Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php on line 195
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 571
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 585
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 578
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 603
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 553
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 186
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 203
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 196
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 212
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 175
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php on line 135
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 234
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php on line 292
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php on line 755
Warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php on line 907
Deprecated: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Pager.php on line 908
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 627
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 629
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 630
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 631
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 633
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 634
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php on line 402
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38 https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=RgrahamMcClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T23:16:05ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_14_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 14 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-04-22T20:48:00Z<p>Rgraham: /* Stacey Article */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Change over Time ==<br />
How has the American family changed over time in the 20th century? What distinguishes each decade? How does this work with our notions of "what the ideal family is?" How does each decade compare to the 19th century families we have studied all semester?<br />
<br />
== Today? ==<br />
How is today's American family difference/similar to the ones from Mintz and Kellogg and the article which are 20 and 10 years old respectivly?<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mintz and Kellogg, Chapter 6: The Rise of the Companionate Family, 1900-1930 ==<br />
On page 109, Mintz and Kellogg mentioned that the companionate family is a model and ideal "of family function and behavior, which remains with us today." However, I think that the model of family is changing today because, Kellogg and Mintz metioned people stayed together because of friendship and love but right now, divorce rates are going down with the sited reason that people cannot afford to not be together. So, currently the model is evolving because of the economy with people staying together for financial concerns. -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
There were a lot of parallels to other readings in the 107-201 M&K reading. I was reminded of Riley when reading about divorce and May with childlessness, "shirking duties" and the decline in the birth rate. It was a little frightening how much M&K gloss over the material in order to cover it all, but still very interesting. I am curious about the 1890 "watershed" that was described on page 112. M&K didn't do a good job explaining why that year was so pivotal, or why it might have been. I found the changes in childbirth and child rearing very interesting: to know why most births began to take place in hospitals. Some of the parenting ideas were completely nuts, like not encouraging their kids to laugh or show affection to babies. It's a wonder people from that era turned out at all! When reading about the Great Depression I was thinking a lot about parallels to today. It definitely made me think that things are not nearly as bad as they could be, but that just like M&K say, single parent families, the disabled and the elderly are the hardest hit by rough economic times. In the later periods discussed, I couldn't believe the short marriages that took place during WWII. It was interesting to read also how that time period affected divorce laws, and how frequent unfaithfulness was for GIs. Finally it was nice to see the transition toward the equality movement: with men taking an interest in their homes and families, that began in the 1950s.--Amanda<br />
<br />
The last chapter and epilogue show the radical shift that took place between the early chapters of the book and the end. During the first part of Chapter X I kept thinking of my Pop Culture class, and how we studied Ozzie&Harriet, The Cosbys, and Gilmore Girls as 3 case studies of the American family. It seems to me that the 1960s-80s saw the most marked jump. As M&K discussed, family life may have included more equality between husbands and wives, but this was also the era of Playboy and topless bars. Also, family law because its own industry of cases and lawyers, which set the stage for the Family Court/Divorce Court tv shows of today. It's really amazing to see how much the family transitioned over 200 years.--Amanda<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Stacey Article ==<br />
The author's opinions certainly do show in this article. It was interesting to read about the origins of these movements in the 90s, because I think most of us were kids and oblivious to what was going on. Stacey portrayed Pat Moynihan in a very different light than M&K. Stacey clearly feels that gay and lesbian couple have second class options for marriage and child rearing, and that the fights over babies and other legal battles have caused people to preach, fight and protest what she sees as a new reality in the American family.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I had some problems with Stacey's article, mainly because (and it could be from skimming) it seemed like one moment she was all for gay and lesbians coming out and being able to be married and raise a family, and the next I felt like she was against it. However, I liked how in the end she decided that, "[i]n th name of our families, and of democracy, we must move forward, not backward, to address the great social threats that imperil us all." (pg 398-9) Now, whether she means death to gay/bi marriage and families, or that as Americans, we need to move forward with policies and address policies with a changing nation instead of trying to revert to what family and life was decades and centuries ago, I don't know. However, I prefer to think she meant the later. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
<br />
On page 384, Stacey is talking about how legal gay marriage would impact the homosexual community, and one point jumped out at me as really strange. Stacey says that: "conservatives agree that legalizing gay marriage would further marginalize sexual radicals by segregating counter-cultural gays and lesbians from the 'whitebread' gay couples who could then choose to marry their way into Middle America." This sentence really surprised me. "Whitebread" gay couples??? Does our society really make a distinction between "whitebread" gays and "counter-cultural" gays? I think being gay in our society is pretty counter-cultural in and of itself. I am pretty skeptical of this idea that gay couples would be accepted in Middle America just because they were married. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
== Domestic Partnerships ==<br />
<br />
Hey guys, I thought you might find this interesting. According to my company's insurance provider, these are the criteria you have to meet in order to have your relationship be considered a domestic partenship. I think it is interesting to see the rules spelled out like this, because it gets at how we define family. (or how we define marriage outside of the institution of marriage)<br />
<br />
Also, using these rules, I was able to get my boyfriend on my health insurance policy as my domestic partner, which was a huge benefit for us. This is an example of something that came up a lot in Stacey's article, that these types of policies, that exist because of the efforts of gay rights advocates, have a big impact on non-gay relationships as well. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
<br />
Domestic partners may be of the same sex or of opposite sexes.<br />
<br />
Domestic partners must:<br><br />
• Be parties to a government-recognized civil union or government-recognized<br />
same sex marriage, or be included in a government domestic partner registry<br><br />
OR<br><br />
• Be least 18 years of age,<br><br />
• Have the legal capacity to contract,<br><br />
• Share a close, committed, and exclusive personal relationship that is meant to be<br />
of lasting duration,<br><br />
• Have shared a common legal residence continuously for at least 3 months,<br><br />
• Be financially interdependent,<br><br />
• Not be parties to a legally recognized marriage either to each other or anyone else,<br><br />
• Not share blood or familial relationship that would be bar marriage under the laws<br />
of the state in which the couple resides, nor be a member of another domestic<br />
partnership or substantially similar relationship, and<br><br />
• Not have been a member of another domestic partnership or substantially similar<br />
relationship within the past 6 months.<br><br />
<br />
<br><br />
Financial interdependence may be established with any of the following documents:<br><br />
• Joint mortgage or lease on place of residence<br><br />
• Joint title on motor vehicle<br><br />
• Agreement establishing joint bank account or credit card account<br><br />
• Agreement with a third party lender for joint repayment of indebtedness<br><br />
• Designation of one partner as the other’s beneficiary for life insurance or<br />
retirement benefits<br><br />
• A joint will, or reciprocal wills in which each partner designates the other as<br />
executor or primary beneficiary<br><br />
• Durable powers of attorney by each partner in favor of the other<br><br />
• Health care directives or living wills in which each partner gives the other the<br />
authority to make health care decisions<br></div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_14_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 14 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-04-22T20:32:19Z<p>Rgraham: /* Domestic Partnerships */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Change over Time ==<br />
How has the American family changed over time in the 20th century? What distinguishes each decade? How does this work with our notions of "what the ideal family is?" How does each decade compare to the 19th century families we have studied all semester?<br />
<br />
== Today? ==<br />
How is today's American family difference/similar to the ones from Mintz and Kellogg and the article which are 20 and 10 years old respectivly?<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mintz and Kellogg, Chapter 6: The Rise of the Companionate Family, 1900-1930 ==<br />
On page 109, Mintz and Kellogg mentioned that the companionate family is a model and ideal "of family function and behavior, which remains with us today." However, I think that the model of family is changing today because, Kellogg and Mintz metioned people stayed together because of friendship and love but right now, divorce rates are going down with the sited reason that people cannot afford to not be together. So, currently the model is evolving because of the economy with people staying together for financial concerns. -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
There were a lot of parallels to other readings in the 107-201 M&K reading. I was reminded of Riley when reading about divorce and May with childlessness, "shirking duties" and the decline in the birth rate. It was a little frightening how much M&K gloss over the material in order to cover it all, but still very interesting. I am curious about the 1890 "watershed" that was described on page 112. M&K didn't do a good job explaining why that year was so pivotal, or why it might have been. I found the changes in childbirth and child rearing very interesting: to know why most births began to take place in hospitals. Some of the parenting ideas were completely nuts, like not encouraging their kids to laugh or show affection to babies. It's a wonder people from that era turned out at all! When reading about the Great Depression I was thinking a lot about parallels to today. It definitely made me think that things are not nearly as bad as they could be, but that just like M&K say, single parent families, the disabled and the elderly are the hardest hit by rough economic times. In the later periods discussed, I couldn't believe the short marriages that took place during WWII. It was interesting to read also how that time period affected divorce laws, and how frequent unfaithfulness was for GIs. Finally it was nice to see the transition toward the equality movement: with men taking an interest in their homes and families, that began in the 1950s.--Amanda<br />
<br />
The last chapter and epilogue show the radical shift that took place between the early chapters of the book and the end. During the first part of Chapter X I kept thinking of my Pop Culture class, and how we studied Ozzie&Harriet, The Cosbys, and Gilmore Girls as 3 case studies of the American family. It seems to me that the 1960s-80s saw the most marked jump. As M&K discussed, family life may have included more equality between husbands and wives, but this was also the era of Playboy and topless bars. Also, family law because its own industry of cases and lawyers, which set the stage for the Family Court/Divorce Court tv shows of today. It's really amazing to see how much the family transitioned over 200 years.--Amanda<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Stacey Article ==<br />
The author's opinions certainly do show in this article. It was interesting to read about the origins of these movements in the 90s, because I think most of us were kids and oblivious to what was going on. Stacey portrayed Pat Moynihan in a very different light than M&K. Stacey clearly feels that gay and lesbian couple have second class options for marriage and child rearing, and that the fights over babies and other legal battles have caused people to preach, fight and protest what she sees as a new reality in the American family.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I had some problems with Stacey's article, mainly because (and it could be from skimming) it seemed like one moment she was all for gay and lesbians coming out and being able to be married and raise a family, and the next I felt like she was against it. However, I liked how in the end she decided that, "[i]n th name of our families, and of democracy, we must move forward, not backward, to address the great social threats that imperil us all." (pg 398-9) Now, whether she means death to gay/bi marriage and families, or that as Americans, we need to move forward with policies and address policies with a changing nation instead of trying to revert to what family and life was decades and centuries ago, I don't know. However, I prefer to think she meant the later. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
== Domestic Partnerships ==<br />
<br />
Hey guys, I thought you might find this interesting. According to my company's insurance provider, these are the criteria you have to meet in order to have your relationship be considered a domestic partenship. I think it is interesting to see the rules spelled out like this, because it gets at how we define family. (or how we define marriage outside of the institution of marriage)<br />
<br />
Also, using these rules, I was able to get my boyfriend on my health insurance policy as my domestic partner, which was a huge benefit for us. This is an example of something that came up a lot in Stacey's article, that these types of policies, that exist because of the efforts of gay rights advocates, have a big impact on non-gay relationships as well. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
<br />
Domestic partners may be of the same sex or of opposite sexes.<br />
<br />
Domestic partners must:<br><br />
• Be parties to a government-recognized civil union or government-recognized<br />
same sex marriage, or be included in a government domestic partner registry<br><br />
OR<br><br />
• Be least 18 years of age,<br><br />
• Have the legal capacity to contract,<br><br />
• Share a close, committed, and exclusive personal relationship that is meant to be<br />
of lasting duration,<br><br />
• Have shared a common legal residence continuously for at least 3 months,<br><br />
• Be financially interdependent,<br><br />
• Not be parties to a legally recognized marriage either to each other or anyone else,<br><br />
• Not share blood or familial relationship that would be bar marriage under the laws<br />
of the state in which the couple resides, nor be a member of another domestic<br />
partnership or substantially similar relationship, and<br><br />
• Not have been a member of another domestic partnership or substantially similar<br />
relationship within the past 6 months.<br><br />
<br />
<br><br />
Financial interdependence may be established with any of the following documents:<br><br />
• Joint mortgage or lease on place of residence<br><br />
• Joint title on motor vehicle<br><br />
• Agreement establishing joint bank account or credit card account<br><br />
• Agreement with a third party lender for joint repayment of indebtedness<br><br />
• Designation of one partner as the other’s beneficiary for life insurance or<br />
retirement benefits<br><br />
• A joint will, or reciprocal wills in which each partner designates the other as<br />
executor or primary beneficiary<br><br />
• Durable powers of attorney by each partner in favor of the other<br><br />
• Health care directives or living wills in which each partner gives the other the<br />
authority to make health care decisions<br></div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_14_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 14 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-04-22T20:32:00Z<p>Rgraham: /* Domestic Partnerships */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Change over Time ==<br />
How has the American family changed over time in the 20th century? What distinguishes each decade? How does this work with our notions of "what the ideal family is?" How does each decade compare to the 19th century families we have studied all semester?<br />
<br />
== Today? ==<br />
How is today's American family difference/similar to the ones from Mintz and Kellogg and the article which are 20 and 10 years old respectivly?<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mintz and Kellogg, Chapter 6: The Rise of the Companionate Family, 1900-1930 ==<br />
On page 109, Mintz and Kellogg mentioned that the companionate family is a model and ideal "of family function and behavior, which remains with us today." However, I think that the model of family is changing today because, Kellogg and Mintz metioned people stayed together because of friendship and love but right now, divorce rates are going down with the sited reason that people cannot afford to not be together. So, currently the model is evolving because of the economy with people staying together for financial concerns. -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
There were a lot of parallels to other readings in the 107-201 M&K reading. I was reminded of Riley when reading about divorce and May with childlessness, "shirking duties" and the decline in the birth rate. It was a little frightening how much M&K gloss over the material in order to cover it all, but still very interesting. I am curious about the 1890 "watershed" that was described on page 112. M&K didn't do a good job explaining why that year was so pivotal, or why it might have been. I found the changes in childbirth and child rearing very interesting: to know why most births began to take place in hospitals. Some of the parenting ideas were completely nuts, like not encouraging their kids to laugh or show affection to babies. It's a wonder people from that era turned out at all! When reading about the Great Depression I was thinking a lot about parallels to today. It definitely made me think that things are not nearly as bad as they could be, but that just like M&K say, single parent families, the disabled and the elderly are the hardest hit by rough economic times. In the later periods discussed, I couldn't believe the short marriages that took place during WWII. It was interesting to read also how that time period affected divorce laws, and how frequent unfaithfulness was for GIs. Finally it was nice to see the transition toward the equality movement: with men taking an interest in their homes and families, that began in the 1950s.--Amanda<br />
<br />
The last chapter and epilogue show the radical shift that took place between the early chapters of the book and the end. During the first part of Chapter X I kept thinking of my Pop Culture class, and how we studied Ozzie&Harriet, The Cosbys, and Gilmore Girls as 3 case studies of the American family. It seems to me that the 1960s-80s saw the most marked jump. As M&K discussed, family life may have included more equality between husbands and wives, but this was also the era of Playboy and topless bars. Also, family law because its own industry of cases and lawyers, which set the stage for the Family Court/Divorce Court tv shows of today. It's really amazing to see how much the family transitioned over 200 years.--Amanda<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Stacey Article ==<br />
The author's opinions certainly do show in this article. It was interesting to read about the origins of these movements in the 90s, because I think most of us were kids and oblivious to what was going on. Stacey portrayed Pat Moynihan in a very different light than M&K. Stacey clearly feels that gay and lesbian couple have second class options for marriage and child rearing, and that the fights over babies and other legal battles have caused people to preach, fight and protest what she sees as a new reality in the American family.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I had some problems with Stacey's article, mainly because (and it could be from skimming) it seemed like one moment she was all for gay and lesbians coming out and being able to be married and raise a family, and the next I felt like she was against it. However, I liked how in the end she decided that, "[i]n th name of our families, and of democracy, we must move forward, not backward, to address the great social threats that imperil us all." (pg 398-9) Now, whether she means death to gay/bi marriage and families, or that as Americans, we need to move forward with policies and address policies with a changing nation instead of trying to revert to what family and life was decades and centuries ago, I don't know. However, I prefer to think she meant the later. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
== Domestic Partnerships ==<br />
<br />
Hey guys, I thought you might find this interesting. According to my company's insurance provider, these are the criteria you have to meet in order to have your relationship be considered a domestic partenship. I think it is interesting to see the rules spelled out like this, because it gets at how we define family. (or how we define marriage outside of the institution of marriage)<br />
<br />
Also, using these rules, I was able to get my boyfriend on my health insurance policy as my domestic partner, which was a huge benefit for us. This is an example of something that came up a lot in Stacey's article, that these types of policies, that exist because of the efforts of gay rights advocates, have a big impact on non-gay relationships as well. <br />
<br />
<br />
Domestic partners may be of the same sex or of opposite sexes.<br />
<br />
Domestic partners must:<br><br />
• Be parties to a government-recognized civil union or government-recognized<br />
same sex marriage, or be included in a government domestic partner registry<br><br />
OR<br><br />
• Be least 18 years of age,<br><br />
• Have the legal capacity to contract,<br><br />
• Share a close, committed, and exclusive personal relationship that is meant to be<br />
of lasting duration,<br><br />
• Have shared a common legal residence continuously for at least 3 months,<br><br />
• Be financially interdependent,<br><br />
• Not be parties to a legally recognized marriage either to each other or anyone else,<br><br />
• Not share blood or familial relationship that would be bar marriage under the laws<br />
of the state in which the couple resides, nor be a member of another domestic<br />
partnership or substantially similar relationship, and<br><br />
• Not have been a member of another domestic partnership or substantially similar<br />
relationship within the past 6 months.<br><br />
<br />
<br><br />
Financial interdependence may be established with any of the following documents:<br><br />
• Joint mortgage or lease on place of residence<br><br />
• Joint title on motor vehicle<br><br />
• Agreement establishing joint bank account or credit card account<br><br />
• Agreement with a third party lender for joint repayment of indebtedness<br><br />
• Designation of one partner as the other’s beneficiary for life insurance or<br />
retirement benefits<br><br />
• A joint will, or reciprocal wills in which each partner designates the other as<br />
executor or primary beneficiary<br><br />
• Durable powers of attorney by each partner in favor of the other<br><br />
• Health care directives or living wills in which each partner gives the other the<br />
authority to make health care decisions<br></div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_14_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 14 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-04-22T20:31:05Z<p>Rgraham: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Change over Time ==<br />
How has the American family changed over time in the 20th century? What distinguishes each decade? How does this work with our notions of "what the ideal family is?" How does each decade compare to the 19th century families we have studied all semester?<br />
<br />
== Today? ==<br />
How is today's American family difference/similar to the ones from Mintz and Kellogg and the article which are 20 and 10 years old respectivly?<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mintz and Kellogg, Chapter 6: The Rise of the Companionate Family, 1900-1930 ==<br />
On page 109, Mintz and Kellogg mentioned that the companionate family is a model and ideal "of family function and behavior, which remains with us today." However, I think that the model of family is changing today because, Kellogg and Mintz metioned people stayed together because of friendship and love but right now, divorce rates are going down with the sited reason that people cannot afford to not be together. So, currently the model is evolving because of the economy with people staying together for financial concerns. -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
There were a lot of parallels to other readings in the 107-201 M&K reading. I was reminded of Riley when reading about divorce and May with childlessness, "shirking duties" and the decline in the birth rate. It was a little frightening how much M&K gloss over the material in order to cover it all, but still very interesting. I am curious about the 1890 "watershed" that was described on page 112. M&K didn't do a good job explaining why that year was so pivotal, or why it might have been. I found the changes in childbirth and child rearing very interesting: to know why most births began to take place in hospitals. Some of the parenting ideas were completely nuts, like not encouraging their kids to laugh or show affection to babies. It's a wonder people from that era turned out at all! When reading about the Great Depression I was thinking a lot about parallels to today. It definitely made me think that things are not nearly as bad as they could be, but that just like M&K say, single parent families, the disabled and the elderly are the hardest hit by rough economic times. In the later periods discussed, I couldn't believe the short marriages that took place during WWII. It was interesting to read also how that time period affected divorce laws, and how frequent unfaithfulness was for GIs. Finally it was nice to see the transition toward the equality movement: with men taking an interest in their homes and families, that began in the 1950s.--Amanda<br />
<br />
The last chapter and epilogue show the radical shift that took place between the early chapters of the book and the end. During the first part of Chapter X I kept thinking of my Pop Culture class, and how we studied Ozzie&Harriet, The Cosbys, and Gilmore Girls as 3 case studies of the American family. It seems to me that the 1960s-80s saw the most marked jump. As M&K discussed, family life may have included more equality between husbands and wives, but this was also the era of Playboy and topless bars. Also, family law because its own industry of cases and lawyers, which set the stage for the Family Court/Divorce Court tv shows of today. It's really amazing to see how much the family transitioned over 200 years.--Amanda<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Stacey Article ==<br />
The author's opinions certainly do show in this article. It was interesting to read about the origins of these movements in the 90s, because I think most of us were kids and oblivious to what was going on. Stacey portrayed Pat Moynihan in a very different light than M&K. Stacey clearly feels that gay and lesbian couple have second class options for marriage and child rearing, and that the fights over babies and other legal battles have caused people to preach, fight and protest what she sees as a new reality in the American family.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I had some problems with Stacey's article, mainly because (and it could be from skimming) it seemed like one moment she was all for gay and lesbians coming out and being able to be married and raise a family, and the next I felt like she was against it. However, I liked how in the end she decided that, "[i]n th name of our families, and of democracy, we must move forward, not backward, to address the great social threats that imperil us all." (pg 398-9) Now, whether she means death to gay/bi marriage and families, or that as Americans, we need to move forward with policies and address policies with a changing nation instead of trying to revert to what family and life was decades and centuries ago, I don't know. However, I prefer to think she meant the later. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
== Domestic Partnerships ==<br />
<br />
Hey guys, I thought you might find this interesting. According to my company's insurance provider, these are the criteria you have to meet in order to have your relationship be considered a domestic partenship. I think it is interesting to see the rules spelled out like this, because it gets at how we define family. (or how we define marriage outside of the institution of marriage)<br />
<br />
Also, using these rules, I was able to get my boyfriend on my health insurance policy as my domestic partner, which was a huge benefit for us. This is an example of something that came up a lot in Stacey's article, that these types of policies, that exist because of the efforts of gay rights advocates, have a big impact on non-gay relationships as well. <br />
<br />
<br />
Domestic partners may be of the same sex or of opposite sexes.<br />
<br />
Domestic partners must:<br />
• Be parties to a government-recognized civil union or government-recognized<br />
same sex marriage, or be included in a government domestic partner registry<br />
OR<br />
• Be least 18 years of age,<br />
• Have the legal capacity to contract,<br />
• Share a close, committed, and exclusive personal relationship that is meant to be<br />
of lasting duration,<br />
• Have shared a common legal residence continuously for at least 3 months,<br />
• Be financially interdependent,<br />
• Not be parties to a legally recognized marriage either to each other or anyone else,<br />
• Not share blood or familial relationship that would be bar marriage under the laws<br />
of the state in which the couple resides, nor be a member of another domestic<br />
partnership or substantially similar relationship, and<br />
• Not have been a member of another domestic partnership or substantially similar<br />
relationship within the past 6 months.<br />
<br />
<br />
Financial interdependence may be established with any of the following documents:<br />
• Joint mortgage or lease on place of residence<br />
• Joint title on motor vehicle<br />
• Agreement establishing joint bank account or credit card account<br />
• Agreement with a third party lender for joint repayment of indebtedness<br />
• Designation of one partner as the other’s beneficiary for life insurance or<br />
retirement benefits<br />
• A joint will, or reciprocal wills in which each partner designates the other as<br />
executor or primary beneficiary<br />
• Durable powers of attorney by each partner in favor of the other<br />
• Health care directives or living wills in which each partner gives the other the<br />
authority to make health care decisions</div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_13_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 13 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-04-16T03:30:28Z<p>Rgraham: /* Working Class Families */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Irish American Family ==<br />
I thought it was interesting how women waited until they were much older to marry than the other groups we have read about. Were there any other groups who waited as long as the Irish or was it just them? --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Diner mentioned other ethnic groups and made it seem like it was only the Irish who waited. I found her discussion of marriage of Irish Americans interesting. Young women were so eager to rush into jobs when they were single, but when they were no longer economic burdens on their families and married, they were eager to stop working and become mothers. I think she painted a pretty bleak picture of their marriages: that at best, the relationships were characterized by irritability and separate spheres.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I find the Irish tradition of late or non marriage impressive. It surprises me that of all traditions that were maintained when coming to America this one stayed. Most women in American were expected to marry young, and the fact that the Irish weren't was very different. While it economically made sense, socially it had to cause problems - Kellye S<br />
<br />
I also thought that it was interesting and somewhat surprising that the Irish men and women married at such a late age or never at all. With the emphasis on having lots of children, I would have expected them to have married sooner. The fact that they were able to maintain this tradition, especially as it was soon new to them, was also surprising. I was impressed that they would with go marriage to provide economic support for their families back in Ireland and in America. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
This article seems odd to me for some reason, maybe because it touches on so many issues but is so short. For example, it states that Irish marriages were characterized by high levels of animosity. Making this kind of statement is really opening a can of worms, but then the article doesn't explore it very much. Compared to our other readings, this one seemed to just skim the surface of Irish immigrant families. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
I also felt that this article threw out numbers and figures at us but didn't go into much depth with explaining this ethinic tendency. It makes sense that many Irish women felt that they needed to be single in order to raise money for their families in Ireland, but it feels like many ethnic groups would have behaved the same way. Diner explains that the Irish married later in life back home, but I seemed to walk away from this article with more questions then before. What exactly was the reason that the people in Ireland married later and why did it differ so much from other nationalites? Were there more troubled marriages in Ireland? - Celia<br />
<br />
Although this article doesn't go into much detail about the issues it raises, I think it does a good job giving a brief survey of what Irish immigrant life was like for women. After reading this article and the article about the Jewish women, it is interesting to note how much immigrant women do not fit into the cult of true womanhood. Since many families were female-headed households, women had to work longer to make money in order to provide for their family if they ended up being deserted by their husbands. --Kari W. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Working Class Families ==<br />
<br />
I've always thought this was interesting, that even though the family needs the money and needs things to get done, they still have strict gender divisions. As quoted on page 103 of Stephanie Coontz article, "World-class families did accept a clear division of labor on the basis of gender, however, and often formulated it in terms of domesticity." However, I also liked that she included (even if a lot later in the article) that when the housewife was sick, the husband or males or children had to take on the 'women's work' because there were no servants or anyone else to do it. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
It's interesting how Coontz made parallels between ethnicities and also classes. Still it seems that ethnic divisions were very prominent even during the labor movement. The working class family ties in with our recent discussions of childlessness and the importance of children in families. The working class families knew that child wage earners were critical and they must have circumvented child labor laws. I was also surprised to read about the conditions of the women: that immigrants were still hauling water in many cases.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that though immigrants mostly only made up the working class, they had their own "middle class" and in some rare cases they would occasionally work their way up to be comparable to what Coontz called the native-born middle class. Those immigrants that managed to do this did so thought manipulation. I found it interesting that once these families became middle class they changed to mirror their neighbors. While it does not surprise me that they wanted to fit in, I just found it surprising that while they maintained cultural identity up until this point they quickly dropped it.- Kellye S<br />
<br />
I thought that Coontz's discussion on black family life was very interesting and addresses some of past class discussions on single parenting in black families. That black women found work easier then black men was also interesting and must have been a source of contention. It is sad that racial discrimination lead to the failure of black marriages and divorce. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I was wondering about the impact of immigration on family and labor history while I was reading this excerpt. Immigration played such a huge factor in the way that families were shaped and how families and people related to each other, as well as how labor laws played out. It really made me think about labor history in other countries where there was, as far as I know, less immigration and how they dealt with the rising need for unskilled factory laborers. Did they have the same difficulties as the US or if not how were they different? I realize that this doesn't fall in the scope of this class but it was something I couldn't <br />
help thinking about. -Lacey<br />
<br />
Something else that really struck me was that in certain places it was the work that they did rather than the ethnicity they were that tied them together in a community. Coontz says that this phenomenon was limited, but I think that it happened at all says something about the relationship between immigration, labor and the control of the higher-ups. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I thought the differences between the middle-class cult of domesticity and the working-class cult of domesticity were interesting. In our previous readings we have read about the middle class imposing its values on other people, but this is an example of how the recipients of this middle class ideal adopted it to some extent, but also changed it to work for them. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
This article was a little tough to get through. The author made many passing references to things I was unfamiliar with: the Centennial Exhibition of 1876, the Great Upheaval of 1886, boosterism, housing stock. There were also things that I was a little familiar with, but still would have liked a more explanation on, like the Gilded Age, Petit-bourgeois, and the Knights of Labor. -- Rebecca</div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_13_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 13 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-04-16T03:14:10Z<p>Rgraham: /* Working Class Families */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Irish American Family ==<br />
I thought it was interesting how women waited until they were much older to marry than the other groups we have read about. Were there any other groups who waited as long as the Irish or was it just them? --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Diner mentioned other ethnic groups and made it seem like it was only the Irish who waited. I found her discussion of marriage of Irish Americans interesting. Young women were so eager to rush into jobs when they were single, but when they were no longer economic burdens on their families and married, they were eager to stop working and become mothers. I think she painted a pretty bleak picture of their marriages: that at best, the relationships were characterized by irritability and separate spheres.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I find the Irish tradition of late or non marriage impressive. It surprises me that of all traditions that were maintained when coming to America this one stayed. Most women in American were expected to marry young, and the fact that the Irish weren't was very different. While it economically made sense, socially it had to cause problems - Kellye S<br />
<br />
I also thought that it was interesting and somewhat surprising that the Irish men and women married at such a late age or never at all. With the emphasis on having lots of children, I would have expected them to have married sooner. The fact that they were able to maintain this tradition, especially as it was soon new to them, was also surprising. I was impressed that they would with go marriage to provide economic support for their families back in Ireland and in America. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
This article seems odd to me for some reason, maybe because it touches on so many issues but is so short. For example, it states that Irish marriages were characterized by high levels of animosity. Making this kind of statement is really opening a can of worms, but then the article doesn't explore it very much. Compared to our other readings, this one seemed to just skim the surface of Irish immigrant families. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
I also felt that this article threw out numbers and figures at us but didn't go into much depth with explaining this ethinic tendency. It makes sense that many Irish women felt that they needed to be single in order to raise money for their families in Ireland, but it feels like many ethnic groups would have behaved the same way. Diner explains that the Irish married later in life back home, but I seemed to walk away from this article with more questions then before. What exactly was the reason that the people in Ireland married later and why did it differ so much from other nationalites? Were there more troubled marriages in Ireland? - Celia<br />
<br />
== Working Class Families ==<br />
<br />
I've always thought this was interesting, that even though the family needs the money and needs things to get done, they still have strict gender divisions. As quoted on page 103 of Stephanie Coontz article, "World-class families did accept a clear division of labor on the basis of gender, however, and often formulated it in terms of domesticity." However, I also liked that she included (even if a lot later in the article) that when the housewife was sick, the husband or males or children had to take on the 'women's work' because there were no servants or anyone else to do it. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
It's interesting how Coontz made parallels between ethnicities and also classes. Still it seems that ethnic divisions were very prominent even during the labor movement. The working class family ties in with our recent discussions of childlessness and the importance of children in families. The working class families knew that child wage earners were critical and they must have circumvented child labor laws. I was also surprised to read about the conditions of the women: that immigrants were still hauling water in many cases.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that though immigrants mostly only made up the working class, they had their own "middle class" and in some rare cases they would occasionally work their way up to be comparable to what Coontz called the native-born middle class. Those immigrants that managed to do this did so thought manipulation. I found it interesting that once these families became middle class they changed to mirror their neighbors. While it does not surprise me that they wanted to fit in, I just found it surprising that while they maintained cultural identity up until this point they quickly dropped it.- Kellye S<br />
<br />
I thought that Coontz's discussion on black family life was very interesting and addresses some of past class discussions on single parenting in black families. That black women found work easier then black men was also interesting and must have been a source of contention. It is sad that racial discrimination lead to the failure of black marriages and divorce. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I was wondering about the impact of immigration on family and labor history while I was reading this excerpt. Immigration played such a huge factor in the way that families were shaped and how families and people related to each other, as well as how labor laws played out. It really made me think about labor history in other countries where there was, as far as I know, less immigration and how they dealt with the rising need for unskilled factory laborers. Did they have the same difficulties as the US or if not how were they different? I realize that this doesn't fall in the scope of this class but it was something I couldn't <br />
help thinking about. -Lacey<br />
<br />
Something else that really struck me was that in certain places it was the work that they did rather than the ethnicity they were that tied them together in a community. Coontz says that this phenomenon was limited, but I think that it happened at all says something about the relationship between immigration, labor and the control of the higher-ups. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I thought the differences between the middle-class cult of domesticity and the working-class cult of domesticity were interesting. In our previous readings we have read about the middle class imposing its values on other people, but this is an example of how the recipients of this middle class ideal adopted it to some extent, but also changed it to work for them. -- Rebecca</div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_13_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 13 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-04-16T01:54:41Z<p>Rgraham: /* Irish American Family */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Irish American Family ==<br />
I thought it was interesting how women waited until they were much older to marry than the other groups we have read about. Were there any other groups who waited as long as the Irish or was it just them? --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Diner mentioned other ethnic groups and made it seem like it was only the Irish who waited. I found her discussion of marriage of Irish Americans interesting. Young women were so eager to rush into jobs when they were single, but when they were no longer economic burdens on their families and married, they were eager to stop working and become mothers. I think she painted a pretty bleak picture of their marriages: that at best, the relationships were characterized by irritability and separate spheres.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I find the Irish tradition of late or non marriage impressive. It surprises me that of all traditions that were maintained when coming to America this one stayed. Most women in American were expected to marry young, and the fact that the Irish weren't was very different. While it economically made sense, socially it had to cause problems - Kellye S<br />
<br />
I also thought that it was interesting and somewhat surprising that the Irish men and women married at such a late age or never at all. With the emphasis on having lots of children, I would have expected them to have married sooner. The fact that they were able to maintain this tradition, especially as it was soon new to them, was also surprising. I was impressed that they would with go marriage to provide economic support for their families back in Ireland and in America. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
This article seems odd to me for some reason, maybe because it touches on so many issues but is so short. For example, it states that Irish marriages were characterized by high levels of animosity. Making this kind of statement is really opening a can of worms, but then the article doesn't explore it very much. Compared to our other readings, this one seemed to just skim the surface of Irish immigrant families. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
== Working Class Families ==<br />
<br />
I've always thought this was interesting, that even though the family needs the money and needs things to get done, they still have strict gender divisions. As quoted on page 103 of Stephanie Coontz article, "World-class families did accept a clear division of labor on the basis of gender, however, and often formulated it in terms of domesticity." However, I also liked that she included (even if a lot later in the article) that when the housewife was sick, the husband or males or children had to take on the 'women's work' because there were no servants or anyone else to do it. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
It's interesting how Coontz made parallels between ethnicities and also classes. Still it seems that ethnic divisions were very prominent even during the labor movement. The working class family ties in with our recent discussions of childlessness and the importance of children in families. The working class families knew that child wage earners were critical and they must have circumvented child labor laws. I was also surprised to read about the conditions of the women: that immigrants were still hauling water in many cases.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that though immigrants mostly only made up the working class, they had their own "middle class" and in some rare cases they would occasionally work their way up to be comparable to what Coontz called the native-born middle class. Those immigrants that managed to do this did so thought manipulation. I found it interesting that once these families became middle class they changed to mirror their neighbors. While it does not surprise me that they wanted to fit in, I just found it surprising that while they maintained cultural identity up until this point they quickly dropped it.- Kellye S<br />
<br />
I thought that Coontz's discussion on black family life was very interesting and addresses some of past class discussions on single parenting in black families. That black women found work easier then black men was also interesting and must have been a source of contention. It is sad that racial discrimination lead to the failure of black marriages and divorce. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I was wondering about the impact of immigration on family and labor history while I was reading this excerpt. Immigration played such a huge factor in the way that families were shaped and how families and people related to each other, as well as how labor laws played out. It really made me think about labor history in other countries where there was, as far as I know, less immigration and how they dealt with the rising need for unskilled factory laborers. Did they have the same difficulties as the US or if not how were they different? I realize that this doesn't fall in the scope of this class but it was something I couldn't <br />
