not slavery?&amp;quot; Now that is pretty ridiculous because as a North Carolina planter, I&amp;#039;m sure he had slaves, or at the very least, neighbors who had slaves. So, as long as the Americans are not treated like slaves, then it is fine, but they can still have slaves of their own.&lt;br /&gt;
One more sentence in this reading really caught my eye, When Eliza is talking about Homer and she says, &amp;quot;what contemptible EARTH WORMS these authors make us!&amp;quot; She is expressing her displeasure over not even having the liberty to think, and she says that that is all she wants. She writes of how the men would not want women to be a part of political matters, and she does not care. She wishes only to think for herself. -Kristina.S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Revolution seems to mark a period where women can start voicing political opinions without being attacked for it. Eliza Wilkinson, at least in her letters, claimed the right to express her political sentiments and rages about how authors make women out to be weak and fit for nothing more than menial tasks, or in more visceral language, appearing as “contemptible &amp;#039;&amp;#039;earth worms&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (124).” Interestingly, she apparently had political discussions not just with her female friends, but with males as well. She talks about a conversation with a Patriot officer. Whether or not he took her opinions seriously, I don’t know, but the fact that he was willing to talk with her about politics suggests a change in attitude from earlier colonial times. Of course, Eliza is an elite with a fair amount of power, giving her the opportunity and station to speak up. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Grace Galloway’s diary, 1778-79, Philadelphia ==&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was rather interesting that Grace Galloway &amp;quot;resented the intrusion of politics into her personal life.&amp;quot; I feel like this may be the reason why it took women so long to start getting involved in &amp;quot;men&amp;#039;s affairs&amp;quot; because many women, like Grace, did not care for it. They would rather just be housewives and be content with that. -Kristina.S. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Abigail Adams, Remember the Ladies, 1776 ==&lt;br /&gt;
I love this letter.  When Abigail wrote this letter to her husband she hoped that he would include women in the new code of laws.  She wasn&amp;#039;t afraid to say that if they were not recognized they would rebel.  He laughed at her request for women to be included in those laws.  She even wrote to her friend Mercy Warren, trying to get a petition going of their greviances.  An interesting point was when Abigail wrote back to her husband and said, &amp;quot;we have it in our power not only to free ouselves but to subdue our masters.&amp;quot;  She was telling him that women had a lot more power than men realize.  By the power of persuation and a woman&amp;#039;s wit and charm, women could get their masters to submit to whatever they wanted.  Abigail was very &amp;quot;saucy&amp;quot;  and is not afraid to tell her husband what she thinks and admits she will fight against laws that have no representation for women. I like that Abigail saw this as a golden opportunity for women to seek out more liberties and express themselves in this new government these men were creating.  -Marsha Himes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I particularly like how John writes, &amp;quot;But your letter was the first intimation that another tribe more numerous and powerful than all the rest were grown discontented.&amp;quot; I have the feeling that he is kind of mocking her by saying that this is the first he has ever heard of women being discontented with their social status. But, what he says about women being the biggest &amp;quot;tribe&amp;quot; of them all is correct because if all the women decided to ban together under one common goal, they could deny the men everything until they got what they wanted. This is unrealistic, though, because to make it effective, most if not all women would have to have a common goal to reform, and (especially at that time), it appears that not all women cared enough to have a political say in things, etc. -Kristina.S.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
So, Abigail Adams is pretty much awesome, right? In these letters we’ve got her threatening to start a rebellion if the ladies are ignored. Obviously, she is joking to a certain extent, but her use of the patriot’s rhetoric is interesting: “we will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation (128).” Sounds familiar, but John Adams conveniently ignores her fair points, though he does pay the ladies a “compliment” about how their “Tribe is more numerous and powerful than all the rest.” He throws back a few snappy one-liners and shows he can use hot button words too, particularly about “the Despotism of the Peticoat.” Still, Abigail gets the best line: “That your sex are Naturally Tyrannical is a Truth so thoroughly established as to admit no dispute.” It seems that though it is acceptable for women to have political sentiment, it doesn’t mean men will necessarily take it seriously. How surprising. I’m sure Abigail was quite objectionable to that dismissal and quite loud about it too. Oh, to be a fly on the wall in the Adams household! I&amp;#039;ll bring the popcorn! -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Benjamin Rush, “Thoughts upon female education,” 1787 (Philadelphia) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Judith Sargent Murray, 1790, “on the Equality of the Sexes” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Taylor &amp;amp; Duffin Report Molly Brant&amp;#039;s Opinions and Influence, 1778 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Daniel Claus assesses Molly Brant&amp;#039;s Influence, 1779 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Esther DeBerdt Reed, “Sentiments of an American Woman,” 1780 ==&lt;br /&gt;
I admire women during the American Revolution because they took this opportunity to try to change things for themselves.  I think their experiences made them stronger and gave them a stronger sense of who they were outside of the home. They were not afraid to speak out.  They knew the purpose of this war and supported their families - even if that meant throwing themselves into harm&amp;#039;s way.  Esther Deberdt Reed did not want women to go unnoticed for their bravery in this war.  She doesn&amp;#039;s take away the bravery of men but men were the ones who were looked at as &amp;quot;the hero.&amp;quot;  She said it beautifully when she wrote, &amp;quot;we should at least equal, and sometimes surpass them in our love for the public good.&amp;quot;  -Marsha Himes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Thomas Jefferson’s Slaves Join the British, 1781 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sarah Osborn, Camp Follower, Recalls the Revolution, 1837 ==&lt;br /&gt;
I found the writings from Sarah Osborn effective in studying women&amp;#039;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, &amp;quot;Are not you soldier enough to know what it means?&amp;quot; I found this to mean the soldiers treated her as an equal and should know the rules of the army, &amp;quot;mans world&amp;quot;. 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mary Jemison Views the Revolution ==&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the article that featured Mary Jemison&amp;#039;s views on the Revolution. The was in depth and described the actions of the Iroquois Indians in detail. I could tell that she accepted the Indians as her people when she said &amp;quot;my Indian brother&amp;quot;, and when she said &amp;quot;...&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;we&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; sustained no loss in the war...&amp;quot; She felt she was a part of the tribe and they were her family. She describes how some Indians decided to go against the treaty that was made with the colonists to help the British fight. She describes many battles that were fought, and how ultimately many of her people suffered. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Thomas Paine in 1775, from Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 288-289 ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== An Anonymous Woman Claims Women&amp;#039;s Rights in 1780, from Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 293-294 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;[s]ometimes surpass them in our love for the public good.&amp;quot; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the opinions of this woman who was defending her rights. She had good points to make including mentioning famous  heroines and when she said &amp;quot;...women have been seen forgetting the weakness of their sex, building new walls..&amp;quot; She is describing how women are strong and not only take on the burdens and stress of being a female and living day to day but also taking care of their families and those around them. -Amy Van Ness&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mhimes</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_5_Questions/Comments-327_09</id>
		<title>Week 5 Questions/Comments-327 09</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_5_Questions/Comments-327_09"/>
				<updated>2009-09-23T13:48:22Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mhimes: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;I found the writings from Sarah Osborn effective in studying women&amp;#039;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, &amp;quot;Are not you soldier enough to know what it means?&amp;quot; I found this to mean the soldiers treated her as an equal and should know the rules of the army, &amp;quot;mans world&amp;quot;. 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An American Woman Asserts Women&amp;#039;s Rights, 1780&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;[s]ometimes surpass them in our love for the public good.&amp;quot; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abigail Adams, &amp;quot;Remembering the Ladies&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
I love this letter.  When Abigail wrote this letter to her husband she hoped that he would include women in the new code of laws.  She wasn&amp;#039;t afraid to say that if they were not recognized they would rebel.  He laughed at her request for women to be included in those laws.  She even wrote to her friend Mercy Warren, trying to get a petition going of their greviances.  An interesting point was when Abigail wrote back to her husband and said, &amp;quot;we have it in our power not only to free ouselves but to subdue our masters.&amp;quot;  She was telling him that women had a lot more power than men realize.  By the power of persuation and a woman&amp;#039;s wit and charm, women could get their masters to submit to whatever they wanted.  Abigail was very &amp;quot;saucy&amp;quot;  and is not afraid to tell her husband what she thinks and admits she will fight against laws that have no representation for women. I like that Abigail saw this as a golden opportunity for women to seek out more liberties and express themselves in this new government these men were creating.  -Marsha Himes&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mhimes</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_4_Questions/Comments-327_09</id>
		<title>Week 4 Questions/Comments-327 09</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_4_Questions/Comments-327_09"/>
				<updated>2009-09-16T18:40:09Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mhimes: /* Landon Carter complains about his female slaves (1771-1773) */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Cross-source questions/comments ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Anne Bradstreet, “A Spiritual Autobiography,” ~1670 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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….&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;#039;&amp;#039;being a women not fit for our society&amp;#039;&amp;#039;….”  Harsh words. --Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The covenant of works is God&amp;#039;s promise to Adam. In return for perfect obedience, he would merit God&amp;#039;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 &amp;quot;after the fall, the free gifts on which salvation depends were withdrawn, and natural gifts corrupted and defiled&amp;quot; (Calvin). [[http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/english/melani/novel_18c/defoe/puritanism.html#works]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was also confused about what that means. I know Dr. M said in class that she was charged with saying bad things about the ministers and going against the church so I&amp;#039;m guessing that is what that means. -- Katelyn Lease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I read Anne Bradstreet’s spiritual autobiography, I was amazed by the necessity of Puritans to deny their individual wants, needs, and rationale. Anne described joining the church as ‘submitting’. When Anne was sick, she said God was trying to humble her. Then once God finally granted Anne children, she began a new struggle to extinguish their individuality and worked “till Christ bee formed in you [her children].”(pg 100) Given this context, one can see that an individual thinking on his/her own, such as Anne Hutchinson, was very radical and seen as dangerous. -Allison Luthern&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Anne Hutchinson’s trial, 1637 ==&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding Anne Hutchinson&amp;#039;s Trial&lt;br /&gt;