help thinking about. -Lacey<br />
<br />
Something else that really struck me was that in certain places it was the work that they did rather than the ethnicity they were that tied them together in a community. Coontz says that this phenomenon was limited, but I think that it happened at all says something about the relationship between immigration, labor and the control of the higher-ups. -Lacey</div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_13_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 13 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-04-14T03:31:44Z<p>Rgraham: /* General Comments */</p>
<hr />
<div>== General Comments ==<br />
I found this factoid interesting when I learned about it in my History of Spain class a few semesters back, but the fact that the Jewish community had many women work outside the home so that the men could pray is amazing. It seems like all we've read this semester is the community saw the woman as the pious religious guide, and then here among the Jews its the opposite. The guys are seen as the religious ones. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I agree with Ashley, although it appeared to me that the religious or intellectual occupation of the Jewish man had little bearing to economically advancing the Jewish family. I found it interesting the examples that Glenn uses in her reading that some Jewish fathers who were intellectuals or pious scholars often did not allow their daughters enough opportunity to advance in society. I think it was through these examples where Glenn begins to define how Jewish Zionists and Bundists reacted to socialism and how it effected the Jewish women. --Joe C. <br />
<br />
I also found it interesting that women were respected for working and being the breadwinners as long as their husbands were doing religious things. It especially liked when it said that although the work women were doing now was hard and not fun the women would benefit in the afterlife. It's funny how women would benefit in the afterlife for their hard labor and taking care of their husbands and men would benefit in the afterlife from studying -- seems a little unfair to me. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
I also found the role of women’s work interesting and how their work outside the home provided them with leverage and fluidity. In contrast I found the role of tailors to be particularly interesting, demonstrating the role reversal of gender responsibilities and occupations. It was not acceptable, in fact shameful for men to be tailors, yet it was liberating, economically wise, and brought great pride to families with daughters who were seamstresses or dressmakers. Why do you think so? In what other ethnic groups has this been practiced? – Mary Beth <br />
<br />
I have to say, I still find it depressing to read in articles, books, documents, etc... that females weren't worth as much. That they were seen as lesser beings, burdens, or not much more than a slave to her male family counterparts (father, brothers, husband, etc...). I always feel so sad and sympathetic for them. Although, I also wonder if they felt repressed by the men because that was the life they knew. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this reading. I had never thought about how ethnic/religious groups fit in to the working class history. It was interested to learn about how their religion affected their work. It is also nice to get another religious perspective, specifically the Jewish perspective, about the working class America and gender roles. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
I think it is interesting to look at the Jewish immigrant group in the United States because no matter where they settled they were seen as outsiders. I liked having a chance to look at how they were affected by immigration to America. -Lacey<br />
<br />
As the author briefly notes, so is the case in much of Jewish history.<br />
<br />
I also enjoyed this reading and found the background information very helpful for understanding some of the Jewish reactions to America. For instance, the background on Jewish attitudes towards housekeeping made it easier to understand how insulted they felt by being asked to do household tasks, such as cleaning, in their new American tenements and boarding houses. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I thought the idea of working for one's self as opposed to working for someone else was an interesting notion. It was interesting to see how business was the dominant and most admired profession because it required mental strength and intellect and if a woman could get a job like that she would be held in higher regard. Typically it's domestic work and work around the household that is seen as woman's work and the more respectable position for women. To reward them for their intellect is something new. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I was intrigued by Glenn's comment that "the disparate subfields of social history have not been well integrated." In this case she is looking at immigration history, women's history, and the history of Jewish immigrants in the American garment industry. I agree with Glenn's comment, and I think this is a problem that has come up a lot in this class. Often when we have critiqued a book, the problem seems to be a lack of integration of these subfields in social history. For example, some of us complained that the book on courtship and divorce in the American West was not properly integrated with Native American studies. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
== Women in the Old World ==<br />
I think Glenn's reading makes a clear distinction between Jewish women's lives in the Old World versus their new role in America. Although women received unequal rights and responsibilities, I found it interesting that they were given the opportunity to work in the business sector of the eastern European economy. Whereas in many regions throughout the United States women usually worked domestically, Jewish women in eastern Europe perceived domestic service as the lowest on the hierarchy of female occupations. Yet the business sector for Jewish women was greatly disadvantaged because their Sabbath on saturday rather than sunday forced them to only do business five days of the week. I was also intrigued about their ability to work in artisan shops and their significance to the sewing industry. Yet because of the economic constructs of eastern Europe, they were always subject to shortages of products and machines. --Joe C.<br />
<br />
Like Joe I found the comparison between Jewish women's lives in the Old World in relation to their new role in America to be intresting. I think this ties in really well with Joe's point from above about education/academic expectations. On another note, Does the way women worked in the "old-world" provide one of the reasons for anti-semetic feelings in America? - Stephen<br />
<br />
<br />
== Jewish Women in America ==<br />
I've actually been to Ellis Island and when you visit that place, nowhere do they refer to it as the "Isle of Tears." Bad for publicity, I suppose. What these families had to go through to get into America sounds just horrible and so bothersome. The fact that one wrong answer could prevent you from your final destination for days is just absurd. America was seen as the land of opportunity for a lot of the immigrant groups that came through and being immediately greeted with such a harsh environment must have made these families worry from the start. It is a bit comforting to know, however, that the guards at Ellis Island did their best to look out for the young women traveling alone. That had to be terrifying on a number of levels. -Kelly W.</div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_12_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 12 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-04-09T03:54:15Z<p>Rgraham: /* Barren to Infertile */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Preface& Intro. ==<br />
It's crazy to think about society determining who is suited for having children and who is not. It does not seem like society's place but then reading about how much of a say communities tried to have, or in some cases did have, made it seem like it was rather normal in some societies in the nineteenth century. Procreation is a very private decision among the family itself and it's kind of shocking how public this sacred decision is becoming. With all of the technology and medical advancements we have today the decision to have children is a much more public decision. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
One thing that really struck me in the preface is how emotionally charged this issue was for all the people who answered the author's query. On all sides of the issues people used such strong language, like the one woman complaining about all the "breeder propaganda" in the media. I was most surprised by people like her who were vehemently against having children in general. There is a difference between "that's not right for me" and "why is this breeder propaganda everywhere!?" This attitude surprised me because it is not one that I hear very often. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
== Barren to Infertile ==<br />
<br />
While it is not the first time that I have heard it, it still surprises me how women who gave birth to stillborn or who couldn't get pregnant were blamed. It was always the woman's fault if there were problems with childbirth. One thing that did surprise me was the link between infertility and witchcraft. Women that could not get pregnant were often assumed to be practicing witchcraft and "misdirected powers of fertility." (28) Other causes were often attributed to indiscretions. --Kellye S<br />
<br />
What did you guys think about the picture at the beginning of chapter one? I tried to count the babies, I can't decide if there are ten or eleven. I wonder if colonists really thought about reproduction as so central to the new world they were creating. This picture makes it seem like they did. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
== Eugenics ==<br />
I did not know about the prevalence of abortion in the early 1900s. The reasons and ways eugenicists tried to convince to people, or not to (depending on their race/class) was interesting. I was surprised to read that movies and Hollywood helped to create the childless movement.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I knew eugenics had a start in the 1900s, but I did not realize how quickly it became a dominant mindset among some of the medical community. It was horrible of the eugenicists to try to determine who was allowed to have children and to mock the women who were unable to have their own children. Regardless of how badly some of these women wanted kids, they were still shunned and scorned for being infertile. It just seems like a horrible situation to be in; to be yelled at for being infertile. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
== Sterilization ==<br />
This always amazes me. Every time I read it I'm still amazed and mad. Doctors sterilized people without their knowledge or permission! It disgusts me! And I know they thought they were doing the right thing, but its still retarded! --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
The idea of involuntary sterilization upsets me. I guess I can sort of understand how people would not want the mentally disabled to have children, especially those that were poor. It seems that people didn't want to have to pay for the poor and if there were even more poor, especially children whose parents couldn't even take care of themselves let alone a child. Mentally disabled poor caused problems for society and I can see how a portion could want to prevent these people from having children. At the same time a doctor sterilizing someone without their permission is really wrong. -- Kellye S<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Kelly about the section on sterilization. I was appalled to learn how many men and women, particularly minority groups such as Native Americans and African Americans, were sterilized against their will and frequently without their consent or prior knowledge. Not only does this illustrate discrimination but it really shows how much people, particularly doctors, really believed that by making these individuals infertile, society would be improved. Its unfortunate that they did not put more time and attention towards improving their environments instead of removing their fertility. It also surprised me that eugenics and sterilization remained so prevalent event after Hitler's mass sterilizations in Germany. I would think that that would have halted such acts in the United States. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
== Reaction to the Reading ==<br />
<br />
Readings such as these usually make me mad. Mostly because all I think of is that men were selfish pigs who understood nothing. If a woman doesn't want to have children with you that says something about the current relationship! Make it better before you try to bring children into the scene. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Did this reading change how you think about childless families in America? If so, how? -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
Overall, I thought that this was a very interesting reading. I have never really considered the history of childlessness but this article really highlighted the variety of emotions people feel about it and have felt over the course of American history. The historical shifts in society's attitudes towards childlessness seem readily apparent, particularly from the colonial period to the progressive era. --Sarah Gardner</div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_12_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 12 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-04-09T03:48:54Z<p>Rgraham: /* Preface& Intro. */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Preface& Intro. ==<br />
It's crazy to think about society determining who is suited for having children and who is not. It does not seem like society's place but then reading about how much of a say communities tried to have, or in some cases did have, made it seem like it was rather normal in some societies in the nineteenth century. Procreation is a very private decision among the family itself and it's kind of shocking how public this sacred decision is becoming. With all of the technology and medical advancements we have today the decision to have children is a much more public decision. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
One thing that really struck me in the preface is how emotionally charged this issue was for all the people who answered the author's query. On all sides of the issues people used such strong language, like the one woman complaining about all the "breeder propaganda" in the media. I was most surprised by people like her who were vehemently against having children in general. There is a difference between "that's not right for me" and "why is this breeder propaganda everywhere!?" This attitude surprised me because it is not one that I hear very often. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
== Barren to Infertile ==<br />
<br />
While it is not the first time that I have heard it, it still surprises me how women who gave birth to stillborn or who couldn't get pregnant were blamed. It was always the woman's fault if there were problems with childbirth. One thing that did surprise me was the link between infertility and witchcraft. Women that could not get pregnant were often assumed to be practicing witchcraft and "misdirected powers of fertility." (28) Other causes were often attributed to indiscretions. --Kellye S<br />
<br />
== Eugenics ==<br />
I did not know about the prevalence of abortion in the early 1900s. The reasons and ways eugenicists tried to convince to people, or not to (depending on their race/class) was interesting. I was surprised to read that movies and Hollywood helped to create the childless movement.--Amanda<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sterilization ==<br />
This always amazes me. Every time I read it I'm still amazed and mad. Doctors sterilized people without their knowledge or permission! It disgusts me! And I know they thought they were doing the right thing, but its still retarded! --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
The idea of involuntary sterilization upsets me. I guess I can sort of understand how people would not want the mentally disabled to have children, especially those that were poor. It seems that people didn't want to have to pay for the poor and if there were even more poor, especially children whose parents couldn't even take care of themselves let alone a child. Mentally disabled poor caused problems for society and I can see how a portion could want to prevent these people from having children. At the same time a doctor sterilizing someone without their permission is really wrong. -- Kellye S<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Kelly about the section on sterilization. I was appalled to learn how many men and women, particularly minority groups such as Native Americans and African Americans, were sterilized against their will and frequently without their consent or prior knowledge. Not only does this illustrate discrimination but it really shows how much people, particularly doctors, really believed that by making these individuals infertile, society would be improved. Its unfortunate that they did not put more time and attention towards improving their environments instead of removing their fertility. It also surprised me that eugenics and sterilization remained so prevalent event after Hitler's mass sterilizations in Germany. I would think that that would have halted such acts in the United States. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
== Reaction to the Reading ==<br />
<br />
Readings such as these usually make me mad. Mostly because all I think of is that men were selfish pigs who understood nothing. If a woman doesn't want to have children with you that says something about the current relationship! Make it better before you try to bring children into the scene. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Did this reading change how you think about childless families in America? If so, how? -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
Overall, I thought that this was a very interesting reading. I have never really considered the history of childlessness but this article really highlighted the variety of emotions people feel about it and have felt over the course of American history. The historical shifts in society's attitudes towards childlessness seem readily apparent, particularly from the colonial period to the progressive era. --Sarah Gardner</div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_12_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 12 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-04-09T03:21:50Z<p>Rgraham: /* Reaction to the Reading */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Preface& Intro. ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Barren to Infertile ==<br />
<br />
While it is not the first time that I have heard it, it still surprises me how women who gave birth to stillborn or who couldn't get pregnant were blamed. It was always the woman's fault if there were problems with childbirth. One thing that did surprise me was the link between infertility and witchcraft. Women that could not get pregnant were often assumed to be practicing witchcraft and "misdirected powers of fertility." (28) Other causes were often attributed to indiscretions. --Kellye S<br />
<br />
== Eugenics ==<br />
I did not know about the prevalence of abortion in the early 1900s. The reasons and ways eugenicists tried to convince to people, or not to (depending on their race/class) was interesting. I was surprised to read that movies and Hollywood helped to create the childless movement.--Amanda<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sterilization ==<br />
This always amazes me. Every time I read it I'm still amazed and mad. Doctors sterilized people without their knowledge or permission! It disgusts me! And I know they thought they were doing the right thing, but its still retarded! --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
The idea of involuntary sterilization upsets me. I guess I can sort of understand how people would not want the mentally disabled to have children, especially those that were poor. It seems that people didn't want to have to pay for the poor and if there were even more poor, especially children whose parents couldn't even take care of themselves let alone a child. Mentally disabled poor caused problems for society and I can see how a portion could want to prevent these people from having children. At the same time a doctor sterilizing someone without their permission is really wrong. -- Kellye S<br />
<br />
== Reaction to the Reading ==<br />
<br />
Readings such as these usually make me mad. Mostly because all I think of is that men were selfish pigs who understood nothing. If a woman doesn't want to have children with you that says something about the current relationship! Make it better before you try to bring children into the scene. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Did this reading change how you think about childless families in America? If so, how? -- Rebecca</div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_12_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 12 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-04-09T03:21:35Z<p>Rgraham: /* Reaction to the Reading */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Preface& Intro. ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Barren to Infertile ==<br />
<br />
While it is not the first time that I have heard it, it still surprises me how women who gave birth to stillborn or who couldn't get pregnant were blamed. It was always the woman's fault if there were problems with childbirth. One thing that did surprise me was the link between infertility and witchcraft. Women that could not get pregnant were often assumed to be practicing witchcraft and "misdirected powers of fertility." (28) Other causes were often attributed to indiscretions. --Kellye S<br />
<br />
== Eugenics ==<br />
I did not know about the prevalence of abortion in the early 1900s. The reasons and ways eugenicists tried to convince to people, or not to (depending on their race/class) was interesting. I was surprised to read that movies and Hollywood helped to create the childless movement.--Amanda<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sterilization ==<br />
This always amazes me. Every time I read it I'm still amazed and mad. Doctors sterilized people without their knowledge or permission! It disgusts me! And I know they thought they were doing the right thing, but its still retarded! --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
The idea of involuntary sterilization upsets me. I guess I can sort of understand how people would not want the mentally disabled to have children, especially those that were poor. It seems that people didn't want to have to pay for the poor and if there were even more poor, especially children whose parents couldn't even take care of themselves let alone a child. Mentally disabled poor caused problems for society and I can see how a portion could want to prevent these people from having children. At the same time a doctor sterilizing someone without their permission is really wrong. -- Kellye S<br />
<br />
== Reaction to the Reading ==<br />
<br />
Readings such as these usually make me mad. Mostly because all I think of is that men were selfish pigs who understood nothing. If a woman doesn't want to have children with you that says something about the current relationship! Make it better before you try to bring children into the scene. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Did this reading change how you think about childless families? If so, how? -- Rebecca</div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_12_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 12 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-04-06T03:34:01Z<p>Rgraham: /* Adams Article */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Background (Please post!)==<br />
<b>This is one of the weeks that the group we are reading about is not Anglo-American. Background and context play an important role in shaping our understanding of these two articles. What background do you have of the two main groups discussed (Cherokee and Sioux)? What have you learned about these topics(from other classes, high school, etc.)? Why might our own background knowledge influence how we interpret Native Americans?</b><br />
<br />
I haven't studied Native Americans in any of my college history classes but I remember studying them in high school. We focused on cultural practices (longhouses versus teepees essentially). We also talked about unfair treaties and the encroachment of Anglos on Indian land. We did NOT study anything about boarding schools or the various other attempts made by the Anglos to assimilate, convert, or get rid of the Native Americans. I know that when I approach these readings I am predisposed to be highly sympathetic towards Native Americans because their stories are so sad. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
==Overall Comments on Both Articles==<br />
<br />
==Perdue Article==<br />
<br />
Perdue talks a lot about Cherokee women in this article. However I feel that she romanticizes their role in society: talking about how gracious and noble they were to do most of the work. I don't really agree with this. I think the women farmed, did manual labor, made pottery, collected firewood and cared for children because they ''had'' to, not because they were saints. They didn't object because they didn't know any different. Also, other than mentioning that men felt that farming was women's work, she didn't go in depth on how emasculated men were. Did any one notice that she used the explorers' accounts for evidence? She took them at face value, instead of explaining the common point of view of people who interacted with Native Americans in that time period. I felt she also used those accounts to propagate the idea that the Cherokee were sexually promiscuous and licentious. Who's standard is she using? Thomas Jefferson believed the same things, as did most people in the early 18th Century. But it's not what I expected from a modern historian. She didn't question the reliability and accuracy of those sources, and I think she wrote this with rose colored glasses.--Amanda<br />
<br />
==Adams Article==<br />
<br />
After reading this article, I was wondering what the separation did to Sioux families. I think the structure of their families already drastically changed with the introduction of the reservation system. But especially with the "forced procurement" of children, the traditional culture began to decline rapidly. Because so much of their culture was taught and learned (and I don't mean from books), sending children to a foreign school wiped out chances to instill Sioux (or Navajo, Comanche, Kiowa, Caddo...) identity and caused traditional family structure to fall apart.--Amanda<br />
<br />
<b>Question:</b> What do you think about the intentions of the missionaries, teachers, and other policy makers who were behind the boarding schools? Do you think genuinely wanted to help Native Americans? Or they were trying to get rid of them? How much of their policy was about religion? How much was about racism? -- Rebecca</div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_12_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 12 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-04-06T03:33:33Z<p>Rgraham: /* Adams Article */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Background (Please post!)==<br />
<b>This is one of the weeks that the group we are reading about is not Anglo-American. Background and context play an important role in shaping our understanding of these two articles. What background do you have of the two main groups discussed (Cherokee and Sioux)? What have you learned about these topics(from other classes, high school, etc.)? Why might our own background knowledge influence how we interpret Native Americans?</b><br />
<br />
I haven't studied Native Americans in any of my college history classes but I remember studying them in high school. We focused on cultural practices (longhouses versus teepees essentially). We also talked about unfair treaties and the encroachment of Anglos on Indian land. We did NOT study anything about boarding schools or the various other attempts made by the Anglos to assimilate, convert, or get rid of the Native Americans. I know that when I approach these readings I am predisposed to be highly sympathetic towards Native Americans because their stories are so sad. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
==Overall Comments on Both Articles==<br />
<br />
==Perdue Article==<br />
<br />
Perdue talks a lot about Cherokee women in this article. However I feel that she romanticizes their role in society: talking about how gracious and noble they were to do most of the work. I don't really agree with this. I think the women farmed, did manual labor, made pottery, collected firewood and cared for children because they ''had'' to, not because they were saints. They didn't object because they didn't know any different. Also, other than mentioning that men felt that farming was women's work, she didn't go in depth on how emasculated men were. Did any one notice that she used the explorers' accounts for evidence? She took them at face value, instead of explaining the common point of view of people who interacted with Native Americans in that time period. I felt she also used those accounts to propagate the idea that the Cherokee were sexually promiscuous and licentious. Who's standard is she using? Thomas Jefferson believed the same things, as did most people in the early 18th Century. But it's not what I expected from a modern historian. She didn't question the reliability and accuracy of those sources, and I think she wrote this with rose colored glasses.--Amanda<br />
<br />
==Adams Article==<br />
<br />
After reading this article, I was wondering what the separation did to Sioux families. I think the structure of their families already drastically changed with the introduction of the reservation system. But especially with the "forced procurement" of children, the traditional culture began to decline rapidly. Because so much of their culture was taught and learned (and I don't mean from books), sending children to a foreign school wiped out chances to instill Sioux (or Navajo, Comanche, Kiowa, Caddo...) identity and caused traditional family structure to fall apart.--Amanda<br />
<br />
What do you think about the intentions of the missionaries, teachers, and other policy makers who were behind the boarding schools? Do you think genuinely wanted to help Native Americans? Or they were trying to get rid of them? How much of their policy was about religion? How much was about racism? -- Rebecca</div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Potluck_Sign-upPotluck Sign-up2009-04-06T03:26:59Z<p>Rgraham: New page: '''If only we had some sort of handy tool that we could use to coordinate our potluck lunch... hmmm ''' Rebecca -- Pita Bread and Hummus</p>
<hr />
<div>'''If only we had some sort of handy tool that we could use to coordinate our potluck lunch... hmmm<br />
'''<br />
<br />
Rebecca -- Pita Bread and Hummus</div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_426HIST 4262009-04-06T03:26:28Z<p>Rgraham: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[426--Discussion Leaders]]<br />
<br />
[[426--Week 1 Questions/Comments--Tuesday]]<br />
<br />
[[426--Week 1 Questions/Comments--Thursday]]<br />
<br />
[[426--Week 2 Questions/Comments--Tuesday]]<br />
<br />
[[426--Week 2 Questions/Comments--Thursday]]<br />
<br />
[[426--Week 3 Questions/Comments--Tuesday]]<br />
<br />
[[426--Week 3 Questions/Comments--Thursday]]<br />
<br />
[[426--Week 4 Questions/Comments--Tuesday]]<br />
<br />
[[426--Week 4 Questions/Comments--Thursday]]<br />
<br />
[[426--Week 5 Questions/Comments--Tuesday]]<br />
<br />
[[426--Week 5 Questions/Comments--Thursday]]<br />
<br />
[[426--Week 6 Questions/Comments--Tuesday]]<br />
<br />
[[426--Week 6 Questions/Comments--Thursday]]<br />
<br />
[[426--Week 7 Questions/Comments--Tuesday]]<br />
<br />
[[426--Week 7 Questions/Comments--Thursday]]<br />
<br />
[[426--Week 8 Questions/Comments--Tuesday]]<br />
<br />
[[426--Week 8 Questions/Comments--Thursday]]<br />
<br />
[[426--Week 9 Questions/Comments--Tuesday]]<br />
<br />
[[426--Week 9 Questions/Comments--Thursday]]<br />
<br />
[[426--Week 10 Questions/Comments--Tuesday]]<br />
<br />
[[426--Week 10 Questions/Comments--Thursday]]<br />
<br />
[[426--Week 11 Questions/Comments--Tuesday]]<br />
<br />
[[426--Week 11 Questions/Comments--Thursday]]<br />
<br />
[[426--Week 12 Questions/Comments--Tuesday]]<br />
<br />
[[426--Week 12 Questions/Comments--Thursday]]<br />
<br />
[[426--Week 13 Questions/Comments--Tuesday]]<br />
<br />
[[426--Week 13 Questions/Comments--Thursday]]<br />
<br />
[[426--Week 14 Questions/Comments--Tuesday]]<br />
<br />
[[426--Week 14 Questions/Comments--Thursday]]<br />
<br />
[[Potluck Sign-up]]</div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_12_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 12 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-04-06T03:22:00Z<p>Rgraham: /* Background (Please post!) */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Background (Please post!)==<br />
<b>This is one of the weeks that the group we are reading about is not Anglo-American. Background and context play an important role in shaping our understanding of these two articles. What background do you have of the two main groups discussed (Cherokee and Sioux)? What have you learned about these topics(from other classes, high school, etc.)? Why might our own background knowledge influence how we interpret Native Americans?</b><br />
<br />
I haven't studied Native Americans in any of my college history classes but I remember studying them in high school. We focused on cultural practices (longhouses versus teepees essentially). We also talked about unfair treaties and the encroachment of Anglos on Indian land. We did NOT study anything about boarding schools or the various other attempts made by the Anglos to assimilate, convert, or get rid of the Native Americans. I know that when I approach these readings I am predisposed to be highly sympathetic towards Native Americans because their stories are so sad. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
==Overall Comments on Both Articles==<br />
<br />
==Perdue Article==<br />
<br />
Perdue talks a lot about Cherokee women in this article. However I feel that she romanticizes their role in society: talking about how gracious and noble they were to do most of the work. I don't really agree with this. I think the women farmed, did manual labor, made pottery, collected firewood and cared for children because they ''had'' to, not because they were saints. They didn't object because they didn't know any different. Also, other than mentioning that men felt that farming was women's work, she didn't go in depth on how emasculated men were. Did any one notice that she used the explorers' accounts for evidence? She took them at face value, instead of explaining the common point of view of people who interacted with Native Americans in that time period. I felt she also used those accounts to propagate the idea that the Cherokee were sexually promiscuous and licentious. Who's standard is she using? Thomas Jefferson believed the same things, as did most people in the early 18th Century. But it's not what I expected from a modern historian. She didn't question the reliability and accuracy of those sources, and I think she wrote this with rose colored glasses.--Amanda<br />
<br />
==Adams Article==<br />
<br />
After reading this article, I was wondering what the separation did to Sioux families. I think the structure of their families already drastically changed with the introduction of the reservation system. But especially with the "forced procurement" of children, the traditional culture began to decline rapidly. Because so much of their culture was taught and learned (and I don't mean from books), sending children to a foreign school wiped out chances to instill Sioux (or Navajo, Comanche, Kiowa, Caddo...) identity and caused traditional family structure to fall apart.--Amanda</div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_11_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 11 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-04-02T03:50:12Z<p>Rgraham: /* Epilogue */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Comments about Tuesday's Article ==<br />
<br />
I really found it funny that the guys did not want to plant a little house garden, or even really thought about it because it was 'women's work.' It was also kind of sad that they did not think of it and were malnourished because they weren't eating a good and healthy variety of food. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
<br />
I also thought that part was funny. The men were getting scurvy because they felt like planting gardens was a woman's job. I loved the part about the "domestic triumphs," like when the one guy finally learned how to make good pancakes. This reading gave me the impression that men did not want to do women's work because they didn't know how to do it and they felt like they would suck at it, not because it was demeaning or embarrassing. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
== Chapter 3 ==<br />
What pressures did Intermarried couples face?--Joyce<br />
<br />
Riley listed several pressures facing intermarried couples in the West, most of which were related to the family, the community, or legislation. Some of the more specific pressures were related to religion and differences in cultural values. When each individual ascribed too very different ideas about faith, children, and even methods of communication, problems easily resulted. Yet, I believe that on some level, every couple, intermarried or otherwise, had to make concessions or discuss some issues on which they differed. I don't think one can assume that simply because two people come from the same culture or race they shared the exact same values or customs. To be sure, intermarried couples had more differences and hurdles to overcome but I think that every couple would have faced at least a few of the same pressures and challenges. --Sarah Gardner <br />
<br />
<br />
What advantages did intermarried couples have?---Joyce<br />
<br />
Many Native American and Spanish women married Anglo men for economic and social reasons. Anglo men were more economically stable than Native American and Spanish men and the women would therefore have a higher status in society than if they were to marry someone of their own ethnic group. It was also advantageous for Anglo men to marry Native Americans and Spanish because the women knew their native language and culture and therefore was beneficial for trade. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
== Pictures on Pages 102-111==<br />
<br />
I was amused with picture number 18 because I thought the idea that someone would post an item like this, along with a reward for the wife's return. It makes you wonder why she left, if he was able to offer an award their finances might not have been all that bad. Maybe he was abusive, cruel, or something else? -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I think these photographs really show the diversity that the previous chapters talked about, even more than the last set of pictures. You can also see how Anglo culture was imposed on many of the other residents of the west. Particularly in the clothing that they are wearing in the images which for the most part is not their native costume. -Lacey<br />
<br />
== Chapter 4 ==<br />
<br />
I thought that is was an interesting chapter but it didn't seem to fit with the rest of the book. While the other sections seemed to rely more on the notion of cultural layering, this section didn't seem to mention differences in cultural practices except for a few mentions of differing cultural practices at the very beginning. Rather, it seem to focus more on economic influences and differences in gender in relation to rates of divorce. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I was really struck by the first part of this chapter. Riley talks about how the idea of divorce fit really well with ideas of change, western democracy, individualism, and the pursuit of personal happiness, ideas which were all really popular in the West. This is not the first time we have seen really big social ideas shape family structure. It reminds me of how ideas from the Revolution shaped families, and how ideas of Republican motherhood shaped expectations for moms. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
== Epilogue ==<br />
<br />
I was surprised that the book ended with a petition to fix the problem of divorce in the West today. Are the concentrations of divorce as high there today as they were in the 19th Century? I also understand her call to teachers. But as a future teacher (who understands the need to influence students positively) I don't know how realistic is to have this expectation. She writes that we need to include courtship practices and marriage customs in multicultural education. Well, we don't teach about that for the "American"/Anglo culture. Parents wouldn't like it. It's too personal (with the variety of diverse family backgrounds today) and frankly beyond the scope of curriculum for our schools. How can we teach children, during school, that divorce is wrong, when some of them might come from broken homes? I felt the jump from the last chapter to the epilogue was a little jolting. I don't know how we can stop the western divorce rate, but I think it's a widespread problem. One thing for sure is that it's not a question we can solve easily. After all though, this is America, and you can marry (almost) whoever you want, and the same goes for divorce.--Amanda<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Amanda's comments. This epilogue was a little weird. Riley says that legislation is necessary that would make marriage harder to get (she mentions waiting periods and mandatory counseling). This is a strange idea to me. I don't think it is the place of the government to try to prevent failed marriages. That seems like a personal thing. I guess this gets at one of the reoccurring themes in this class: when is family a purely personal thing, and when is it a social building block that should be regulated and defined for the good of society. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
== Mintz and Kellogg ==<br />
I felt that Mintz and Kellogg kind of sensationalized the struggles that these people went to, particularly those moving out west. I feel that if there continued to be people who made the decision to go out west the risks couldn't be as completely insurmountable as Mintz and Kellogg make them out to be. It just goes back to many of our previous statements that they overgeneralize, I guess. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I agree with Lacey that Mintz and Kellogg often speak too broadly and generally in this section. Something that Mintz and Kellogg do not mention in their brief discussion of American families on the western trail is that, in spite of their attempts to "maintain a firm sexual division of labor," they were often unable to do so. Women often drove wagons and men had to cook when their wives were ill or unable to do so. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
This sectioned mentioned how the main thing pioneers relied on while they were traveling westward was their family. Their family had to work together in order to survive. While this focus is on the nuclear family, it is more about a sense of community with their family rather than the growing individualism seen in the east. The environment a family was in determined how that family reacted to each other. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
== Any other Questions/Comments about the readings from Tuesday or Thursday ==<br />
<br />
I like this reading (Riley) because of its straightforwardness. Question: What explains the high divorce rate in the West? Answer: Cultural layering and changing courtship/ marriage practices due to the cultural layering.--Amanda</div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_11_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 11 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-04-02T03:35:14Z<p>Rgraham: /* Chapter 4 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Comments about Tuesday's Article ==<br />
<br />
I really found it funny that the guys did not want to plant a little house garden, or even really thought about it because it was 'women's work.' It was also kind of sad that they did not think of it and were malnourished because they weren't eating a good and healthy variety of food. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
<br />
I also thought that part was funny. The men were getting scurvy because they felt like planting gardens was a woman's job. I loved the part about the "domestic triumphs," like when the one guy finally learned how to make good pancakes. This reading gave me the impression that men did not want to do women's work because they didn't know how to do it and they felt like they would suck at it, not because it was demeaning or embarrassing. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
== Chapter 3 ==<br />
What pressures did Intermarried couples face?--Joyce<br />
<br />
Riley listed several pressures facing intermarried couples in the West, most of which were related to the family, the community, or legislation. Some of the more specific pressures were related to religion and differences in cultural values. When each individual ascribed too very different ideas about faith, children, and even methods of communication, problems easily resulted. Yet, I believe that on some level, every couple, intermarried or otherwise, had to make concessions or discuss some issues on which they differed. I don't think one can assume that simply because two people come from the same culture or race they shared the exact same values or customs. To be sure, intermarried couples had more differences and hurdles to overcome but I think that every couple would have faced at least a few of the same pressures and challenges. --Sarah Gardner <br />
<br />
<br />
What advantages did intermarried couples have?---Joyce<br />
<br />
Many Native American and Spanish women married Anglo men for economic and social reasons. Anglo men were more economically stable than Native American and Spanish men and the women would therefore have a higher status in society than if they were to marry someone of their own ethnic group. It was also advantageous for Anglo men to marry Native Americans and Spanish because the women knew their native language and culture and therefore was beneficial for trade. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
== Pictures on Pages 102-111==<br />
<br />
I was amused with picture number 18 because I thought the idea that someone would post an item like this, along with a reward for the wife's return. It makes you wonder why she left, if he was able to offer an award their finances might not have been all that bad. Maybe he was abusive, cruel, or something else? -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I think these photographs really show the diversity that the previous chapters talked about, even more than the last set of pictures. You can also see how Anglo culture was imposed on many of the other residents of the west. Particularly in the clothing that they are wearing in the images which for the most part is not their native costume. -Lacey<br />
<br />
== Chapter 4 ==<br />
<br />
I thought that is was an interesting chapter but it didn't seem to fit with the rest of the book. While the other sections seemed to rely more on the notion of cultural layering, this section didn't seem to mention differences in cultural practices except for a few mentions of differing cultural practices at the very beginning. Rather, it seem to focus more on economic influences and differences in gender in relation to rates of divorce. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I was really struck by the first part of this chapter. Riley talks about how the idea of divorce fit really well with ideas of change, western democracy, individualism, and the pursuit of personal happiness, ideas which were all really popular in the West. This is not the first time we have seen really big social ideas shape family structure. It reminds me of how ideas from the Revolution shaped families, and how ideas of Republican motherhood shaped expectations for moms. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
== Epilogue ==<br />
<br />
I was surprised that the book ended with a petition to fix the problem of divorce in the West today. Are the concentrations of divorce as high there today as they were in the 19th Century? I also understand her call to teachers. But as a future teacher (who understands the need to influence students positively) I don't know how realistic is to have this expectation. She writes that we need to include courtship practices and marriage customs in multicultural education. Well, we don't teach about that for the "American"/Anglo culture. Parents wouldn't like it. It's too personal (with the variety of diverse family backgrounds today) and frankly beyond the scope of curriculum for our schools. How can we teach children, during school, that divorce is wrong, when some of them might come from broken homes? I felt the jump from the last chapter to the epilogue was a little jolting. I don't know how we can stop the western divorce rate, but I think it's a widespread problem. One thing for sure is that it's not a question we can solve easily. After all though, this is America, and you can marry (almost) whoever you want, and the same goes for divorce.--Amanda<br />
<br />
== Mintz and Kellogg ==<br />
I felt that Mintz and Kellogg kind of sensationalized the struggles that these people went to, particularly those moving out west. I feel that if there continued to be people who made the decision to go out west the risks couldn't be as completely insurmountable as Mintz and Kellogg make them out to be. It just goes back to many of our previous statements that they overgeneralize, I guess. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I agree with Lacey that Mintz and Kellogg often speak too broadly and generally in this section. Something that Mintz and Kellogg do not mention in their brief discussion of American families on the western trail is that, in spite of their attempts to "maintain a firm sexual division of labor," they were often unable to do so. Women often drove wagons and men had to cook when their wives were ill or unable to do so. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
This sectioned mentioned how the main thing pioneers relied on while they were traveling westward was their family. Their family had to work together in order to survive. While this focus is on the nuclear family, it is more about a sense of community with their family rather than the growing individualism seen in the east. The environment a family was in determined how that family reacted to each other. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
== Any other Questions/Comments about the readings from Tuesday or Thursday ==<br />
<br />
I like this reading (Riley) because of its straightforwardness. Question: What explains the high divorce rate in the West? Answer: Cultural layering and changing courtship/ marriage practices due to the cultural layering.--Amanda</div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_11_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 11 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-04-02T03:30:12Z<p>Rgraham: /* Comments about Tuesday's Article */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Comments about Tuesday's Article ==<br />
<br />
I really found it funny that the guys did not want to plant a little house garden, or even really thought about it because it was 'women's work.' It was also kind of sad that they did not think of it and were malnourished because they weren't eating a good and healthy variety of food. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
<br />