I find it interesting that whenever the governor asks her a question that she rebukes it.  In particular, when the governor asks her why she keeps a meeting at her house on a set day.  She responds that is lawful for her to do so.  Implying that she has not broken any law and then puts &amp;quot;unlawful act&amp;quot; in his lap by saying &amp;quot;can you find a warrant for yourself and condemn me for the same thing?&amp;quot;  Meaning do you not have a religious meetings in your home. She is witty and clever with her words in proving her case.  The governor seems to stumble to find fault towards her act of meeting.  With each question the governor asked she has a rebuttal.  -Marsha Himes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anne Hutchinson’s transgressions seemed to take on a deeper significance to Puritan leaders because of her gender. Not only did she express a different, radical theology, she, a woman, preached this theology to men. When the court asked her if she taught men, Anne Hutchinson artfully replied that she was teaching the men of the court at that very moment. To these leaders, Anne Hutchinson threatened their religion and their patriarchal social order where women never had authority over men.  -Allison Luthern&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Lancashire, England Women’s Meeting structure, Quaker women in 1675 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== David Brainerd, 1746, account of the Great Awakening ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Remarkable Instance of Awakening-Woloch Reading&lt;br /&gt;
The ideas ministers had during the Great Awakening seize to amaze me, as in David Brainerd&amp;#039;s case he really did believe he was saving the young Indian woman. &amp;quot;This was indeed a suprising day of God&amp;#039;s power, and seemed enough to convince an atheist of the truth, importance, and power of God&amp;#039;s word.&amp;quot; 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 &amp;quot;uncivilized&amp;quot;? -Megan W. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Narrative of Old Elizabeth, published in 1863 when she was 97, about her religious conversion in the 1770s. ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Elizabeth Godman lawsuit (1653); Elizabeth Godman tried for witchcraft, 1655 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I understand that it was a completely different time and that the Puritans and other early colonists believed in witchcraft. But, when I started reading this story it almost made me laugh. Mr. Atwaters had dreams about witches while his son was sick so that made him think that a witch made his son sick. It just seems so crazy to me. I was also surprised that Elizabeth could sue her neighbors for calling her a witch. I guess since this instance was before the 1692 witch trials in Salem Village, maybe it wasn&amp;#039;t taken so seriously. Why do you think Elizabeth Godman&amp;#039;s situation was different from the witch trials in Salem Village?--Katelyn Lease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Bridget Bishop convicted of witchcraft 1692; “Casco Girls” accuse George Burroughs, 1692 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree that they really do jump to conclusions. It is like they think there could be no other possible reason why the pigs died. I think it goes back to what we talked about in class, that maybe the accusers were accusing people of witchcraft to show that they are holy. Because only the truly holy people could recognize evil? Religion is such a huge influence on the NE colonists. I think that cases like Bridget Bishop and George Burroughs show just how strong that influence was. --Katelyn Lease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Elizabeth Sandwith Drinker, wealthy Philadelphia woman, diary – 1758-1794 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Landon Carter complains about his female slaves (1771-1773) ==&lt;br /&gt;
You can read throughout his complaints, he sees himself to be superior to them, calling them &amp;quot;absurd&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;lazy and careless.&amp;quot;  As he complains about how someone must be there when they are cutting down the tobacco or they will do it wrong.  Is someone around to show his slaves how to properly do it or explain to them?  I&amp;#039;m sure the complaints of slaves being in pain are legitimate and Landon Carter is just not sympathetic to their aches and pains.  He disregards their complaints and treats them like work horses.  He says they need a &amp;quot;good whipping&amp;quot; and that will make the pain go away as it cured Mrs. Dairy Mary&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;invisible pain in her hip.&amp;quot;  Then eventually he admits that no matter what the punishment they still will not work well because they are negros.  I think that during that time that negro slaves were looked at inferior to the white colonists but what was the degree of treatment of slaves? Was Landon Carter&amp;#039;s assumption about negro slaves generally agreed upon or was he the exception?  When I read George Washington Assigns Work to His Slaves, there wasn&amp;#039;t any comments about slaves being mistreated. -Marsha Himes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== George Washington&amp;#039;s slave list (1786) and slave work assignments (1786-88) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Eulalia Perez Recalls her work in a mission in Spanish CA in early 19th Century (1877) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Karin Wulf, “Women’s Work in Colonial Philadelphia,” 2000 ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mhimes</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_4_Questions/Comments-327_09</id>
		<title>Week 4 Questions/Comments-327 09</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_4_Questions/Comments-327_09"/>
				<updated>2009-09-16T13:15:42Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mhimes: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;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….&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;#039;&amp;#039;being a women not fit for our society&amp;#039;&amp;#039;….”  Harsh words. --Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The covenant of works is God&amp;#039;s promise to Adam. In return for perfect obedience, he would merit God&amp;#039;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 &amp;quot;after the fall, the free gifts on which salvation depends were withdrawn, and natural gifts corrupted and defiled&amp;quot; (Calvin). [[http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/english/melani/novel_18c/defoe/puritanism.html#works]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Remarkable Instance of Awakening-Woloch Reading&lt;br /&gt;
The ideas ministers had during the Great Awakening seize to amaze me, as in David Brainerd&amp;#039;s case he really did believe he was saving the young Indian woman. &amp;quot;This was indeed a suprising day of God&amp;#039;s power, and seemed enough to convince an atheist of the truth, importance, and power of God&amp;#039;s word.&amp;quot; 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 &amp;quot;uncivilized&amp;quot;? -Megan W. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding Anne Hutchinson&amp;#039;s Trial&lt;br /&gt;
I find it interesting that whenever the governor asks her a question that she rebukes it.  In particular, when the governor asks her why she keeps a meeting at her house on a set day.  She responds that is lawful for her to do so.  Implying that she has not broken any law and then puts &amp;quot;unlawful act&amp;quot; in his lap by saying &amp;quot;can you find a warrant for yourself and condemn me for the same thing?&amp;quot;  Meaning do you not have a religious meetings in your home. She is witty and clever with her words in proving her case.  The governor seems to stumble to find fault towards her act of meeting.  With each question the governor asked she has a rebuttal.  -Marsha Himes&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mhimes</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_3_Questions/Comments-327_09</id>
		<title>Week 3 Questions/Comments-327 09</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_3_Questions/Comments-327_09"/>
				<updated>2009-09-09T18:58:06Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mhimes: /* Esther Burr, 1756-57, Tied hand and foot */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Overarching/comparative comments ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Katherine Kish Sklar article, “To Use her as His Wife” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Benjamin Wadsworth, 1712 – Well-Ordered Family ==&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;s head and that he is meant to govern over her. Wadsworth says that the &amp;quot;husband&amp;#039;s government ought to be gentle and easy, and the wife&amp;#039;s obedience ready and cheerful&amp;quot;. I think Wadsworth&amp;#039;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 &amp;quot;the Devil&amp;#039;s work&amp;quot; and it dishonors God. Today, it&amp;#039;s pretty clear that every married couple argues sometimes and that doesn&amp;#039;t mean you are doing the &amp;quot;devil&amp;#039;s work&amp;quot;. -Katelyn Lease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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, &amp;quot;man is the woman&amp;#039;s head&amp;quot; thing. The quote that really caught my eye was when he was talking to women and said, &amp;quot;God has made him (husband), your head, and set him above you, and made it your duty to love and revere him.&amp;quot; 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Susanna Wesley, 1732, Evangelical Child-Rearing ==&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;That civil behavior which made them admired when they were at home by all who saw them was in a great measure lost,...&amp;quot; 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&amp;#039;s?-Kristina .S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Eliza Pinckney, 1750s, To Improve in Every Virtue ==&lt;br /&gt;
Eliza Pinckney&amp;#039;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 &amp;quot;to be decent but frugal in my own expences&amp;quot;, 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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Esther Burr, 1756-57, Tied hand and foot ==&lt;br /&gt;
In Esther Burr&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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 &amp;quot;I talked him quite silent.&amp;quot;  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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Abigail Bailey, 1815, Abominable Wickedness ==&lt;br /&gt;
Abigail Bailey&amp;#039;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 &amp;quot;acting on principle and with mature consideration.&amp;quot;  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&amp;#039;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.  &lt;br /&gt;
-Marsha Himes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== New Spain’s (New Mexico’s) moral code as dictated by the Spanish Crown in 1752 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Laws on Slave Descent in VA and MD, 1662, 1664, 1691, 1692 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Skilled slaves in Maryland, 1748-1763, Maryland Gazette ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Complaint of Elizabeth Sprigs, indentured servant, 1756 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Apprenticeship in PA, 1771-1773, Record of Indentures ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Advertisements, Gazettes of VA, PA, SC, NY – 1751-1776 ==&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised that there were so many advertisements for schools for young women. I found the ad for Mrs. Duneau&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;s school taught French, English, math, geography, writing, and of course, needlework. I was also surprised that many of the school&amp;#039;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&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mhimes</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_3_Questions/Comments-327_09</id>
		<title>Week 3 Questions/Comments-327 09</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_3_Questions/Comments-327_09"/>
				<updated>2009-09-09T18:09:18Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mhimes: /* Abigail Bailey, 1815, Abominable Wickedness */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Overarching/comparative comments ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Katherine Kish Sklar article, “To Use her as His Wife” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Benjamin Wadsworth, 1712 – Well-Ordered Family ==&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;s head and that he is meant to govern over her. Wadsworth says that the &amp;quot;husband&amp;#039;s government ought to be gentle and easy, and the wife&amp;#039;s obedience ready and cheerful&amp;quot;. I think Wadsworth&amp;#039;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 &amp;quot;the Devil&amp;#039;s work&amp;quot; and it dishonors God. Today, it&amp;#039;s pretty clear that every married couple argues sometimes and that doesn&amp;#039;t mean you are doing the &amp;quot;devil&amp;#039;s work&amp;quot;. -Katelyn Lease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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, &amp;quot;man is the woman&amp;#039;s head&amp;quot; thing. The quote that really caught my eye was when he was talking to women and said, &amp;quot;God has made him (husband), your head, and set him above you, and made it your duty to love and revere him.&amp;quot; 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Susanna Wesley, 1732, Evangelical Child-Rearing ==&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;That civil behavior which made them admired when they were at home by all who saw them was in a great measure lost,...&amp;quot; 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&amp;#039;s?-Kristina .S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Eliza Pinckney, 1750s, To Improve in Every Virtue ==&lt;br /&gt;