I also thought that part was funny. The men were getting scurvy because they felt like planting gardens was a woman's job. I loved the part about the "domestic triumphs," like when the one guy finally learned how to make good pancakes. This reading gave me the impression that men did not want to do women's work because they didn't know how to do it and they felt like they would suck at it, not because it was demeaning or embarrassing. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
== Chapter 3 ==<br />
What pressures did Intermarried couples face?--Joyce<br />
<br />
Riley listed several pressures facing intermarried couples in the West, most of which were related to the family, the community, or legislation. Some of the more specific pressures were related to religion and differences in cultural values. When each individual ascribed too very different ideas about faith, children, and even methods of communication, problems easily resulted. Yet, I believe that on some level, every couple, intermarried or otherwise, had to make concessions or discuss some issues on which they differed. I don't think one can assume that simply because two people come from the same culture or race they shared the exact same values or customs. To be sure, intermarried couples had more differences and hurdles to overcome but I think that every couple would have faced at least a few of the same pressures and challenges. --Sarah Gardner <br />
<br />
<br />
What advantages did intermarried couples have?---Joyce<br />
<br />
Many Native American and Spanish women married Anglo men for economic and social reasons. Anglo men were more economically stable than Native American and Spanish men and the women would therefore have a higher status in society than if they were to marry someone of their own ethnic group. It was also advantageous for Anglo men to marry Native Americans and Spanish because the women knew their native language and culture and therefore was beneficial for trade. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
== Pictures on Pages 102-111==<br />
<br />
I was amused with picture number 18 because I thought the idea that someone would post an item like this, along with a reward for the wife's return. It makes you wonder why she left, if he was able to offer an award their finances might not have been all that bad. Maybe he was abusive, cruel, or something else? -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I think these photographs really show the diversity that the previous chapters talked about, even more than the last set of pictures. You can also see how Anglo culture was imposed on many of the other residents of the west. Particularly in the clothing that they are wearing in the images which for the most part is not their native costume. -Lacey<br />
<br />
== Chapter 4 ==<br />
<br />
I thought that is was an interesting chapter but it didn't seem to fit with the rest of the book. While the other sections seemed to rely more on the notion of cultural layering, this section didn't seem to mention differences in cultural practices except for a few mentions of differing cultural practices at the very beginning. Rather, it seem to focus more on economic influences and differences in gender in relation to rates of divorce. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
== Epilogue ==<br />
<br />
I was surprised that the book ended with a petition to fix the problem of divorce in the West today. Are the concentrations of divorce as high there today as they were in the 19th Century? I also understand her call to teachers. But as a future teacher (who understands the need to influence students positively) I don't know how realistic is to have this expectation. She writes that we need to include courtship practices and marriage customs in multicultural education. Well, we don't teach about that for the "American"/Anglo culture. Parents wouldn't like it. It's too personal (with the variety of diverse family backgrounds today) and frankly beyond the scope of curriculum for our schools. How can we teach children, during school, that divorce is wrong, when some of them might come from broken homes? I felt the jump from the last chapter to the epilogue was a little jolting. I don't know how we can stop the western divorce rate, but I think it's a widespread problem. One thing for sure is that it's not a question we can solve easily. After all though, this is America, and you can marry (almost) whoever you want, and the same goes for divorce.--Amanda<br />
<br />
== Mintz and Kellogg ==<br />
I felt that Mintz and Kellogg kind of sensationalized the struggles that these people went to, particularly those moving out west. I feel that if there continued to be people who made the decision to go out west the risks couldn't be as completely insurmountable as Mintz and Kellogg make them out to be. It just goes back to many of our previous statements that they overgeneralize, I guess. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I agree with Lacey that Mintz and Kellogg often speak too broadly and generally in this section. Something that Mintz and Kellogg do not mention in their brief discussion of American families on the western trail is that, in spite of their attempts to "maintain a firm sexual division of labor," they were often unable to do so. Women often drove wagons and men had to cook when their wives were ill or unable to do so. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
This sectioned mentioned how the main thing pioneers relied on while they were traveling westward was their family. Their family had to work together in order to survive. While this focus is on the nuclear family, it is more about a sense of community with their family rather than the growing individualism seen in the east. The environment a family was in determined how that family reacted to each other. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
== Any other Questions/Comments about the readings from Tuesday or Thursday ==<br />
<br />
I like this reading (Riley) because of its straightforwardness. Question: What explains the high divorce rate in the West? Answer: Cultural layering and changing courtship/ marriage practices due to the cultural layering.--Amanda</div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_11_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 11 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-03-31T03:16:02Z<p>Rgraham: </p>
<hr />
<div>I thought the ethnic differences in courting were incredible. Spanish courtships was not unlike that pursued by Anglos, with more strictures. The Native American courting rituals where the man sits at the foot of the woman's bed with her grandmother as a chaperone was kind of creepy and seemed really archaic. What would you be thinking if your grandmother woke you up in the middle of the night with a guy sitting there watching you? The creep-factor aside, I thought it and other NA methods of courtship were really interesting. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Lacey on the creep factor. Heh, that would disturb me greatly... more so with my mom's mom than dad's mom... but the thought gives me shivers. I do have to say I liked how Riley incorporated so many different groups into the book, it gave a lot of easy C/C on the spot. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I also would have to agree with both of you on the Native American courtship methods. But I think its also important to remember that the purpose of the book was to introduce the diversity of western marriage and families, and how they are associated today with the highest divorce rates in the nation. I think the courtship chapter makes it clear that the limited contact between male and females of most cultures limited the options for whom they could marry and thus forced relationships. Of course there were other factors as well. I was very intrigued by the common portrayal of women in these cultures. Would a rise in individualism among women in the west result because of strict familial patterns? Or is it their portrayal in the journals, newspapers, forms of media of the day. Example: the woman who put herself as an add in the Waterloo, Iowa paper for courtship and then being compared to a piece of household furniture by an editor in an editorial. --Joe C. <br />
<br />
The first half of this book is interesting. I like Riley's use of the term "cultural layering." I also noticed that she used the phrase "women of color" like the authors from last week. The practices of courtship and marriage certainly varied a lot between groups. Some practices were shocking to me, like the picture brides marrying someone based on correspondence! I had a small problem with Riley's discussion however. I know that she was trying to show the dichotomy with the groups in the West, but I feel like Native Americans need their own assessment. Their traditions may seem weird to us, but that is heightened when you take groups out of their context. I don't feel it's right to lump them together like you can perhaps get away with (like her use of Anglo or Chicana) but the Chippewa can't be examined with tribes of the Southwest. Also, their experience was different because unlike the other groups, they did not emigrate from another country. I like her thesis though, that the interaction among and within families caused conflict.--Amanda <br />
<br />
I think you could say that about a number of the groups. I agree that I thought the same thing about her depiction of Native American rituals and practices, that even her descriptions of the different tribes contrasted each other. But look at the other groups, too. The "Anglos" included English, French, Irish, etc. The practices and rituals of each of these ethnic groups are as varied. Compare them to the Slavs and Jews and we're all over the place. - Celia<br />
<br />
I thought it was really helpful how Riley showed how the different groups of people dealt with issues like courting for example. Having the different groups right next to each other in certain categories really made the similarities and differences easier to notice. Writing it this way made her point a lot easier for me to understand and I felt like I retained a lot more information. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
Riley starts chapter one with an argument that high divorce rates in the West are probably a sign that courtship methods were flawed. She backs this up by saying that it is reasonable to assume that poorly matched spouses are more likely to divorce. I don't agree with Riley's assumption. I can see her logic, but I think that divorce rates are more closely tied to expectations about marriage (emotional fulfillment, compatibility, etc) and the acceptability of divorce than to methods of courtship. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
I thought that this book has been quite fascinating so far. It's just more proof that we can't divide America into the North, South, East, and West and say 'this is how it was.' We bring up movies and books alot in class (ok, I bring up movies and books alot) but the part in Chapter 1 where men looked for women who would be able to work along side them and provide good domestic help reminded me of the movie "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers." Also, the section about mail order brides and the men and women who advertised for spouses and wrote to each other reminded me of an obscure Judy Garland film called "Harvey Girls" where she goes out west to marry a man she had been writing to, only to be disapointed when she arrives. - Celia<br />
<br />
Celia - I love that "Harvey Girls and Seven Brides for Seven Brothers." You're not alone in that. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
The Native American courting rituals were crazy. I don't even understand where some of them came from. Courting and marriage practices seemed to vary drastically amongst the different ethnic groups. I find the difference between the different groups interesting. -- Kellye S<br />
<br />
I agree with Rebecca that poorly matched spouses was not more likely to cause divorce. There have been many cases of arranged marriages that worked out fine and did not end in divorce. People who were in situations like that dealt with the fact that their marriage was arranged and many times actually ended up eventually loving that person. I think that the elements in living and surviving in the West along with the high expectations about marriage were the main causes of divorce. -- Kari <br />
W. <br />
<br />
I feel like Riley romanticizes Native American culture. She keeps making these sweeping, positive generalizations about aspects of Native American culture. Like on the bottom of page 53 she says "Ojibway women and men worked at different duties, yet extended mutual respect to each other and their work." Isn't that a pretty big claim? Another example is on page 18, "Despite the grace and civility of Native American methods of identifying mates..." I would not characterize their courtship methods that way. It seems like too much of a value judgment, which I believe is not super useful in a historical analysis, since value judgments are so much a product of one's own perspective. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
== Pictures ==<br />
I really liked the pictures provided on pages 33-41. They provided the idealized woman stereotype and what women actually did and wore. The pictures also allowed a glimpse at what people wore to weddings, including the traditional garb and adopted American garb as shown in picture number 12. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I have to agree with you as well Ashley. But the pictures section also reminded me of how men and women sent pictures of each other through letters as a way of courting. Would these be the type of pictures that women would send to men in the west? A few of them seem to show that women's domestic duties included work outside the home, especially pictures taken of the Native American women. --Joe C.<br />
<br />
I don't think these pictures were the kind that women were sending to the men, rather the ones of the native women might have been a part of a photographic study and the others for record keeping purposes or to send home to the photograph. This was the era where photographs took off, as well as the concept of sending "family portraits" to friends and family. I thought the contrast between ethnic modes of dress displayed in the portraits quite interesting. It is also neat that you can see that the people who lived then liked to mix and match their ethnic clothing with American styles of dress. It is quite fascinating looking at that from the viewpoint of assimilation. -Lacey<br />
<br />
The one picture that really stood out to me was the one of Lake Andes in South Dakota. As we grow up we're taught about a stereotypical "western story" with the saloons and the ranches, so seeing that the towns when they were first being settled actually did look like this kind of surprised me. But it was also comforting to know that this typical western town wasn't complete fallacy. -Kelly W.</div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_11_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 11 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-03-31T00:57:41Z<p>Rgraham: </p>
<hr />
<div>I thought the ethnic differences in courting were incredible. Spanish courtships was not unlike that pursued by Anglos, with more strictures. The Native American courting rituals where the man sits at the foot of the woman's bed with her grandmother as a chaperone was kind of creepy and seemed really archaic. What would you be thinking if your grandmother woke you up in the middle of the night with a guy sitting there watching you? The creep-factor aside, I thought it and other NA methods of courtship were really interesting. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Lacey on the creep factor. Heh, that would disturb me greatly... more so with my mom's mom than dad's mom... but the thought gives me shivers. I do have to say I liked how Riley incorporated so many different groups into the book, it gave a lot of easy C/C on the spot. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I also would have to agree with both of you on the Native American courtship methods. But I think its also important to remember that the purpose of the book was to introduce the diversity of western marriage and families, and how they are associated today with the highest divorce rates in the nation. I think the courtship chapter makes it clear that the limited contact between male and females of most cultures limited the options for whom they could marry and thus forced relationships. Of course there were other factors as well. I was very intrigued by the common portrayal of women in these cultures. Would a rise in individualism among women in the west result because of strict familial patterns? Or is it their portrayal in the journals, newspapers, forms of media of the day. Example: the woman who put herself as an add in the Waterloo, Iowa paper for courtship and then being compared to a piece of household furniture by an editor in an editorial. --Joe C. <br />
<br />
The first half of this book is interesting. I like Riley's use of the term "cultural layering." I also noticed that she used the phrase "women of color" like the authors from last week. The practices of courtship and marriage certainly varied a lot between groups. Some practices were shocking to me, like the picture brides marrying someone based on correspondence! I had a small problem with Riley's discussion however. I know that she was trying to show the dichotomy with the groups in the West, but I feel like Native Americans need their own assessment. Their traditions may seem weird to us, but that is heightened when you take groups out of their context. I don't feel it's right to lump them together like you can perhaps get away with (like her use of Anglo or Chicana) but the Chippewa can't be examined with tribes of the Southwest. Also, their experience was different because unlike the other groups, they did not emigrate from another country. I like her thesis though, that the interaction among and within families caused conflict.--Amanda <br />
<br />
Riley starts chapter one with an argument that high divorce rates in the West are probably a sign that courtship methods were flawed. She backs this up by saying that it is reasonable to assume that poorly matched spouses are more likely to divorce. I don't agree with Riley's assumption. I can see her logic, but I think that divorce rates are more closely tied to expectations about marriage (emotional fulfillment, compatibility, etc) and the acceptability of divorce than to methods of courtship. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
== Pictures ==<br />
I really liked the pictures provided on pages 33-41. They provided the idealized woman stereotype and what women actually did and wore. The pictures also allowed a glimpse at what people wore to weddings, including the traditional garb and adopted American garb as shown in picture number 12. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I have to agree with you as well Ashley. But the pictures section also reminded me of how men and women sent pictures of each other through letters as a way of courting. Would these be the type of pictures that women would send to men in the west? A few of them seem to show that women's domestic duties included work outside the home, especially pictures taken of the Native American women. --Joe C.</div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_10_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 10 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-03-24T03:24:35Z<p>Rgraham: /* Marriage */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Marriage ==<br />
After reading the two chapters on marriage, mostly in New Mexico, by Ramon Gutierrez I noticed some parallels that still exist in today's American families. Often, children still rely on their parents to agree on a proposed marriage (this is starting to die and in some cases is completely ignored), also people still tend to marry within their race (also dieing down as more people marry whoever they wish regardless of race, ethnicity, etc...), people still tend to marry within their own class, and churches still have a lot of say so, but not absolute anymore. With the church bit, many of them still go through rigourous 'are you right for each other' process and 'should we marry you' process. However, people can now get 'married' in the courthouse where they sign a paper stating they aren't related but by so much (hey, first cousins can marry in VA... so it depends on the state)and/org submit a blood test to show if there are any diseases. I just thought it interesting how some of the traditions still persist today. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
This reading really reminds me of stuff that I read for Spanish history last semester. All the stuff in this article (protecting women's honor, seducing women with false promises of marriage, higher class men sexually exploiting lower class women, themes of the danger of love, etc) was all in the Spanish literature. I think it is interesting to see these elements of Spanish culture transplanted in America. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
I thought the juxtaposition of Hispanic families against the Anglo Family ideal, from Sarah Deutsch's ''No Separate Refuge'' was very interesting. Women were at the center of marriage and the village. Particularly interesting were inheritance rights were women had even over their children. This struck me as particularly unusual as compared to rules of primogeniture followed by most Anglos. -Lacey<br />
-=<br />
<br />
I thought Gutierrez's article was very interesting. Marriage in colonial New Mexico was very different than it is today. I had no idea about all of the formalities, ceremonies and traditions that existed in this part of America while the colonies were fighting for their independence. It's interesting that patrimony was part of the marriage procedure in addition to dowries. The chapters show the importance of childbirth and virginity to a woman's promise for her future and as an asset to her family. Women's roles were very restricted however. I had no idea that a daughter was passed off from a father to her husband (like ownership over an animal). I also found a contradiction between the control of the Catholic church and the discussion of young men scaling walls to sneak into a woman's room. Though the Catholic church ran the community and had to approve marriages, it seems that even this society had its share of scarlet letters.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I thought that the two chapters from Gutierrez's book were very interesting. One of concepts which struck me was how much importance was placed upon the consent of those getting married. I know that in reality it was not also carried out or properly enforced as there was also the consideration of obeying ones parents, but it still surprised me that it was given as much attention as it was. Like Ashely, I also noted several parallels and similarities to today's marriage beliefs and practices. For instance, we still exchange rings, still have witnesses at our weddings to make them valid, make comments about carrying a bride over the threshold, and still have large receptions after weddings. I also know that the Catholic Church still requires engaged couples to provide proof that they are marrying of their own free will and not because of outside pressures. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
Kind of bouncing off Ashley's comment about similarities, I thought the amount of pressure put on young brides about who they marry can still be seen today in some form or another. When I read that threats and sheer force were used to "persuade" someone of a better choice, I couldn't help but think of the nerves in a young girl (or boy for that matter) bringing home their significant other to meet the parents for the first time praying for their acceptance. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
These two chapters were very interesting, but I felt that some of the stories were unnecessary. It seems like the chapters would have been ten pages shorter if some of the stories were taken out. But some of them offered some good examples about what Gutierrez was trying to say. These chapters looked into marriage, but more importantly they offered a peak into society in Spanish New Mexico. Some points in particular were, I thought, very fascinating. The first one was on the parties and fiestas that were a breeeding ground for sinful lust. It kind of reminded me of the Mardi Gras or Carnival. These were public events where people were expected to break away from social norms. In fact, the system set this time apart for people to break norms... but not to go too far. The other interesting point in this chapter was on how priests actually went against parental wishes sometimes in order to marry a couple if the couple wished it. It reminded me of a couple I know who were trying to get married but the bride's parents were not happy about her marrying the guy. After a number of attempts to set up the date and the parents constantly saying they couldn't make it on the days, the priest finally threw his arms up in the air and said 'forget it, it's your marriage, not their's, we're setting up a date and the parents don't have to make it if they don't want to.' Well, the parents didn't want to make it and the couple eloped.- Celia<br />
<br />
Responding to Celia's comment: I was also intrigued by the fact that the clergy often supported young couples in love. It reminds me of the priest in Romeo and Juliet. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
I found the section on rituals and holidays as opportunities for sexual impropriety particularly interesting. The atmosphere of celebration, the consumption of alcohol, and the fact that people were distracted created the perfect environment for young people to be sexually inappropriate. Later on Gutierrez discusses the role of the Church in prohibiting and preaching against such social gatherings, particularly dances. I cannot help but think of other conservative Christian groups that even today still ban dancing, drinking, card playing, etc. for the same argument that they breed and provide the perfect environment for sin to flourish. – Mary Beth <br />
<br />
I also thought the part about the festivals and holidays was interesting. I wonder if you could trace this kind of thing back to Spanish culture or Native American culture? (or maybe every culture has this kind of thing to some extent?)-- Rebecca <br />
<br />
One point I found particularly interesting was the distinction between valid and legitimate matrimony. Prior to the Council of Trent, valid indicated a monogamous, faithful relationship between two people for the rest of their lives, while legitimate was reserved as a description of marriages only ordained by the priest. We see the need for the Church to clarify such a distinction and with the Council of Trent elevate marriage to the status of a sacrament and require consent, witnesses, and a priest for the marriage to be official. I wonder if in other ethnic groups this type of distinction existed? What was the effect of the Council of Trent on marriages in other ethnic groups? – Mary Beth<br />
<br />
== Deutsch ==<br />
These chapters were very different from the other reading. Deutsch provided the context and background for Southwest and how the culture was harder to capture than just the land. From this reading I got that women had more rights than what Gutierrez explained. I also liked this article because it showed the class differences and extended to a the late 1800s.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I agree with Amanda, it did seem like women had more rights. I especially liked how daughters were able to inherit land just like sons, also that they were allowed to continue to hold any property they had upon entering into any marriage. This definitely has an impact of family relations because the mother/wife has more power and therefore more impossibilities. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I liked the use of the stories in this text and I liked how they were used to support her main idea throughout. I also liked that she included the way new jobs opened up (as well as a new form of economy) for the Anglo-Hispanic community as a result of contact with westward travelers and Anglicans. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
== Women ==<br />
I actually enjoyed reading chapter 2 of Sarah Deutsch's ''No Separate Refuge''. Mainly because I admit that I very much believed a lot of the stereotypes, I had no idea that what women did was valued so much and that they had as much do in the community as they did. Although, if I'd thought more about what I learned before with Angelo's moving out West, most of this I would have figured out. What really stuck out at me was the part that they did a lot of plastering for the community, which I would have put at more of men's work or women's work. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I also enjoyed reading about the powerful and influential role women held in Hispanic villages. It makes sense that women were the core of their society and it is nice to see that it was recognized more at the time. Many decisions also appear to have been made jointly between spouses pertaining to children especially. In terms of marriage, I was interested to learn that "age determined one's actions more than sex." (44)Men were not given preferential treatment but both the potential bride and groom had to rely on their relatives to establish the marriage contract. --Sarah Gardner</div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_10_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 10 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-03-24T03:18:41Z<p>Rgraham: /* Marriage */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Marriage ==<br />
After reading the two chapters on marriage, mostly in New Mexico, by Ramon Gutierrez I noticed some parallels that still exist in today's American families. Often, children still rely on their parents to agree on a proposed marriage (this is starting to die and in some cases is completely ignored), also people still tend to marry within their race (also dieing down as more people marry whoever they wish regardless of race, ethnicity, etc...), people still tend to marry within their own class, and churches still have a lot of say so, but not absolute anymore. With the church bit, many of them still go through rigourous 'are you right for each other' process and 'should we marry you' process. However, people can now get 'married' in the courthouse where they sign a paper stating they aren't related but by so much (hey, first cousins can marry in VA... so it depends on the state)and/org submit a blood test to show if there are any diseases. I just thought it interesting how some of the traditions still persist today. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
This reading really reminds me of stuff that I read for Spanish history last semester. All the stuff in this article (protecting women's honor, seducing women with false promises of marriage, higher class men sexually exploiting lower class women, themes of the danger of love, etc) was all in the Spanish literature. I think it is interesting to see these elements of Spanish culture transplanted in America. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
I thought the juxtaposition of Hispanic families against the Anglo Family ideal, from Sarah Deutsch's ''No Separate Refuge'' was very interesting. Women were at the center of marriage and the village. Particularly interesting were inheritance rights were women had even over their children. This struck me as particularly unusual as compared to rules of primogeniture followed by most Anglos. -Lacey<br />
-=<br />
<br />
I thought Gutierrez's article was very interesting. Marriage in colonial New Mexico was very different than it is today. I had no idea about all of the formalities, ceremonies and traditions that existed in this part of America while the colonies were fighting for their independence. It's interesting that patrimony was part of the marriage procedure in addition to dowries. The chapters show the importance of childbirth and virginity to a woman's promise for her future and as an asset to her family. Women's roles were very restricted however. I had no idea that a daughter was passed off from a father to her husband (like ownership over an animal). I also found a contradiction between the control of the Catholic church and the discussion of young men scaling walls to sneak into a woman's room. Though the Catholic church ran the community and had to approve marriages, it seems that even this society had its share of scarlet letters.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I thought that the two chapters from Gutierrez's book were very interesting. One of concepts which struck me was how much importance was placed upon the consent of those getting married. I know that in reality it was not also carried out or properly enforced as there was also the consideration of obeying ones parents, but it still surprised me that it was given as much attention as it was. Like Ashely, I also noted several parallels and similarities to today's marriage beliefs and practices. For instance, we still exchange rings, still have witnesses at our weddings to make them valid, make comments about carrying a bride over the threshold, and still have large receptions after weddings. I also know that the Catholic Church still requires engaged couples to provide proof that they are marrying of their own free will and not because of outside pressures. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
Kind of bouncing off Ashley's comment about similarities, I thought the amount of pressure put on young brides about who they marry can still be seen today in some form or another. When I read that threats and sheer force were used to "persuade" someone of a better choice, I couldn't help but think of the nerves in a young girl (or boy for that matter) bringing home their significant other to meet the parents for the first time praying for their acceptance. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
These two chapters were very interesting, but I felt that some of the stories were unnecessary. It seems like the chapters would have been ten pages shorter if some of the stories were taken out. But some of them offered some good examples about what Gutierrez was trying to say. These chapters looked into marriage, but more importantly they offered a peak into society in Spanish New Mexico. Some points in particular were, I thought, very fascinating. The first one was on the parties and fiestas that were a breeeding ground for sinful lust. It kind of reminded me of the Mardi Gras or Carnival. These were public events where people were expected to break away from social norms. In fact, the system set this time apart for people to break norms... but not to go too far. The other interesting point in this chapter was on how priests actually went against parental wishes sometimes in order to marry a couple if the couple wished it. It reminded me of a couple I know who were trying to get married but the bride's parents were not happy about her marrying the guy. After a number of attempts to set up the date and the parents constantly saying they couldn't make it on the days, the priest finally threw his arms up in the air and said 'forget it, it's your marriage, not their's, we're setting up a date and the parents don't have to make it if they don't want to.' Well, the parents didn't want to make it and the couple eloped.- Celia<br />
<br />
Responding to Celia's comment: I was also intrigued by the fact that the clergy often supported young couples in love. It reminds me of the priest in Romeo and Juliet. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
I found the section on rituals and holidays as opportunities for sexual impropriety particularly interesting. The atmosphere of celebration, the consumption of alcohol, and the fact that people were distracted created the perfect environment for young people to be sexually inappropriate. Later on Gutierrez discusses the role of the Church in prohibiting and preaching against such social gatherings, particularly dances. I cannot help but think of other conservative Christian groups that even today still ban dancing, drinking, card playing, etc. for the same argument that they breed and provide the perfect environment for sin to flourish. – Mary Beth <br />
<br />
One point I found particularly interesting was the distinction between valid and legitimate matrimony. Prior to the Council of Trent, valid indicated a monogamous, faithful relationship between two people for the rest of their lives, while legitimate was reserved as a description of marriages only ordained by the priest. We see the need for the Church to clarify such a distinction and with the Council of Trent elevate marriage to the status of a sacrament and require consent, witnesses, and a priest for the marriage to be official. I wonder if in other ethnic groups this type of distinction existed? What was the effect of the Council of Trent on marriages in other ethnic groups? – Mary Beth<br />
<br />
== Deutsch ==<br />
These chapters were very different from the other reading. Deutsch provided the context and background for Southwest and how the culture was harder to capture than just the land. From this reading I got that women had more rights than what Gutierrez explained. I also liked this article because it showed the class differences and extended to a the late 1800s.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I agree with Amanda, it did seem like women had more rights. I especially liked how daughters were able to inherit land just like sons, also that they were allowed to continue to hold any property they had upon entering into any marriage. This definitely has an impact of family relations because the mother/wife has more power and therefore more impossibilities. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I liked the use of the stories in this text and I liked how they were used to support her main idea throughout. I also liked that she included the way new jobs opened up (as well as a new form of economy) for the Anglo-Hispanic community as a result of contact with westward travelers and Anglicans. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
== Women ==<br />
I actually enjoyed reading chapter 2 of Sarah Deutsch's ''No Separate Refuge''. Mainly because I admit that I very much believed a lot of the stereotypes, I had no idea that what women did was valued so much and that they had as much do in the community as they did. Although, if I'd thought more about what I learned before with Angelo's moving out West, most of this I would have figured out. What really stuck out at me was the part that they did a lot of plastering for the community, which I would have put at more of men's work or women's work. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I also enjoyed reading about the powerful and influential role women held in Hispanic villages. It makes sense that women were the core of their society and it is nice to see that it was recognized more at the time. Many decisions also appear to have been made jointly between spouses pertaining to children especially. In terms of marriage, I was interested to learn that "age determined one's actions more than sex." (44)Men were not given preferential treatment but both the potential bride and groom had to rely on their relatives to establish the marriage contract. --Sarah Gardner</div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_10_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 10 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-03-24T03:15:15Z<p>Rgraham: /* Marriage */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Marriage ==<br />
After reading the two chapters on marriage, mostly in New Mexico, by Ramon Gutierrez I noticed some parallels that still exist in today's American families. Often, children still rely on their parents to agree on a proposed marriage (this is starting to die and in some cases is completely ignored), also people still tend to marry within their race (also dieing down as more people marry whoever they wish regardless of race, ethnicity, etc...), people still tend to marry within their own class, and churches still have a lot of say so, but not absolute anymore. With the church bit, many of them still go through rigourous 'are you right for each other' process and 'should we marry you' process. However, people can now get 'married' in the courthouse where they sign a paper stating they aren't related but by so much (hey, first cousins can marry in VA... so it depends on the state)and/org submit a blood test to show if there are any diseases. I just thought it interesting how some of the traditions still persist today. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
This reading really reminds me of stuff that I read for Spanish history last semester. All the stuff in this article (protecting women's honor, seducing women with false promises of marriage, higher class men sexually exploiting lower class women, themes of the danger of love, etc) was all in the Spanish literature. I think it is interesting to see these elements of Spanish culture transplanted in America. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
I thought the juxtaposition of Hispanic families against the Anglo Family ideal, from Sarah Deutsch's ''No Separate Refuge'' was very interesting. Women were at the center of marriage and the village. Particularly interesting were inheritance rights were women had even over their children. This struck me as particularly unusual as compared to rules of primogeniture followed by most Anglos. -Lacey<br />
-=<br />
<br />
I thought Gutierrez's article was very interesting. Marriage in colonial New Mexico was very different than it is today. I had no idea about all of the formalities, ceremonies and traditions that existed in this part of America while the colonies were fighting for their independence. It's interesting that patrimony was part of the marriage procedure in addition to dowries. The chapters show the importance of childbirth and virginity to a woman's promise for her future and as an asset to her family. Women's roles were very restricted however. I had no idea that a daughter was passed off from a father to her husband (like ownership over an animal). I also found a contradiction between the control of the Catholic church and the discussion of young men scaling walls to sneak into a woman's room. Though the Catholic church ran the community and had to approve marriages, it seems that even this society had its share of scarlet letters.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I thought that the two chapters from Gutierrez's book were very interesting. One of concepts which struck me was how much importance was placed upon the consent of those getting married. I know that in reality it was not also carried out or properly enforced as there was also the consideration of obeying ones parents, but it still surprised me that it was given as much attention as it was. Like Ashely, I also noted several parallels and similarities to today's marriage beliefs and practices. For instance, we still exchange rings, still have witnesses at our weddings to make them valid, make comments about carrying a bride over the threshold, and still have large receptions after weddings. I also know that the Catholic Church still requires engaged couples to provide proof that they are marrying of their own free will and not because of outside pressures. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
Kind of bouncing off Ashley's comment about similarities, I thought the amount of pressure put on young brides about who they marry can still be seen today in some form or another. When I read that threats and sheer force were used to "persuade" someone of a better choice, I couldn't help but think of the nerves in a young girl (or boy for that matter) bringing home their significant other to meet the parents for the first time praying for their acceptance. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
These two chapters were very interesting, but I felt that some of the stories were unnecessary. It seems like the chapters would have been ten pages shorter if some of the stories were taken out. But some of them offered some good examples about what Gutierrez was trying to say. These chapters looked into marriage, but more importantly they offered a peak into society in Spanish New Mexico. Some points in particular were, I thought, very fascinating. The first one was on the parties and fiestas that were a breeeding ground for sinful lust. It kind of reminded me of the Mardi Gras or Carnival. These were public events where people were expected to break away from social norms. In fact, the system set this time apart for people to break norms... but not to go too far. The other interesting point in this chapter was on how priests actually went against parental wishes sometimes in order to marry a couple if the couple wished it. It reminded me of a couple I know who were trying to get married but the bride's parents were not happy about her marrying the guy. After a number of attempts to set up the date and the parents constantly saying they couldn't make it on the days, the priest finally threw his arms up in the air and said 'forget it, it's your marriage, not their's, we're setting up a date and the parents don't have to make it if they don't want to.' Well, the parents didn't want to make it and the couple eloped.- Celia<br />
<br />
== Deutsch ==<br />
These chapters were very different from the other reading. Deutsch provided the context and background for Southwest and how the culture was harder to capture than just the land. From this reading I got that women had more rights than what Gutierrez explained. I also liked this article because it showed the class differences and extended to a the late 1800s.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I agree with Amanda, it did seem like women had more rights. I especially liked how daughters were able to inherit land just like sons, also that they were allowed to continue to hold any property they had upon entering into any marriage. This definitely has an impact of family relations because the mother/wife has more power and therefore more impossibilities. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
<br />
These two chapters were very interesting, but I felt that some of the stories were unnecessary. It seems like the chapters would have been ten pages shorter if some of the stories were taken out. But some of them offered some good examples about what Gutierrez was trying to say. These chapters looked into marriage, but more importantly they offered a peak into society in Spanish New Mexico. Some points in particular were, I thought, very fascinating. The first one was on the parties and fiestas that were a breeeding ground for sinful lust. It kind of reminded me of the Mardi Gras or Carnival. These were public events where people were expected to break away from social norms. In fact, the system set this time apart for people to break norms... but not to go too far. The other interesting point in this chapter was on how priests actually went against parental wishes sometimes in order to marry a couple if the couple wished it. It reminded me of a couple I know who were trying to get married but the bride's parents were not happy about her marrying the guy. After a number of attempts to set up the date and the parents constantly saying they couldn't make it on the days, the priest finally threw his arms up in the air and said 'forget it, it's your marriage, not their's, we're setting up a date and the parents don't have to make it if they don't want to.' Well, the parents didn't want to make it and the couple eloped.- Celia<br />
<br />
I liked the use of the stories in this text and I liked how they were used to support her main idea throughout. I also liked that she included the way new jobs opened up (as well as a new form of economy) for the Anglo-Hispanic community as a result of contact with westward travelers and Anglicans. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
== Women ==<br />
I actually enjoyed reading chapter 2 of Sarah Deutsch's ''No Separate Refuge''. Mainly because I admit that I very much believed a lot of the stereotypes, I had no idea that what women did was valued so much and that they had as much do in the community as they did. Although, if I'd thought more about what I learned before with Angelo's moving out West, most of this I would have figured out. What really stuck out at me was the part that they did a lot of plastering for the community, which I would have put at more of men's work or women's work. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I also enjoyed reading about the powerful and influential role women held in Hispanic villages. It makes sense that women were the core of their society and it is nice to see that it was recognized more at the time. Many decisions also appear to have been made jointly between spouses pertaining to children especially. In terms of marriage, I was interested to learn that "age determined one's actions more than sex." (44)Men were not given preferential treatment but both the potential bride and groom had to rely on their relatives to establish the marriage contract. --Sarah Gardner</div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_9_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 9 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-03-19T04:31:45Z<p>Rgraham: /* The Brother in Vietnam */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Bridging Tues. and Thurs. ==<br />
I think we would have been better off reading Evelyn Glenn's article on Chinese-American families before reading ''China Men''. Reading ''China Men'' cold really set me off kilter, but I think I would have been better prepared for it if we had read the article first. It gives some background into this group of people as a whole which you don't really get in ''China Men'' until you get to the section on laws as relating to Chinese immigrants. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Lacey on this. I felt like I understood ''China Men'' more after reading the article, but on the other hand I had to think more about the reading this way I guess. Still, some background about Chinese-Americans would have made this book better to understand overall. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I was definately seeing parallels between the two and Glenn's article answered alot of questions I had. It kind of connected the dots in ''China Men''. The big issue, I think, in the two readings is the importance of family, as Glenn writes,"filial piety, respect for elders and reverence for tradion" which are the principle teachings of Confucius. I agree with Lacey, I wish we had read this before the other - Celia<br />
<br />
I agree as well, if I hadn't read another Kingston book in HS, I would have had a lot more questions going into the reading. The article gave a lot more background information that might have been helpful in reading China Men. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I think its also important to bridge the two genres of a literature/nonfiction work like Kingston with the historical article of Glenn. I think by reading Kingston's work in a history course rather than an English course, its easier for me to pull out the history of families and Chinese culture. --Joyce<br />
<br />
I definitely feel like the Glenn article was a nice addition to the reading because it really helped to put the Kingston book into context. Like we were discussing in class on Tuesday, we went into this topic with very little knowledge about the subject so reading this article maybe first, would have been helpful. It definitely put the oral histories in context, though, which answered a lot of questions. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I agree with everyone that this would have been nicer to have up front. I was very confused reading for Tuesday but I feel like the class discussion was really helpful. The article confirmed a lot of what we said in class. I guess like Ashley said putting the article at the end made it more challenging, but I still would have preferred background knowledge before getting so involved in a book which was so different from the others we have read. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
I also agree that reading Glenn’s article on Chinese-American families before reading Kingston’s book would have been beneficial. Glenn’s article gives me, a reader with no prior experience with the topic-area, a foothold. I probably would have grasped some of the ideas we discussed on Tuesday a little better had I read that article first. Having the article at the end does function as a ‘wrap-up’ to the subject. It puts everything in perspective. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
== The American Father ==<br />
<br />
Even though the first few pages were confusing at first, it was nice to see the narrator go back to the story about the father who got cheated out of the laundry business and took his wife to California. I did enjoy getting to read more up on that part of the family, but it was still made confusing with the tid bit about the father being born in America after telling us earlier he immigrated to America and that he was in America when he married his wife, only I thought he was in China earlier when he married his wife... @.@ The narrator should stick to one story or simply say I don't know how he got here, it was either A or B, but we're not sure. -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Responding to Ashley's comment about the different, and contradictory, versions of the story: This makes me think that maybe King's writing is not really just about her family but is a collection of stories and experiences from many sources that King uses to synthesize one experience (another example of this is how she tells the story of the "legal father" and the "illegal father"). I think she is creating an impression of a collective experience of Chinese immigrants, rather than literally telling the story of one family. This would explain why she throws in all the seemingly random mythological stories, and why she described the experience of coming in legally to Angel island AND coming in illegally through New York. She also touches upon Chinese Americans living in various parts of the US (the east coast, the west coast, Hawaii). So I think she is trying to tell a story that represents a collective experience, not a true family history. I could be wrong though. Maybe her dad really never told her these facts about his life, and so she had to speculate. But that seems unlikely to me. Wouldn't he be willing to tell her this stuff? -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
After reading this story I truly feel bad for the Father and his family. Losing a laundry business by being cheated by your partners, moving across the country to lose another job and two houses must have been truly frustrating. I thought it was interesting how when the father gave-up the mother took on the dual role of caregiver and nagger. She both pampered him and yelled at him to try and get him to find another job. I was happy to see that in the end he was able to start a new business and raise his family in a more comfortable manner. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I really got into this first chapter. It felt like I was reading a novel because I got so involved in this family and their situation. I felt really bad for the parents working for that owner and his crazy wife. No wonder Maxine and her family tried to escape them. One part that I found interesting was when the author was talking to the other children and she felt left out because her parents didn't spank her or kiss her good night. Does anyone know if this was just a family thing or was it common in the Chinese culture to have family relationships like that, you know, kind of withheld.- Celia<br />
<br />
I agree, this chapter really read like a novel. It seemed so hard and sad to come to America only to fail. This story seemed especially sad since the men went in as partners and one cheated the other. I do not think that many Chinese families had the close personal relationships that many American families have. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I felt bad for this family, but it was inspiring to read the lengths the family went to in order to gain success. After their hard work, their children went on to continue the tradition of teaching (the brother in Vietnam) and be successful, financially independent, and acculturated citizens.-Joyce M<br />
<br />
I also thought it was interesting reading about how the Father was treated by his wife after he lost his business. She pretty much insulted him in every way possible and in front of her children. Middle class whites would not approve of this type of relationship. In some ways I think the mother was a little too harsh on the Father, but I can see how she would be frustrated. With the Father not having a job the family was losing most of their income. I can imagine that would be a terrible situation to live in. Though, I don't think that yelling and nagging him was the most productive way to get the Father to work at the time. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
One thing I have noticed after reading these short stories is the level of involvement women have in family matters. In this story we see the wife openly taking care of her husband and yelling at him to get another job. In a story from tuesday, I remember a wife who sent letters to her husband asking for money, and trying to tell him what to do with his earnings. I don’t think that any past family type we have discussed would permit this level of involvement by women. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
== Glenn, "Split Household..." ==<br />
I think it is interesting how the Chinese found ways to circumvent the laws and regulations placed on them by white Americans. It is both fascinating and deplorable how they could pull the wool over the eyes of these officals who saw them mashed them all together and weren't willing to learn enough about them to be able to tell them apart. Then there is also the fact that so many of these men were willing to separate themselves from their families for so long in order to be able to give them an opportunity at a life better than what they could have in China. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I also felt that the Chinese were very good about working around laws meant to restrict their immigration. Notably, I thought that the idea of "paper sons" was rather clever and shows how they used the laws to their advantage. It was not quite clear to me how they were able to report so many false births in China, it must have been fairly easy to do so. I wonder how many men came over under a false identity to start a new life in America and if their descendants were told who they truly were. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
It is amazing that any Chinese immigrated to the United States at all with so many restrictions place upon them. I realized their situation in China must have been desperate that they even considered traveling to another country, to leave their families and spouses in order to live in a country where they would make menial money and never become citizens until the 40s.---Joyce M<br />
<br />
I found the debate between cultural and institutional approaches to understanding Chinese American families particularly interesting. Perhaps it is the design of the article, but I found the institutional approach particularly strong with reference to Chinese American families. Glenn makes the argument that this family structure and response was not unique to the Chinese American family (p.77), which he outlines in this article, but I was wondering what other families or ethnic groups also portray this response/structure? Are there any families this semester we have already seen that would demonstrate a situational/institutional response instead of a predominantly cultural one? – Mary Beth<br />
<br />
I can't believe that with the racism and nativism (I guess those two are the same thing) prevalent in the 19th century American life, that the number of native-born Chinese grew by the decade. Even more interesting to me is that with the blind stupidity that comes with mass-hysteria racism, that when the wave of anti-Japanese sentiment that occurred in the 1940s, there was not a nose-dive in Chinese immigration. I feel like fear of being lumped in with "the bad guys" would have been enough. It's a relief to see that this was not the case, at least as far as the numbers can show. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== The Brother in Vietnam ==<br />
I am really confused. We got a good impression of the Chinese impression of the Japanese here, but I thought the chapter would be really different based on the title. I feel, in this chapter more than others, that Kingston's writing is convoluted. I have a hard time understanding her points. Like we discussed before, there are clearly personal influences in her writing that make this not exactly a scholarly source. I don't know what to make of it, and am glad we have an article to supplement.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I thought that this was a very interesting section. I was surprised by the number of ways men created to try and evade the draft. I also thought that the brothers reaction to being in Taiwan was informative. The idea that by stepping back on his ancestors lands made "their whole lives suddenly make sense," indicates that Chinese Americans did maintain a sense of connection with China, even if they had never been there before (291). However, it took him until he was an adult to understand what China really meant to him. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
Um, I'm with Amanda. Based on the title of the section, I was expecting something completely different. I mean, it was an interesting chapter and the involvement in the war was definitely something interesting to learn about, but the book was confusing enough as it is. I didn't really need to be thrown off by another chapter. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this section. I thought it was interesting that the brother seemed so sure of himself and his beliefs before he went to war, but then he started having doubts and having to reassess his beliefs. I liked the part where he is in Taiwan and his roommates hire a Chinese man as a servant. The brother is embarrassed to interact with the Chinese man, partly because he fears that the man will criticize him for not being Chinese enough. I think it is interesting that the brother felt Chinese enough to be offended by comic book characters like Fu Manchu, but did not feel Chinese enough to interact with this man without embarrassment. This especially struck me because in America he seemed to be really at peace with his ethnicity (and the stupid racist stuff that sometimes came along with it), but then when he actually gets to China, he is way more unsure of himself. I would have expected it to be the other way around. -- Rebecca</div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_9_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 9 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-03-19T04:30:37Z<p>Rgraham: /* The Brother in Vietnam */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Bridging Tues. and Thurs. ==<br />
I think we would have been better off reading Evelyn Glenn's article on Chinese-American families before reading ''China Men''. Reading ''China Men'' cold really set me off kilter, but I think I would have been better prepared for it if we had read the article first. It gives some background into this group of people as a whole which you don't really get in ''China Men'' until you get to the section on laws as relating to Chinese immigrants. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Lacey on this. I felt like I understood ''China Men'' more after reading the article, but on the other hand I had to think more about the reading this way I guess. Still, some background about Chinese-Americans would have made this book better to understand overall. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I was definately seeing parallels between the two and Glenn's article answered alot of questions I had. It kind of connected the dots in ''China Men''. The big issue, I think, in the two readings is the importance of family, as Glenn writes,"filial piety, respect for elders and reverence for tradion" which are the principle teachings of Confucius. I agree with Lacey, I wish we had read this before the other - Celia<br />
<br />
I agree as well, if I hadn't read another Kingston book in HS, I would have had a lot more questions going into the reading. The article gave a lot more background information that might have been helpful in reading China Men. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I think its also important to bridge the two genres of a literature/nonfiction work like Kingston with the historical article of Glenn. I think by reading Kingston's work in a history course rather than an English course, its easier for me to pull out the history of families and Chinese culture. --Joyce<br />
<br />
I definitely feel like the Glenn article was a nice addition to the reading because it really helped to put the Kingston book into context. Like we were discussing in class on Tuesday, we went into this topic with very little knowledge about the subject so reading this article maybe first, would have been helpful. It definitely put the oral histories in context, though, which answered a lot of questions. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I agree with everyone that this would have been nicer to have up front. I was very confused reading for Tuesday but I feel like the class discussion was really helpful. The article confirmed a lot of what we said in class. I guess like Ashley said putting the article at the end made it more challenging, but I still would have preferred background knowledge before getting so involved in a book which was so different from the others we have read. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
I also agree that reading Glenn’s article on Chinese-American families before reading Kingston’s book would have been beneficial. Glenn’s article gives me, a reader with no prior experience with the topic-area, a foothold. I probably would have grasped some of the ideas we discussed on Tuesday a little better had I read that article first. Having the article at the end does function as a ‘wrap-up’ to the subject. It puts everything in perspective. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
== The American Father ==<br />
<br />
Even though the first few pages were confusing at first, it was nice to see the narrator go back to the story about the father who got cheated out of the laundry business and took his wife to California. I did enjoy getting to read more up on that part of the family, but it was still made confusing with the tid bit about the father being born in America after telling us earlier he immigrated to America and that he was in America when he married his wife, only I thought he was in China earlier when he married his wife... @.@ The narrator should stick to one story or simply say I don't know how he got here, it was either A or B, but we're not sure. -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Responding to Ashley's comment about the different, and contradictory, versions of the story: This makes me think that maybe King's writing is not really just about her family but is a collection of stories and experiences from many sources that King uses to synthesize one experience (another example of this is how she tells the story of the "legal father" and the "illegal father"). I think she is creating an impression of a collective experience of Chinese immigrants, rather than literally telling the story of one family. This would explain why she throws in all the seemingly random mythological stories, and why she described the experience of coming in legally to Angel island AND coming in illegally through New York. She also touches upon Chinese Americans living in various parts of the US (the east coast, the west coast, Hawaii). So I think she is trying to tell a story that represents a collective experience, not a true family history. I could be wrong though. Maybe her dad really never told her these facts about his life, and so she had to speculate. But that seems unlikely to me. Wouldn't he be willing to tell her this stuff? -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
After reading this story I truly feel bad for the Father and his family. Losing a laundry business by being cheated by your partners, moving across the country to lose another job and two houses must have been truly frustrating. I thought it was interesting how when the father gave-up the mother took on the dual role of caregiver and nagger. She both pampered him and yelled at him to try and get him to find another job. I was happy to see that in the end he was able to start a new business and raise his family in a more comfortable manner. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I really got into this first chapter. It felt like I was reading a novel because I got so involved in this family and their situation. I felt really bad for the parents working for that owner and his crazy wife. No wonder Maxine and her family tried to escape them. One part that I found interesting was when the author was talking to the other children and she felt left out because her parents didn't spank her or kiss her good night. Does anyone know if this was just a family thing or was it common in the Chinese culture to have family relationships like that, you know, kind of withheld.- Celia<br />
<br />
I agree, this chapter really read like a novel. It seemed so hard and sad to come to America only to fail. This story seemed especially sad since the men went in as partners and one cheated the other. I do not think that many Chinese families had the close personal relationships that many American families have. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I felt bad for this family, but it was inspiring to read the lengths the family went to in order to gain success. After their hard work, their children went on to continue the tradition of teaching (the brother in Vietnam) and be successful, financially independent, and acculturated citizens.-Joyce M<br />
<br />
I also thought it was interesting reading about how the Father was treated by his wife after he lost his business. She pretty much insulted him in every way possible and in front of her children. Middle class whites would not approve of this type of relationship. In some ways I think the mother was a little too harsh on the Father, but I can see how she would be frustrated. With the Father not having a job the family was losing most of their income. I can imagine that would be a terrible situation to live in. Though, I don't think that yelling and nagging him was the most productive way to get the Father to work at the time. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
One thing I have noticed after reading these short stories is the level of involvement women have in family matters. In this story we see the wife openly taking care of her husband and yelling at him to get another job. In a story from tuesday, I remember a wife who sent letters to her husband asking for money, and trying to tell him what to do with his earnings. I don’t think that any past family type we have discussed would permit this level of involvement by women. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
== Glenn, "Split Household..." ==<br />
I think it is interesting how the Chinese found ways to circumvent the laws and regulations placed on them by white Americans. It is both fascinating and deplorable how they could pull the wool over the eyes of these officals who saw them mashed them all together and weren't willing to learn enough about them to be able to tell them apart. Then there is also the fact that so many of these men were willing to separate themselves from their families for so long in order to be able to give them an opportunity at a life better than what they could have in China. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I also felt that the Chinese were very good about working around laws meant to restrict their immigration. Notably, I thought that the idea of "paper sons" was rather clever and shows how they used the laws to their advantage. It was not quite clear to me how they were able to report so many false births in China, it must have been fairly easy to do so. I wonder how many men came over under a false identity to start a new life in America and if their descendants were told who they truly were. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
It is amazing that any Chinese immigrated to the United States at all with so many restrictions place upon them. I realized their situation in China must have been desperate that they even considered traveling to another country, to leave their families and spouses in order to live in a country where they would make menial money and never become citizens until the 40s.---Joyce M<br />
<br />
I found the debate between cultural and institutional approaches to understanding Chinese American families particularly interesting. Perhaps it is the design of the article, but I found the institutional approach particularly strong with reference to Chinese American families. Glenn makes the argument that this family structure and response was not unique to the Chinese American family (p.77), which he outlines in this article, but I was wondering what other families or ethnic groups also portray this response/structure? Are there any families this semester we have already seen that would demonstrate a situational/institutional response instead of a predominantly cultural one? – Mary Beth<br />
<br />
I can't believe that with the racism and nativism (I guess those two are the same thing) prevalent in the 19th century American life, that the number of native-born Chinese grew by the decade. Even more interesting to me is that with the blind stupidity that comes with mass-hysteria racism, that when the wave of anti-Japanese sentiment that occurred in the 1940s, there was not a nose-dive in Chinese immigration. I feel like fear of being lumped in with "the bad guys" would have been enough. It's a relief to see that this was not the case, at least as far as the numbers can show. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== The Brother in Vietnam ==<br />
I am really confused. We got a good impression of the Chinese impression of the Japanese here, but I thought the chapter would be really different based on the title. I feel, in this chapter more than others, that Kingston's writing is convoluted. I have a hard time understanding her points. Like we discussed before, there are clearly personal influences in her writing that make this not exactly a scholarly source. I don't know what to make of it, and am glad we have an article to supplement.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I thought that this was a very interesting section. I was surprised by the number of ways men created to try and evade the draft. I also thought that the brothers reaction to being in Taiwan was informative. The idea that by stepping back on his ancestors lands made "their whole lives suddenly make sense," indicates that Chinese Americans did maintain a sense of connection with China, even if they had never been there before (291). However, it took him until he was an adult to understand what China really meant to him. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
Um, I'm with Amanda. Based on the title of the section, I was expecting something completely different. I mean, it was an interesting chapter and the involvement in the war was definitely something interesting to learn about, but the book was confusing enough as it is. I didn't really need to be thrown off by another chapter. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this section. I thought it was interesting that the brother seemed so sure of himself and his beliefs before he went to war, but then he started having doubts and having to reassess his beliefs. I liked the part where he is in Hong Kong and his roommates hire a Chinese man as a servant. The brother is embarrassed to interact with the Chinese man, partly because he fears that the man will criticize him for not being Chinese enough. I think it is interesting that the brother felt Chinese enough to be offended by comic book characters like Fu Manchu, but did not feel Chinese enough to interact with this man without embarrassment. This especially struck me because in America he seemed to be really at peace with his ethnicity (and the stupid racist stuff that sometimes came along with it), but then when he actually gets to China, he is way more unsure of himself. I would have expected it to be the other way around. -- Rebecca</div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_9_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 9 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-03-19T04:19:16Z<p>Rgraham: /* The American Father */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Bridging Tues. and Thurs. ==<br />
I think we would have been better off reading Evelyn Glenn's article on Chinese-American families before reading ''China Men''. Reading ''China Men'' cold really set me off kilter, but I think I would have been better prepared for it if we had read the article first. It gives some background into this group of people as a whole which you don't really get in ''China Men'' until you get to the section on laws as relating to Chinese immigrants. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Lacey on this. I felt like I understood ''China Men'' more after reading the article, but on the other hand I had to think more about the reading this way I guess. Still, some background about Chinese-Americans would have made this book better to understand overall. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I was definately seeing parallels between the two and Glenn's article answered alot of questions I had. It kind of connected the dots in ''China Men''. The big issue, I think, in the two readings is the importance of family, as Glenn writes,"filial piety, respect for elders and reverence for tradion" which are the principle teachings of Confucius. I agree with Lacey, I wish we had read this before the other - Celia<br />
<br />
I agree as well, if I hadn't read another Kingston book in HS, I would have had a lot more questions going into the reading. The article gave a lot more background information that might have been helpful in reading China Men. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I think its also important to bridge the two genres of a literature/nonfiction work like Kingston with the historical article of Glenn. I think by reading Kingston's work in a history course rather than an English course, its easier for me to pull out the history of families and Chinese culture. --Joyce<br />
<br />
I definitely feel like the Glenn article was a nice addition to the reading because it really helped to put the Kingston book into context. Like we were discussing in class on Tuesday, we went into this topic with very little knowledge about the subject so reading this article maybe first, would have been helpful. It definitely put the oral histories in context, though, which answered a lot of questions. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I agree with everyone that this would have been nicer to have up front. I was very confused reading for Tuesday but I feel like the class discussion was really helpful. The article confirmed a lot of what we said in class. I guess like Ashley said putting the article at the end made it more challenging, but I still would have preferred background knowledge before getting so involved in a book which was so different from the others we have read. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
I also agree that reading Glenn’s article on Chinese-American families before reading Kingston’s book would have been beneficial. Glenn’s article gives me, a reader with no prior experience with the topic-area, a foothold. I probably would have grasped some of the ideas we discussed on Tuesday a little better had I read that article first. Having the article at the end does function as a ‘wrap-up’ to the subject. It puts everything in perspective. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
== The American Father ==<br />
<br />
Even though the first few pages were confusing at first, it was nice to see the narrator go back to the story about the father who got cheated out of the laundry business and took his wife to California. I did enjoy getting to read more up on that part of the family, but it was still made confusing with the tid bit about the father being born in America after telling us earlier he immigrated to America and that he was in America when he married his wife, only I thought he was in China earlier when he married his wife... @.@ The narrator should stick to one story or simply say I don't know how he got here, it was either A or B, but we're not sure. -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Responding to Ashley's comment about the different, and contradictory, versions of the story: This makes me think that maybe King's writing is not really just about her family but is a collection of stories and experiences from many sources that King uses to synthesize one experience (another example of this is how she tells the story of the "legal father" and the "illegal father"). I think she is creating an impression of a collective experience of Chinese immigrants, rather than literally telling the story of one family. This would explain why she throws in all the seemingly random mythological stories, and why she described the experience of coming in legally to Angel island AND coming in illegally through New York. She also touches upon Chinese Americans living in various parts of the US (the east coast, the west coast, Hawaii). So I think she is trying to tell a story that represents a collective experience, not a true family history. I could be wrong though. Maybe her dad really never told her these facts about his life, and so she had to speculate. But that seems unlikely to me. Wouldn't he be willing to tell her this stuff? -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
After reading this story I truly feel bad for the Father and his family. Losing a laundry business by being cheated by your partners, moving across the country to lose another job and two houses must have been truly frustrating. I thought it was interesting how when the father gave-up the mother took on the dual role of caregiver and nagger. She both pampered him and yelled at him to try and get him to find another job. I was happy to see that in the end he was able to start a new business and raise his family in a more comfortable manner. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I really got into this first chapter. It felt like I was reading a novel because I got so involved in this family and their situation. I felt really bad for the parents working for that owner and his crazy wife. No wonder Maxine and her family tried to escape them. One part that I found interesting was when the author was talking to the other children and she felt left out because her parents didn't spank her or kiss her good night. Does anyone know if this was just a family thing or was it common in the Chinese culture to have family relationships like that, you know, kind of withheld.- Celia<br />
<br />
I agree, this chapter really read like a novel. It seemed so hard and sad to come to America only to fail. This story seemed especially sad since the men went in as partners and one cheated the other. I do not think that many Chinese families had the close personal relationships that many American families have. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I felt bad for this family, but it was inspiring to read the lengths the family went to in order to gain success. After their hard work, their children went on to continue the tradition of teaching (the brother in Vietnam) and be successful, financially independent, and acculturated citizens.-Joyce M<br />
<br />
I also thought it was interesting reading about how the Father was treated by his wife after he lost his business. She pretty much insulted him in every way possible and in front of her children. Middle class whites would not approve of this type of relationship. In some ways I think the mother was a little too harsh on the Father, but I can see how she would be frustrated. With the Father not having a job the family was losing most of their income. I can imagine that would be a terrible situation to live in. Though, I don't think that yelling and nagging him was the most productive way to get the Father to work at the time. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
One thing I have noticed after reading these short stories is the level of involvement women have in family matters. In this story we see the wife openly taking care of her husband and yelling at him to get another job. In a story from tuesday, I remember a wife who sent letters to her husband asking for money, and trying to tell him what to do with his earnings. I don’t think that any past family type we have discussed would permit this level of involvement by women. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
== Glenn, "Split Household..." ==<br />
I think it is interesting how the Chinese found ways to circumvent the laws and regulations placed on them by white Americans. It is both fascinating and deplorable how they could pull the wool over the eyes of these officals who saw them mashed them all together and weren't willing to learn enough about them to be able to tell them apart. Then there is also the fact that so many of these men were willing to separate themselves from their families for so long in order to be able to give them an opportunity at a life better than what they could have in China. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I also felt that the Chinese were very good about working around laws meant to restrict their immigration. Notably, I thought that the idea of "paper sons" was rather clever and shows how they used the laws to their advantage. It was not quite clear to me how they were able to report so many false births in China, it must have been fairly easy to do so. I wonder how many men came over under a false identity to start a new life in America and if their descendants were told who they truly were. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
It is amazing that any Chinese immigrated to the United States at all with so many restrictions place upon them. I realized their situation in China must have been desperate that they even considered traveling to another country, to leave their families and spouses in order to live in a country where they would make menial money and never become citizens until the 40s.---Joyce M<br />
<br />
I found the debate between cultural and institutional approaches to understanding Chinese American families particularly interesting. Perhaps it is the design of the article, but I found the institutional approach particularly strong with reference to Chinese American families. Glenn makes the argument that this family structure and response was not unique to the Chinese American family (p.77), which he outlines in this article, but I was wondering what other families or ethnic groups also portray this response/structure? Are there any families this semester we have already seen that would demonstrate a situational/institutional response instead of a predominantly cultural one? – Mary Beth<br />
<br />
I can't believe that with the racism and nativism (I guess those two are the same thing) prevalent in the 19th century American life, that the number of native-born Chinese grew by the decade. Even more interesting to me is that with the blind stupidity that comes with mass-hysteria racism, that when the wave of anti-Japanese sentiment that occurred in the 1940s, there was not a nose-dive in Chinese immigration. I feel like fear of being lumped in with "the bad guys" would have been enough. It's a relief to see that this was not the case, at least as far as the numbers can show. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== The Brother in Vietnam ==<br />
I am really confused. We got a good impression of the Chinese impression of the Japanese here, but I thought the chapter would be really different based on the title. I feel, in this chapter more than others, that Kingston's writing is convoluted. I have a hard time understanding her points. Like we discussed before, there are clearly personal influences in her writing that make this not exactly a scholarly source. I don't know what to make of it, and am glad we have an article to supplement.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I thought that this was a very interesting section. I was surprised by the number of ways men created to try and evade the draft. I also thought that the brothers reaction to being in Taiwan was informative. The idea that by stepping back on his ancestors lands made "their whole lives suddenly make sense," indicates that Chinese Americans did maintain a sense of connection with China, even if they had never been there before (291). However, it took him until he was an adult to understand what China really meant to him. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
Um, I'm with Amanda. Based on the title of the section, I was expecting something completely different. I mean, it was an interesting chapter and the involvement in the war was definitely something interesting to learn about, but the book was confusing enough as it is. I didn't really need to be thrown off by another chapter. -Kelly W.</div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_9_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 9 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-03-17T14:48:57Z<p>Rgraham: /* The Father from China */</p>
<hr />
<div>== In General ==<br />
I have to say, in general, this book was confusing at first. However, after reading the synopsis on the back of the book and trying to differentiate between stories it started making a little more sense. Hopefully everything pulls together better at the end. -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
== On Discovery & On Fathers ==<br />
I thought these two vingettes were a very weird and unusual way to start off a book. The first is a myth which strips masculinity and the second a sort of memory of fathers. I have a hard time seeing how this fits in with the topic of the class, though it does deal with family ties and how masculinity is created. There is also no bibliography or any kind of sources mentioned, which makes me think that this is a fictionalization of reality, which is also just weird. -Lacey<br />
<br />
Going off of Lacey's point above, part of the problem with the sources is that they are stories told down in families and eventually recorded from how they sound. The book itself reads on that it is Non-Fiction and Literature. One of the questions to think about for tomorrow's discussion is how does this book fit into the rest of the semester. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I read Kingston's ''Woman Warrior'' in high school, and I took most of what is in this book to be written in a similar way to Woman Warrior, in that they are all stories that Kingston was told as a young child. ''Woman Warrior'' was a collection of stories that Kingston remembered from childhood, several with her own experiences mixed in as part of the collection. This is what I believe is the reason for not having source material. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I have to agree that the understanding the context of this work is difficult at first. I did not immediately understand that this was a series of narratives told by the author. A brief introduction explaining the format and the origin of the text would have been helpful for readers to understand the intent of the work sooner rather then immediately diving into The On Discovery section. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
Going back to the issue of sources -- if these are stories passed down by family members, we have to wonder how accurate these stories really are. The person telling the story could have left things out which they felt gave the family a poor name or something of the sort. I feel that if there was more context to this book it would be more useful. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
Kind of going off Kari's comment, there are things that just might have been forgotten over the years. Oral histories are always hard to trust because things are so easily left out either on purpose or accidentally. I think it's an interesting route to take as far as a secondary source is concerned. It's different from what we've been reading which has been documents and letters and journals, essentially. Oral histories, regardless of what was left out, can be just as accurate as a written document. -Kelly W. <br />
<br />
I agree with Sarah's point. I thought this was a novel when I first started reading. A disclaimer would have been nice. But even knowing it's her own stories, what do we make of the sources? How representative are the vignettes? --Amanda<br />
<br />
I was very confused at first with this book, especially since I have a different copy than the one the bookstore sells. I wasn't sure if I was reading the right book. So far, this kind of reminds me of an Amy Tan novel, especially "The Bonesetter's Daughter." I think that this book paints an interesting picture of Chinese families. Though it may not represent a large group of people as a whole, it brings up some subjects that I have seen in other works on Chinese families, inlcuding their fascination with fortune-telling and their deep respect for intelligent people. But again, we have to remember that this is written about one family, and as the others have mentioned, what are her sources and how reliable are they? - Celia<br />
<br />
I am not sure what to make of this book at this point. Like others, I was confused by the author’s approach, and did not really know what I was reading to begin with. I also find myself questioning the authenticity of these stories. Humans are fallible creatures. Whether purposely, or inadvertently, it is possible for stories to be modified. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
Although there was a lot to be said about the two Chinese fathers who immigrated to the United States, I think there was an interesting concept on American cultures and values. The American dream is portrayed as people being honest and able to trust each other with a handshake. But because of the great wealth that is accumulated, "American's are careless and forgetful from one day to the next." Kingston's analysis here can certainly portray future American intellect that in this society, wealth and fortune are easy to achieve and little work is necessary to get there. Unfortunately I find this to be a contagious aspect of American society today. Am I far from the truth? - Joe C.<br />
<br />
== The Father from China ==<br />
<br />
I found the part about the two fathers making the trip to America very interesting. I am not sure which one had it easier, both the legal and illegal father seem to have endured a hard trip. The illegal father, had to smuggle into a small box to be transported as freight on a cargo ship, while is trip may have been harder once he arrived he was free to go as he pleased. The legal father, however, came as an immigrant, and therefore had to pass through the Immigrant Station on Angel Island and be detained for an indefinite amount of time. While it might be a harder journey, being smuggled on board a ship, it would be nice to be able to go as you please. - Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting that it seemed like people in China really celebrated the family (with all of their traditions and holidays) and then the young Chinese men in America really celebrated NOT having a family. I liked the line "the Gold Mountain was indeed free: no manners, no traditions, no wives." -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
In reading this section I couldn't help feeling sorry for the father. To be a scholar and study for exams for so hard and so long and ultimately work in a laundry must have felt degrading. I also thought it was interesting that he insisted that his wife get an education before coming to America as he did not want "an ignorant villager for his American wife." (68) Despite his work in a laundry, he still wanted to have the proper appearance of an educated man with a modern wife. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
He didn't seem to have a problem working at the laundry though. I did not get the sense that he found it degrading. You would think that going from scholar to laundry worker would be perceived as a fall, but he seemed really happy with his station there. Maybe he was just so happy to be American. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
It was probably because he was "born" intelligent. He was built a certain way so his family and tutors expected him to be intelligent. Even if he didn't have a lofty job or position in life, he was still "intelligent", so it made sense to want someone who would uphold that idea that he was genetically inclined to be scholarly. - Celia<br />
<br />
Were the Four Valuable Things a link between American and Chinese education/intellect or was it more based on retaining the values of the Confucian scholar? They seem to be referenced a lot throughout this section and yet this could be a potential topic discussion. --Joe C.<br />
<br />
== On Mortality ==<br />
Can we just talk for a moment about how powerful that story about the Taoist and immortality was? It was one of those tales that really showed how strong of an emotion love is and how essential it is to the human race. It's a universal emotion and the story really portrays how important it is to families in a very large scale. We spend so much time talking about New England and Southern families that sometimes, as historians, it's hard to remember that some basic morals are the same for every family type. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
After reading On Mortality and On Mortality Again, I wonder if silence is culturally significant to the Chinese. Both stories blame failure on noise. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
== The Grandfather of the Sierra Nevada ==<br />
I thought this chapter was surreal. It reads a lot like ''Memoirs of a Geisha'' where history and myth are intertwined to make the moral of the story understandable, but the thing that this story is trying to tell is more amorphous and yet more real. I had heard of the legend of the Spinning Girl and the Cowboy and I understand why men fresh from China would feel connected and homesick from it. I also knew about the way that Chinamen were made to work on the railways. But these things combined with the way that he felt he was having sex with the world or the fact that the white men were impish demons just destroyed the credibilty. And I know that makes me seem as if I am contradicting myself because all of these things relate back to the construction of an ethnic masculinity and family relationships, but this really threw me for a loop. -Lacey.<br />
<br />
== The Making of More Americans ==<br />
<br />
I thought that this section really illustrated the variety of effects that coming to America could have on Chinese immigrants. For example, Sao puts priority on his daughters instead of his mother back in China. Traditionally he would have been responsible for his mother's welfare and care in her old age. However, he buys into the idea of American materialism and invests in a tv and a car instead of feeding his own mother who starves to death. Oppositely, Uncle Bon is so disgusted by what he sees as wasteful American practices and selfishness that he returns to China with the intent of joining the communists. It seems that while some Chinese Americans became acculturated into American society, others were repulsed by it. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I also noticed what Sarah points out about Sao not providing for his family in China. His family wrote him many letters complaining about their hunger and health and Sao feels it is more beneficial to take care of his immediate family and life in America, not his extended family in China. This shows the switch to a more nuclear family and individual focus rather than extended/community family focus. In this case the distance of being in America made that process possible, but in order to survive in America and in American culture, Sao had to look out for himself. --Kari W.<br />
<br />
I think that this was the most interesting part of the book. Like Sarah and Kari have pointed out, it really demonstrates how some Chinese Americans are relinquishing their whole extended family support system and are focusing in more on immediate family. It also shows how some families, like Sao's, are placing more value on female children. - Celia</div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_9_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 9 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-03-17T14:42:04Z<p>Rgraham: /* The Father from China */</p>
<hr />
<div>== In General ==<br />
I have to say, in general, this book was confusing at first. However, after reading the synopsis on the back of the book and trying to differentiate between stories it started making a little more sense. Hopefully everything pulls together better at the end. -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
== On Discovery & On Fathers ==<br />
I thought these two vingettes were a very weird and unusual way to start off a book. The first is a myth which strips masculinity and the second a sort of memory of fathers. I have a hard time seeing how this fits in with the topic of the class, though it does deal with family ties and how masculinity is created. There is also no bibliography or any kind of sources mentioned, which makes me think that this is a fictionalization of reality, which is also just weird. -Lacey<br />
<br />
Going off of Lacey's point above, part of the problem with the sources is that they are stories told down in families and eventually recorded from how they sound. The book itself reads on that it is Non-Fiction and Literature. One of the questions to think about for tomorrow's discussion is how does this book fit into the rest of the semester. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I read Kingston's ''Woman Warrior'' in high school, and I took most of what is in this book to be written in a similar way to Woman Warrior, in that they are all stories that Kingston was told as a young child. ''Woman Warrior'' was a collection of stories that Kingston remembered from childhood, several with her own experiences mixed in as part of the collection. This is what I believe is the reason for not having source material. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I have to agree that the understanding the context of this work is difficult at first. I did not immediately understand that this was a series of narratives told by the author. A brief introduction explaining the format and the origin of the text would have been helpful for readers to understand the intent of the work sooner rather then immediately diving into The On Discovery section. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
Going back to the issue of sources -- if these are stories passed down by family members, we have to wonder how accurate these stories really are. The person telling the story could have left things out which they felt gave the family a poor name or something of the sort. I feel that if there was more context to this book it would be more useful. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
Kind of going off Kari's comment, there are things that just might have been forgotten over the years. Oral histories are always hard to trust because things are so easily left out either on purpose or accidentally. I think it's an interesting route to take as far as a secondary source is concerned. It's different from what we've been reading which has been documents and letters and journals, essentially. Oral histories, regardless of what was left out, can be just as accurate as a written document. -Kelly W. <br />
<br />
I agree with Sarah's point. I thought this was a novel when I first started reading. A disclaimer would have been nice. But even knowing it's her own stories, what do we make of the sources? How representative are the vignettes? --Amanda<br />
<br />
I was very confused at first with this book, especially since I have a different copy than the one the bookstore sells. I wasn't sure if I was reading the right book. So far, this kind of reminds me of an Amy Tan novel, especially "The Bonesetter's Daughter." I think that this book paints an interesting picture of Chinese families. Though it may not represent a large group of people as a whole, it brings up some subjects that I have seen in other works on Chinese families, inlcuding their fascination with fortune-telling and their deep respect for intelligent people. But again, we have to remember that this is written about one family, and as the others have mentioned, what are her sources and how reliable are they? - Celia<br />
<br />
I am not sure what to make of this book at this point. Like others, I was confused by the author’s approach, and did not really know what I was reading to begin with. I also find myself questioning the authenticity of these stories. Humans are fallible creatures. Whether purposely, or inadvertently, it is possible for stories to be modified. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