Eliza Pinckney&amp;#039;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 &amp;quot;to be decent but frugal in my own expences&amp;quot;, 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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Esther Burr, 1756-57, Tied hand and foot ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Abigail Bailey, 1815, Abominable Wickedness ==&lt;br /&gt;
Abigail Bailey&amp;#039;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 &amp;quot;acting on principle and with mature consideration.&amp;quot;  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&amp;#039;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.  &lt;br /&gt;
-Marsha Himes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== New Spain’s (New Mexico’s) moral code as dictated by the Spanish Crown in 1752 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Laws on Slave Descent in VA and MD, 1662, 1664, 1691, 1692 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Skilled slaves in Maryland, 1748-1763, Maryland Gazette ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Complaint of Elizabeth Sprigs, indentured servant, 1756 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Apprenticeship in PA, 1771-1773, Record of Indentures ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Advertisements, Gazettes of VA, PA, SC, NY – 1751-1776 ==&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised that there were so many advertisements for schools for young women. I found the ad for Mrs. Duneau&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;s school taught French, English, math, geography, writing, and of course, needlework. I was also surprised that many of the school&amp;#039;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&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mhimes</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_2_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>Week 2 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_2_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2009-09-02T14:57:05Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mhimes: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I found it interesting in the passage by John Heckewelder( page 30- 33) in Modern Problems where he says that the women&amp;#039;s work load was so much lighter than that of the mens.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I found this particularly interesting because in one of my classes last semester we read some articles about Europeans reactions to Native American society in Virginia and it said how lazy the European men felt that the Indian men were because it appeared that the women did the majority of the work within the village. I thought it was interesting seeing the different views that this reading exposed. - Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Continuing from what Elizabeth wrote, It is infact very intersting to see how different groups of people play differnt roles, and how each group views those roles played by each gender.--Katie D.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too was interested by the passage about women’s work written by John Heckewelder. I actually found myself getting a little miffed at him for saying such a thing. However, Mary Jemison somewhat backs up what he says in the account of her captivity. She hints that the work was different from the work that white women had to face, but in the end, it all equaled out. “Our labor was not severe; and that of one year was exactly similar in almost every respect to that of the others, with out that endless variety that is to be observed in the common labor of white people…their task is probably not harder than that of white women…” (Woloch 21). Of course, Jemison doesn’t really mention men’s work in her passage, so it’s hard to tell if Seneca men compare to the “macho men” that Heckewelder describes. --Kaitlyn G.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was also a bit baffled at Heckewelder&amp;#039;s discription and thought it contrasted so some of the ideas that I interpreted from our lecture on Tuesday. I got from the lecture that women not only pulled their weight, but really did more than that. Granted the region really determined the labor of both genders, but I got that women worked a lot harder than Heckewelder was describing. Maybe I&amp;#039;m just being a &amp;quot;feminist&amp;quot;- but I do not think that Hechewelder was giving women enough credit- but who is surprised about that? -- Talya Halpern&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;gt;&amp;gt; I do not think that I am being dense when I say that I think that Heckewelder&amp;#039;s comments were not all that far from the truth when I compare his writing to our class lecture and to the account from Jemison. He may have exaggerated some about just how difficult men&amp;#039;s work was but from where I am sitting it does not seem that easy to hunt animals or fight a war. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Heckewelder does seem to have an interesting account of the way a marriage works but I also wonder if by the time he is doing his observations that the society which he was studying had changed its ways seeing as how this account comes from 1819 not the late 1600s or mid 1700s.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (Julie Castanien)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heckewelder&amp;#039;s discription also described the women as being &amp;quot;...cheerful.&amp;quot; Maybe it was a European interpretation that smiling and cheerfulness was through the fear of the great stong Native American men. Now in the prespective of a historian who knows a bit more about the Native American culture it can be frustrating to read some accounts of Europeans and their interactions with the Natives. Women as we learned are cheerful not out of fear- maybe they were cheerful because they did have some power and influence over the tribes. If Heckewelder observed the strange freedoms that men and women had with marriage, could the connection not be made that these women have lots of liberties in other aspects of their societies and culture? - Talya Halpern&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Woloch&amp;#039;s book, having to do with marriage and treatment of their wives,(p.9-11), &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I found it intersting how he says that there are many persons who believe, from the labour that they see the Indian women perform, that they are in a manner treated as slaves.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; These labours, indeed, are hard, compared with the tasks that are imposed upon females in civilized society, but they are no more than their fair share of the hardships attendant on savage life. So they are not only voluntarily, but cheerfully submitted to the work. &lt;br /&gt;
--Katie D.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Katie, I was also interested in the idea that somehow fieldwork alone made slaves, but housework did not...Is there any explanation for that, Dr. McClurken? Or someone else who saw something I missed?--A. Meyer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is a total shot in the dark, but from a European perspective, I think that they would be used to women doing domestic work as opposed to working in the fields. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Taking care of the home was a woman&amp;#039;s place in European society and when seeing a Native woman doing those tasks, that was a normal thing to them. However, when women were working in the fields, a red flag must have gone up and they were like &amp;quot;Whoa, must be a slave.&amp;quot;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I don&amp;#039;t know, just a kind of [bad] a guess.--Kaitlyn G.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Throughout the personal narratives we have read, it has become obvious that Europeans thought their way of life to be far more superior to the way of life of the Natives they encountered. Due to the fact that they had never seen a society perform this way, Europeans defined this foreign culture as erroneous and thought it their divine right to intervene. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Are there any current examples of this “responsibility” to intrude on foreign societies and make them like ours?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Without trying to make this a political argument, one may argue the situation in Iraq. For instance, an attempt was made by the U.S. to spread democracy to this dictatorship. - Lisa Wilkerson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lisa, I would have to agree with you.  The term manifest destiny comes to mind.  Though the term may not be as common anymore, the ideology certainly still exists.  It was this idea that enabled the Europeans to justify their dealings with the Native Americans and any others who came accross the European&amp;#039;s path.  -- Elizabeth H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;This brings to mind the anthropological term of ethnocentrism to me.  As the term suggests, the Europeans looked at the world through their own cultural perspective, believing that they are superior.  All other societies are therefore judged based on their own views/culture/lifestyle.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  --Alex K.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems to me that Europeans have always had that attitude, that their culture is by far superior, and everything different is wrong or barbaric.  They hold this thought when even comparing themselves to one another or other countries with Europe.  Imposing our own sense of morality and values, however, is prevalent in society today.  Many people try to paint the world in absolutes, in black and white, but things are rarely that simple, just as we have seen in these primary accounts. ~Juliann B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;gt;&amp;gt; &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I think that it is not possible to look at other cultures without using your own as a point of comparison. Now we do the best we can to be unbiased but we still have certain tendencies to misunderstand others.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;   (Julie Castanien)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Though Native Americans were not nearly as interfering in the lives of European settlers as the settlers were to them I think it is safe to say that the Native Americans would have viewed the European way of life as erroneous and as something that needed to be corrected as well.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; In fact, with what we know of Native Americans sharing their ways of farming it is possible that Native Americans felt and acted in the same way, seeing Europeans as ignorant and behind the times, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;only we do not have any primary sources to back up their of the story.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Anyway all I am trying to say is that the Europeans most likely were not the only ones looking down on another group of people. Just interesting to remember that we only have one side of the story.  --Allison J.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;To what extent were European prejudices against natives based on differences about gender roles? To what extent were they more based on standards of living and tools? If native peoples had similar gender roles to Europeans, would the Europeans have had better gender relations, or would they still be doomed due to European prejudices about tools or desires for land?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;--Andrea Meyer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t think similar gender roles would have solved all the problems between Native American and European relations but I think it definitely would have helped the situation.  Had they been more alike, both sides ethnocentrism would not have been so strong.  I think this would have reduced the tension between the groups.  People fear what they don&amp;#039;t understand.  --Alex K.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We have several accounts of Native men being introduced to European ideas about gender and the absolute rights European men had in the 17th century. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;How frequently and quickly did Natives apply these ideas, and how did the application process disrupt Native family dynamics? Because all our accounts are from Europeans, we really don&amp;#039;t have any sense of how things were within the Native families when European ideas were experimented with. Did Native women resist European ideals or did some accept these &amp;quot;new&amp;quot; roles?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;--Andrea Meyer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;It’s amazing that over 300 years later we are running into the same storylines. The story of Sarah Ahhaton committing adultery sounds as if it could’ve been taken right off the front pages of People Magazine.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; It’s surprising to see the parallels between our two time periods. Sarah accused her husband, William, of philandering long before he became suspicious and jealous of her relationship with Joseph. Yet, William was not put on trial and was not questioned about his unfaithfulness. It was Sarah who was wrongfully accused, pleaded innocent, and was ridiculed before she had even committed the sin (granted William did have a right to speculate- but that’s not the point). Why wasn’t William ever questioned about his running around? And what about Joseph- he gets off scot-free! What we see here is something that has continually found its way into society: &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;the double standard&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.- Lisa Wilkerson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I completely agree with Lisa on the Sarah Ahhaton reading.  