Although there was a lot to be said about the two Chinese fathers who immigrated to the United States, I think there was an interesting concept on American cultures and values. The American dream is portrayed as people being honest and able to trust each other with a handshake. But because of the great wealth that is accumulated, "American's are careless and forgetful from one day to the next." Kingston's analysis here can certainly portray future American intellect that in this society, wealth and fortune are easy to achieve and little work is necessary to get there. Unfortunately I find this to be a contagious aspect of American society today. Am I far from the truth? - Joe C.<br />
<br />
== The Father from China ==<br />
<br />
I found the part about the two fathers making the trip to America very interesting. I am not sure which one had it easier, both the legal and illegal father seem to have endured a hard trip. The illegal father, had to smuggle into a small box to be transported as freight on a cargo ship, while is trip may have been harder once he arrived he was free to go as he pleased. The legal father, however, came as an immigrant, and therefore had to pass through the Immigrant Station on Angel Island and be detained for an indefinite amount of time. While it might be a harder journey, being smuggled on board a ship, it would be nice to be able to go as you please. - Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting that it seemed like people in China really celebrated the family (with all of their traditions and holidays) and then the young Chinese men in America really celebrated NOT having a family. I liked the line "the Gold Mountain was indeed free: no manners, no traditions, no wives." -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
In reading this section I couldn't help feeling sorry for the father. To be a scholar and study for exams for so hard and so long and ultimately work in a laundry must have felt degrading. I also thought it was interesting that he insisted that his wife get an education before coming to America as he did not want "an ignorant villager for his American wife." (68) Despite his work in a laundry, he still wanted to have the proper appearance of an educated man with a modern wife. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
It was probably because he was "born" intelligent. He was built a certain way so his family and tutors expected him to be intelligent. Even if he didn't have a lofty job or position in life, he was still "intelligent", so it made sense to want someone who would uphold that idea that he was genetically inclined to be scholarly. - Celia<br />
<br />
Were the Four Valuable Things a link between American and Chinese education/intellect or was it more based on retaining the values of the Confucian scholar? They seem to be referenced a lot throughout this section and yet this could be a potential topic discussion. --Joe C.<br />
<br />
== On Mortality ==<br />
Can we just talk for a moment about how powerful that story about the Taoist and immortality was? It was one of those tales that really showed how strong of an emotion love is and how essential it is to the human race. It's a universal emotion and the story really portrays how important it is to families in a very large scale. We spend so much time talking about New England and Southern families that sometimes, as historians, it's hard to remember that some basic morals are the same for every family type. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
After reading On Mortality and On Mortality Again, I wonder if silence is culturally significant to the Chinese. Both stories blame failure on noise. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
== The Grandfather of the Sierra Nevada ==<br />
I thought this chapter was surreal. It reads a lot like ''Memoirs of a Geisha'' where history and myth are intertwined to make the moral of the story understandable, but the thing that this story is trying to tell is more amorphous and yet more real. I had heard of the legend of the Spinning Girl and the Cowboy and I understand why men fresh from China would feel connected and homesick from it. I also knew about the way that Chinamen were made to work on the railways. But these things combined with the way that he felt he was having sex with the world or the fact that the white men were impish demons just destroyed the credibilty. And I know that makes me seem as if I am contradicting myself because all of these things relate back to the construction of an ethnic masculinity and family relationships, but this really threw me for a loop. -Lacey.<br />
<br />
== The Making of More Americans ==<br />
<br />
I thought that this section really illustrated the variety of effects that coming to America could have on Chinese immigrants. For example, Sao puts priority on his daughters instead of his mother back in China. Traditionally he would have been responsible for his mother's welfare and care in her old age. However, he buys into the idea of American materialism and invests in a tv and a car instead of feeding his own mother who starves to death. Oppositely, Uncle Bon is so disgusted by what he sees as wasteful American practices and selfishness that he returns to China with the intent of joining the communists. It seems that while some Chinese Americans became acculturated into American society, others were repulsed by it. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I also noticed what Sarah points out about Sao not providing for his family in China. His family wrote him many letters complaining about their hunger and health and Sao feels it is more beneficial to take care of his immediate family and life in America, not his extended family in China. This shows the switch to a more nuclear family and individual focus rather than extended/community family focus. In this case the distance of being in America made that process possible, but in order to survive in America and in American culture, Sao had to look out for himself. --Kari W.<br />
<br />
I think that this was the most interesting part of the book. Like Sarah and Kari have pointed out, it really demonstrates how some Chinese Americans are relinquishing their whole extended family support system and are focusing in more on immediate family. It also shows how some families, like Sao's, are placing more value on female children. - Celia</div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_8_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 8 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-03-10T05:50:41Z<p>Rgraham: /* Overarching Ideas */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching Ideas ==<br />
<br />
So far I do like this read, but I do have one problem with it. I know its just the style or whatever, but the Preface and Intro had a lot of the author and her ideas and whatnot, I loved the story that led to the creation of this work.... and the rest of the chapters are mostly 'here read the source yourself and have very little comment and input from me' and on top of it at first it was hard to distinguish who was the author and what wasn't because the preface and intro had the author's speech in regular print whereas in the chapter the author's speech in italicized... its rather confusing and annoying. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
<br />
I wasn't really sure where to put this because it was mentioned in a few of the chapters, the whole eating thing. I have my own theory on some of their theories, like the guy who said that sexual desires decreased/desisted when a person eats only bread and water. Well, duh. The body is having a hard time subsisting on the mediocre food its getting and, at least with other critters and animals, if the body isn't getting enough nutrients they don't have the desire to mate and reproduce. Well, in the long run we'd have those same instincts, so if our bodies don't have enough nutrients, it would be then possible for our desire to go down because we don't have the nutrients. That, or because we're still hungry and we may think of survival before pleasure >^.^< Just a thought and a rant. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
My opinion of this half of the book is that it's interesting but complete ludicrous. It tells us something (I'm not sure what) that people believed this stuff, wrote about it, read it, and perhaps took some of it to heart. But there was no scientific proof or logical reason for most of the advice given, and I have a hard time understanding the rationale of the time period.--Amanda<br />
<br />
My feelings on this book have been interesting. I have to say this has been the most entertaining book. I have been sharing a couple passages with people and I even laugh out loud at some points. I agree with Amanda that some of this seems ludicrous to us now, but people really believed it then, just like we really believe that eating blueberries will prevent cancer. - Celia <br />
<br />
In response to Amanda and Celia's comments, I actually CAN see logic behind a lot of the practices and I think that the doctors really believed that they had sound scientific proof. Obviously, from today's perspective this stuff sounds so silly, but when I try to put myself in the shoes of a nineteenth century person, I can understand why a lot of people took all this advice in as scientific facts. If I forget for a moment everything I know about human sexuality, the doctors in this book sound just as credible as the current doctors who publish books about new diets and health plans. (just like Celia's blueberry comment) -Rebecca<br />
<br />
I think this is the most entertaining book we have read all semester. Agreeing with Celia and Amanda, the majority of the “advice” given seems ludicrous by today’s standards. It reminds me of a similar book or article I read a while back about outdated medical treatments. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
I am surprised that this book doesn't talk about male circumcision at all. Maybe this is another sign of being written in the 70s (and by a guy). In an anthropology class we read tons of quotes by people like Graham and Kellogg promoting circumcision as a means to desensitize and incapacitate the penis, to decrease the sex drive and prevent masturbation. They even advised that doctors refrain from using any anesthesia because it was good for young boys to associate intense pain with their penises. My understanding is that the 19th century is when circumcision really became common practice in the US, so I wonder why Walters doesn't bring it up. (and please call me out if he DOES mention is somewhere and I just missed it.) -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
I am very glad for the preparation the introduction of this text provides. I felt as if I was stepping into a world that was completely alien to what we see today, that is not to say that I don't see the relation to the modern sense of American modesty and taboo. But they go to such great lengths to have a conversation about they are so hesitant about that they talk in circles around the simplest of concepts. I feel very much akin to Frederick Marryat's take on American prudery. -Lacey<br />
<br />
== Chapter 1 ==<br />
I feel like, definitely in the beginning of, chapter one really elaborated on the importance of a proper upbringing by the mother. Children were to be taught from the get-go about chastity and saved before they even had the chance to understand the idea of sex so that they never had to worry about harm or improper behavior. The emphasis of all of this education falling on the mother delves back into the idea of the Republican Motherhood and the mother being the one in charge of the children - a topic we've been discussing for the past couple of weeks. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 2 ==<br />
One of the things I found particularly interesting about Ch. 2 was the incorporation of science, specifically medicine, into the understanding of the damaging effects of “sexual excess.” I don’t think any of us were surprised by the relationship between inappropriate sexual acts and sin, but I found the incorporation of science to be very interesting. By listing physical ailments and symptoms as well as using empirical evidence (even if it is cited as weak by Walters) plus the role of physicians, advice manual writers were able to bring a justification to their concerns about sexual excess. I think by giving examples of physical ailments associated with this type of sexual deviance they were not only further pointing out the damages to the person, but even giving physical proof of the sin within these people. Even phrenologists used physical anatomy to attempt to better understand sexual excess, pointing to a larger desire for physical, scientific evidence of sexual deviance. –Mary Beth <br />
<br />
This is kind of a small point but I found it interesting reading about the Oneidas. They were the complete opposite of what these manuals were teaching and yet they still gained some what of a following. It was interesting to read that not everyone believed the extreme ideas about chastity during the time period. Not that I am endorsing the Oneidas at all (I think they are just crazy), but it was somewhat refreshing to read something other than "sex is bad". -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
Elaborating on Mary Beth’s comments, it seems to me that this was the beginning of our modern approach to sex. Today’s parents, teachers, and church leaders often discourage the acts under pretenses of science as well as sin. As noted, this was a somewhat new idea. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
Andrew, I'm not entirely sure that's true. In some cases, absolutely, but I have had many discussions with my brother, a US Public Health official, about whether or not schools should teach safe sex over abstinence. It's certainly a mindset that is being leaned towards by more and more schools, and I think even a lot of religious groups are beginning to realize that trying to bring science alongside religion is often a poor idea. Maybe it's just the church I went to, but we are able to talk pretty frankly in college-age youth group back home about this kind of stuff. Thankfully, we're not festering in the 19th century anymore with morality. -Cash<br />
<br />
== Chapter 3 ==<br />
<br />
This chapter was the first mention of family. The book discussed the incorporation of nurses and the replacement of mothers. Apparently the advice of the time was to not use them if possible, but if necessary, to watch them very closely. Then Walters goes on to explain how Dr. Kellogg thought sexual corruption was a hereditary trait through "libidinous blood" (p. 52). I found the parts about how masturbation was a main cause of insanity interesting. And, I had no idea about corsets being used to prevent blood from "overloading sexual organs" (58). In terms of the advice about what to eat and not to eat, I was wondering what the heck people could eat. It seems as though safe diets must have consisted of primarily milk. -Amanda<br />
<br />
Chapter 3, entitled "The Path Downward" shows many factors in the corruption of society from certain points of view. It doesn't take the reader long to realize that many of these advise columns, or lectures or treatises were written by men and women from a certain social class with certain idealized ideas about what American sexuality should be. In what ways does Walters demonstrate the middle-class idea that certain classes contributed to the downfall of the nation's youth? - Celia<br />
<br />
I thought it was very interesting that nurses were blamed for the sexual behavior of their charges. While the advice manuals in no way vindicated parents from being responsible for their children, it seems clear that it was the influence of nurses and maids of the poorer classes who were to blame for initially polluting upper and middle class children. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
== Chapter 4 ==<br />
<br />
Just wanted to point out that Walters talks about women& hysterics on page 72. The hysterical woman has been recurrent throughout the periods and topics we've covered so far. --Amanda<br />
<br />
In his introduction Walters points out that there is underrepresentation of women in sex advice columns in the nineteenth century, which is apparently true by the numbers of sources in this book by men and the number of sources by women. Walters states that women were considered less sexual than men, so there was very little informtion on women's sexuality to write on. However, in chapter four the reader learns about the role of women regarding sexuality- at least mostly from men's point of view. How did some of these male writers view women and their sensuality? - Celia<br />
<br />
Women were viewed in a variety of ways by male writers. For example, Beecher wrote, indirectly, about male fears of female seduction. Sanger wrote about women as prostitutes, a topic which seemed to fascinate many of the male writers. I suppose this was largely due to the fact that prostitution was an anomaly to men who viewed women as virtuous creatures with little to no sexual drive. I also have to wonder as to the accuracy of Sanger's survey of prostitutes. How many of them would have been inclined to tell the truth or to speak with him and his investigators at all? --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I'm not saying this was the case in this particular situation, Sarah, but if they felt it would help their general well-being, the average prostitute may be more willing to talk. You've gotta figure, these are women who are making their livelihood in the late hours on the seedier areas of town. Their job isn't safe, and they don't have a reputation that will get them more respectable work. They have to go with what they have. Who knows, maybe they just wanted to be taken a little bit more seriously. -Cash<br />
<br />
== Chapter 5 ==<br />
It's apparent that marriage was indeed an important element to society during this time period. I just wanted to point out one little sentence that seriously had me a bit perplexed (and laughing?) - "If all men and women were married and their marriages were perfect, wars would cease; disease would disappear; supreme order would prevail; love universal would reign; heaven would descend to earth."(81) I find this viewpoint, and Holcombe's continuing idea that sex and marriage are both as spiritual as love meaning they are eternal, to be a bit extreme. The fact that he hoped for sex after death is a new idea to me. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 6 ==<br />
<br />
I thought that Evrie's discussion of slaves really illustrated how subhuman some individuals believed black slaves to be. His descriptions make them appear no better then animals and his accusations are untrue. For example, as we discussed in class, slaves did attempt to have stable families and were negatively impacted and hurt by separation from those they loved. However, it is by labeling them as incapable of sustaining the same relations as whites that makes slavery permissible to him and other pro-slavery authors. The capability to understand and participate in marriage and family then, were symbols of civilization and superiority and, at least to some, distinguished black from white in Victorian America. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I found this chapter really interesting because it gave two different viewpoints. There was Evrie's argument that Sarah talked about, which seems to be the common attitude towards slaves, but there was also Tower's abolitionist argument. I enjoyed reading the different perspectives, especially Tower's. It was nice to read about someone actually sticking up for the the black population and calling out white plantation owners. --Kari W. <br />
<br />
== Chapter 7 ==</div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_8_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 8 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-03-10T05:49:19Z<p>Rgraham: /* Overarching Ideas */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching Ideas ==<br />
<br />
So far I do like this read, but I do have one problem with it. I know its just the style or whatever, but the Preface and Intro had a lot of the author and her ideas and whatnot, I loved the story that led to the creation of this work.... and the rest of the chapters are mostly 'here read the source yourself and have very little comment and input from me' and on top of it at first it was hard to distinguish who was the author and what wasn't because the preface and intro had the author's speech in regular print whereas in the chapter the author's speech in italicized... its rather confusing and annoying. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
<br />
I wasn't really sure where to put this because it was mentioned in a few of the chapters, the whole eating thing. I have my own theory on some of their theories, like the guy who said that sexual desires decreased/desisted when a person eats only bread and water. Well, duh. The body is having a hard time subsisting on the mediocre food its getting and, at least with other critters and animals, if the body isn't getting enough nutrients they don't have the desire to mate and reproduce. Well, in the long run we'd have those same instincts, so if our bodies don't have enough nutrients, it would be then possible for our desire to go down because we don't have the nutrients. That, or because we're still hungry and we may think of survival before pleasure >^.^< Just a thought and a rant. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
My opinion of this half of the book is that it's interesting but complete ludicrous. It tells us something (I'm not sure what) that people believed this stuff, wrote about it, read it, and perhaps took some of it to heart. But there was no scientific proof or logical reason for most of the advice given, and I have a hard time understanding the rationale of the time period.--Amanda<br />
<br />
My feelings on this book have been interesting. I have to say this has been the most entertaining book. I have been sharing a couple passages with people and I even laugh out loud at some points. I agree with Amanda that some of this seems ludicrous to us now, but people really believed it then, just like we really believe that eating blueberries will prevent cancer. - Celia <br />
<br />
In response to Amanda and Celia's comments, I actually CAN see logic behind a lot of the practices and I think that the doctors really believed that they had sound scientific proof. Obviously, from today's perspective this stuff sounds so silly, but when I try to put myself in the shoes of a nineteenth century person, I can understand why a lot of people took all this advice in as scientific facts. If I forget for a moment everything I know about human sexuality, the doctors in this book sound just as credible as the current doctors who publish books about new diets and health plans. (just like Celia's blueberry comment) -Rebecca<br />
<br />
I think this is the most entertaining book we have read all semester. Agreeing with Celia and Amanda, the majority of the “advice” given seems ludicrous by today’s standards. It reminds me of a similar book or article I read a while back about outdated medical treatments. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
I am very glad for the preparation the introduction of this text provides. I felt as if I was stepping into a world that was completely alien to what we see today, that is not to say that I don't see the relation to the modern sense of American modesty and taboo. But they go to such great lengths to have a conversation about they are so hesitant about that they talk in circles around the simplest of concepts. I feel very much akin to Frederick Marryat's take on American prudery. -Lacey<br />
<br />
== Chapter 1 ==<br />
I feel like, definitely in the beginning of, chapter one really elaborated on the importance of a proper upbringing by the mother. Children were to be taught from the get-go about chastity and saved before they even had the chance to understand the idea of sex so that they never had to worry about harm or improper behavior. The emphasis of all of this education falling on the mother delves back into the idea of the Republican Motherhood and the mother being the one in charge of the children - a topic we've been discussing for the past couple of weeks. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 2 ==<br />
One of the things I found particularly interesting about Ch. 2 was the incorporation of science, specifically medicine, into the understanding of the damaging effects of “sexual excess.” I don’t think any of us were surprised by the relationship between inappropriate sexual acts and sin, but I found the incorporation of science to be very interesting. By listing physical ailments and symptoms as well as using empirical evidence (even if it is cited as weak by Walters) plus the role of physicians, advice manual writers were able to bring a justification to their concerns about sexual excess. I think by giving examples of physical ailments associated with this type of sexual deviance they were not only further pointing out the damages to the person, but even giving physical proof of the sin within these people. Even phrenologists used physical anatomy to attempt to better understand sexual excess, pointing to a larger desire for physical, scientific evidence of sexual deviance. –Mary Beth <br />
<br />
This is kind of a small point but I found it interesting reading about the Oneidas. They were the complete opposite of what these manuals were teaching and yet they still gained some what of a following. It was interesting to read that not everyone believed the extreme ideas about chastity during the time period. Not that I am endorsing the Oneidas at all (I think they are just crazy), but it was somewhat refreshing to read something other than "sex is bad". -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
Elaborating on Mary Beth’s comments, it seems to me that this was the beginning of our modern approach to sex. Today’s parents, teachers, and church leaders often discourage the acts under pretenses of science as well as sin. As noted, this was a somewhat new idea. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
Andrew, I'm not entirely sure that's true. In some cases, absolutely, but I have had many discussions with my brother, a US Public Health official, about whether or not schools should teach safe sex over abstinence. It's certainly a mindset that is being leaned towards by more and more schools, and I think even a lot of religious groups are beginning to realize that trying to bring science alongside religion is often a poor idea. Maybe it's just the church I went to, but we are able to talk pretty frankly in college-age youth group back home about this kind of stuff. Thankfully, we're not festering in the 19th century anymore with morality. -Cash<br />
<br />
== Chapter 3 ==<br />
<br />
This chapter was the first mention of family. The book discussed the incorporation of nurses and the replacement of mothers. Apparently the advice of the time was to not use them if possible, but if necessary, to watch them very closely. Then Walters goes on to explain how Dr. Kellogg thought sexual corruption was a hereditary trait through "libidinous blood" (p. 52). I found the parts about how masturbation was a main cause of insanity interesting. And, I had no idea about corsets being used to prevent blood from "overloading sexual organs" (58). In terms of the advice about what to eat and not to eat, I was wondering what the heck people could eat. It seems as though safe diets must have consisted of primarily milk. -Amanda<br />
<br />
Chapter 3, entitled "The Path Downward" shows many factors in the corruption of society from certain points of view. It doesn't take the reader long to realize that many of these advise columns, or lectures or treatises were written by men and women from a certain social class with certain idealized ideas about what American sexuality should be. In what ways does Walters demonstrate the middle-class idea that certain classes contributed to the downfall of the nation's youth? - Celia<br />
<br />
I thought it was very interesting that nurses were blamed for the sexual behavior of their charges. While the advice manuals in no way vindicated parents from being responsible for their children, it seems clear that it was the influence of nurses and maids of the poorer classes who were to blame for initially polluting upper and middle class children. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
== Chapter 4 ==<br />
<br />
Just wanted to point out that Walters talks about women& hysterics on page 72. The hysterical woman has been recurrent throughout the periods and topics we've covered so far. --Amanda<br />
<br />
In his introduction Walters points out that there is underrepresentation of women in sex advice columns in the nineteenth century, which is apparently true by the numbers of sources in this book by men and the number of sources by women. Walters states that women were considered less sexual than men, so there was very little informtion on women's sexuality to write on. However, in chapter four the reader learns about the role of women regarding sexuality- at least mostly from men's point of view. How did some of these male writers view women and their sensuality? - Celia<br />
<br />
Women were viewed in a variety of ways by male writers. For example, Beecher wrote, indirectly, about male fears of female seduction. Sanger wrote about women as prostitutes, a topic which seemed to fascinate many of the male writers. I suppose this was largely due to the fact that prostitution was an anomaly to men who viewed women as virtuous creatures with little to no sexual drive. I also have to wonder as to the accuracy of Sanger's survey of prostitutes. How many of them would have been inclined to tell the truth or to speak with him and his investigators at all? --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I'm not saying this was the case in this particular situation, Sarah, but if they felt it would help their general well-being, the average prostitute may be more willing to talk. You've gotta figure, these are women who are making their livelihood in the late hours on the seedier areas of town. Their job isn't safe, and they don't have a reputation that will get them more respectable work. They have to go with what they have. Who knows, maybe they just wanted to be taken a little bit more seriously. -Cash<br />
<br />
== Chapter 5 ==<br />
It's apparent that marriage was indeed an important element to society during this time period. I just wanted to point out one little sentence that seriously had me a bit perplexed (and laughing?) - "If all men and women were married and their marriages were perfect, wars would cease; disease would disappear; supreme order would prevail; love universal would reign; heaven would descend to earth."(81) I find this viewpoint, and Holcombe's continuing idea that sex and marriage are both as spiritual as love meaning they are eternal, to be a bit extreme. The fact that he hoped for sex after death is a new idea to me. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 6 ==<br />
<br />
I thought that Evrie's discussion of slaves really illustrated how subhuman some individuals believed black slaves to be. His descriptions make them appear no better then animals and his accusations are untrue. For example, as we discussed in class, slaves did attempt to have stable families and were negatively impacted and hurt by separation from those they loved. However, it is by labeling them as incapable of sustaining the same relations as whites that makes slavery permissible to him and other pro-slavery authors. The capability to understand and participate in marriage and family then, were symbols of civilization and superiority and, at least to some, distinguished black from white in Victorian America. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I found this chapter really interesting because it gave two different viewpoints. There was Evrie's argument that Sarah talked about, which seems to be the common attitude towards slaves, but there was also Tower's abolitionist argument. I enjoyed reading the different perspectives, especially Tower's. It was nice to read about someone actually sticking up for the the black population and calling out white plantation owners. --Kari W. <br />
<br />
== Chapter 7 ==</div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_7_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 7 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-02-24T05:50:17Z<p>Rgraham: /* Chapter 3 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== The Book in General ==<br />
<br />
So I know, I tend to gripe and complain about something in each reading we do. However, I feel its part of the discussion of the work. So this time, my complaint is that the book is very repetitive. I feel like I'm reading the same thing over and over. I guess that's the point though, to show how Confederate white men were made to feel a little less masculine here and a little less there. And how women entered into the public sphere here and there, and then how the emergence of free blacks blurred the Confederate white man mansculinity head of household line even more. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I have to admit, it was kind of interesting to have Mrs. Thomas's journal thoughts in the Whites's work. I say this because I read part of her journal for another class and it was nice to see some familiarity in the work. It took a while to remember why it was familiar until I was cleaning up the house earlier today and found a piece of paper being used as a bookmark in the phone book and it was the cover page to the journal exert of Mrs. Thomas's journal that I had read in a previous class. I have no idea where the rest went, probably in the recycling bin, but it was like a light being switched on moment. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
One of the main themes I noticed throughout the first four chapters was the reliance on religion. The women realize they can not control what is going on in the front and have to rely on their faith to get them through it. Confederate women also believe that God will bring them justice against the Yankees, even when the Confederates are losing. It was interesting to see how much their faith was a part of their life. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
I also noticed the women’s reliance on religion. Perhaps they developed this reliance in the pre-war years. Given the male-dominated society they belonged to, a women's relationship with God may have been one of the only things they had control over. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
I agree with Andrew, though Whites supports Kari's argument in chapter 3. I think that their faith in Christianity made it easier for women to resign to their roles as subordinates. They could accept their husbands' infidelity or deaths or their family's sudden fall out of society or wealth due to their husbands' absence with a "Christian Resignation." - Celia<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
<br />
Sorry, had to add another heading because I wanted to make a comment about the Introduction. Whites line about the "great southern slaveholding planters" really struck me because it is something that is notable in the divisions of American history. In the normal scope of conversation we talk about Washington, Jefferson and Madison as these great men who did great things for our country and yet we ignore, for the most part, the fact that they participated in an institution that we find morally repugnant. All of these other slaveholders are viewed as distasteful because a majority of what we know about them is that they were planters and slaveholders. Perhaps this lack of knowledge about these men leads us to make many of the assumptions that the author enumerates about the reasons we think that the South made the decision to secede from the Union. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I found the definition of “free manhood” particularly interesting in Whites’ introduction. The idea that both Northern and Southern men believed they were defending “free manhood” points directly to how heavily masculinity was tied to the Civil War. Northerners were arguing that Southerners undermined the notion of free manhood by the enslavement of black men, while Southerners argued that to defend slave owning men was only the beginning of truly understanding their defense of an entire system of patriarchal leadership and control. – Mary Beth<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed Whites description of how the dominant people (white men, with the "view from no where") were actually socially defined by their subordinates (ie. women, children, slaves). Along these same lines, White also talks about how white southern men defined their manhood through the institution of slavery. This immediately made me think back to our last book. I wonder, to what extent was the manhood of white Southern men defined through the norm of sexually exploiting slave women? My guess would be that the sexual exploitation of slave women was a huge part in defining the masculinity of white Southern men. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
==Chapter 1==<br />
<br />
I found it incredibly fascinating the loyalty and devotion these women had to their husbands. I still find it hard really understand a world where women did not have even the right to decide what use their own body would be put to. These women had none of that choice that we have today, and some of them knew that their husbands were unfaithful to them with their slaves. And yet, they were almost entirely supportive of their husbands going off to war to fight for their independence and seemed to have genuinely missed their prescence. They wrote all of these shortcomings off as being a part of a man's perogative. There is no way on earth I would stand for any of it besides the going off to war in most cases. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I agree it is amazing, I don't think I could have the same devotion and know that my husband was unfaithful to me. Most of these woman did not know anything different, they had no choice to miss they life they had prior to the war since that was all they knew to be good in the world. When their men left they missed the life where they were supposed to be taken care of, where there husbands were there to protect them. Yet at the same time I can imagine that most of these women were proud of their men. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I found Whites’ emphasis on the threat of northern invasion on Southern masculinity and “liberty” to be particularly interesting. As one writer put it, “the forcible denial of the South’s right to regional autonomy would lead directly to reducing the free southern man to a position lower than the lowest member of the southern social order, the black slave.” White goes on to pose the significance of this northern threat to southern, non-slaving holding whites to argue that such a threat not only challenged slavery, but all male households, thus creating a unity amongst southern men against northern threat. I think it was extremely important for White to mention non-slave holding men in order to emphasize that the threat from the north was not only about slavery, but about an entire system of patriarchy. – Mary Beth<br />
<br />
It is almost understandable why women supported the war, whether they believed in the instituion of slavery (as Cornwall did) or not (Thomas). Whites' big argument in this chapter (which I thought was a very good one) was that the southern men fought to uphold their place as male household heads and their white masculinity. This meant that white men believed that the abolition of slavery jeopordized their role in the hierachy of the South. White women, whether they supported the war or not or slavery or not, had to support their men. Sure, there was love and patriotic spirit and loyalty involved, but a major reason for supporting their men was because they depended on the men for support and protection, and this support and protection depended on the white males maintaining the social hierarchy. This chapter was very thought-provoking and though I have read about the southern white man's fight to ensure his spot in the social heirarchy, it was interesting to see how the white woman fit into the picture- Celia<br />
<br />
==Chapter 2==<br />
I think one of the most interesting culture shifts of the Civil War is the focus from Northern or Southern survival in terms of what they produce economically to a focus on how much one can produce to aid the war effort. Especially in the South, I think that this shift to internal mobilization had a large impact on the way the culture progressed as the war dragged on. Men of influence could no longer focus on making money, plantation owners and small farm owners were off fighting and women were now, not only running farms and plantations, but they were involved in wartime production as well. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
Going off of what was said before, I find it very interesting that while the women were able to become amazingly independent in stepping up and supporting their off-to-war husbands, they still found it necessary to have every proceeding of their various meetings opened and closed with the prayer of a male minister. Was this something that the women felt they could not do themselves? There are various prayers that can be said by the layperson, after all... -Cash<br />
<br />
==Chapter 3== <br />
<br />
I found it interesting that although all these women now had the power to be the head of the household while their husband was fighting, they chose to remain subordinate to men. It was almost like they couldn't imagine living any other way. While some women jumped at the opportunity to become independent, most just criticized the men who stayed behind, or "town fathers", for not taking care of them like their husbands did. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
Why change the only life you know? It was very difficult for these women to change their way of thinking and take over as head of the household. It was almost easier to just remain subordinate. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
Yes, it must have been hard for the women and for everyone in general to imagine a life in which women were not subordinate. It would have been like speaking a new language. It is always easier to revert back to your first language. The dominance of men was the foundation for everything in their society. The family, the community, their economy, everything functioned around this idea. Those women given more independence didn’t recognize this as an opportunity; it stood against everything they had known their entire life. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
I liked the part about Turner Clanton who offered to sell meal below market value to the struggling wives of soldiers. I was surprised at how the lower class women had the nerve to respond sarcastically, criticizing Clanton for not doing enough. They expected him to provide more kinds of food, not just meal, and also to deliver it. I guess they were pissed off, since their society was based on this contract that men were dominant and protective and the women were dependent and obedient. All of a sudden the men were not holding up their part of the bargain and it seems like the women were pretty irritated. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
==Chapter 4==<br />
I feel like this chapter really emphasized the devastating effect the Civil War had on families and the social hierarchy in the South. White families were at their most vulnerable and to make things even better, blacks were no longer enslaved, endangering the position of white men within the community. Women, once again it seems, also had to do twice as much work as usual. They had to, not only cater to their wounded and emotionally unstable husbands, but they also had to look after the farms and plantations and continue the roles they acquired during the war, while trying to make sure their husbands didn't feel emasculated (Ashley in ''Gone With the Wind,'' anyone?) -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
Yes! I also kept thinking of Gone With The Wind whilst reading this chapter, and not just the Ashley character. The women throughout were realizing that they no longer had the power and status that they had held during the war. They knew it was coming, however. Going back to chapter two, on page 49, it is explained that "the existence of this society and its duties, will terminate with the war." However, realizing it and coming to terms with it are two different things. Much like Scarlett at the end of GWTW, these women had to be wondering wherever they shall go, whatever they shall do. -Cash<br />
<br />
And frankly Scarlett, I don't give a damn. -Cash<br />
<br />
lol -- Rebecca</div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_7_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 7 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-02-24T05:17:30Z<p>Rgraham: /* Chapter 4 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== The Book in General ==<br />
<br />
So I know, I tend to gripe and complain about something in each reading we do. However, I feel its part of the discussion of the work. So this time, my complaint is that the book is very repetitive. I feel like I'm reading the same thing over and over. I guess that's the point though, to show how Confederate white men were made to feel a little less masculine here and a little less there. And how women entered into the public sphere here and there, and then how the emergence of free blacks blurred the Confederate white man mansculinity head of household line even more. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I have to admit, it was kind of interesting to have Mrs. Thomas's journal thoughts in the Whites's work. I say this because I read part of her journal for another class and it was nice to see some familiarity in the work. It took a while to remember why it was familiar until I was cleaning up the house earlier today and found a piece of paper being used as a bookmark in the phone book and it was the cover page to the journal exert of Mrs. Thomas's journal that I had read in a previous class. I have no idea where the rest went, probably in the recycling bin, but it was like a light being switched on moment. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
One of the main themes I noticed throughout the first four chapters was the reliance on religion. The women realize they can not control what is going on in the front and have to rely on their faith to get them through it. Confederate women also believe that God will bring them justice against the Yankees, even when the Confederates are losing. It was interesting to see how much their faith was a part of their life. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
I also noticed the women’s reliance on religion. Perhaps they developed this reliance in the pre-war years. Given the male-dominated society they belonged to, a women's relationship with God may have been one of the only things they had control over. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
I agree with Andrew, though Whites supports Kari's argument in chapter 3. I think that their faith in Christianity made it easier for women to resign to their roles as subordinates. They could accept their husbands' infidelity or deaths or their family's sudden fall out of society or wealth due to their husbands' absence with a "Christian Resignation." - Celia<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
<br />
Sorry, had to add another heading because I wanted to make a comment about the Introduction. Whites line about the "great southern slaveholding planters" really struck me because it is something that is notable in the divisions of American history. In the normal scope of conversation we talk about Washington, Jefferson and Madison as these great men who did great things for our country and yet we ignore, for the most part, the fact that they participated in an institution that we find morally repugnant. All of these other slaveholders are viewed as distasteful because a majority of what we know about them is that they were planters and slaveholders. Perhaps this lack of knowledge about these men leads us to make many of the assumptions that the author enumerates about the reasons we think that the South made the decision to secede from the Union. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I found the definition of “free manhood” particularly interesting in Whites’ introduction. The idea that both Northern and Southern men believed they were defending “free manhood” points directly to how heavily masculinity was tied to the Civil War. Northerners were arguing that Southerners undermined the notion of free manhood by the enslavement of black men, while Southerners argued that to defend slave owning men was only the beginning of truly understanding their defense of an entire system of patriarchal leadership and control. – Mary Beth<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed Whites description of how the dominant people (white men, with the "view from no where") were actually socially defined by their subordinates (ie. women, children, slaves). Along these same lines, White also talks about how white southern men defined their manhood through the institution of slavery. This immediately made me think back to our last book. I wonder, to what extent was the manhood of white Southern men defined through the norm of sexually exploiting slave women? My guess would be that the sexual exploitation of slave women was a huge part in defining the masculinity of white Southern men. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
==Chapter 1==<br />
<br />
I found it incredibly fascinating the loyalty and devotion these women had to their husbands. I still find it hard really understand a world where women did not have even the right to decide what use their own body would be put to. These women had none of that choice that we have today, and some of them knew that their husbands were unfaithful to them with their slaves. And yet, they were almost entirely supportive of their husbands going off to war to fight for their independence and seemed to have genuinely missed their prescence. They wrote all of these shortcomings off as being a part of a man's perogative. There is no way on earth I would stand for any of it besides the going off to war in most cases. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I agree it is amazing, I don't think I could have the same devotion and know that my husband was unfaithful to me. Most of these woman did not know anything different, they had no choice to miss they life they had prior to the war since that was all they knew to be good in the world. When their men left they missed the life where they were supposed to be taken care of, where there husbands were there to protect them. Yet at the same time I can imagine that most of these women were proud of their men. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I found Whites’ emphasis on the threat of northern invasion on Southern masculinity and “liberty” to be particularly interesting. As one writer put it, “the forcible denial of the South’s right to regional autonomy would lead directly to reducing the free southern man to a position lower than the lowest member of the southern social order, the black slave.” White goes on to pose the significance of this northern threat to southern, non-slaving holding whites to argue that such a threat not only challenged slavery, but all male households, thus creating a unity amongst southern men against northern threat. I think it was extremely important for White to mention non-slave holding men in order to emphasize that the threat from the north was not only about slavery, but about an entire system of patriarchy. – Mary Beth<br />
<br />
It is almost understandable why women supported the war, whether they believed in the instituion of slavery (as Cornwall did) or not (Thomas). Whites' big argument in this chapter (which I thought was a very good one) was that the southern men fought to uphold their place as male household heads and their white masculinity. This meant that white men believed that the abolition of slavery jeopordized their role in the hierachy of the South. White women, whether they supported the war or not or slavery or not, had to support their men. Sure, there was love and patriotic spirit and loyalty involved, but a major reason for supporting their men was because they depended on the men for support and protection, and this support and protection depended on the white males maintaining the social hierarchy. This chapter was very thought-provoking and though I have read about the southern white man's fight to ensure his spot in the social heirarchy, it was interesting to see how the white woman fit into the picture- Celia<br />