I wonder, though, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;why was Joseph&amp;#039;s mother who seemed to be setting the whole affair up never confronted?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; She seems like she was intentionally trying to get things started between Sarah and Joseph, and Sarah ends up taking all the blame and punishment.  I think at the very least Joseph should have been held accountable for his part but maybe that is just putting my values on them.   &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I wonder why when it was so easy for Indian women or men to divorce, why was Sarah made into such an example?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  ~~Mary Beth Conrad&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In discussing Sarah Ahhaton, I think &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;it&amp;#039;s important to remember that Sarah was a converted Indian; her husband was a Native American Christian minister, and she herself was a professed Christian.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  While it may have been easy for Indian men and women to divorce before contact with Europeans, Sarah&amp;#039;s conversion makes her, to a certain extent, subject to the same moral code and laws governing Christians.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;As an Indian, moreover, she would possibly be under even more scrutiny as Europeans expected Indians to return to their &amp;quot;savage&amp;quot; ways.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -- Ashley Hamilton&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(Plane Essay) &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Did the fact that Sarah Ahhaton told the story to an Englishman have any effect on the narrative?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Could the Englishman have perhaps asked leading questions that may have skewed her story?  - F.Cobb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Woloch page 21, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;the recollections of Mary Jemison, I was really struck by her point of view on the work and labor of Indian women&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. &amp;quot;Our labor was not severe... Notwithstanding the Indian women have all the fuel and bread to procure, and the cooking to perform, their task is probably not harder that that of white women, who have those articles provided for them; and their cares certainly are not half as numerous, nor half as great.&amp;quot; As a European woman now being held in captivity, I think it&amp;#039;s a more trustworthy look at the work of Indian women versus the work of white women. -- Vanessa Smiley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;One of the things I personally liked about the Woloch reading was that she, right from the get go, reminded us that most women in the early period were not literate&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -- they could not read or write and therefore most of what we know about them comes from men or writings of elite, white women.  I think that we, as historians need to keep that in mind when analyzing and studying these sorts of materials because more often than not, these stories and facts are altered or skewed in some way. -- Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the reading posted on Black Board it talks about how Christianity changed the gender roles and how women were treated. It shocked me that the women were summoned to a council and told that their influence basically had caused demons to come into the village (at least thats the impression I got). Also &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;in that reading I saw how native american society ended up being very similar to the European  society in which women were expected to be pure and loyal only to her husband and if she wasn&amp;#039;t she was punished where as well men were SUPPOSED to be they often weren&amp;#039;t and weren&amp;#039;t punished for their adultery. I also am wondering why women let themselves be pushed into a role where they had less influence, if I had been in that position I&amp;#039;m positive I would have fought back.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Does anyone else have thoughts on the black board reading?- Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I noticed that &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Father Le Leune cites the possible corruption of Indian men as the main reasoning behind the conversion of Indian women:&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; &amp;quot;for the boys that we shall have reared in the knowledge of God, when they marry Savage girls or women accustomed to wandering in the woods, will, as their husbands, be compelled to follow them and thus fall back into barbarism, or to leave them.&amp;quot;  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Did anyone else find this an interesting extension of the Christian concepts of original sin and Eve&amp;#039;s fall in the Garden of Eden?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -- Ashley Hamilton&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;One of the contributing reasons for some native women losing power and not &amp;quot;fighting back&amp;quot; might have been the fact that European&amp;#039;s justified their lifestyle and gender roles with lessons from Christianity.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Wrestling with a new notion of God must have been unbelievably overwhelming and with the threat of hell looming perhaps women surrendered power, in part, because of fear of the consequences of acting against Christianity or European morals. - Kelly Martin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I found it pretty interesting in the Woloch reading the complete opposite views of the two women captives.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Mary Rowlandson seems to really hate being with the Indians even while she was trying to figure out why God had allowed this to happen to her. She also seemed to contridict herself as far as her treatment..sometimes harshly and sometimes with mercy.  The other captive Mary Jemison chose to stay with her captives even though they killed all of her relatives. She even says her situation was easy (pg 20).  She even describes her Indian &amp;quot;sisters&amp;quot; as &amp;quot;peaceable and mild in their dispositions; temperment and decent in their habits, and very tender and gentle&amp;quot; towards her (pg21).  I wonder if the difference is just how each individual tribe responded to the settlers or if was because of the time periods they lived in?  Did the Indians attitude towards the settlers change that dramatically? ~~Mary Beth Conrad&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it is really important to remember, as we are reading Mary Rowlandson&amp;#039;s narrative, that she had just lost a child. A lot of her animosity and unhappiness could be attributed to the sadness of losing a child rather than the harsh and savage treatment of the Native Americans. Maybe this is why there are some inconsistencies in here account. Such as describing Native Americans as cruel but one paragraph later mentioning how one family took her in and fed her. -- Allison J.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Alison about Rowlandson&amp;#039;s account of captivity might have been influenced by her sadness. Also, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Rowlandson was described as a &amp;quot;middle-aged minister&amp;#039;s wife,&amp;quot; while at the time of her initial capture, Jemison was a teenager.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I wonder how much Rowlandson&amp;#039;s previous life experiences and beliefs influenced her views on the natives. Rowlandson&amp;#039;s account of the natives seems inconsistent. One could speculate that Rowlandson&amp;#039;s opinions about the Native Americans were formed prior to her capture and this might contribute to her negative view of them. -Kelly Martin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also agree with you, Allison, but &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;if you read some of what Mary Rowlandson discusses, at one point she actually takes food from a starving child who is also a captive (pg 15).  As a general question, do you believe she would do this sort of thing out of spite towards children?  Or was she merely just trying to survive in what she considered a horrid world?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -- Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Kelly&amp;#039;s comment about Mary Rowlandson taking food from a starving child, I think Mary was just trying to survive in what she considered a horrid world.  It seemed to me that she had an attitude of every person for themselves, and she was looking out for herself by eating the child&amp;#039;s food.  ~Katherine S.~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also thought it was really interesting to see the differences in opinion between the captive stories of Mary Jemison and Mary Rowlandson. As Allison said above, it is important to note that Mary Rowlandson did loose a child. I think some other factors that account for their differences could be that Mary Jemison was younger when she was taken and didn’t have a husband or children. Also, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Rowlandson was taken during a period of harship and war for the natives serving as her captors.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; This could account for more harsh living conditions. &lt;br /&gt;
-- Jennifer Feldhaus&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it rather interesting when reading Woloch&amp;#039;s passage (on page 4) that &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;a few Indian women actually benefited from European arrival.  Those women in hunting tribes benefited through expanded fur trade.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  While I realize that the majority of women suffered an extremely negative impact from the Europeans, I found this example somewhat unusual. -- Elizabeth H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Replying to Andrea Meyers question up above, I too thought about that at first. It&amp;#039;s not like European men just expected their wives to just lull about and look pretty. However, I don&amp;#039;t think Europeans didn&amp;#039;t think women should not do any work I think it was just based on the kind of work they did. Women should not to do work in the fields, however they should do work in the house. It&amp;#039;s also a lot less rigourous. Men should be in the fields. -- Emily Miller&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was interested by the two writings of the English man and woman who had been adopted into an Native American tribe to replace children who had died.  (Mary Jemison writing in Woloch and John Tanner in MP). &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Was this a common practice?  Why were the Native Americans so accepting of white people?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Perhaps the two writings are just examples of the exception rather than the norm? - F. Cobb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;gt;&amp;gt;to answer your question, yes &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;it was a common practice to adopt prisoners of war as substitutes for fallen kinsmen/women&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. Frequently there was some type of ritual that tested the adoptee which is was Jemison was talking about at the beginning of her account. If the person was able to handle the test he or she was adopted. (Julie Castanien)  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Just as a general question, was Mary Jemison&amp;#039;s situation common, in the sense that she did not want to move back into white society when the Native Americans allowed her to?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Perhaps she chose to remain with the Native Americans because she was captured when she was young and life with the Native Americans was the only life she knew and felt comfortable in. ~Katherine S.~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was interesting to read John Heckewelder’s passage on Indian marriages because they are different from the European or American institution of marriage.  For instance marriages among Indians are not contracts for life, there are no vows, or promises and either party can leave whenever they please.  Heckewelder describes an Indian marriage being more like a working partnership where the husband performs certain tasks such as building the house and hunting and the woman acts as his help mate and labors in the field.  I would have loved to read more about different aspects of Indian marriages instead of just learning about the work that both parties perform and that divorce is not viewed as seriously as it was in  Europe and America at the time.  Unfortunately since so few first hand records remain we have to rely on white European men’s accounts which  leave out important details and always carry bias.-Caitlin Quinn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I get the impression that Samuel de Champlain was rather surprised at the physical appearance of the Native Americans.  His statements about their physical presence really seem to give me the impression that those back-home in Europe were really at a loss as to what to expect in the New World.  The statement that their skin color is beautiful, &amp;quot;although olive&amp;quot; was rather amusing for its historical value.   &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Also of interest was John Tanner&amp;#039;s talk of being drunk and of his Native American adopted mother, Net-no-kwa, being drunk.  The native Americans had whiskey?  And was drunkeness something common?  That always seemed like a western, European thing to me.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  John was supposedly drunk for two days, and did nobody really notice?  I guess it really gives the modern person a real sense of their life span when a thirteen year old boy would be drunk for two days and nobody really reacting to it.  It was also interesting to see how the trade of John was affected by, as it seems, getting everybody tipsy.   -Chris Plummer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;gt;&amp;gt;Whoops I made an error in my input, I mistakenly placed my input under the discussion tab sorry&amp;gt;&amp;gt; ...Better teach the girls for they will corrupt the boys.  I’m sure this sentence got most of you upset.  It got me upset when I read the short blackboard article of Father Le Jeune.  It seems that once again girls would lead the God fearing boys into the path of barbarism and the evil that it entails.  This very much parallels with the Biblical account of Adam and Eve where of course Eve brought sin upon all of humankind. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Also is Le Jeune referring men and women as boys and girls, belittling Indian adults as mere children&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;?  Sort of elevating himself as a lofty religious figurehead whereas the Indian adults are mere children since they are only beginning to understand God. Le Jeune’s account reminds me of the domesticity issues of the mid 20th century as in Elaine Tyler May’s book Homeward Bound, where the sex of women, if left untamed by men, were compared to being radioactively explosive thus leading men to the path of destruction. –John Furner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Out of curiosity, (at least, I don&amp;#039;t think anyone&amp;#039;s mentioned this yet) &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;what did everyone think of the Chinook tale at the end of the Woloch readings&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;?  It describes what the Indians saw when the Europeans approached which is a different point of view than most historians are used to.  Thoughts? -- Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this weeks readings to be strikingly similar to those I covered in Prof. Poska&amp;#039;s Gender and Empire course last semester.  We spent most of the semester discussing how the different nations, particullary England, France, Spain, Portugal and the Danes, encountered the Natives of the New World, as well as the gendered social structures of some of the native tribes. The lecture of this week, as well as the reading, does a wonderful job of providing a detailed overview of some of the ideas from the course last semester, particullary the idea that all encounters with the natives were influenced by baises and preconceptions that the european&amp;#039;s had about the natives and native culture, as well as european gender constructs.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Taking the idea that almost all interactions with the natives were colored by social and gender preconceptions, how much should we trust what the english are writing about, and how much of it should we be leary about using as &amp;#039;historical fact&amp;#039; and do the documents tell us just about the natives or could they also be used as a way to explore european preconceptions and social/gender expectations?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  --Katelynn V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does anyone else wonder what happened to the two Europeans at the end of the Chinook Story, The First Ship?  --Katelynn V. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I think the section from Roger Williams is extremely interesting because the words he choose to document tells a lot of English society and what was imporant to the English in marriage and relationships.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  For example: the english seemed to be concerned about the amount of wives the natives had because he mentions the words for 1,2,3,4...wifes. This makes sense since the english believed that it was proper to only take one wife as stated in the Bible.  Also, in that same section Williams lists the characteristics of a traditionally proper and English wife, loving, proper, sober and chast, ect. This seems to point out that in attempting to make sense of the native lifestyle, williams was looking for similarities between the natives and the english through the use of language. As, this type of rudementary dictionary could have been used as a means of converting the natives by explaining how they were expected to act. Maybe, but more likely it was used as a way to simply try and understand the natvies and their culture in terms that the englsih were familiar with.    --Katelynn V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;As a general theme for the readings in Woloch, I see an interest in the Europeans settlers to explore the gender roles of the Native American tribes, but not to understand them.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; It seems that all observation were commonly related to their own society. With a few exceptions, there was a vivid interest in learning about these people, but only as their gender roles were to be seen as inferior. It is interesting that European women would also agree with this, as it makes me wonder how they felt about their own position and what they wished for it to be. --Robert Kopp&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading each piece and considering all the viewpoints represented, the one piece that really stuck out for me was the Heckewelder piece. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;While I was reading I tried to take into account who the intended audience was and who actually was reading/learning from these pieces.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I found the dictionary completely fascinating and imagined it’s usefulness as a guide not only to language but Indian life. I also found the women’s accounts of captivity interesting and questioned who these pieces were written for…were they forms of entertainment? Were they intended to scare or warn people about women? Were they used to enlighten people to the negative/positive aspects of Indians? &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;And what was the point of the story at the end of the chapter?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; What did it say about Indian culture and/or European culture? &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;However, the one piece that stuck out to me was Heckewelder’s piece and I wondered why he wrote it? Who he wrote it for and why? Was this piece merely an informative piece or was Heckewelder trying to disprove the ideas of Indians as savages? Why did he emphasize the work ethic and power of Indian women as a positive aspect of Indian life?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Audience is an important part to consider when reading and certainly something for us to think about for the rest of the semester.  – Mary Beth Dillane &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the account about Sarah was interesting especially when the essay further discussed various issues about the situation, for example she and her husband were converts to Christianity and therefore automatically subject to European norms (what is that about?)  and how she escapes to Metacom&amp;#039;s village, the hotbed of conflict, between Indians and Europeans for protection (a clever idea if she had only stayed but then again maybe they didn&amp;#039;t want woman there who had adopted European ways). (Julie Castanien)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Champlain piece, I read something enlightening.  The article discussed why many Native American societies were matrilineal.  It was all based on their concept of marriage, how if things were not working out with their respective spouse, one could just end it.  Pregnancy brought back former spouses in the interest of the family.  Yet, their marital customs provided uncertainty to the actual fraternal legitimacy, but of course, the tribe knows who the mother is. ~Juliann B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it interesting how some of these readings regarding native american indians pushed their own views onto an entirely different culture.  They made judgements on how they function as a family, as a village, and their way of life.  An underlying thought is that it wasn&amp;#039;t til those that were captured or had interacted with the indians did they begin to see or change their thought (even if for a moment for some.) An example of this change of thought once captured is the narrative on Mary Jemison.  I really enjoyed the narrative.  I think because she accepted the Seneca way of life and even found love.  When referring to women duties, Mary observes the labor of the Senaca women is much the same as white people and is not severe (as it had been told.)  Though she was young when captured and her immediately family were killed, she still chose to stay with the Seneca Iroquois tribe.  I believe she chose to stay (even after she was offered freedom) because she becomes part of their family and is treated like one of their own and not treated cruel or unkind as portrayed. -Marsha Himes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Woloch,the narrative by Roger Williams, I find it very interesting how he compares Native American women&amp;#039;s childbirth to that of other women.  Most cultures have different customs when it comes to childbirth.  Williams is making the assumption that because they have such hard labor in their daily lives and have &amp;quot;hardnesse of their constitution&amp;quot; that they have somehow escaped God&amp;#039;s curse on Eve on having hard labor during childbirth.  First, it may have not been so fast and easy as he states because each women is different in their pain tolerance.  What Williams experienced may not have been same for all women in the village.  -Marsha Himes&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mhimes</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_2_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>Week 2 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_2_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2009-09-02T13:56:21Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mhimes: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I found it interesting in the passage by John Heckewelder( page 30- 33) in Modern Problems where he says that the women&amp;#039;s work load was so much lighter than that of the mens.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I found this particularly interesting because in one of my classes last semester we read some articles about Europeans reactions to Native American society in Virginia and it said how lazy the European men felt that the Indian men were because it appeared that the women did the majority of the work within the village. I thought it was interesting seeing the different views that this reading exposed. - Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Continuing from what Elizabeth wrote, It is infact very intersting to see how different groups of people play differnt roles, and how each group views those roles played by each gender.--Katie D.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too was interested by the passage about women’s work written by John Heckewelder. I actually found myself getting a little miffed at him for saying such a thing. However, Mary Jemison somewhat backs up what he says in the account of her captivity. She hints that the work was different from the work that white women had to face, but in the end, it all equaled out. “Our labor was not severe; and that of one year was exactly similar in almost every respect to that of the others, with out that endless variety that is to be observed in the common labor of white people…their task is probably not harder than that of white women…” (Woloch 21). Of course, Jemison doesn’t really mention men’s work in her passage, so it’s hard to tell if Seneca men compare to the “macho men” that Heckewelder describes. --Kaitlyn G.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was also a bit baffled at Heckewelder&amp;#039;s discription and thought it contrasted so some of the ideas that I interpreted from our lecture on Tuesday. I got from the lecture that women not only pulled their weight, but really did more than that. Granted the region really determined the labor of both genders, but I got that women worked a lot harder than Heckewelder was describing. Maybe I&amp;#039;m just being a &amp;quot;feminist&amp;quot;- but I do not think that Hechewelder was giving women enough credit- but who is surprised about that? -- Talya Halpern&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;gt;&amp;gt; I do not think that I am being dense when I say that I think that Heckewelder&amp;#039;s comments were not all that far from the truth when I compare his writing to our class lecture and to the account from Jemison. He may have exaggerated some about just how difficult men&amp;#039;s work was but from where I am sitting it does not seem that easy to hunt animals or fight a war. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Heckewelder does seem to have an interesting account of the way a marriage works but I also wonder if by the time he is doing his observations that the society which he was studying had changed its ways seeing as how this account comes from 1819 not the late 1600s or mid 1700s.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (Julie Castanien)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heckewelder&amp;#039;s discription also described the women as being &amp;quot;...cheerful.&amp;quot; Maybe it was a European interpretation that smiling and cheerfulness was through the fear of the great stong Native American men. Now in the prespective of a historian who knows a bit more about the Native American culture it can be frustrating to read some accounts of Europeans and their interactions with the Natives. Women as we learned are cheerful not out of fear- maybe they were cheerful because they did have some power and influence over the tribes. If Heckewelder observed the strange freedoms that men and women had with marriage, could the connection not be made that these women have lots of liberties in other aspects of their societies and culture? - Talya Halpern&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Woloch&amp;#039;s book, having to do with marriage and treatment of their wives,(p.9-11), &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I found it intersting how he says that there are many persons who believe, from the labour that they see the Indian women perform, that they are in a manner treated as slaves.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; These labours, indeed, are hard, compared with the tasks that are imposed upon females in civilized society, but they are no more than their fair share of the hardships attendant on savage life. So they are not only voluntarily, but cheerfully submitted to the work. &lt;br /&gt;