<br />
==Chapter 2==<br />
I think one of the most interesting culture shifts of the Civil War is the focus from Northern or Southern survival in terms of what they produce economically to a focus on how much one can produce to aid the war effort. Especially in the South, I think that this shift to internal mobilization had a large impact on the way the culture progressed as the war dragged on. Men of influence could no longer focus on making money, plantation owners and small farm owners were off fighting and women were now, not only running farms and plantations, but they were involved in wartime production as well. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
Going off of what was said before, I find it very interesting that while the women were able to become amazingly independent in stepping up and supporting their off-to-war husbands, they still found it necessary to have every proceeding of their various meetings opened and closed with the prayer of a male minister. Was this something that the women felt they could not do themselves? There are various prayers that can be said by the layperson, after all... -Cash<br />
<br />
==Chapter 3== <br />
<br />
I found it interesting that although all these women now had the power to be the head of the household while their husband was fighting, they chose to remain subordinate to men. It was almost like they couldn't imagine living any other way. While some women jumped at the opportunity to become independent, most just criticized the men who stayed behind, or "town fathers", for not taking care of them like their husbands did. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
Why change the only life you know? It was very difficult for these women to change their way of thinking and take over as head of the household. It was almost easier to just remain subordinate. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
Yes, it must have been hard for the women and for everyone in general to imagine a life in which women were not subordinate. It would have been like speaking a new language. It is always easier to revert back to your first language. The dominance of men was the foundation for everything in their society. The family, the community, their economy, everything functioned around this idea. Those women given more independence didn’t recognize this as an opportunity; it stood against everything they had known their entire life. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
==Chapter 4==<br />
I feel like this chapter really emphasized the devastating effect the Civil War had on families and the social hierarchy in the South. White families were at their most vulnerable and to make things even better, blacks were no longer enslaved, endangering the position of white men within the community. Women, once again it seems, also had to do twice as much work as usual. They had to, not only cater to their wounded and emotionally unstable husbands, but they also had to look after the farms and plantations and continue the roles they acquired during the war, while trying to make sure their husbands didn't feel emasculated (Ashley in ''Gone With the Wind,'' anyone?) -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
Yes! I also kept thinking of Gone With The Wind whilst reading this chapter, and not just the Ashley character. The women throughout were realizing that they no longer had the power and status that they had held during the war. They knew it was coming, however. Going back to chapter two, on page 49, it is explained that "the existence of this society and its duties, will terminate with the war." However, realizing it and coming to terms with it are two different things. Much like Scarlett at the end of GWTW, these women had to be wondering wherever they shall go, whatever they shall do. -Cash<br />
<br />
And frankly Scarlett, I don't give a damn. -Cash<br />
<br />
lol -- Rebecca</div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_7_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 7 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-02-24T05:16:02Z<p>Rgraham: /* Introduction */</p>
<hr />
<div>== The Book in General ==<br />
<br />
So I know, I tend to gripe and complain about something in each reading we do. However, I feel its part of the discussion of the work. So this time, my complaint is that the book is very repetitive. I feel like I'm reading the same thing over and over. I guess that's the point though, to show how Confederate white men were made to feel a little less masculine here and a little less there. And how women entered into the public sphere here and there, and then how the emergence of free blacks blurred the Confederate white man mansculinity head of household line even more. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I have to admit, it was kind of interesting to have Mrs. Thomas's journal thoughts in the Whites's work. I say this because I read part of her journal for another class and it was nice to see some familiarity in the work. It took a while to remember why it was familiar until I was cleaning up the house earlier today and found a piece of paper being used as a bookmark in the phone book and it was the cover page to the journal exert of Mrs. Thomas's journal that I had read in a previous class. I have no idea where the rest went, probably in the recycling bin, but it was like a light being switched on moment. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
One of the main themes I noticed throughout the first four chapters was the reliance on religion. The women realize they can not control what is going on in the front and have to rely on their faith to get them through it. Confederate women also believe that God will bring them justice against the Yankees, even when the Confederates are losing. It was interesting to see how much their faith was a part of their life. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
I also noticed the women’s reliance on religion. Perhaps they developed this reliance in the pre-war years. Given the male-dominated society they belonged to, a women's relationship with God may have been one of the only things they had control over. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
I agree with Andrew, though Whites supports Kari's argument in chapter 3. I think that their faith in Christianity made it easier for women to resign to their roles as subordinates. They could accept their husbands' infidelity or deaths or their family's sudden fall out of society or wealth due to their husbands' absence with a "Christian Resignation." - Celia<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
<br />
Sorry, had to add another heading because I wanted to make a comment about the Introduction. Whites line about the "great southern slaveholding planters" really struck me because it is something that is notable in the divisions of American history. In the normal scope of conversation we talk about Washington, Jefferson and Madison as these great men who did great things for our country and yet we ignore, for the most part, the fact that they participated in an institution that we find morally repugnant. All of these other slaveholders are viewed as distasteful because a majority of what we know about them is that they were planters and slaveholders. Perhaps this lack of knowledge about these men leads us to make many of the assumptions that the author enumerates about the reasons we think that the South made the decision to secede from the Union. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I found the definition of “free manhood” particularly interesting in Whites’ introduction. The idea that both Northern and Southern men believed they were defending “free manhood” points directly to how heavily masculinity was tied to the Civil War. Northerners were arguing that Southerners undermined the notion of free manhood by the enslavement of black men, while Southerners argued that to defend slave owning men was only the beginning of truly understanding their defense of an entire system of patriarchal leadership and control. – Mary Beth<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed Whites description of how the dominant people (white men, with the "view from no where") were actually socially defined by their subordinates (ie. women, children, slaves). Along these same lines, White also talks about how white southern men defined their manhood through the institution of slavery. This immediately made me think back to our last book. I wonder, to what extent was the manhood of white Southern men defined through the norm of sexually exploiting slave women? My guess would be that the sexual exploitation of slave women was a huge part in defining the masculinity of white Southern men. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
==Chapter 1==<br />
<br />
I found it incredibly fascinating the loyalty and devotion these women had to their husbands. I still find it hard really understand a world where women did not have even the right to decide what use their own body would be put to. These women had none of that choice that we have today, and some of them knew that their husbands were unfaithful to them with their slaves. And yet, they were almost entirely supportive of their husbands going off to war to fight for their independence and seemed to have genuinely missed their prescence. They wrote all of these shortcomings off as being a part of a man's perogative. There is no way on earth I would stand for any of it besides the going off to war in most cases. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I agree it is amazing, I don't think I could have the same devotion and know that my husband was unfaithful to me. Most of these woman did not know anything different, they had no choice to miss they life they had prior to the war since that was all they knew to be good in the world. When their men left they missed the life where they were supposed to be taken care of, where there husbands were there to protect them. Yet at the same time I can imagine that most of these women were proud of their men. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I found Whites’ emphasis on the threat of northern invasion on Southern masculinity and “liberty” to be particularly interesting. As one writer put it, “the forcible denial of the South’s right to regional autonomy would lead directly to reducing the free southern man to a position lower than the lowest member of the southern social order, the black slave.” White goes on to pose the significance of this northern threat to southern, non-slaving holding whites to argue that such a threat not only challenged slavery, but all male households, thus creating a unity amongst southern men against northern threat. I think it was extremely important for White to mention non-slave holding men in order to emphasize that the threat from the north was not only about slavery, but about an entire system of patriarchy. – Mary Beth<br />
<br />
It is almost understandable why women supported the war, whether they believed in the instituion of slavery (as Cornwall did) or not (Thomas). Whites' big argument in this chapter (which I thought was a very good one) was that the southern men fought to uphold their place as male household heads and their white masculinity. This meant that white men believed that the abolition of slavery jeopordized their role in the hierachy of the South. White women, whether they supported the war or not or slavery or not, had to support their men. Sure, there was love and patriotic spirit and loyalty involved, but a major reason for supporting their men was because they depended on the men for support and protection, and this support and protection depended on the white males maintaining the social hierarchy. This chapter was very thought-provoking and though I have read about the southern white man's fight to ensure his spot in the social heirarchy, it was interesting to see how the white woman fit into the picture- Celia<br />
<br />
==Chapter 2==<br />
I think one of the most interesting culture shifts of the Civil War is the focus from Northern or Southern survival in terms of what they produce economically to a focus on how much one can produce to aid the war effort. Especially in the South, I think that this shift to internal mobilization had a large impact on the way the culture progressed as the war dragged on. Men of influence could no longer focus on making money, plantation owners and small farm owners were off fighting and women were now, not only running farms and plantations, but they were involved in wartime production as well. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
Going off of what was said before, I find it very interesting that while the women were able to become amazingly independent in stepping up and supporting their off-to-war husbands, they still found it necessary to have every proceeding of their various meetings opened and closed with the prayer of a male minister. Was this something that the women felt they could not do themselves? There are various prayers that can be said by the layperson, after all... -Cash<br />
<br />
==Chapter 3== <br />
<br />
I found it interesting that although all these women now had the power to be the head of the household while their husband was fighting, they chose to remain subordinate to men. It was almost like they couldn't imagine living any other way. While some women jumped at the opportunity to become independent, most just criticized the men who stayed behind, or "town fathers", for not taking care of them like their husbands did. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
Why change the only life you know? It was very difficult for these women to change their way of thinking and take over as head of the household. It was almost easier to just remain subordinate. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
Yes, it must have been hard for the women and for everyone in general to imagine a life in which women were not subordinate. It would have been like speaking a new language. It is always easier to revert back to your first language. The dominance of men was the foundation for everything in their society. The family, the community, their economy, everything functioned around this idea. Those women given more independence didn’t recognize this as an opportunity; it stood against everything they had known their entire life. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
==Chapter 4==<br />
I feel like this chapter really emphasized the devastating effect the Civil War had on families and the social hierarchy in the South. White families were at their most vulnerable and to make things even better, blacks were no longer enslaved, endangering the position of white men within the community. Women, once again it seems, also had to do twice as much work as usual. They had to, not only cater to their wounded and emotionally unstable husbands, but they also had to look after the farms and plantations and continue the roles they acquired during the war, while trying to make sure their husbands didn't feel emasculated (Ashley in ''Gone With the Wind,'' anyone?) -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
Yes! I also kept thinking of Gone With The Wind whilst reading this chapter, and not just the Ashley character. The women throughout were realizing that they no longer had the power and status that they had held during the war. They knew it was coming, however. Going back to chapter two, on page 49, it is explained that "the existence of this society and its duties, will terminate with the war." However, realizing it and coming to terms with it are two different things. Much like Scarlett at the end of GWTW, these women had to be wondering wherever they shall go, whatever they shall do. -Cash<br />
<br />
And frankly Scarlett, I don't give a damn. -Cash</div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_6_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 6 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-02-19T04:42:00Z<p>Rgraham: /* Chapter 4 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching Topics ==<br />
<br />
After reading last week's monograph and this week's monograph, I have a curiosity question. In my Latin America studies class, there were court cases where white men tried to seduce and have sex with black male slaves. Is there any evidence that white men tried/did have sex with black men (free or slave)? And, is there any evidence for the white female and black female (free or slave)? I'm not trying to be gross, I'm just wondering if it also happened in America. I'm not sure if this is something people would have brought to court in America because not only would it be sex across the color line, but also homosexual which was just as bad if not worse. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Chapter 4 ==<br />
<br />
During Tuesday's class, we discussed what we thought white women might do if their husbands had extramarital sex (fancy word for cheating if you ask me...). Well, on page 134, Rothman discussed this, if ever so briefly, and I quote, "White women responded to the extramarital affairs of their spouses with a combination of resignation, denial, and displaced hostility and vidictiveness toward their slaves." I figured since we talked about it, I'd go ahead and put it up on the wiki. Also, later on in the reading it discussed how some women filed for divorced based on their husbands 'extramarital sex,' but they had to also prove that the reason their husband was having these affairs was not because she was not pious, submissive, etc.. I just thought that was interesting in its own way. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
One thing I found interesting was the reason behind sexual violence. "Interracial sexual abuse reminded enslaved black women that their bodies were never their own. It placed black men on notice that their families were insignificant and their pretenses to protecting their wives, daughters, mothers, and sisters from harm ultimately futile." (134) White men raped their slave women to prove their power. In response to Ashley, their wives wanted to prove their power over their slaves, and that it didn't matter what their husbands were doing. These women wanted to make sure their slaves did not look at them differently just because of their husband's indiscretions. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
It seems to me that there was a little bit of irony in this chapter. It discusses at the beginning of the chapter that although the state of Virginia demanded that death sentence be placed on a slave who murdered a white or black male or female. Rothman then goes on to state that Virginia communities did not always agree with that sort of punishment without all the evidence and particular circumstances considered. After reading the cases of the chapter, it appears to me that the majority of cases went straight to the death penalty, especially in Manuel's case. Therefore, the argument should be that a male slave who acted alone in murdering a white male, regardless of the crime the white male committed, the black slave would be on a one way street to the gallows. --Joe C.<br />
<br />
Rothman certainly had more sources for this chapter and made his points well. The cases were fascinating but I was frankly shocked by some of the circumstances (Ben, the wife and Gooding come to mind). And actually, I have to disagree with Joe. While some slaves such as Manuel and Henry were hanged, many were acquitted or the sentence was lessened to "transportation." I was really surprised by this. This chapter exposed many facets of white&black relations that are not usually taught. I had no idea the extent to which whites tried and often succeeded in intervening on the behalf of slaves. Even the fact that some slaves had attorneys and their cases were brought into courts surprised me. After reading this chapter, I felt that slave women had one choice in life: between rape or death.--Amanda<br />
<br />
Responding to Amanda's comment about transportation instead of execution: I don't see this as whites intervening on behalf of slaves. I think it was totally self-serving. At least that is how Rothman presents it in this chapter. I also think that reason behind the attorneys was maybe not so much to protect the slave. Maybe it was just because the slave was a valuable piece of property, so the decision to kill the slave had to go through proper legal channels. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
In reading this chapter, I was struck by how much personal relationships and situations influenced the sentences of slaves accused of murdering white men. Like Amanda, I did not expect to read that white men often petitioned the governor on the behalf of a slave. Granted, as Rothman discusses, slaves were viewed as "valuable" and so many men wanted to save them for work, yet many of the petitioners were neighbors who seem to legitimately have had some feeling for the victims. I also was unaware of the frequency with which slaves were able to testify in court. Ultimately though, this chapter really illustrated the social hierarchy to me. That white men would stand up for a black man who clearly raped a white woman, because she was poor, really surprised me and shows that gender and class were, at least occasionally, as important as race in court cases and public opinion. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I agree with Amanda. When I first started to read this chapter, I thought it would be all about black slaves receiving the death penalty for killing white people. But I was surprised at the number of sentences that were not death penalties. I was also surprised that when black men had sex with white women of sordid reputation, no male protection or were poor, they (the slaves) often gained the sympathy of white men. This is mostly because the black slaves were considered more valuable and less contemptible to society. This and, as Amanda wrote above, some of the cases where white men were lenient towards blacks were surprising. - Celia<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Joe here. As Joe points out the state of Virginia demanded that death sentence be placed on a slave who murdered a white or black male or female yet there are contradictions in terms of how/if/what punishment was carried out. However, Sarah too raises a very important point about value. -Stephen<br />
<br />
I wanted to elaborate on Kellye's point a bit and just point out that, as twenty-first century individuals, we tend to forget that (enslaved) black women once did not have ownership of their own bodies. Because they were property their bodies too were simply a thing that belonged to a white slave owner. Essentially, they were toys for their masters to play with, as horrible as that sounds. I did find it interesting though, that at one point Rothman discussed the issue of Malinda, a slave woman who killed another black man as he tried to sexually assault her. Against someone of her own kind, she had the ability to cry self-defense. Against any white man that typically was not the case. -Kelly<br />
<br />
== Chapter 5 ==<br />
<br />
Reading through the chapter, a question kept running through my mind. Did men or women ever lie about interracial adultery, or was it always proven to be the case that the offending party was in fact sleeping with someone that was not only not the husband/wife, but of a different race? It just seems to me like this is a claim that could just be thrown out there no matter what and because of the scandal attached, there wouldn't be much in the way of defense for the offending party. -Cash<br />
<br />
To answer Cash's first question, I would say of course they lied. The only proof of adultery only came from being caught in the act, or having a child. In southern American society, especially within the legal constructs of Virginia, males were the more convincing because they were only guilty if they were caught in the act. Both scenarios for proof of adulterous activity were possible for women and in a gender polarized society, white males generally had the upper hand and were more convincing. I laughed after reading on page 175 at the list of men from Nansemond County that had told the legislature they acted responsibly. Although it is possible, the white slave owning males' word was their only proof of innocence. --Joe C.<br />
<br />
While I think we are inclined to speculate that people lied about interracial marriages (and it is definitely possible that it did happen) I think we need to keep in mind the shame associated with making a public claim. Rotham goes to great length to describe the shame that both men and women felt. If a man was cheating it was not only embarrassing to the man, but in some way the woman was unable to fulfill her role as a proper women, including sexually pleasing the man. If a woman was cheating it was embarrassing for her, but even more embarrassing for a man who had loss control of his wife, particularly her sexual life, which attacked not only his role as husband, but his masculinity. While it is an interesting point to consider I think we must remember the public shame associated with all of these accusations. – Mary Beth<br />
<br />
I think it's interesting that Rothman explained that whites felt it wasn't white supremacy on the line, but rather the sanctity of marriage. Clearly just as Stevenson said it was much easier for men to get divorces. I am really perplexed by the case of Sarah and Richard Hall on p. 178-179. Why the heck did Sarah get married if she was already involved with a black man? I thought perhaps it was about property and legal status, but did she just expect to keep having the black man's children and live with her husband? What ''was'' she thinking?!--Amanda<br />
<br />
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Chapter 4 Rothman was talking about how when white men were having sex with black women it was more a power thing, something to emasculate the black male slaves. But in Chapter 5, when white women had sex with black men it was a violation of their marriage vows. I am not a fan of either man or wife cheating, but I thought that this situation was very off balanced. Anyone else agree? -Celia<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Celia. Those poor women who wanted a divorce had to have so much evidence other than adultery in order for it to actually be considered and if a man wanted to get a divorce he just had to state that his wife was sleeping with a slave. Also, women had to prove that they were a good wife to the jury in order to get a divorce. The double standard is really ridiculous. I understand that my opinion is based off of modern times and ideas, but still you would think people would be able to see that back then. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
== Chapter 6 ==<br />
<br />
I was amazed that there was 61 different ways to describe the skin tone of blacks. I also found it sad that even if someone was legally white as well as looked white, the community did not always accept the fact that they were white. The most important the community viewed after physical and legal conditions was who the person associated with. Community standing was probably the most significant factor when determining a persons whiteness. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I think Rothman's point about racial ambiguity was well argued. None of the cases were clear cut and although ancestry was the legal determining factor, physical characteristics often played a role as well.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I agree with Amanda and Kellye. The dicatomy for charaterizing slaves was intresting, but also valueable in seeking a better understanding of the legal factors of the day. - Stephen<br />
<br />
== Epilogue ==<br />
In the Epilogue, Rothman discusses a valuable point of view that most Americans today tend to default their way in to (for lack of a better phrase) and that is the "slavery was bad but everyone is equal now" approach to life. Although rather cheesey, Rothman lays it all on the line as he says "Finally, they seem to feel we can move on. Tom and Sally were really in love, after all, and slavery was a long time ago." He argues that interracial sex and the amount of time and energy whites spent hating blacks and both sides of the color line spent feuding is often overlooked in history classes today in a "slavery ended hundreds of years ago and we're not like that anymore" sort of way. So I have a question - do you think that's true? Do Americans today kind of, "romanticize" the era, so to speak? -Kelly</div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_6_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 6 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-02-17T05:15:52Z<p>Rgraham: /* Chapter 1 - Tom and Sally */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching Topics ==<br />
<br />
I do not know if this is a good topic for the wiki... but I have to admit, I do not like this book. I'm not sure why though, it just seemed really dry and boring to me. I guess because I felt like, especially in the first chapter, that it was a "oh look at whose having sex with who and are they cheating in the celebrity world." --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I have to say that I disagree with Ashley, I thought the book was very interesting. Yeah, the first chapter read kind of like a tabloid, but it was interesting to see how far-reaching the interracial relations went. Look at that crazy genealogy in the interlude. Then you also get to see how shortsighted and contradictory these people really were. I find it incredibly fascinating. -Lacey<br />
<br />
This week is supposed to be interracial sex and all that jazz... however, with my own view points I have problems with the whole "Those two people can't be together and have a family because of the color of their skin." So... articles and monographs that touch of the subject usually make me moody, upset, or annoyed. I know its the difference in opinions of people then and now, but why couldn't people just leave others alone? If you don't like what 2 other people are doing, don't look at them. If people did like Mrs. White Jane Doe having sex with Mr. Black Joe Smith, then don't pay attention to them. Let them live their lives and ignore them. If they want to have a kid, who cares. The people in the 1800s needed to be honest with themselves, people were already having sex 'across the color line,' but no one seemed to care much until blacks were free, honestly, does it matter that the blacks were free? Oy.... --Ashely Wilkins<br />
<br />
Ashley's comments remind me of some societal attitudes towards homosexual relationships. Just like interracial sex became more of an issue when slaves were free, homosexual sex is seen as more threatening if same sex marriage is allowed. I think people were willing to tolerate interracial sex as long as everyone understood it to be taboo. But when blacks were free, and there was a possibility of creating a legally recognized interracial family, that is when people had big problems with it. I think the same sort of thing is happening with gay marriage today. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
I find it strange that it was not necessarily frowned upon for people to have interracial relationships before the civil war in Virginia. I feel as if society has always looked down, to some degree, on interracial relationships, particularly in the south. When did this shift occur, from a don’t ask don’t tell view, to a viewpoint that clearly frowned upon interracial relationships? -Andrew B<br />
<br />
I too was very surprised. I have grown up in VA and have almost always felt that it was an overarching view that interracial relationships were frowned upon, especially in southern VA. At the same time, I think that in many parts of VA you would be able to get away with an interracial marriage if there was enough else going on that people were mainly only concerned about themselves. -- Kellye S<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Andrew and Kellye. I was a bit confused when I was reading this about the fact that it was more okay before the Civil War? What was the difference or change in attuitudes caused by? - Stephen<br />
<br />
I am just venturing a guess, but perhaps it has to to with power. Having sex with a black female slave gave a white man a sense of power, either over the woman herself or over her loved ones. It may have just been an expected role of a white slave-holder. After the emancipation proclamation, the black people were no longer under direct control of the whites. Sexual relations between a black person and a white person was no longer primarily about power, but about something that was unthinkable... intimacy and love. - Celia<br />
<br />
== Chapter 1 - Tom and Sally ==<br />
<br />
The relationship between Thomas Jefferson and James Callender is what interested me the most. I guess this was just my naive "The Founding Fathers are Gods" education but I didn't realize how manipulative Thomas Jefferson was. I found it kind of funny, actually (and I know this probably makes me a horrible person) that as soon as Jefferson won the presidential election he tossed Callender to the side. Poor guy worked so hard to bash the other party for Jefferson and their relationship ends instantly. However, I am not surprised that Callender died by falling into a river drunk causing him to drown. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
Kelly, I totally agree with you. I felt much of the same way. It seems to me that a lot of people do what Jefferson did, that is cast someone aside that is no longer of value to them. Callender was really there just to meet Jefferson's needs. -- Kellye S<br />
<br />
I have read so many accounts and so many interpretations of the Thomas Jefferson / Sally Hemings saga that I could barely make it through chapter 1. One thing, however, did stick out to me. I felt as if Rothman was discounting the fact that Jefferson was a racist slave owner. I felt as if Rothman gave Jefferson too much credit, as if… “yea he owns slaves, but, he was a founding father, so it is OK.” -Andrew B<br />
<br />
Andrew, I feel this is similar to what we were discussing in class. We have a tendency to find behavior which as a whole we find wrong, somehow less wrong in considering the founders. I feel that Rothman continues this trend to an extent regardign Hemings, but not regarding Callender. Sexism?<br />
<br />
I thought the negotiation powers that Sally had while in France were very interesting. It seemed like slaves in that position really had no choice but to believe their masters would keep their word. In France, she had very little opportunity and was away from their families and if she went to Virginia she could stay with her family and have some more freedoms. Was this going to France thing a common occurrence or was this just a Thomas Jefferson/wealthy elite thing? -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
As in all eras, there is a proper and improper way to do things. It was not considered improper to have interracial relationships; however, it was if you publically flaunted it. Jefferson's relationship with Sally wasn't considered imporper because he didn't publically acknwledge it, even though many knew about it. However, Callender was considered more dishonorable for publicizng a gentleman's sexual relationship with his slave. Does anyone think that reactions have changed since then on people's sexual behavior and the people who expose them? - Celia<br />
<br />
Responding to Celia's question, I think that in some circles not much has changed. I remember the reaction that a lot of people had to Ken Star when he exposed all the details of the Clinton/Monica affair. A lot of people (by which I mean Democrats) felt like it was inappropriate. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
Like Andrew, I've read a lot about Tom and Sally. Rothman's scenarios for what could have happened, the possible reasons for the relations and explanations were interesting, but I felt it was really a lot of extrapolation. Clearly it was a complex situation, but no concrete answer is ever going to be reached, even with DNA evidence. His conclusions about sex across the color line again are interesting, but I felt this chapter was a little drawn out.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Amanda that the amount of time devoted to this topic is excessive. I also feel, that while Rothman's argument is convincing, he appears so determined to prove Jefferson and Sally were intimate that he makes many assuming statements and infers a great deal more then is apparent in the written history. I can see that circumstances were ripe for a relationship and yet I do not know if I believe everything that the author suggests about it, particularly as he basis his argument off of the work of Callender, a very disgruntled enemy of Jefferson. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I was intrigued by the fact that Jefferson's kids with Sally were considered white after he freed them (enjoying all the privileges of any other white citizen) and that all of Jefferson's house slaves looked white. It seems like pro-slavery arguments depend on the slaves being black. What justification would a 19th century Southerner have for enslaving someone who was white? None of their arguments about racial inferiority would apply. It seems like this would have been a very problematic situation for Southern society, but in the reading they just seem to deal with it pretty nonchalantly. How does that work? -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
== Chapter 2 - David and Nancy ==<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that the marriage of Issac and West was not as socially unacceptable because Issac was a Jew. White Protestants viewed Jews as inferior and therefore could somewhat justify the black/white relationship. It wasn’t one of “them” who was having sexual relations with a black woman. They would really look for anything to try and not put a blemish on the supreme white society. - Kari W. <br />
<br />
I also found it very interesting that somehow David’s faith prevented him from being held to such a high standard of morality. It was almost as though since he was Jewish that he could not be technically held to the same Christian standards, yet he could still be held to society’s standards, which touches upon a major idea of the role of community. We discussed last week the role of community in influencing social interactions between blacks and whites in Stevenson’s work and we see that again this week looking at how the law and how society determined race, social status, and interactions between the two. – Mary Beth<br />
<br />
That was a little puzzling to me too, Kari. It was almost as if the area as a whole viewed the Jewish community as "the good kind" of minority, willing to overlook Christian-Judeo marriages as less of an offense than marriages between blacks and whites. After all, the Constitution excused freedom of religion explicitly. Not so much freedom of race. -Cash<br />
<br />
Does anyone else agree with what Rothman says about Issac and Nancy- that their success was proof not only of their intelligence, foresight and shrewdness, but also of their luck? Can the successful marriage and life of a freed black woman and Jewish man be the reult of anything but luck? - Celia<br />
<br />
I think we have to remember these are like case studies. Rothman uses one couple to make a broad point. Celia: I do agree with Rothman's point, but also think luck may have had more to do with it than the other factors. As he pointed out earlier, every instance of interracial relations could be brought up and judged on a case-by-case basis. David and Nancy could easily had a different, less fortunate fate.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I thought this chapter on interracial relations was very interesting. I was very impressed and surprised by how they were able to use the law for their benefit even though it was meant to limit them. For instance, Nancy was able to hold more power then the average white women, owning property and having no need for a dowry, as she was considered to be unmarried. The discussion of how to define Nancy's race was also interesting. It really reflects the implications that being white, black, or mulatto had on one's life --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
What popped into my head at one point while reading this was something we talked about last week. We had discussed that freed blacks eventually had to carry papers around with them to prove they weren't enslaved and when Nancy had to go and testify in court to prove she was born free in VA it was the first thing that I thought of. It's really unfortunate that freed blacks were always stepping on eggshells. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 3 - Brothels and Prostitution ==<br />
Did anyone else catch that most of the women being hauled into court for prostitution were generally being charged with anything but that? -Lacey<br />
<br />
Lacey, I think this was an issue of what prostitution brought to Richmond's economy. If you start prosecuting one of the city's main economic draws, then the tourism, if you will, is going to suffer. By punishing "around" the actual crime, you can bring it down to a point where people may stop complaining for a while, but it will still bring people to the city. You know, it's almost like a tourism pamphlet. "RICHMOND! COME FOR THE WOMEN, STAY FOR THE SEAFOOD." -Cash<br />
<br />
Cash's point is a good one. I thought of the chapter like Lacey, but I can see how prosecution for other crimes was a means of decreasing (or at least hushing) prostitution. And, I like the tourism pamphlet line.--Amanda<br />
<br />
In reading this chapter I was struck by the use of sexual insults and foul language of women towards women of other races. Such insults and accusations do not fit with the image I had of the proper Virginia lady. --Sarah Gardner</div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_6_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 6 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-02-17T05:14:42Z<p>Rgraham: /* Chapter 1 - Tom and Sally */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching Topics ==<br />
<br />
I do not know if this is a good topic for the wiki... but I have to admit, I do not like this book. I'm not sure why though, it just seemed really dry and boring to me. I guess because I felt like, especially in the first chapter, that it was a "oh look at whose having sex with who and are they cheating in the celebrity world." --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I have to say that I disagree with Ashley, I thought the book was very interesting. Yeah, the first chapter read kind of like a tabloid, but it was interesting to see how far-reaching the interracial relations went. Look at that crazy genealogy in the interlude. Then you also get to see how shortsighted and contradictory these people really were. I find it incredibly fascinating. -Lacey<br />
<br />
This week is supposed to be interracial sex and all that jazz... however, with my own view points I have problems with the whole "Those two people can't be together and have a family because of the color of their skin." So... articles and monographs that touch of the subject usually make me moody, upset, or annoyed. I know its the difference in opinions of people then and now, but why couldn't people just leave others alone? If you don't like what 2 other people are doing, don't look at them. If people did like Mrs. White Jane Doe having sex with Mr. Black Joe Smith, then don't pay attention to them. Let them live their lives and ignore them. If they want to have a kid, who cares. The people in the 1800s needed to be honest with themselves, people were already having sex 'across the color line,' but no one seemed to care much until blacks were free, honestly, does it matter that the blacks were free? Oy.... --Ashely Wilkins<br />
<br />
Ashley's comments remind me of some societal attitudes towards homosexual relationships. Just like interracial sex became more of an issue when slaves were free, homosexual sex is seen as more threatening if same sex marriage is allowed. I think people were willing to tolerate interracial sex as long as everyone understood it to be taboo. But when blacks were free, and there was a possibility of creating a legally recognized interracial family, that is when people had big problems with it. I think the same sort of thing is happening with gay marriage today. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
I find it strange that it was not necessarily frowned upon for people to have interracial relationships before the civil war in Virginia. I feel as if society has always looked down, to some degree, on interracial relationships, particularly in the south. When did this shift occur, from a don’t ask don’t tell view, to a viewpoint that clearly frowned upon interracial relationships? -Andrew B<br />
<br />
I too was very surprised. I have grown up in VA and have almost always felt that it was an overarching view that interracial relationships were frowned upon, especially in southern VA. At the same time, I think that in many parts of VA you would be able to get away with an interracial marriage if there was enough else going on that people were mainly only concerned about themselves. -- Kellye S<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Andrew and Kellye. I was a bit confused when I was reading this about the fact that it was more okay before the Civil War? What was the difference or change in attuitudes caused by? - Stephen<br />
<br />
I am just venturing a guess, but perhaps it has to to with power. Having sex with a black female slave gave a white man a sense of power, either over the woman herself or over her loved ones. It may have just been an expected role of a white slave-holder. After the emancipation proclamation, the black people were no longer under direct control of the whites. Sexual relations between a black person and a white person was no longer primarily about power, but about something that was unthinkable... intimacy and love. - Celia<br />
<br />
== Chapter 1 - Tom and Sally ==<br />
<br />
The relationship between Thomas Jefferson and James Callender is what interested me the most. I guess this was just my naive "The Founding Fathers are Gods" education but I didn't realize how manipulative Thomas Jefferson was. I found it kind of funny, actually (and I know this probably makes me a horrible person) that as soon as Jefferson won the presidential election he tossed Callender to the side. Poor guy worked so hard to bash the other party for Jefferson and their relationship ends instantly. However, I am not surprised that Callender died by falling into a river drunk causing him to drown. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
Kelly, I totally agree with you. I felt much of the same way. It seems to me that a lot of people do what Jefferson did, that is cast someone aside that is no longer of value to them. Callender was really there just to meet Jefferson's needs. -- Kellye S<br />
<br />
I have read so many accounts and so many interpretations of the Thomas Jefferson / Sally Hemings saga that I could barely make it through chapter 1. One thing, however, did stick out to me. I felt as if Rothman was discounting the fact that Jefferson was a racist slave owner. I felt as if Rothman gave Jefferson too much credit, as if… “yea he owns slaves, but, he was a founding father, so it is OK.” -Andrew B<br />
<br />
Andrew, I feel this is similar to what we were discussing in class. We have a tendency to find behavior which as a whole we find wrong, somehow less wrong in considering the founders. I feel that Rothman continues this trend to an extent regardign Hemings, but not regarding Callender. Sexism?<br />
<br />
I thought the negotiation powers that Sally had while in France were very interesting. It seemed like slaves in that position really had no choice but to believe their masters would keep their word. In France, she had very little opportunity and was away from their families and if she went to Virginia she could stay with her family and have some more freedoms. Was this going to France thing a common occurrence or was this just a Thomas Jefferson/wealthy elite thing? -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
As in all eras, there is a proper and improper way to do things. It was not considered improper to have interracial relationships; however, it was if you publically flaunted it. Jefferson's relationship with Sally wasn't considered imporper because he didn't publically acknwledge it, even though many knew about it. However, Callender was considered more dishonorable for publicizng a gentleman's sexual relationship with his slave. Does anyone think that reactions have changed since then on people's sexual behavior and the people who expose them? - Celia<br />
<br />
Responding to Celia's question, I think that in some circles not much has changed. I remember the reaction that a lot of people had to Ken Star when he exposed all the details of the Clinton/Monica affair. A lot of people (by which I mean Democrats) felt like it was inappropriate. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
Like Andrew, I've read a lot about Tom and Sally. Rothman's scenarios for what could have happened, the possible reasons for the relations and explanations were interesting, but I felt it was really a lot of extrapolation. Clearly it was a complex situation, but no concrete answer is ever going to be reached, even with DNA evidence. His conclusions about sex across the color line again are interesting, but I felt this chapter was a little drawn out.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Amanda that the amount of time devoted to this topic is excessive. I also feel, that while Rothman's argument is convincing, he appears so determined to prove Jefferson and Sally were intimate that he makes many assuming statements and infers a great deal more then is apparent in the written history. I can see that circumstances were ripe for a relationship and yet I do not know if I believe everything that the author suggests about it, particularly as he basis his argument off of the work of Callender, a very disgruntled enemy of Jefferson. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I was intrigued by the fact that Jefferson's kids with Sally were considered white after he freed them (enjoying all the privileges of any other white citizen) and that all of Jefferson's house slaves looked white. It seems like pro-slavery arguments depend on the slaves being black. What justification would a 19th century Southerner have for enslaving someone who was white? None of their arguments about racial inferiority would apply. It seems like this would have been a very problematic situation for Southern society, but in the reading they just seem to deal with it pretty non-chalantly. How does that work? -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
== Chapter 2 - David and Nancy ==<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that the marriage of Issac and West was not as socially unacceptable because Issac was a Jew. White Protestants viewed Jews as inferior and therefore could somewhat justify the black/white relationship. It wasn’t one of “them” who was having sexual relations with a black woman. They would really look for anything to try and not put a blemish on the supreme white society. - Kari W. <br />
<br />
I also found it very interesting that somehow David’s faith prevented him from being held to such a high standard of morality. It was almost as though since he was Jewish that he could not be technically held to the same Christian standards, yet he could still be held to society’s standards, which touches upon a major idea of the role of community. We discussed last week the role of community in influencing social interactions between blacks and whites in Stevenson’s work and we see that again this week looking at how the law and how society determined race, social status, and interactions between the two. – Mary Beth<br />
<br />
That was a little puzzling to me too, Kari. It was almost as if the area as a whole viewed the Jewish community as "the good kind" of minority, willing to overlook Christian-Judeo marriages as less of an offense than marriages between blacks and whites. After all, the Constitution excused freedom of religion explicitly. Not so much freedom of race. -Cash<br />
<br />
Does anyone else agree with what Rothman says about Issac and Nancy- that their success was proof not only of their intelligence, foresight and shrewdness, but also of their luck? Can the successful marriage and life of a freed black woman and Jewish man be the reult of anything but luck? - Celia<br />
<br />
I think we have to remember these are like case studies. Rothman uses one couple to make a broad point. Celia: I do agree with Rothman's point, but also think luck may have had more to do with it than the other factors. As he pointed out earlier, every instance of interracial relations could be brought up and judged on a case-by-case basis. David and Nancy could easily had a different, less fortunate fate.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I thought this chapter on interracial relations was very interesting. I was very impressed and surprised by how they were able to use the law for their benefit even though it was meant to limit them. For instance, Nancy was able to hold more power then the average white women, owning property and having no need for a dowry, as she was considered to be unmarried. The discussion of how to define Nancy's race was also interesting. It really reflects the implications that being white, black, or mulatto had on one's life --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
What popped into my head at one point while reading this was something we talked about last week. We had discussed that freed blacks eventually had to carry papers around with them to prove they weren't enslaved and when Nancy had to go and testify in court to prove she was born free in VA it was the first thing that I thought of. It's really unfortunate that freed blacks were always stepping on eggshells. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 3 - Brothels and Prostitution ==<br />
Did anyone else catch that most of the women being hauled into court for prostitution were generally being charged with anything but that? -Lacey<br />
<br />
Lacey, I think this was an issue of what prostitution brought to Richmond's economy. If you start prosecuting one of the city's main economic draws, then the tourism, if you will, is going to suffer. By punishing "around" the actual crime, you can bring it down to a point where people may stop complaining for a while, but it will still bring people to the city. You know, it's almost like a tourism pamphlet. "RICHMOND! COME FOR THE WOMEN, STAY FOR THE SEAFOOD." -Cash<br />
<br />
Cash's point is a good one. I thought of the chapter like Lacey, but I can see how prosecution for other crimes was a means of decreasing (or at least hushing) prostitution. And, I like the tourism pamphlet line.--Amanda<br />
<br />
In reading this chapter I was struck by the use of sexual insults and foul language of women towards women of other races. Such insults and accusations do not fit with the image I had of the proper Virginia lady. --Sarah Gardner</div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_6_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 6 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-02-17T05:06:49Z<p>Rgraham: /* Overarching Topics */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching Topics ==<br />
<br />
I do not know if this is a good topic for the wiki... but I have to admit, I do not like this book. I'm not sure why though, it just seemed really dry and boring to me. I guess because I felt like, especially in the first chapter, that it was a "oh look at whose having sex with who and are they cheating in the celebrity world." --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I have to say that I disagree with Ashley, I thought the book was very interesting. Yeah, the first chapter read kind of like a tabloid, but it was interesting to see how far-reaching the interracial relations went. Look at that crazy genealogy in the interlude. Then you also get to see how shortsighted and contradictory these people really were. I find it incredibly fascinating. -Lacey<br />
<br />
This week is supposed to be interracial sex and all that jazz... however, with my own view points I have problems with the whole "Those two people can't be together and have a family because of the color of their skin." So... articles and monographs that touch of the subject usually make me moody, upset, or annoyed. I know its the difference in opinions of people then and now, but why couldn't people just leave others alone? If you don't like what 2 other people are doing, don't look at them. If people did like Mrs. White Jane Doe having sex with Mr. Black Joe Smith, then don't pay attention to them. Let them live their lives and ignore them. If they want to have a kid, who cares. The people in the 1800s needed to be honest with themselves, people were already having sex 'across the color line,' but no one seemed to care much until blacks were free, honestly, does it matter that the blacks were free? Oy.... --Ashely Wilkins<br />
<br />
Ashley's comments remind me of some societal attitudes towards homosexual relationships. Just like interracial sex became more of an issue when slaves were free, homosexual sex is seen as more threatening if same sex marriage is allowed. I think people were willing to tolerate interracial sex as long as everyone understood it to be taboo. But when blacks were free, and there was a possibility of creating a legally recognized interracial family, that is when people had big problems with it. I think the same sort of thing is happening with gay marriage today. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
I find it strange that it was not necessarily frowned upon for people to have interracial relationships before the civil war in Virginia. I feel as if society has always looked down, to some degree, on interracial relationships, particularly in the south. When did this shift occur, from a don’t ask don’t tell view, to a viewpoint that clearly frowned upon interracial relationships? -Andrew B<br />
<br />
I too was very surprised. I have grown up in VA and have almost always felt that it was an overarching view that interracial relationships were frowned upon, especially in southern VA. At the same time, I think that in many parts of VA you would be able to get away with an interracial marriage if there was enough else going on that people were mainly only concerned about themselves. -- Kellye S<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Andrew and Kellye. I was a bit confused when I was reading this about the fact that it was more okay before the Civil War? What was the difference or change in attuitudes caused by? - Stephen<br />
<br />
I am just venturing a guess, but perhaps it has to to with power. Having sex with a black female slave gave a white man a sense of power, either over the woman herself or over her loved ones. It may have just been an expected role of a white slave-holder. After the emancipation proclamation, the black people were no longer under direct control of the whites. Sexual relations between a black person and a white person was no longer primarily about power, but about something that was unthinkable... intimacy and love. - Celia<br />
<br />
== Chapter 1 - Tom and Sally ==<br />
<br />
The relationship between Thomas Jefferson and James Callender is what interested me the most. I guess this was just my naive "The Founding Fathers are Gods" education but I didn't realize how manipulative Thomas Jefferson was. I found it kind of funny, actually (and I know this probably makes me a horrible person) that as soon as Jefferson won the presidential election he tossed Callender to the side. Poor guy worked so hard to bash the other party for Jefferson and their relationship ends instantly. However, I am not surprised that Callender died by falling into a river drunk causing him to drown. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
Kelly, I totally agree with you. I felt much of the same way. It seems to me that a lot of people do what Jefferson did, that is cast someone aside that is no longer of value to them. Callender was really there just to meet Jefferson's needs. -- Kellye S<br />
<br />
I have read so many accounts and so many interpretations of the Thomas Jefferson / Sally Hemings saga that I could barely make it through chapter 1. One thing, however, did stick out to me. I felt as if Rothman was discounting the fact that Jefferson was a racist slave owner. I felt as if Rothman gave Jefferson too much credit, as if… “yea he owns slaves, but, he was a founding father, so it is OK.” -Andrew B<br />
<br />
Andrew, I feel this is similar to what we were discussing in class. We have a tendency to find behavior which as a whole we find wrong, somehow less wrong in considering the founders. I feel that Rothman continues this trend to an extent regardign Hemings, but not regarding Callender. Sexism?<br />
<br />
I thought the negotiation powers that Sally had while in France were very interesting. It seemed like slaves in that position really had no choice but to believe their masters would keep their word. In France, she had very little opportunity and was away from their families and if she went to Virginia she could stay with her family and have some more freedoms. Was this going to France thing a common occurrence or was this just a Thomas Jefferson/wealthy elite thing? -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
As in all eras, there is a proper and improper way to do things. It was not considered improper to have interracial relationships; however, it was if you publically flaunted it. Jefferson's relationship with Sally wasn't considered imporper because he didn't publically acknwledge it, even though many knew about it. However, Callender was considered more dishonorable for publicizng a gentleman's sexual relationship with his slave. Does anyone think that reactions have changed since then on people's sexual behavior and the people who expose them? - Celia<br />
<br />
Responding to Celia's question, I think that in some circles not much has changed. I remember the reaction that a lot of people had to Ken Star when he exposed all the details of the Clinton/Monica affair. A lot of people (by which I mean Democrats) felt like it was inappropriate. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
Like Andrew, I've read a lot about Tom and Sally. Rothman's scenarios for what could have happened, the possible reasons for the relations and explanations were interesting, but I felt it was really a lot of extrapolation. Clearly it was a complex situation, but no concrete answer is ever going to be reached, even with DNA evidence. His conclusions about sex across the color line again are interesting, but I felt this chapter was a little drawn out.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Amanda that the amount of time devoted to this topic is excessive. I also feel, that while Rothman's argument is convincing, he appears so determined to prove Jefferson and Sally were intimate that he makes many assuming statements and infers a great deal more then is apparent in the written history. I can see that circumstances were ripe for a relationship and yet I do not know if I believe everything that the author suggests about it, particularly as he basis his argument off of the work of Callender, a very disgruntled enemy of Jefferson. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
== Chapter 2 - David and Nancy ==<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that the marriage of Issac and West was not as socially unacceptable because Issac was a Jew. White Protestants viewed Jews as inferior and therefore could somewhat justify the black/white relationship. It wasn’t one of “them” who was having sexual relations with a black woman. They would really look for anything to try and not put a blemish on the supreme white society. - Kari W. <br />
<br />
I also found it very interesting that somehow David’s faith prevented him from being held to such a high standard of morality. It was almost as though since he was Jewish that he could not be technically held to the same Christian standards, yet he could still be held to society’s standards, which touches upon a major idea of the role of community. We discussed last week the role of community in influencing social interactions between blacks and whites in Stevenson’s work and we see that again this week looking at how the law and how society determined race, social status, and interactions between the two. – Mary Beth<br />
<br />
That was a little puzzling to me too, Kari. It was almost as if the area as a whole viewed the Jewish community as "the good kind" of minority, willing to overlook Christian-Judeo marriages as less of an offense than marriages between blacks and whites. After all, the Constitution excused freedom of religion explicitly. Not so much freedom of race. -Cash<br />
<br />
Does anyone else agree with what Rothman says about Issac and Nancy- that their success was proof not only of their intelligence, foresight and shrewdness, but also of their luck? Can the successful marriage and life of a freed black woman and Jewish man be the reult of anything but luck? - Celia<br />
<br />
I think we have to remember these are like case studies. Rothman uses one couple to make a broad point. Celia: I do agree with Rothman's point, but also think luck may have had more to do with it than the other factors. As he pointed out earlier, every instance of interracial relations could be brought up and judged on a case-by-case basis. David and Nancy could easily had a different, less fortunate fate.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I thought this chapter on interracial relations was very interesting. I was very impressed and surprised by how they were able to use the law for their benefit even though it was meant to limit them. For instance, Nancy was able to hold more power then the average white women, owning property and having no need for a dowry, as she was considered to be unmarried. The discussion of how to define Nancy's race was also interesting. It really reflects the implications that being white, black, or mulatto had on one's life --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
What popped into my head at one point while reading this was something we talked about last week. We had discussed that freed blacks eventually had to carry papers around with them to prove they weren't enslaved and when Nancy had to go and testify in court to prove she was born free in VA it was the first thing that I thought of. It's really unfortunate that freed blacks were always stepping on eggshells. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 3 - Brothels and Prostitution ==<br />
Did anyone else catch that most of the women being hauled into court for prostitution were generally being charged with anything but that? -Lacey<br />
<br />
Lacey, I think this was an issue of what prostitution brought to Richmond's economy. If you start prosecuting one of the city's main economic draws, then the tourism, if you will, is going to suffer. By punishing "around" the actual crime, you can bring it down to a point where people may stop complaining for a while, but it will still bring people to the city. You know, it's almost like a tourism pamphlet. "RICHMOND! COME FOR THE WOMEN, STAY FOR THE SEAFOOD." -Cash<br />
<br />
Cash's point is a good one. I thought of the chapter like Lacey, but I can see how prosecution for other crimes was a means of decreasing (or at least hushing) prostitution. And, I like the tourism pamphlet line.--Amanda</div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_6_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 6 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-02-17T05:01:02Z<p>Rgraham: /* Chapter 1 - Tom and Sally */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching Topics ==<br />
<br />
I do not know if this is a good topic for the wiki... but I have to admit, I do not like this book. I'm not sure why though, it just seemed really dry and boring to me. I guess because I felt like, especially in the first chapter, that it was a "oh look at whose having sex with who and are they cheating in the celebrity world." --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I have to say that I disagree with Ashley, I thought the book was very interesting. Yeah, the first chapter read kind of like a tabloid, but it was interesting to see how far-reaching the interracial relations went. Look at that crazy genealogy in the interlude. Then you also get to see how shortsighted and contradictory these people really were. I find it incredibly fascinating. -Lacey<br />
<br />
This week is supposed to be interracial sex and all that jazz... however, with my own view points I have problems with the whole "Those two people can't be together and have a family because of the color of their skin." So... articles and monographs that touch of the subject usually make me moody, upset, or annoyed. I know its the difference in opinions of people then and now, but why couldn't people just leave others alone? If you don't like what 2 other people are doing, don't look at them. If people did like Mrs. White Jane Doe having sex with Mr. Black Joe Smith, then don't pay attention to them. Let them live their lives and ignore them. If they want to have a kid, who cares. The people in the 1800s needed to be honest with themselves, people were already having sex 'across the color line,' but no one seemed to care much until blacks were free, honestly, does it matter that the blacks were free? Oy.... --Ashely Wilkins<br />
<br />
<br />
I find it strange that it was not necessarily frowned upon for people to have interracial relationships before the civil war in Virginia. I feel as if society has always looked down, to some degree, on interracial relationships, particularly in the south. When did this shift occur, from a don’t ask don’t tell view, to a viewpoint that clearly frowned upon interracial relationships? -Andrew B<br />
<br />
I too was very surprised. I have grown up in VA and have almost always felt that it was an overarching view that interracial relationships were frowned upon, especially in southern VA. At the same time, I think that in many parts of VA you would be able to get away with an interracial marriage if there was enough else going on that people were mainly only concerned about themselves. -- Kellye S<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Andrew and Kellye. I was a bit confused when I was reading this about the fact that it was more okay before the Civil War? What was the difference or change in attuitudes caused by? - Stephen<br />
<br />
I am just venturing a guess, but perhaps it has to to with power. Having sex with a black female slave gave a white man a sense of power, either over the woman herself or over her loved ones. It may have just been an expected role of a white slave-holder. After the emancipation proclamation, the black people were no longer under direct control of the whites. Sexual relations between a black person and a white person was no longer primarily about power, but about something that was unthinkable... intimacy and love. - Celia<br />
<br />
== Chapter 1 - Tom and Sally ==<br />
<br />
The relationship between Thomas Jefferson and James Callender is what interested me the most. I guess this was just my naive "The Founding Fathers are Gods" education but I didn't realize how manipulative Thomas Jefferson was. I found it kind of funny, actually (and I know this probably makes me a horrible person) that as soon as Jefferson won the presidential election he tossed Callender to the side. Poor guy worked so hard to bash the other party for Jefferson and their relationship ends instantly. However, I am not surprised that Callender died by falling into a river drunk causing him to drown. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
Kelly, I totally agree with you. I felt much of the same way. It seems to me that a lot of people do what Jefferson did, that is cast someone aside that is no longer of value to them. Callender was really there just to meet Jefferson's needs. -- Kellye S<br />
<br />
I have read so many accounts and so many interpretations of the Thomas Jefferson / Sally Hemings saga that I could barely make it through chapter 1. One thing, however, did stick out to me. I felt as if Rothman was discounting the fact that Jefferson was a racist slave owner. I felt as if Rothman gave Jefferson too much credit, as if… “yea he owns slaves, but, he was a founding father, so it is OK.” -Andrew B<br />
<br />
Andrew, I feel this is similar to what we were discussing in class. We have a tendency to find behavior which as a whole we find wrong, somehow less wrong in considering the founders. I feel that Rothman continues this trend to an extent regardign Hemings, but not regarding Callender. Sexism?<br />
<br />
I thought the negotiation powers that Sally had while in France were very interesting. It seemed like slaves in that position really had no choice but to believe their masters would keep their word. In France, she had very little opportunity and was away from their families and if she went to Virginia she could stay with her family and have some more freedoms. Was this going to France thing a common occurrence or was this just a Thomas Jefferson/wealthy elite thing? -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
As in all eras, there is a proper and improper way to do things. It was not considered improper to have interracial relationships; however, it was if you publically flaunted it. Jefferson's relationship with Sally wasn't considered imporper because he didn't publically acknwledge it, even though many knew about it. However, Callender was considered more dishonorable for publicizng a gentleman's sexual relationship with his slave. Does anyone think that reactions have changed since then on people's sexual behavior and the people who expose them? - Celia<br />
<br />
Responding to Celia's question, I think that in some circles not much has changed. I remember the reaction that a lot of people had to Ken Star when he exposed all the details of the Clinton/Monica affair. A lot of people (by which I mean Democrats) felt like it was inappropriate. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
Like Andrew, I've read a lot about Tom and Sally. Rothman's scenarios for what could have happened, the possible reasons for the relations and explanations were interesting, but I felt it was really a lot of extrapolation. Clearly it was a complex situation, but no concrete answer is ever going to be reached, even with DNA evidence. His conclusions about sex across the color line again are interesting, but I felt this chapter was a little drawn out.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Amanda that the amount of time devoted to this topic is excessive. I also feel, that while Rothman's argument is convincing, he appears so determined to prove Jefferson and Sally were intimate that he makes many assuming statements and infers a great deal more then is apparent in the written history. I can see that circumstances were ripe for a relationship and yet I do not know if I believe everything that the author suggests about it, particularly as he basis his argument off of the work of Callender, a very disgruntled enemy of Jefferson. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
== Chapter 2 - David and Nancy ==<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that the marriage of Issac and West was not as socially unacceptable because Issac was a Jew. White Protestants viewed Jews as inferior and therefore could somewhat justify the black/white relationship. It wasn’t one of “them” who was having sexual relations with a black woman. They would really look for anything to try and not put a blemish on the supreme white society. - Kari W. <br />
<br />
I also found it very interesting that somehow David’s faith prevented him from being held to such a high standard of morality. It was almost as though since he was Jewish that he could not be technically held to the same Christian standards, yet he could still be held to society’s standards, which touches upon a major idea of the role of community. We discussed last week the role of community in influencing social interactions between blacks and whites in Stevenson’s work and we see that again this week looking at how the law and how society determined race, social status, and interactions between the two. – Mary Beth<br />
<br />
That was a little puzzling to me too, Kari. It was almost as if the area as a whole viewed the Jewish community as "the good kind" of minority, willing to overlook Christian-Judeo marriages as less of an offense than marriages between blacks and whites. After all, the Constitution excused freedom of religion explicitly. Not so much freedom of race. -Cash<br />
<br />
Does anyone else agree with what Rothman says about Issac and Nancy- that their success was proof not only of their intelligence, foresight and shrewdness, but also of their luck? Can the successful marriage and life of a freed black woman and Jewish man be the reult of anything but luck? - Celia<br />
<br />
I think we have to remember these are like case studies. Rothman uses one couple to make a broad point. Celia: I do agree with Rothman's point, but also think luck may have had more to do with it than the other factors. As he pointed out earlier, every instance of interracial relations could be brought up and judged on a case-by-case basis. David and Nancy could easily had a different, less fortunate fate.--Amanda<br />
<br />
I thought this chapter on interracial relations was very interesting. I was very impressed and surprised by how they were able to use the law for their benefit even though it was meant to limit them. For instance, Nancy was able to hold more power then the average white women, owning property and having no need for a dowry, as she was considered to be unmarried. The discussion of how to define Nancy's race was also interesting. It really reflects the implications that being white, black, or mulatto had on one's life --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
What popped into my head at one point while reading this was something we talked about last week. We had discussed that freed blacks eventually had to carry papers around with them to prove they weren't enslaved and when Nancy had to go and testify in court to prove she was born free in VA it was the first thing that I thought of. It's really unfortunate that freed blacks were always stepping on eggshells. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
== Chapter 3 - Brothels and Prostitution ==<br />
Did anyone else catch that most of the women being hauled into court for prostitution were generally being charged with anything but that? -Lacey<br />
<br />
Lacey, I think this was an issue of what prostitution brought to Richmond's economy. If you start prosecuting one of the city's main economic draws, then the tourism, if you will, is going to suffer. By punishing "around" the actual crime, you can bring it down to a point where people may stop complaining for a while, but it will still bring people to the city. You know, it's almost like a tourism pamphlet. "RICHMOND! COME FOR THE WOMEN, STAY FOR THE SEAFOOD." -Cash<br />
<br />
Cash's point is a good one. I thought of the chapter like Lacey, but I can see how prosecution for other crimes was a means of decreasing (or at least hushing) prostitution. And, I like the tourism pamphlet line.--Amanda</div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_5_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 5 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-02-10T06:08:52Z<p>Rgraham: /* Gender Convention */</p>
<hr />
<div>Please add comments under a current group or create a new group. Thanks<br />
<br />
<br />
== Preface ==<br />
<br />
Having read the first part of Stevenson's work, do you agree with her statement in the preface that Loudoun County was "a practical research site for this kind of study"? She states that the area is both "exceptional and typical" of the Upper South, do you agree with her, based on your reading thus far? (xi) Do you think the prevalence of prominent families in Loudoun impacts her interpretations of southern life or is it a fair representation of most communities? --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
In response to Sarah's question, I was a little skeptical about the author's comment that Loudoun county was a good place to study because it was both "exceptional and typical." But after reading more, I do agree with Stevenson that Loudoun county seems to have more diversity than other places in the South while still being solidly Southern. It's nice to get a better understanding of the diversity of families in South. I had not thought about the South being quite this complex. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
I was wondering about that statement myself. When Steveson says "Upper South" I am a little confused about whether she means "Upper Class" or the northern part of the South. The first thing that came to mind, whether "upper" refers to class or geography is the exceptional state that Virginia was (and I'm not saying that just because I am a Virginian.) Loudoun's close proximity to Washington DC increases the exceptionality of its residents because most of them are directly involved with the politics of the time. Also, Virginia is exceptional because it is the state of the Cavaliers, and of the first families. I knew right off the bat that this wasn't going to be a fair representation of the Southern communities. Stevenson does provide information on lower classes, free blacks and black slaves, but it seems to really focus in on the first families of Virginia. -- Celia M.<br />
<br />
== Henrietta ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I can't remember where I had read Henrietta's story before Chapter 4's ''Parenting'', but just like the first time I cringed at the story because of how horrifying it really is. I know parents taught their young to think of themselves as the superior race at that was the point of the example was to show some of the ways parents did this... however, I also cringe and feel a little sad for poor Henrietta. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I can't stand what the mistress did to poor Henrietta. Smashing her face underneath a rocking chair causing so much damage that she couldn't open her mouth entirely ever again is a horrible thing to do to a child. It just upsets me that this was a form of punishment for sneaking a sweet. And calling your daughter to come help? Way to teach your child to respect others (20th century viewpoint, I know I know.) -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
== NewlyWeds ==<br />
<br />
I found one part kind of interesting in that it hasn't changed all that much today either. When two people get married, well, two younger people, they can't always afford a separate residence from parents all that easily. Its seen more today I guess, where people can afford something, but not all the time, like family helps them get into a new place, or the parents wont agree to the marriage until there is an apartment or house of some sort that one of them has... What I'm getting at, is like in the 19th century, not all couples have a place to move in to right away without leaning on someone or something to help them out. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I think a distinction can be made between chapters two and three about newlyweds and that is based on their roles before and after they are married. For instance, in the second chapter, the male held the pressures of being financially stable and maintaining an occupation that would hold the newlyweds family. The worries of the female were more based on her family's dowry and how it would support the newlyweds after marriage. The third chapter reflects the matrimony between the two and reflects more of today's society's marriage celebrations (ex. wife's family pays for the wedding celebration). I found it interesting how Quakers culture had a way of toning down the actual ceremony to a formal dinner for fear that the celebration would stray towards "unbecoming behavior." (page 65) --Joe Cirenza<br />
<br />
I found it interesting how much of a lack of communication there was between husband and wife. Each person envied the others lifestyle and yet both were depressed. It did talk about writing letters back and forth, but they never expressed what they were truly feeling. Women only expressed their feelings to other women who could relate to them. Society was so caught up in their gender roles that couples could not talk to each other openly. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
Adding to Kari's comment, I was also struck by the degree of separation between the men and women. They really seemed to have no insight into the other gender's life. A good example is when Betty's husband is commanding her to respond to his letters more promptly, completely ignoring the fact that she is about to have a baby. Then when Betty's dad has a stroke, and she is so distraught and cannot even visit him because of her confinement, her husband writes to her and basically says, "Well, I visited your mom and she seemed cheerful, you should be cheerful too." Of course Betty's mom was just pretending to be cheerful in front of her son-in-law. Why couldn't men and women be more genuine with each other? -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
== Courtship ==<br />
<br />
There were certain places that were considered acceptable for meeting and seeing potential suitors. After church, picnics and parent's parlors were the most frequent places. Long relationships were seen as the most appropriate. It was a way for parents to ensure the potential husband would be able to support their daughter. Letter writing was also an important part of this process. Why was letter etiquette so important? -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I thought the letter writing was very interesting as well. I thought that they were very interesting in the conventions they used to make their intentions known. From a modern perspective I find it baffling to follow such a strict guideline. I also spent last Friday skimming through letters, from later in the century mind, and I had a hard time realizing when the authors actually got married, they continued to write in much the same way. By turns it was incredibly stilted and others just as passionate. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I found it pretty clear through Stevenson's reading that the informal meeting between men and women of the lower classes was much more "meaningful" than the 'formal debuts' of the upper crust. Instead of the ballroom environment where women tried to impress the men of nobility status, the informal meeting between men and women after church, at Sunday socials and walks in the park characterize a much more liberating experience. Therefore the question that popped into my head was whether the meeting between men and women in the Southern lower classes between 1820-1840 took on much more meaningful life-long relationships than the courtship based on each other's class resume. --Joe Cirenza<br />
<br />
I think those meetings at Church, social events and walks in the parks were still based on a social resume. We need to take into consideration the idea of meeting in “appropriate” places. For wealthier individuals that meeting might take place at a debut or the parlor of a wealthy family, but a church yard would also be deemed an appropriate place to meet someone. It implies that both individuals are members of a church, members of the same denomination, and bodes well for the woman being pious and able to guide her family spiritually. Burr Harrison’s advice in the beginning of chapter 2 about choosing a woman who was “a good girl of good health, good temper, good habits and good appearance” and his final warning to choose wisely touches upon both the gender roles we have already discussed in class and the role of courtship in marriages. Even in the courtship stage men were expected to be responsible for the woman, financially responsible, and dominant in the relationship. Women were expected to be physically attractive, pure and submissive. Stevenson points to how damaging it could be if either the man or woman could not live up to these expectations. A man unable to financially support a woman was in some ways not masculine and could be denied approval to marry a girl. A woman unable to remain pure not only embarrassed herself but her entire family and the issue of pregnancy out of wedlock led to shame and the breaking apart of families. We see how societal expectations placed pressures on the family and the consequences of not living up to these expectations just like in marriage. – Mary Beth <br />
<br />
<br />
== Gender Convention ==<br />
Early in Chapter 2, Stevenson discusses George Fitzhugh's opinions of women and the correlation between women and slavery (p. 42). Do you agree that women were essentially enslaved in southern families? --Amanda<br />
<br />
I studied something along this line in an anthropology class. Around this time, white men generally grouped children, idiots, women and "inferior" races together in one intellectual and emotional group. George Fitzhugh does the same thing in his proslavery treatise. He basically wrote that women and children are not capable of being set free in a harsh society. Stevenson uses Fitzhugh's treatise as an example of what some writers wrote on the subject of women and slaves being essentially bound together as persons who were unable to depend on themselves. Though I do not think that white women were anywhere close to slavery, I do believe that they ''felt,'' and in some ways, were enslaved in a society and homelife where they were suppressed. -- Celia M<br />
<br />
Thinking back on the readings we have done so far, I can't help but get the impression that Christianity was being systematically used to oppress women. Sure there are a couple examples of women using religion (and moral superiority) to negotiate a higher degree of social respect. But was that really an improvement? The "Madonna" part of the equation seems just as limiting as the "Whore" part. In general it seems that religion was used to reinforce distinctions between men and women, a process which always seems to take power away from the women. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
The passage on page 55 about spinster women left me with an interesting question in my head that I feel the book never really addressed. If spinters were a good source of labor, as the book says, were women ever encouraged to '''not''' marry so that families would be able to maintain the cheap (read: free) labor? --Cash<br />
<br />
== Parenting ==<br />
<br />
The significance of raising a child and the process of weening was particularly important to these families. Women were raising their sons to be good citizens. The idea of self-control was a key part of this process. "All children, for example, had to learn basic physical, motor, and social skills- how to sit up, crawl, walk, talk, master their bowel and bladder functions, and how, what and when to eat- usually before their second birthday." page 109. This concept amazes me. Most children today are not potty trained before they are 2 let alone, know how, what and when to eat. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
The amount of time, energy and thought put into deciding on which school your children (daughters) would attend astounds me. Not for that reason, specifically, because we put a lot of time and thought into where we go today, but how much the status of the school mattered to the parents. Like the instance with Kate and how her mother wanted her to go to school in Richmond because it was the "social hub" of the state whereas her father chose the school in Fauquier because it was "of the highest grade." The more privileged your daughter, the better a suitor they will find, I suppose. I see some similarities in how important the status of a school is to families today when it comes to college, but there seems to be just a completely different motive behind the selection process back then. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
Racial hierarchy was obviously a huge issue in raising children. Parents would teach their children that they were superior to their slaves and that they should not become friends with them. Children respecting their slaves could disrupt the social hierarchy idea when the child became an adult. Although it seems barbaric to us, these parents raised their children like they had been raised. In order to keep the order in that southern society, unfortunately, children had to be taught that they were superior to their black slaves. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
== Divorce ==<br />
<br />
I thought that the chapter on divorce in the South was very interesting and different then I would have expected. I was struck by the concept that there were legally different levels of divorce, such as an absolute divorce versus ''a mensa et thora'', the divorce which ended marital relations but did not allow remarriage. The role money played in the divorce proceedings also surprised me as did the large amount of community involvement and input throughout the process. It was sad to me that some individuals who wanted to make their marriages work felt obliged to get a divorce because of community expectations and judgment. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
<br />
== "Heathenish Housekeeping" ==<br />
I was so happy to read the poem on p.48-49. Finally we have a poem about the lazy husbands instead of the wasteful, idle wives. What did you think of the poem? Was it representative of most men's attitudes at this time? Or was this preacher an anomaly? -Amanda<br />
<br />
I wonder if the fact that the poet was German had anything to do with his attitude? Maybe the German communities had different understandings of gender norms? -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
From the other readings we have done, it seems to me that this is pretty representative of the attitudes of the time. The men may not necessarily have been oafish louts that lazed in front of the fire all day, but the women were certainly expected to be ready at beck and call. I think this is certainly an exaggerated view, but since all men were not oafish louts, the idea of watching the women who WERE under-appreciated just continue to take the punishment had to be pretty infuriating for the men who did, in fact, care. -Cash<br />
<br />
== Health and Illness ==<br />
<br />
Stevenson repeatedly mentions the role that health and illness played in the lives of Southerners, particularly families. While many of our readings have touched on infant and early childhood illness and disease, I felt that this work emphasized the presence of illness and disease throughout the lives of individuals. Stevenson portrayed most individuals as constantly concerned about their health and cleanliness, especially that of their children of all ages. For instance, parents would write to their children telling them not to study too hard if it would impair their health. Was anyone else struck by how much ones health governed the actions of a person? I also found it interesting that it was in discussing the health of their children that couples "found enormous common ground to build a companionable relationship" (107). --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I couldn't help but notice a similarity with past readings. This was particularly that men were allowed fits of distemper while women were thought to be troublesome and lazy if they complained of being overworked. One of the quotes that really struck me was when Robert Conrad wrote to his wife "The worst habit...which anyone can contract is the habit of being sick..."(77). He says it in such a matter of fact way that it seems being sick or melancholic is her fault. -Lacey</div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_5_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 5 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-02-10T06:00:36Z<p>Rgraham: /* "Heathenish Housekeeping" */</p>
<hr />
<div>Please add comments under a current group or create a new group. Thanks<br />
<br />
<br />
== Preface ==<br />
<br />
Having read the first part of Stevenson's work, do you agree with her statement in the preface that Loudoun County was "a practical research site for this kind of study"? She states that the area is both "exceptional and typical" of the Upper South, do you agree with her, based on your reading thus far? (xi) Do you think the prevalence of prominent families in Loudoun impacts her interpretations of southern life or is it a fair representation of most communities? --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
In response to Sarah's question, I was a little skeptical about the author's comment that Loudoun county was a good place to study because it was both "exceptional and typical." But after reading more, I do agree with Stevenson that Loudoun county seems to have more diversity than other places in the South while still being solidly Southern. It's nice to get a better understanding of the diversity of families in South. I had not thought about the South being quite this complex. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
I was wondering about that statement myself. When Steveson says "Upper South" I am a little confused about whether she means "Upper Class" or the northern part of the South. The first thing that came to mind, whether "upper" refers to class or geography is the exceptional state that Virginia was (and I'm not saying that just because I am a Virginian.) Loudoun's close proximity to Washington DC increases the exceptionality of its residents because most of them are directly involved with the politics of the time. Also, Virginia is exceptional because it is the state of the Cavaliers, and of the first families. I knew right off the bat that this wasn't going to be a fair representation of the Southern communities. Stevenson does provide information on lower classes, free blacks and black slaves, but it seems to really focus in on the first families of Virginia. -- Celia M.<br />
<br />
== Henrietta ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I can't remember where I had read Henrietta's story before Chapter 4's ''Parenting'', but just like the first time I cringed at the story because of how horrifying it really is. I know parents taught their young to think of themselves as the superior race at that was the point of the example was to show some of the ways parents did this... however, I also cringe and feel a little sad for poor Henrietta. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I can't stand what the mistress did to poor Henrietta. Smashing her face underneath a rocking chair causing so much damage that she couldn't open her mouth entirely ever again is a horrible thing to do to a child. It just upsets me that this was a form of punishment for sneaking a sweet. And calling your daughter to come help? Way to teach your child to respect others (20th century viewpoint, I know I know.) -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
== NewlyWeds ==<br />
<br />
I found one part kind of interesting in that it hasn't changed all that much today either. When two people get married, well, two younger people, they can't always afford a separate residence from parents all that easily. Its seen more today I guess, where people can afford something, but not all the time, like family helps them get into a new place, or the parents wont agree to the marriage until there is an apartment or house of some sort that one of them has... What I'm getting at, is like in the 19th century, not all couples have a place to move in to right away without leaning on someone or something to help them out. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I think a distinction can be made between chapters two and three about newlyweds and that is based on their roles before and after they are married. For instance, in the second chapter, the male held the pressures of being financially stable and maintaining an occupation that would hold the newlyweds family. The worries of the female were more based on her family's dowry and how it would support the newlyweds after marriage. The third chapter reflects the matrimony between the two and reflects more of today's society's marriage celebrations (ex. wife's family pays for the wedding celebration). I found it interesting how Quakers culture had a way of toning down the actual ceremony to a formal dinner for fear that the celebration would stray towards "unbecoming behavior." (page 65) --Joe Cirenza<br />
<br />
I found it interesting how much of a lack of communication there was between husband and wife. Each person envied the others lifestyle and yet both were depressed. It did talk about writing letters back and forth, but they never expressed what they were truly feeling. Women only expressed their feelings to other women who could relate to them. Society was so caught up in their gender roles that couples could not talk to each other openly. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
Adding to Kari's comment, I was also struck by the degree of separation between the men and women. They really seemed to have no insight into the other gender's life. A good example is when Betty's husband is commanding her to respond to his letters more promptly, completely ignoring the fact that she is about to have a baby. Then when Betty's dad has a stroke, and she is so distraught and cannot even visit him because of her confinement, her husband writes to her and basically says, "Well, I visited your mom and she seemed cheerful, you should be cheerful too." Of course Betty's mom was just pretending to be cheerful in front of her son-in-law. Why couldn't men and women be more genuine with each other? -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
== Courtship ==<br />
<br />
There were certain places that were considered acceptable for meeting and seeing potential suitors. After church, picnics and parent's parlors were the most frequent places. Long relationships were seen as the most appropriate. It was a way for parents to ensure the potential husband would be able to support their daughter. Letter writing was also an important part of this process. Why was letter etiquette so important? -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I thought the letter writing was very interesting as well. I thought that they were very interesting in the conventions they used to make their intentions known. From a modern perspective I find it baffling to follow such a strict guideline. I also spent last Friday skimming through letters, from later in the century mind, and I had a hard time realizing when the authors actually got married, they continued to write in much the same way. By turns it was incredibly stilted and others just as passionate. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I found it pretty clear through Stevenson's reading that the informal meeting between men and women of the lower classes was much more "meaningful" than the 'formal debuts' of the upper crust. Instead of the ballroom environment where women tried to impress the men of nobility status, the informal meeting between men and women after church, at Sunday socials and walks in the park characterize a much more liberating experience. Therefore the question that popped into my head was whether the meeting between men and women in the Southern lower classes between 1820-1840 took on much more meaningful life-long relationships than the courtship based on each other's class resume. --Joe Cirenza<br />
<br />
I think those meetings at Church, social events and walks in the parks were still based on a social resume. We need to take into consideration the idea of meeting in “appropriate” places. For wealthier individuals that meeting might take place at a debut or the parlor of a wealthy family, but a church yard would also be deemed an appropriate place to meet someone. It implies that both individuals are members of a church, members of the same denomination, and bodes well for the woman being pious and able to guide her family spiritually. Burr Harrison’s advice in the beginning of chapter 2 about choosing a woman who was “a good girl of good health, good temper, good habits and good appearance” and his final warning to choose wisely touches upon both the gender roles we have already discussed in class and the role of courtship in marriages. Even in the courtship stage men were expected to be responsible for the woman, financially responsible, and dominant in the relationship. Women were expected to be physically attractive, pure and submissive. Stevenson points to how damaging it could be if either the man or woman could not live up to these expectations. A man unable to financially support a woman was in some ways not masculine and could be denied approval to marry a girl. A woman unable to remain pure not only embarrassed herself but her entire family and the issue of pregnancy out of wedlock led to shame and the breaking apart of families. We see how societal expectations placed pressures on the family and the consequences of not living up to these expectations just like in marriage. – Mary Beth <br />
<br />
<br />
== Gender Convention ==<br />
Early in Chapter 2, Stevenson discusses George Fitzhugh's opinions of women and the correlation between women and slavery (p. 42). Do you agree that women were essentially enslaved in southern families? --Amanda<br />
<br />