--Katie D.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Katie, I was also interested in the idea that somehow fieldwork alone made slaves, but housework did not...Is there any explanation for that, Dr. McClurken? Or someone else who saw something I missed?--A. Meyer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is a total shot in the dark, but from a European perspective, I think that they would be used to women doing domestic work as opposed to working in the fields. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Taking care of the home was a woman&amp;#039;s place in European society and when seeing a Native woman doing those tasks, that was a normal thing to them. However, when women were working in the fields, a red flag must have gone up and they were like &amp;quot;Whoa, must be a slave.&amp;quot;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I don&amp;#039;t know, just a kind of [bad] a guess.--Kaitlyn G.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Throughout the personal narratives we have read, it has become obvious that Europeans thought their way of life to be far more superior to the way of life of the Natives they encountered. Due to the fact that they had never seen a society perform this way, Europeans defined this foreign culture as erroneous and thought it their divine right to intervene. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Are there any current examples of this “responsibility” to intrude on foreign societies and make them like ours?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Without trying to make this a political argument, one may argue the situation in Iraq. For instance, an attempt was made by the U.S. to spread democracy to this dictatorship. - Lisa Wilkerson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lisa, I would have to agree with you.  The term manifest destiny comes to mind.  Though the term may not be as common anymore, the ideology certainly still exists.  It was this idea that enabled the Europeans to justify their dealings with the Native Americans and any others who came accross the European&amp;#039;s path.  -- Elizabeth H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;This brings to mind the anthropological term of ethnocentrism to me.  As the term suggests, the Europeans looked at the world through their own cultural perspective, believing that they are superior.  All other societies are therefore judged based on their own views/culture/lifestyle.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  --Alex K.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems to me that Europeans have always had that attitude, that their culture is by far superior, and everything different is wrong or barbaric.  They hold this thought when even comparing themselves to one another or other countries with Europe.  Imposing our own sense of morality and values, however, is prevalent in society today.  Many people try to paint the world in absolutes, in black and white, but things are rarely that simple, just as we have seen in these primary accounts. ~Juliann B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;gt;&amp;gt; &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I think that it is not possible to look at other cultures without using your own as a point of comparison. Now we do the best we can to be unbiased but we still have certain tendencies to misunderstand others.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;   (Julie Castanien)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Though Native Americans were not nearly as interfering in the lives of European settlers as the settlers were to them I think it is safe to say that the Native Americans would have viewed the European way of life as erroneous and as something that needed to be corrected as well.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; In fact, with what we know of Native Americans sharing their ways of farming it is possible that Native Americans felt and acted in the same way, seeing Europeans as ignorant and behind the times, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;only we do not have any primary sources to back up their of the story.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Anyway all I am trying to say is that the Europeans most likely were not the only ones looking down on another group of people. Just interesting to remember that we only have one side of the story.  --Allison J.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;To what extent were European prejudices against natives based on differences about gender roles? To what extent were they more based on standards of living and tools? If native peoples had similar gender roles to Europeans, would the Europeans have had better gender relations, or would they still be doomed due to European prejudices about tools or desires for land?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;--Andrea Meyer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t think similar gender roles would have solved all the problems between Native American and European relations but I think it definitely would have helped the situation.  Had they been more alike, both sides ethnocentrism would not have been so strong.  I think this would have reduced the tension between the groups.  People fear what they don&amp;#039;t understand.  --Alex K.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We have several accounts of Native men being introduced to European ideas about gender and the absolute rights European men had in the 17th century. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;How frequently and quickly did Natives apply these ideas, and how did the application process disrupt Native family dynamics? Because all our accounts are from Europeans, we really don&amp;#039;t have any sense of how things were within the Native families when European ideas were experimented with. Did Native women resist European ideals or did some accept these &amp;quot;new&amp;quot; roles?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;--Andrea Meyer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;It’s amazing that over 300 years later we are running into the same storylines. The story of Sarah Ahhaton committing adultery sounds as if it could’ve been taken right off the front pages of People Magazine.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; It’s surprising to see the parallels between our two time periods. Sarah accused her husband, William, of philandering long before he became suspicious and jealous of her relationship with Joseph. Yet, William was not put on trial and was not questioned about his unfaithfulness. It was Sarah who was wrongfully accused, pleaded innocent, and was ridiculed before she had even committed the sin (granted William did have a right to speculate- but that’s not the point). Why wasn’t William ever questioned about his running around? And what about Joseph- he gets off scot-free! What we see here is something that has continually found its way into society: &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;the double standard&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.- Lisa Wilkerson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I completely agree with Lisa on the Sarah Ahhaton reading.  I wonder, though, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;why was Joseph&amp;#039;s mother who seemed to be setting the whole affair up never confronted?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; She seems like she was intentionally trying to get things started between Sarah and Joseph, and Sarah ends up taking all the blame and punishment.  I think at the very least Joseph should have been held accountable for his part but maybe that is just putting my values on them.   &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I wonder why when it was so easy for Indian women or men to divorce, why was Sarah made into such an example?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  ~~Mary Beth Conrad&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In discussing Sarah Ahhaton, I think &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;it&amp;#039;s important to remember that Sarah was a converted Indian; her husband was a Native American Christian minister, and she herself was a professed Christian.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  While it may have been easy for Indian men and women to divorce before contact with Europeans, Sarah&amp;#039;s conversion makes her, to a certain extent, subject to the same moral code and laws governing Christians.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;As an Indian, moreover, she would possibly be under even more scrutiny as Europeans expected Indians to return to their &amp;quot;savage&amp;quot; ways.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -- Ashley Hamilton&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(Plane Essay) &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Did the fact that Sarah Ahhaton told the story to an Englishman have any effect on the narrative?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Could the Englishman have perhaps asked leading questions that may have skewed her story?  - F.Cobb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Woloch page 21, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;the recollections of Mary Jemison, I was really struck by her point of view on the work and labor of Indian women&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. &amp;quot;Our labor was not severe... Notwithstanding the Indian women have all the fuel and bread to procure, and the cooking to perform, their task is probably not harder that that of white women, who have those articles provided for them; and their cares certainly are not half as numerous, nor half as great.&amp;quot; As a European woman now being held in captivity, I think it&amp;#039;s a more trustworthy look at the work of Indian women versus the work of white women. -- Vanessa Smiley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;One of the things I personally liked about the Woloch reading was that she, right from the get go, reminded us that most women in the early period were not literate&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -- they could not read or write and therefore most of what we know about them comes from men or writings of elite, white women.  I think that we, as historians need to keep that in mind when analyzing and studying these sorts of materials because more often than not, these stories and facts are altered or skewed in some way. -- Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the reading posted on Black Board it talks about how Christianity changed the gender roles and how women were treated. It shocked me that the women were summoned to a council and told that their influence basically had caused demons to come into the village (at least thats the impression I got). Also &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;in that reading I saw how native american society ended up being very similar to the European  society in which women were expected to be pure and loyal only to her husband and if she wasn&amp;#039;t she was punished where as well men were SUPPOSED to be they often weren&amp;#039;t and weren&amp;#039;t punished for their adultery. I also am wondering why women let themselves be pushed into a role where they had less influence, if I had been in that position I&amp;#039;m positive I would have fought back.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Does anyone else have thoughts on the black board reading?- Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I noticed that &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Father Le Leune cites the possible corruption of Indian men as the main reasoning behind the conversion of Indian women:&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; &amp;quot;for the boys that we shall have reared in the knowledge of God, when they marry Savage girls or women accustomed to wandering in the woods, will, as their husbands, be compelled to follow them and thus fall back into barbarism, or to leave them.&amp;quot;  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Did anyone else find this an interesting extension of the Christian concepts of original sin and Eve&amp;#039;s fall in the Garden of Eden?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -- Ashley Hamilton&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;One of the contributing reasons for some native women losing power and not &amp;quot;fighting back&amp;quot; might have been the fact that European&amp;#039;s justified their lifestyle and gender roles with lessons from Christianity.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Wrestling with a new notion of God must have been unbelievably overwhelming and with the threat of hell looming perhaps women surrendered power, in part, because of fear of the consequences of acting against Christianity or European morals. - Kelly Martin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I found it pretty interesting in the Woloch reading the complete opposite views of the two women captives.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Mary Rowlandson seems to really hate being with the Indians even while she was trying to figure out why God had allowed this to happen to her. She also seemed to contridict herself as far as her treatment..sometimes harshly and sometimes with mercy.  The other captive Mary Jemison chose to stay with her captives even though they killed all of her relatives. She even says her situation was easy (pg 20).  She even describes her Indian &amp;quot;sisters&amp;quot; as &amp;quot;peaceable and mild in their dispositions; temperment and decent in their habits, and very tender and gentle&amp;quot; towards her (pg21).  I wonder if the difference is just how each individual tribe responded to the settlers or if was because of the time periods they lived in?  Did the Indians attitude towards the settlers change that dramatically? ~~Mary Beth Conrad&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it is really important to remember, as we are reading Mary Rowlandson&amp;#039;s narrative, that she had just lost a child. A lot of her animosity and unhappiness could be attributed to the sadness of losing a child rather than the harsh and savage treatment of the Native Americans. Maybe this is why there are some inconsistencies in here account. Such as describing Native Americans as cruel but one paragraph later mentioning how one family took her in and fed her. -- Allison J.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Alison about Rowlandson&amp;#039;s account of captivity might have been influenced by her sadness. Also, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Rowlandson was described as a &amp;quot;middle-aged minister&amp;#039;s wife,&amp;quot; while at the time of her initial capture, Jemison was a teenager.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I wonder how much Rowlandson&amp;#039;s previous life experiences and beliefs influenced her views on the natives. Rowlandson&amp;#039;s account of the natives seems inconsistent. One could speculate that Rowlandson&amp;#039;s opinions about the Native Americans were formed prior to her capture and this might contribute to her negative view of them. -Kelly Martin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also agree with you, Allison, but &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;if you read some of what Mary Rowlandson discusses, at one point she actually takes food from a starving child who is also a captive (pg 15).  As a general question, do you believe she would do this sort of thing out of spite towards children?  Or was she merely just trying to survive in what she considered a horrid world?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -- Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Kelly&amp;#039;s comment about Mary Rowlandson taking food from a starving child, I think Mary was just trying to survive in what she considered a horrid world.  It seemed to me that she had an attitude of every person for themselves, and she was looking out for herself by eating the child&amp;#039;s food.  ~Katherine S.~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also thought it was really interesting to see the differences in opinion between the captive stories of Mary Jemison and Mary Rowlandson. As Allison said above, it is important to note that Mary Rowlandson did loose a child. I think some other factors that account for their differences could be that Mary Jemison was younger when she was taken and didn’t have a husband or children. Also, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Rowlandson was taken during a period of harship and war for the natives serving as her captors.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; This could account for more harsh living conditions. &lt;br /&gt;
-- Jennifer Feldhaus&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it rather interesting when reading Woloch&amp;#039;s passage (on page 4) that &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;a few Indian women actually benefited from European arrival.  Those women in hunting tribes benefited through expanded fur trade.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  While I realize that the majority of women suffered an extremely negative impact from the Europeans, I found this example somewhat unusual. -- Elizabeth H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Replying to Andrea Meyers question up above, I too thought about that at first. It&amp;#039;s not like European men just expected their wives to just lull about and look pretty. However, I don&amp;#039;t think Europeans didn&amp;#039;t think women should not do any work I think it was just based on the kind of work they did. Women should not to do work in the fields, however they should do work in the house. It&amp;#039;s also a lot less rigourous. Men should be in the fields. -- Emily Miller&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was interested by the two writings of the English man and woman who had been adopted into an Native American tribe to replace children who had died.  (Mary Jemison writing in Woloch and John Tanner in MP). &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Was this a common practice?  Why were the Native Americans so accepting of white people?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Perhaps the two writings are just examples of the exception rather than the norm? - F. Cobb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;gt;&amp;gt;to answer your question, yes &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;it was a common practice to adopt prisoners of war as substitutes for fallen kinsmen/women&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. Frequently there was some type of ritual that tested the adoptee which is was Jemison was talking about at the beginning of her account. If the person was able to handle the test he or she was adopted. (Julie Castanien)  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Just as a general question, was Mary Jemison&amp;#039;s situation common, in the sense that she did not want to move back into white society when the Native Americans allowed her to?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Perhaps she chose to remain with the Native Americans because she was captured when she was young and life with the Native Americans was the only life she knew and felt comfortable in. ~Katherine S.~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was interesting to read John Heckewelder’s passage on Indian marriages because they are different from the European or American institution of marriage.  For instance marriages among Indians are not contracts for life, there are no vows, or promises and either party can leave whenever they please.  Heckewelder describes an Indian marriage being more like a working partnership where the husband performs certain tasks such as building the house and hunting and the woman acts as his help mate and labors in the field.  I would have loved to read more about different aspects of Indian marriages instead of just learning about the work that both parties perform and that divorce is not viewed as seriously as it was in  Europe and America at the time.  Unfortunately since so few first hand records remain we have to rely on white European men’s accounts which  leave out important details and always carry bias.-Caitlin Quinn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I get the impression that Samuel de Champlain was rather surprised at the physical appearance of the Native Americans.  His statements about their physical presence really seem to give me the impression that those back-home in Europe were really at a loss as to what to expect in the New World.  The statement that their skin color is beautiful, &amp;quot;although olive&amp;quot; was rather amusing for its historical value.   &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Also of interest was John Tanner&amp;#039;s talk of being drunk and of his Native American adopted mother, Net-no-kwa, being drunk.  The native Americans had whiskey?  And was drunkeness something common?  That always seemed like a western, European thing to me.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  John was supposedly drunk for two days, and did nobody really notice?  I guess it really gives the modern person a real sense of their life span when a thirteen year old boy would be drunk for two days and nobody really reacting to it.  It was also interesting to see how the trade of John was affected by, as it seems, getting everybody tipsy.   -Chris Plummer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;gt;&amp;gt;Whoops I made an error in my input, I mistakenly placed my input under the discussion tab sorry&amp;gt;&amp;gt; ...Better teach the girls for they will corrupt the boys.  I’m sure this sentence got most of you upset.  It got me upset when I read the short blackboard article of Father Le Jeune.  It seems that once again girls would lead the God fearing boys into the path of barbarism and the evil that it entails.  This very much parallels with the Biblical account of Adam and Eve where of course Eve brought sin upon all of humankind. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Also is Le Jeune referring men and women as boys and girls, belittling Indian adults as mere children&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;?  Sort of elevating himself as a lofty religious figurehead whereas the Indian adults are mere children since they are only beginning to understand God. Le Jeune’s account reminds me of the domesticity issues of the mid 20th century as in Elaine Tyler May’s book Homeward Bound, where the sex of women, if left untamed by men, were compared to being radioactively explosive thus leading men to the path of destruction. –John Furner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Out of curiosity, (at least, I don&amp;#039;t think anyone&amp;#039;s mentioned this yet) &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;what did everyone think of the Chinook tale at the end of the Woloch readings&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;?  It describes what the Indians saw when the Europeans approached which is a different point of view than most historians are used to.  Thoughts? -- Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this weeks readings to be strikingly similar to those I covered in Prof. Poska&amp;#039;s Gender and Empire course last semester.  We spent most of the semester discussing how the different nations, particullary England, France, Spain, Portugal and the Danes, encountered the Natives of the New World, as well as the gendered social structures of some of the native tribes. The lecture of this week, as well as the reading, does a wonderful job of providing a detailed overview of some of the ideas from the course last semester, particullary the idea that all encounters with the natives were influenced by baises and preconceptions that the european&amp;#039;s had about the natives and native culture, as well as european gender constructs.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Taking the idea that almost all interactions with the natives were colored by social and gender preconceptions, how much should we trust what the english are writing about, and how much of it should we be leary about using as &amp;#039;historical fact&amp;#039; and do the documents tell us just about the natives or could they also be used as a way to explore european preconceptions and social/gender expectations?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  --Katelynn V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does anyone else wonder what happened to the two Europeans at the end of the Chinook Story, The First Ship?  --Katelynn V. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I think the section from Roger Williams is extremely interesting because the words he choose to document tells a lot of English society and what was imporant to the English in marriage and relationships.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  For example: the english seemed to be concerned about the amount of wives the natives had because he mentions the words for 1,2,3,4...wifes. This makes sense since the english believed that it was proper to only take one wife as stated in the Bible.  Also, in that same section Williams lists the characteristics of a traditionally proper and English wife, loving, proper, sober and chast, ect. This seems to point out that in attempting to make sense of the native lifestyle, williams was looking for similarities between the natives and the english through the use of language. As, this type of rudementary dictionary could have been used as a means of converting the natives by explaining how they were expected to act. Maybe, but more likely it was used as a way to simply try and understand the natvies and their culture in terms that the englsih were familiar with.    --Katelynn V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;As a general theme for the readings in Woloch, I see an interest in the Europeans settlers to explore the gender roles of the Native American tribes, but not to understand them.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; It seems that all observation were commonly related to their own society. With a few exceptions, there was a vivid interest in learning about these people, but only as their gender roles were to be seen as inferior. It is interesting that European women would also agree with this, as it makes me wonder how they felt about their own position and what they wished for it to be. --Robert Kopp&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading each piece and considering all the viewpoints represented, the one piece that really stuck out for me was the Heckewelder piece. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;While I was reading I tried to take into account who the intended audience was and who actually was reading/learning from these pieces.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I found the dictionary completely fascinating and imagined it’s usefulness as a guide not only to language but Indian life. I also found the women’s accounts of captivity interesting and questioned who these pieces were written for…were they forms of entertainment? Were they intended to scare or warn people about women? Were they used to enlighten people to the negative/positive aspects of Indians? &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;And what was the point of the story at the end of the chapter?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; What did it say about Indian culture and/or European culture? &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;However, the one piece that stuck out to me was Heckewelder’s piece and I wondered why he wrote it? Who he wrote it for and why? Was this piece merely an informative piece or was Heckewelder trying to disprove the ideas of Indians as savages? Why did he emphasize the work ethic and power of Indian women as a positive aspect of Indian life?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Audience is an important part to consider when reading and certainly something for us to think about for the rest of the semester.  – Mary Beth Dillane &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the account about Sarah was interesting especially when the essay further discussed various issues about the situation, for example she and her husband were converts to Christianity and therefore automatically subject to European norms (what is that about?)  and how she escapes to Metacom&amp;#039;s village, the hotbed of conflict, between Indians and Europeans for protection (a clever idea if she had only stayed but then again maybe they didn&amp;#039;t want woman there who had adopted European ways). (Julie Castanien)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Champlain piece, I read something enlightening.  The article discussed why many Native American societies were matrilineal.  It was all based on their concept of marriage, how if things were not working out with their respective spouse, one could just end it.  Pregnancy brought back former spouses in the interest of the family.  Yet, their marital customs provided uncertainty to the actual fraternal legitimacy, but of course, the tribe knows who the mother is. ~Juliann B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it interesting how some of these readings regarding native american indians pushed their own views onto an entirely different culture.  They made judgements on how they function as a family, as a village, and their way of life.  An underlying thought is that it wasn&amp;#039;t til those that were captured or had interacted with the indians did they begin to see or change their thought (even if for a moment for some.) An example of this change of thought once captured is the narrative on Mary Jemison.  I really enjoyed the narrative.  I think because she accepted the Seneca way of life and even found love.  When referring to women duties, Mary observes the labor of the Senaca women is much the same as white people and is not severe (as it had been told.)  Though she was young when captured and her immediately family were killed, she still chose to stay with the Seneca Iroquois tribe.  I believe she chose to stay (even after she was offered freedom) because she becomes part of their family and is treated like one of their own and not treated cruel or unkind as portrayed. -Marsha Himes&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mhimes</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_1_Questions/Comments-327_09</id>
		<title>Week 1 Questions/Comments-327 09</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_1_Questions/Comments-327_09"/>
				<updated>2009-08-26T19:54:32Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mhimes: /* Gisela Bock&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Challenging Dichotomies in Women&amp;#039;s History&amp;quot; */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Enter your questions &amp;amp; comments on the readings below.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Comments that compare or contrast readings ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When reading “Definining ‘American Women’s History&amp;#039;” by Kate Haulman, I was fascinated by 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Kate Haulman, Defining &amp;quot;American Women&amp;#039;s History&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Kate Haulman&amp;#039;s essay Defining &amp;quot;American Women&amp;#039;s History&amp;quot; to be interesting because it is a history of how historians thought about women in history. I never thought about the connotations of this phrase until she pointed it out. Being &amp;quot;American&amp;quot; is an identity that people have. She uses examples such as a textile worker, a Cherokee woman and an African American all of who defined being American differently. The word &amp;quot;women&amp;quot; brings up gender issues. She asks, &amp;quot; What are the consequences of identifying, or being positioned as a woman...&amp;quot; History in this phrase is a study of the past. Haulman thinks that studying woman&amp;#039;s history can frame current debates about justice and human rights and I completely agree with that statement. The more we study women and their issues the more information we will have to help make an informed decision about issues that affect us today. - LeAnn Taggart&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Leslie Alexander, “Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women’s History” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Leslie Alexander’s essay “Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women’s History” does a great job explaining where Black women fit into Women’s Studies and feminism as a whole. What I found out was that Black women don’t fit in at all. When I think of the feminist movement I think of white, upper middle class women. And after reading Alexander’s essay, this is not surprising. Women’s studies have historically been modeled based on white women and have largely left out other categories such as race and class. This model does not work for Black women. Alexander argues that it is impossible to analyze Black women based solely on their gender, and any model that tries to do so will fail. This is because Black women have a culture in which they identify themselves with their community. Alexander goes on to argue the importance of grappling with issues such as race, culture, community, and class to further understand the lives of women. While discussing this flaw in Women&amp;#039;s Studies, Alexander pushes for scholars to analyze Black women “through their own eyes rather than through the lens of whiteness and oppression.&amp;quot; –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree that Black women do not fit into Women&amp;#039;s Studies. When I think of the feminist movement or even of the idea of women&amp;#039;s history, I also picture white upper middle class women. I always remember learning about women&amp;#039;s history, and then learning about African-American history, but the two never seemed to cross paths in lessons. I liked what Kate Haulman said in her essay, &amp;quot;A woman who self-identified as Chinese American...was not Chinese American four days out of the week and a woman the other three- she was always both.&amp;quot; I think that idea could be used in the case of Black women, and for women of all other races. -Katelyn Lease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the reading is on a women in American History then I think it does fit in this article.  Black women are a part of American history no matter through a white person&amp;#039;s point of of view or what class status they had. I do agree that the feminist movement would have mostly been white upper middle class but I also think that black women and white women each had their own social classes.  I agree with Alexander that we should have scholars analyze the history of a black woman through their own eyes even though we know in the past that was not so easy. -Marsha Himes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Antonia Castañeda’s“Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History” ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Gisela Bock&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Challenging Dichotomies in Women&amp;#039;s History&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found many interesting ideas in Gisela Bock&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Challenging Dichotomies in Women&amp;#039;s History&amp;quot;. When she discussed the work versus family dichotomy, she mentioned that women have always worked. For many women, their family was their work. However, since they were not employed outside the home, or even compensated for their hard work, these women were not considered to be &amp;quot;workers&amp;quot;. I like the term &amp;quot;paid versus unpaid work&amp;quot; better. -Katelyn Lease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The piece on &amp;quot;Challenging Dichotomies in Women&amp;#039;s History,&amp;quot; I found most interesting.  There are obvious gender difference such as women can have babies and men cannot.  But it is interesting because the roles of women and men have changed.  I think that each individual is different and their expectations change for themselves and how they are viewed by those around them like family and society as a whole.  -Marsha Himes&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mhimes</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_1_Questions/Comments-327_09</id>
		<title>Week 1 Questions/Comments-327 09</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_1_Questions/Comments-327_09"/>
				<updated>2009-08-26T19:13:32Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mhimes: /* Leslie Alexander, “Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women’s History” */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Enter your questions &amp;amp; comments on the readings below.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Comments that compare or contrast readings ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When reading “Definining ‘American Women’s History&amp;#039;” by Kate Haulman, I was fascinated by 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Kate Haulman, Defining &amp;quot;American Women&amp;#039;s History&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Leslie Alexander, “Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women’s History” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Leslie Alexander’s essay “Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women’s History” does a great job explaining where Black women fit into Women’s Studies and feminism as a whole. What I found out was that Black women don’t fit in at all. When I think of the feminist movement I think of white, upper middle class women. And after reading Alexander’s essay, this is not surprising. Women’s studies have historically been modeled based on white women and have largely left out other categories such as race and class. This model does not work for Black women. Alexander argues that it is impossible to analyze Black women based solely on their gender, and any model that tries to do so will fail. This is because Black women have a culture in which they identify themselves with their community. Alexander goes on to argue the importance of grappling with issues such as race, culture, community, and class to further understand the lives of women. While discussing this flaw in Women&amp;#039;s Studies, Alexander pushes for scholars to analyze Black women “through their own eyes rather than through the lens of whiteness and oppression.&amp;quot; –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree that Black women do not fit into Women&amp;#039;s Studies. When I think of the feminist movement or even of the idea of women&amp;#039;s history, I also picture white upper middle class women. I always remember learning about women&amp;#039;s history, and then learning about African-American history, but the two never seemed to cross paths in lessons. I liked what Kate Haulman said in her essay, &amp;quot;A woman who self-identified as Chinese American...was not Chinese American four days out of the week and a woman the other three- she was always both.&amp;quot; I think that idea could be used in the case of Black women, and for women of all other races. -Katelyn Lease&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the reading is on a women in American History then I think it does fit in this article.  Black women are a part of American history no matter through a white person&amp;#039;s point of of view or what class status they had. I do agree that the feminist movement would have mostly been white upper middle class but I also think that black women and white women each had their own social classes.  I agree with Alexander that we should have scholars analyze the history of a black woman through their own eyes even though we know in the past that was not so easy. -Marsha Himes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Antonia Castañeda’s“Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History” ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Gisela Bock&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Challenging Dichotomies in Women&amp;#039;s History&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found many interesting ideas in Gisela Bock&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Challenging Dichotomies in Women&amp;#039;s History&amp;quot;. When she discussed the work versus family dichotomy, she mentioned that women have always worked. For many women, their family was their work. However, since they were not employed outside the home, or even compensated for their hard work, these women were not considered to be &amp;quot;workers&amp;quot;. I like the term &amp;quot;paid versus unpaid work&amp;quot; better. -Katelyn Lease&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mhimes</name></author>	</entry>

	</feed><br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php</b> on line <b>38</b><br />