I studied something along this line in an anthropology class. Around this time, white men generally grouped children, idiots, women and "inferior" races together in one intellectual and emotional group. George Fitzhugh does the same thing in his proslavery treatise. He basically wrote that women and children are not capable of being set free in a harsh society. Stevenson uses Fitzhugh's treatise as an example of what some writers wrote on the subject of women and slaves being essentially bound together as persons who were unable to depend on themselves. Though I do not think that white women were anywhere close to slavery, I do believe that they ''felt,'' and in some ways, were enslaved in a society and homelife where they were suppressed. -- Celia M<br />
<br />
The passage on page 55 about spinster women left me with an interesting question in my head that I feel the book never really addressed. If spinters were a good source of labor, as the book says, were women ever encouraged to '''not''' marry so that families would be able to maintain the cheap (read: free) labor? --Cash<br />
<br />
== Parenting ==<br />
<br />
The significance of raising a child and the process of weening was particularly important to these families. Women were raising their sons to be good citizens. The idea of self-control was a key part of this process. "All children, for example, had to learn basic physical, motor, and social skills- how to sit up, crawl, walk, talk, master their bowel and bladder functions, and how, what and when to eat- usually before their second birthday." page 109. This concept amazes me. Most children today are not potty trained before they are 2 let alone, know how, what and when to eat. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
The amount of time, energy and thought put into deciding on which school your children (daughters) would attend astounds me. Not for that reason, specifically, because we put a lot of time and thought into where we go today, but how much the status of the school mattered to the parents. Like the instance with Kate and how her mother wanted her to go to school in Richmond because it was the "social hub" of the state whereas her father chose the school in Fauquier because it was "of the highest grade." The more privileged your daughter, the better a suitor they will find, I suppose. I see some similarities in how important the status of a school is to families today when it comes to college, but there seems to be just a completely different motive behind the selection process back then. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
Racial hierarchy was obviously a huge issue in raising children. Parents would teach their children that they were superior to their slaves and that they should not become friends with them. Children respecting their slaves could disrupt the social hierarchy idea when the child became an adult. Although it seems barbaric to us, these parents raised their children like they had been raised. In order to keep the order in that southern society, unfortunately, children had to be taught that they were superior to their black slaves. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
== Divorce ==<br />
<br />
I thought that the chapter on divorce in the South was very interesting and different then I would have expected. I was struck by the concept that there were legally different levels of divorce, such as an absolute divorce versus ''a mensa et thora'', the divorce which ended marital relations but did not allow remarriage. The role money played in the divorce proceedings also surprised me as did the large amount of community involvement and input throughout the process. It was sad to me that some individuals who wanted to make their marriages work felt obliged to get a divorce because of community expectations and judgment. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
<br />
== "Heathenish Housekeeping" ==<br />
I was so happy to read the poem on p.48-49. Finally we have a poem about the lazy husbands instead of the wasteful, idle wives. What did you think of the poem? Was it representative of most men's attitudes at this time? Or was this preacher an anomaly? -Amanda<br />
<br />
I wonder if the fact that the poet was German had anything to do with his attitude? Maybe the German communities had different understandings of gender norms? -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
From the other readings we have done, it seems to me that this is pretty representative of the attitudes of the time. The men may not necessarily have been oafish louts that lazed in front of the fire all day, but the women were certainly expected to be ready at beck and call. I think this is certainly an exaggerated view, but since all men were not oafish louts, the idea of watching the women who WERE under-appreciated just continue to take the punishment had to be pretty infuriating for the men who did, in fact, care. -Cash<br />
<br />
== Health and Illness ==<br />
<br />
Stevenson repeatedly mentions the role that health and illness played in the lives of Southerners, particularly families. While many of our readings have touched on infant and early childhood illness and disease, I felt that this work emphasized the presence of illness and disease throughout the lives of individuals. Stevenson portrayed most individuals as constantly concerned about their health and cleanliness, especially that of their children of all ages. For instance, parents would write to their children telling them not to study too hard if it would impair their health. Was anyone else struck by how much ones health governed the actions of a person? I also found it interesting that it was in discussing the health of their children that couples "found enormous common ground to build a companionable relationship" (107). --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I couldn't help but notice a similarity with past readings. This was particularly that men were allowed fits of distemper while women were thought to be troublesome and lazy if they complained of being overworked. One of the quotes that really struck me was when Robert Conrad wrote to his wife "The worst habit...which anyone can contract is the habit of being sick..."(77). He says it in such a matter of fact way that it seems being sick or melancholic is her fault. -Lacey</div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_5_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 5 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-02-10T05:39:54Z<p>Rgraham: /* NewlyWeds */</p>
<hr />
<div>Please add comments under a current group or create a new group. Thanks<br />
<br />
<br />
== Preface ==<br />
<br />
Having read the first part of Stevenson's work, do you agree with her statement in the preface that Loudoun County was "a practical research site for this kind of study"? She states that the area is both "exceptional and typical" of the Upper South, do you agree with her, based on your reading thus far? (xi) Do you think the prevalence of prominent families in Loudoun impacts her interpretations of southern life or is it a fair representation of most communities? --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
In response to Sarah's question, I was a little skeptical about the author's comment that Loudoun county was a good place to study because it was both "exceptional and typical." But after reading more, I do agree with Stevenson that Loudoun county seems to have more diversity than other places in the South while still being solidly Southern. It's nice to get a better understanding of the diversity of families in South. I had not thought about the South being quite this complex. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
I was wondering about that statement myself. When Steveson says "Upper South" I am a little confused about whether she means "Upper Class" or the northern part of the South. The first thing that came to mind, whether "upper" refers to class or geography is the exceptional state that Virginia was (and I'm not saying that just because I am a Virginian.) Loudoun's close proximity to Washington DC increases the exceptionality of its residents because most of them are directly involved with the politics of the time. Also, Virginia is exceptional because it is the state of the Cavaliers, and of the first families. I knew right off the bat that this wasn't going to be a fair representation of the Southern communities. Stevenson does provide information on lower classes, free blacks and black slaves, but it seems to really focus in on the first families of Virginia. -- Celia M.<br />
<br />
== Henrietta ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I can't remember where I had read Henrietta's story before Chapter 4's ''Parenting'', but just like the first time I cringed at the story because of how horrifying it really is. I know parents taught their young to think of themselves as the superior race at that was the point of the example was to show some of the ways parents did this... however, I also cringe and feel a little sad for poor Henrietta. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I can't stand what the mistress did to poor Henrietta. Smashing her face underneath a rocking chair causing so much damage that she couldn't open her mouth entirely ever again is a horrible thing to do to a child. It just upsets me that this was a form of punishment for sneaking a sweet. And calling your daughter to come help? Way to teach your child to respect others (20th century viewpoint, I know I know.) -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
== NewlyWeds ==<br />
<br />
I found one part kind of interesting in that it hasn't changed all that much today either. When two people get married, well, two younger people, they can't always afford a separate residence from parents all that easily. Its seen more today I guess, where people can afford something, but not all the time, like family helps them get into a new place, or the parents wont agree to the marriage until there is an apartment or house of some sort that one of them has... What I'm getting at, is like in the 19th century, not all couples have a place to move in to right away without leaning on someone or something to help them out. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I think a distinction can be made between chapters two and three about newlyweds and that is based on their roles before and after they are married. For instance, in the second chapter, the male held the pressures of being financially stable and maintaining an occupation that would hold the newlyweds family. The worries of the female were more based on her family's dowry and how it would support the newlyweds after marriage. The third chapter reflects the matrimony between the two and reflects more of today's society's marriage celebrations (ex. wife's family pays for the wedding celebration). I found it interesting how Quakers culture had a way of toning down the actual ceremony to a formal dinner for fear that the celebration would stray towards "unbecoming behavior." (page 65) --Joe Cirenza<br />
<br />
I found it interesting how much of a lack of communication there was between husband and wife. Each person envied the others lifestyle and yet both were depressed. It did talk about writing letters back and forth, but they never expressed what they were truly feeling. Women only expressed their feelings to other women who could relate to them. Society was so caught up in their gender roles that couples could not talk to each other openly. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
Adding to Kari's comment, I was also struck by the degree of separation between the men and women. They really seemed to have no insight into the other gender's life. A good example is when Betty's husband is commanding her to respond to his letters more promptly, completely ignoring the fact that she is about to have a baby. Then when Betty's dad has a stroke, and she is so distraught and cannot even visit him because of her confinement, her husband writes to her and basically says, "Well, I visited your mom and she seemed cheerful, you should be cheerful too." Of course Betty's mom was just pretending to be cheerful in front of her son-in-law. Why couldn't men and women be more genuine with each other? -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
== Courtship ==<br />
<br />
There were certain places that were considered acceptable for meeting and seeing potential suitors. After church, picnics and parent's parlors were the most frequent places. Long relationships were seen as the most appropriate. It was a way for parents to ensure the potential husband would be able to support their daughter. Letter writing was also an important part of this process. Why was letter etiquette so important? -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I thought the letter writing was very interesting as well. I thought that they were very interesting in the conventions they used to make their intentions known. From a modern perspective I find it baffling to follow such a strict guideline. I also spent last Friday skimming through letters, from later in the century mind, and I had a hard time realizing when the authors actually got married, they continued to write in much the same way. By turns it was incredibly stilted and others just as passionate. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I found it pretty clear through Stevenson's reading that the informal meeting between men and women of the lower classes was much more "meaningful" than the 'formal debuts' of the upper crust. Instead of the ballroom environment where women tried to impress the men of nobility status, the informal meeting between men and women after church, at Sunday socials and walks in the park characterize a much more liberating experience. Therefore the question that popped into my head was whether the meeting between men and women in the Southern lower classes between 1820-1840 took on much more meaningful life-long relationships than the courtship based on each other's class resume. --Joe Cirenza<br />
<br />
I think those meetings at Church, social events and walks in the parks were still based on a social resume. We need to take into consideration the idea of meeting in “appropriate” places. For wealthier individuals that meeting might take place at a debut or the parlor of a wealthy family, but a church yard would also be deemed an appropriate place to meet someone. It implies that both individuals are members of a church, members of the same denomination, and bodes well for the woman being pious and able to guide her family spiritually. Burr Harrison’s advice in the beginning of chapter 2 about choosing a woman who was “a good girl of good health, good temper, good habits and good appearance” and his final warning to choose wisely touches upon both the gender roles we have already discussed in class and the role of courtship in marriages. Even in the courtship stage men were expected to be responsible for the woman, financially responsible, and dominant in the relationship. Women were expected to be physically attractive, pure and submissive. Stevenson points to how damaging it could be if either the man or woman could not live up to these expectations. A man unable to financially support a woman was in some ways not masculine and could be denied approval to marry a girl. A woman unable to remain pure not only embarrassed herself but her entire family and the issue of pregnancy out of wedlock led to shame and the breaking apart of families. We see how societal expectations placed pressures on the family and the consequences of not living up to these expectations just like in marriage. – Mary Beth <br />
<br />
<br />
== Gender Convention ==<br />
Early in Chapter 2, Stevenson discusses George Fitzhugh's opinions of women and the correlation between women and slavery (p. 42). Do you agree that women were essentially enslaved in southern families? --Amanda<br />
<br />
I studied something along this line in an anthropology class. Around this time, white men generally grouped children, idiots, women and "inferior" races together in one intellectual and emotional group. George Fitzhugh does the same thing in his proslavery treatise. He basically wrote that women and children are not capable of being set free in a harsh society. Stevenson uses Fitzhugh's treatise as an example of what some writers wrote on the subject of women and slaves being essentially bound together as persons who were unable to depend on themselves. Though I do not think that white women were anywhere close to slavery, I do believe that they ''felt,'' and in some ways, were enslaved in a society and homelife where they were suppressed. -- Celia M<br />
<br />
The passage on page 55 about spinster women left me with an interesting question in my head that I feel the book never really addressed. If spinters were a good source of labor, as the book says, were women ever encouraged to '''not''' marry so that families would be able to maintain the cheap (read: free) labor? --Cash<br />
<br />
== Parenting ==<br />
<br />
The significance of raising a child and the process of weening was particularly important to these families. Women were raising their sons to be good citizens. The idea of self-control was a key part of this process. "All children, for example, had to learn basic physical, motor, and social skills- how to sit up, crawl, walk, talk, master their bowel and bladder functions, and how, what and when to eat- usually before their second birthday." page 109. This concept amazes me. Most children today are not potty trained before they are 2 let alone, know how, what and when to eat. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
The amount of time, energy and thought put into deciding on which school your children (daughters) would attend astounds me. Not for that reason, specifically, because we put a lot of time and thought into where we go today, but how much the status of the school mattered to the parents. Like the instance with Kate and how her mother wanted her to go to school in Richmond because it was the "social hub" of the state whereas her father chose the school in Fauquier because it was "of the highest grade." The more privileged your daughter, the better a suitor they will find, I suppose. I see some similarities in how important the status of a school is to families today when it comes to college, but there seems to be just a completely different motive behind the selection process back then. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
Racial hierarchy was obviously a huge issue in raising children. Parents would teach their children that they were superior to their slaves and that they should not become friends with them. Children respecting their slaves could disrupt the social hierarchy idea when the child became an adult. Although it seems barbaric to us, these parents raised their children like they had been raised. In order to keep the order in that southern society, unfortunately, children had to be taught that they were superior to their black slaves. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
== Divorce ==<br />
<br />
I thought that the chapter on divorce in the South was very interesting and different then I would have expected. I was struck by the concept that there were legally different levels of divorce, such as an absolute divorce versus ''a mensa et thora'', the divorce which ended marital relations but did not allow remarriage. The role money played in the divorce proceedings also surprised me as did the large amount of community involvement and input throughout the process. It was sad to me that some individuals who wanted to make their marriages work felt obliged to get a divorce because of community expectations and judgment. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
<br />
== "Heathenish Housekeeping" ==<br />
I was so happy to read the poem on p.48-49. Finally we have a poem about the lazy husbands instead of the wasteful, idle wives. What did you think of the poem? Was it representative of most men's attitudes at this time? Or was this preacher an anomaly? -Amanda<br />
<br />
From the other readings we have done, it seems to me that this is pretty representative of the attitudes of the time. The men may not necessarily have been oafish louts that lazed in front of the fire all day, but the women were certainly expected to be ready at beck and call. I think this is certainly an exaggerated view, but since all men were not oafish louts, the idea of watching the women who WERE under-appreciated just continue to take the punishment had to be pretty infuriating for the men who did, in fact, care. -Cash<br />
<br />
== Health and Illness ==<br />
<br />
Stevenson repeatedly mentions the role that health and illness played in the lives of Southerners, particularly families. While many of our readings have touched on infant and early childhood illness and disease, I felt that this work emphasized the presence of illness and disease throughout the lives of individuals. Stevenson portrayed most individuals as constantly concerned about their health and cleanliness, especially that of their children of all ages. For instance, parents would write to their children telling them not to study too hard if it would impair their health. Was anyone else struck by how much ones health governed the actions of a person? I also found it interesting that it was in discussing the health of their children that couples "found enormous common ground to build a companionable relationship" (107). --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I couldn't help but notice a similarity with past readings. This was particularly that men were allowed fits of distemper while women were thought to be troublesome and lazy if they complained of being overworked. One of the quotes that really struck me was when Robert Conrad wrote to his wife "The worst habit...which anyone can contract is the habit of being sick..."(77). He says it in such a matter of fact way that it seems being sick or melancholic is her fault. -Lacey</div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_5_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 5 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-02-10T05:37:29Z<p>Rgraham: /* Preface */</p>
<hr />
<div>Please add comments under a current group or create a new group. Thanks<br />
<br />
<br />
== Preface ==<br />
<br />
Having read the first part of Stevenson's work, do you agree with her statement in the preface that Loudoun County was "a practical research site for this kind of study"? She states that the area is both "exceptional and typical" of the Upper South, do you agree with her, based on your reading thus far? (xi) Do you think the prevalence of prominent families in Loudoun impacts her interpretations of southern life or is it a fair representation of most communities? --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
In response to Sarah's question, I was a little skeptical about the author's comment that Loudoun county was a good place to study because it was both "exceptional and typical." But after reading more, I do agree with Stevenson that Loudoun county seems to have more diversity than other places in the South while still being solidly Southern. It's nice to get a better understanding of the diversity of families in South. I had not thought about the South being quite this complex. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
I was wondering about that statement myself. When Steveson says "Upper South" I am a little confused about whether she means "Upper Class" or the northern part of the South. The first thing that came to mind, whether "upper" refers to class or geography is the exceptional state that Virginia was (and I'm not saying that just because I am a Virginian.) Loudoun's close proximity to Washington DC increases the exceptionality of its residents because most of them are directly involved with the politics of the time. Also, Virginia is exceptional because it is the state of the Cavaliers, and of the first families. I knew right off the bat that this wasn't going to be a fair representation of the Southern communities. Stevenson does provide information on lower classes, free blacks and black slaves, but it seems to really focus in on the first families of Virginia. -- Celia M.<br />
<br />
== Henrietta ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I can't remember where I had read Henrietta's story before Chapter 4's ''Parenting'', but just like the first time I cringed at the story because of how horrifying it really is. I know parents taught their young to think of themselves as the superior race at that was the point of the example was to show some of the ways parents did this... however, I also cringe and feel a little sad for poor Henrietta. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I can't stand what the mistress did to poor Henrietta. Smashing her face underneath a rocking chair causing so much damage that she couldn't open her mouth entirely ever again is a horrible thing to do to a child. It just upsets me that this was a form of punishment for sneaking a sweet. And calling your daughter to come help? Way to teach your child to respect others (20th century viewpoint, I know I know.) -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
== NewlyWeds ==<br />
<br />
I found one part kind of interesting in that it hasn't changed all that much today either. When two people get married, well, two younger people, they can't always afford a separate residence from parents all that easily. Its seen more today I guess, where people can afford something, but not all the time, like family helps them get into a new place, or the parents wont agree to the marriage until there is an apartment or house of some sort that one of them has... What I'm getting at, is like in the 19th century, not all couples have a place to move in to right away without leaning on someone or something to help them out. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I think a distinction can be made between chapters two and three about newlyweds and that is based on their roles before and after they are married. For instance, in the second chapter, the male held the pressures of being financially stable and maintaining an occupation that would hold the newlyweds family. The worries of the female were more based on her family's dowry and how it would support the newlyweds after marriage. The third chapter reflects the matrimony between the two and reflects more of today's society's marriage celebrations (ex. wife's family pays for the wedding celebration). I found it interesting how Quakers culture had a way of toning down the actual ceremony to a formal dinner for fear that the celebration would stray towards "unbecoming behavior." (page 65) --Joe Cirenza<br />
<br />
I found it interesting how much of a lack of communication there was between husband and wife. Each person envied the others lifestyle and yet both were depressed. It did talk about writing letters back and forth, but they never expressed what they were truly feeling. Women only expressed their feelings to other women who could relate to them. Society was so caught up in their gender roles that couples could not talk to each other openly. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
== Courtship ==<br />
<br />
There were certain places that were considered acceptable for meeting and seeing potential suitors. After church, picnics and parent's parlors were the most frequent places. Long relationships were seen as the most appropriate. It was a way for parents to ensure the potential husband would be able to support their daughter. Letter writing was also an important part of this process. Why was letter etiquette so important? -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I thought the letter writing was very interesting as well. I thought that they were very interesting in the conventions they used to make their intentions known. From a modern perspective I find it baffling to follow such a strict guideline. I also spent last Friday skimming through letters, from later in the century mind, and I had a hard time realizing when the authors actually got married, they continued to write in much the same way. By turns it was incredibly stilted and others just as passionate. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I found it pretty clear through Stevenson's reading that the informal meeting between men and women of the lower classes was much more "meaningful" than the 'formal debuts' of the upper crust. Instead of the ballroom environment where women tried to impress the men of nobility status, the informal meeting between men and women after church, at Sunday socials and walks in the park characterize a much more liberating experience. Therefore the question that popped into my head was whether the meeting between men and women in the Southern lower classes between 1820-1840 took on much more meaningful life-long relationships than the courtship based on each other's class resume. --Joe Cirenza<br />
<br />
I think those meetings at Church, social events and walks in the parks were still based on a social resume. We need to take into consideration the idea of meeting in “appropriate” places. For wealthier individuals that meeting might take place at a debut or the parlor of a wealthy family, but a church yard would also be deemed an appropriate place to meet someone. It implies that both individuals are members of a church, members of the same denomination, and bodes well for the woman being pious and able to guide her family spiritually. Burr Harrison’s advice in the beginning of chapter 2 about choosing a woman who was “a good girl of good health, good temper, good habits and good appearance” and his final warning to choose wisely touches upon both the gender roles we have already discussed in class and the role of courtship in marriages. Even in the courtship stage men were expected to be responsible for the woman, financially responsible, and dominant in the relationship. Women were expected to be physically attractive, pure and submissive. Stevenson points to how damaging it could be if either the man or woman could not live up to these expectations. A man unable to financially support a woman was in some ways not masculine and could be denied approval to marry a girl. A woman unable to remain pure not only embarrassed herself but her entire family and the issue of pregnancy out of wedlock led to shame and the breaking apart of families. We see how societal expectations placed pressures on the family and the consequences of not living up to these expectations just like in marriage. – Mary Beth <br />
<br />
<br />
== Gender Convention ==<br />
Early in Chapter 2, Stevenson discusses George Fitzhugh's opinions of women and the correlation between women and slavery (p. 42). Do you agree that women were essentially enslaved in southern families? --Amanda<br />
<br />
I studied something along this line in an anthropology class. Around this time, white men generally grouped children, idiots, women and "inferior" races together in one intellectual and emotional group. George Fitzhugh does the same thing in his proslavery treatise. He basically wrote that women and children are not capable of being set free in a harsh society. Stevenson uses Fitzhugh's treatise as an example of what some writers wrote on the subject of women and slaves being essentially bound together as persons who were unable to depend on themselves. Though I do not think that white women were anywhere close to slavery, I do believe that they ''felt,'' and in some ways, were enslaved in a society and homelife where they were suppressed. -- Celia M<br />
<br />
The passage on page 55 about spinster women left me with an interesting question in my head that I feel the book never really addressed. If spinters were a good source of labor, as the book says, were women ever encouraged to '''not''' marry so that families would be able to maintain the cheap (read: free) labor? --Cash<br />
<br />
== Parenting ==<br />
<br />
The significance of raising a child and the process of weening was particularly important to these families. Women were raising their sons to be good citizens. The idea of self-control was a key part of this process. "All children, for example, had to learn basic physical, motor, and social skills- how to sit up, crawl, walk, talk, master their bowel and bladder functions, and how, what and when to eat- usually before their second birthday." page 109. This concept amazes me. Most children today are not potty trained before they are 2 let alone, know how, what and when to eat. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
The amount of time, energy and thought put into deciding on which school your children (daughters) would attend astounds me. Not for that reason, specifically, because we put a lot of time and thought into where we go today, but how much the status of the school mattered to the parents. Like the instance with Kate and how her mother wanted her to go to school in Richmond because it was the "social hub" of the state whereas her father chose the school in Fauquier because it was "of the highest grade." The more privileged your daughter, the better a suitor they will find, I suppose. I see some similarities in how important the status of a school is to families today when it comes to college, but there seems to be just a completely different motive behind the selection process back then. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
Racial hierarchy was obviously a huge issue in raising children. Parents would teach their children that they were superior to their slaves and that they should not become friends with them. Children respecting their slaves could disrupt the social hierarchy idea when the child became an adult. Although it seems barbaric to us, these parents raised their children like they had been raised. In order to keep the order in that southern society, unfortunately, children had to be taught that they were superior to their black slaves. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
== Divorce ==<br />
<br />
I thought that the chapter on divorce in the South was very interesting and different then I would have expected. I was struck by the concept that there were legally different levels of divorce, such as an absolute divorce versus ''a mensa et thora'', the divorce which ended marital relations but did not allow remarriage. The role money played in the divorce proceedings also surprised me as did the large amount of community involvement and input throughout the process. It was sad to me that some individuals who wanted to make their marriages work felt obliged to get a divorce because of community expectations and judgment. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
<br />
== "Heathenish Housekeeping" ==<br />
I was so happy to read the poem on p.48-49. Finally we have a poem about the lazy husbands instead of the wasteful, idle wives. What did you think of the poem? Was it representative of most men's attitudes at this time? Or was this preacher an anomaly? -Amanda<br />
<br />
From the other readings we have done, it seems to me that this is pretty representative of the attitudes of the time. The men may not necessarily have been oafish louts that lazed in front of the fire all day, but the women were certainly expected to be ready at beck and call. I think this is certainly an exaggerated view, but since all men were not oafish louts, the idea of watching the women who WERE under-appreciated just continue to take the punishment had to be pretty infuriating for the men who did, in fact, care. -Cash<br />
<br />
== Health and Illness ==<br />
<br />
Stevenson repeatedly mentions the role that health and illness played in the lives of Southerners, particularly families. While many of our readings have touched on infant and early childhood illness and disease, I felt that this work emphasized the presence of illness and disease throughout the lives of individuals. Stevenson portrayed most individuals as constantly concerned about their health and cleanliness, especially that of their children of all ages. For instance, parents would write to their children telling them not to study too hard if it would impair their health. Was anyone else struck by how much ones health governed the actions of a person? I also found it interesting that it was in discussing the health of their children that couples "found enormous common ground to build a companionable relationship" (107). --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
I couldn't help but notice a similarity with past readings. This was particularly that men were allowed fits of distemper while women were thought to be troublesome and lazy if they complained of being overworked. One of the quotes that really struck me was when Robert Conrad wrote to his wife "The worst habit...which anyone can contract is the habit of being sick..."(77). He says it in such a matter of fact way that it seems being sick or melancholic is her fault. -Lacey</div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_4_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 4 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-02-05T05:25:30Z<p>Rgraham: </p>
<hr />
<div>In Chapter 3 it talked about child labor in urban areas. I found this very interesting to look at the differences between child labor in the midwest like we talked about earlier and child labor in urban areas. This was very different from the urban family "ideal." Not only were children working in factories to help "earn their keep", but older children were raising younger children so their mothers could work longer hours. This once again proves that the ideal was never the norm. It's really interesting to read how different living situations affected family life. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading Chapter 8 about Domestic Service. It was interesting to read about the shift to immigrant workers and how women used immigrant workers to gain status in society. Previously, mistresses were used to help the lady of the house out with domestic chores. However, when issues of status came into effect, women started making their mistresses do everything. Also, it was more respected to have an immigrant worker do everything so the lady of the house could do things such as read and other leizure activities. It sounds like women are trying to gain some independence and superiority by ordering around their servants. --Kari W.<br />
<br />
'''Children''' It just struck home again as to how vital children were to the working class economy. They were errand-runners, scavengers, domestic workers and wage earners. Without them, many working class families would not have, or did not, survive in urban areas like New York. If the mother was able to stay home children were emissaries to the outside world, running errands to buy things, or scavenging them to save their family a few pennies, perhaps they were even sent outside the home to earn money for the family. And yet, the middle class and upper class residents of the city did not deign to see that without these children the working class family would have collapsed and their lives of relative comfort and security would not have been possible. Even working class families were not always able to appreciate their children because they did not meet their standards of production, thus the House of Refuge. There are an incredible number of dynamics that affect the lives of children in such a place, so many that it seems a number of them were lost to the people who were there for the experience. -Lacey<br />
<br />
'''Domestic Service.'''I have to say, that Chapter 8 gave me some new insights that I didn't know beforehand. One of the main things that was new to me was that even though there were so many new immigrants, and so much overcrowding, according to ''City of Women'', young women who worked in domestic service had enough leverage to negotiate their terms of service because demand for them was so high. This amazed me with the types of negotiations mentioned, and threats they used to get their way. Granted, I doubt it worked every time, but it must have been nice having some say in what they would and would not do. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
'''Children.''' The part of the excerpt from ''City of Women'' that discussed what the children's roles in family were actually kind of amazed me. I mean I always figured those old enough to walk around, but too young to do wage worked helped somewhere, I just never really thought of how. The scavenging that some of them did is just amazing. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
'''Scavenging''' The bits in chapter 3 about scavenging really blew me away. Throughout this entire section, I kept picturing The Kid from Dick Tracy (yes, The Kid in capital letters. I checked it on IMDB to be sure) before he gets rescued. I think we tend to take the immense responsibility of the parents for granted in these situations, assuming that the children involved would not have to contribute at the same level. It really brought home the idea of family as a community, and not just the parents bringing in supplies and income. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
'''Thesis''' What is the main argument of Stansell's work?<br />
<br />
'''Connection''' How do the sections of reading today connect to the understand we established yesterday between the diffrence between the ideal and the practical family system?<br />
<br />
'''Neighborhood''' The concept of the neighborhood and its effect on working class women was a concept in Chapter 3 that I found extremely important. The argument of Stansell is that working-class neighborhoods gave women leverage in their dealings with men and was the "court system" of urban working class society. Although there was no glorifying physical aspect of the neighborhood, the idea that '''aid to neighbors structured expectations of reciprocal help''' was the accepted tradition among the working class. -Joe C.<br />
<br />
'''Thesis''' I think the thesis of Stansell's work is that although the role and class structure of women in 19th century urban society varied, they all shared an accepted inequality to men. I think the argument also breaks down the class structure of all men and women in urban society and it describes how the lifestyle of working class women contrasted with those of the middle class. Clearly there was much more freedom for women living in the upper echelon of urban society, yet they were also still subjected to a defined and accepted role that was unequal to their male counterparts. -Joe C.<br />
<br />
'''Standards''' It seemed to me that the women in these chapters were dealing with standards they would never be able to achieve. How would it be possible for these women to scrounge for enough money to try and make ends meet for themselves and their families, while also finding it necessary to wear the CLOTHES to seem acceptable in society's eyes? I realize I've been saying this a lot lately in these wiki entries, but I dunno if I would even have it in me to get out of bed in the morning with that kind of pressure on me. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
'''Domestic Service''' I think chapter 8 touches on a very big transition for women and the family, namely the strong shift towards domestic service. With an influx of immigrants there was an abundance of domestic servants. As it became fashionable to have servants, the family experienced a change. I think that this is a big transition for the family because middle class families now included an extra member or members, the servants. This certainly changed the role of women in relation to household duties and child care. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
'''Children''' I am still amazed at how important the role of children was in working class families. I understand that they needed to work in order to help provide support for the family but it never really occurred to me to what extent or how hard they had to work to help their families. They had to put in just as much effort and work as their parents. I guess part of me didn't want to believe that these children would be put in that situation. It is kind of depressing, but it really shows how close it could pull the family together. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
'''Domestic Service''' I feel that if anything having domestic servants would cause families to grow apart. Now children could look to the domestic servant for care instead of their mother, creating a new motherly figure. As these women became closer to a family it changed to role of family and redefined it as well. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
'''Domestic Service''' I can understand after reading these sections of Stansell how domestic servants caused families to grow apart, like Kellye mentioned. Replacing some of the motherly duties with servants perhaps diminished the relationship between a mother and her children. At the same time there were other "extra" members of the family before servants, like midwives. I think it just goes to show that throughout this long 19th century, families have been more than a mother, father and children.--Amanda<br />
<br />
'''Domestic Service''' I found the chapter on servants to be very interesting. Like Ashley, I was surprised by the amount of leverage immigrant Irish women had in setting their terms of service. Initially, I was also surprised that women would sometimes rather work in a factory then in a household. After reading all of the expectations a mistress had of her servants, in addition to being subjected to censure and moral judgment, I can see how being a servant, while a secure position, was often seen as less then desirable. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
'''Marriage''' The nature of marriage among poor urban laborers was rather surprising to me. While I never thought it was without problems, I was amazed at the level, frequency, and relative acceptance of marital abuse that occurred in these poor neighborhoods. The role that the neighborhood played in settling these domestic disputes also surprised me. It is sad that at a time when women of the middle-classes were able to forge a new image demanding more respect as symbols of morality, their poorer counterparts were being beaten by their often drunken spouses for poor housework or indulging in drink themselves. I thought the double standard between the genders was really expressed in the interactions and expectations of married couples. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
'''Religion''' Chapter Four's discussion of the role that evangelicalism played in the changing nature of philanthropy really shocked me. I believe that the warped nature of the middle classes charity to the poor is best expressed in the women's refusal to help a women who was 9 months pregnant, simply because she could not verify that she was married. People genuinely in need of help died because the did not live up to the moral criteria of those who were in a position to assist them. While I am sure that there were genuinely chartable men and women working to help the urban poor at that time, it seems that most reformers were looking to help a class of people which truly did not exist. Their good works appear to be aimed more at assuring themselves of their moral superiority then their Christian duty to lend a helping hand. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
'''Evangelicals:''' In Chapter 4 we see the emergence of an evangelical movement within the cities to eradicate sin and save souls. In particular the idea of home visits emerge, where evangelical Christians would visit homes of poor, working-class families to check in, evaluate the conditions, and possibly provide religious information or support in the form of Bibles or pamphlets. We also see that men in particular were interested in visiting the poor and eradicating sins such as drunkenness, sins that directly affected their workers in order to increase the work that poor men could complete. Home visits and evangelical outreach into the community was also a means for women to appropriately act charitable towards poor women. I found it particularly interesting that there were standards (i.e. character references and marriage certificates) that helped to limit which poor women were helped. We still see the bourgeois’ views of the role of women within the family and household as standards to which to measure all women. Childrearing, housekeeping, paid work done by women and other factors were issues scrutinized and in some cases used to eliminate potential women candidates for aid. – Mary Beth <br />
<br />
'''Necessity''' Although the ideal way of life for a women in this time period was to be the "stay-at-home, reclusive mother," sometimes that's not the way life worked. As we talked about some on Tuesday, the situation the family was in determined whether or not a family could uphold that bourgeois ideal. The absence of a husband or the husband's job in and of itself sometimes did not provide enough income for the mother to be able to stay at home and make sure the kids got to school and were doing their homework and that the meal was on the table, etc. Sometimes it was necessary for the woman of the house to not only uphold that expectation, but also work outside the home and also contribute to the familial income. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
'''Class Domination''' Stansell makes it clear that Middle-class women who worked for social reform were as conscious about class as they were about religion. It was the duty of the rich to take care of and convert the poor. They deepened the gap between the classes as they were attempting to care for those less fortunate. It was evident that they saw themselves as more virtuous then those of the working classes and therefore they were given this "heavy burden"- similar to "the white man's burden" made famous by Kipling. The fact that they only accepted women of reputable background and those who could provide references as recipients of their care is a sign that they saw themselves as morally superior to those less fortunate as well as avoiding any scandel that could weaken their image as "virtuous middle-class." -- Celia<br />
<br />
'''Reliance''' One thing that the relationship between families in these cities seemed to create was a network for working class women. It almost, as Joe sort of mentions, creates this expectation that you have someone to go to when you need help. It's almost the same sort of reliance women had on one another in farming communities, just in a different way because of the situations these women are in. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
'''Middle Class:''' I wonder how much of our understanding of the poor working class is shaped by the development of the middle class at this time. We have touched on this idea before in class, but I think this reading really highlighted it. For example, poor women were seen as depraved because they did not have a clear division between domestic spheres and public spheres. But the notion that a home was a private refuge was actually a new middle class idea. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
'''Sources:''' How might the available sources skew our understanding of poor working class families? Most of the sources in this book seem to be court cases and personal accounts, which is probably all we have available to us, but these sources were probably all written by middle or upper class people. I wonder if the descriptions of filth and squalor of the tenements and the raucous inhabitants are at all skewed because they come from outside observers. I think Stansell speaks to this a bit when she talks about how the "home visits" (and the resulting tracts) from the evangelical middle class were in large part about the self-definition of the middle class. -- Rebecca</div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_4_Questions/Comments--Thursday426--Week 4 Questions/Comments--Thursday2009-02-05T05:24:19Z<p>Rgraham: </p>
<hr />
<div>In Chapter 3 it talked about child labor in urban areas. I found this very interesting to look at the differences between child labor in the midwest like we talked about earlier and child labor in urban areas. This was very different from the urban family "ideal." Not only were children working in factories to help "earn their keep", but older children were raising younger children so their mothers could work longer hours. This once again proves that the ideal was never the norm. It's really interesting to read how different living situations affected family life. -- Kari W. <br />
<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading Chapter 8 about Domestic Service. It was interesting to read about the shift to immigrant workers and how women used immigrant workers to gain status in society. Previously, mistresses were used to help the lady of the house out with domestic chores. However, when issues of status came into effect, women started making their mistresses do everything. Also, it was more respected to have an immigrant worker do everything so the lady of the house could do things such as read and other leizure activities. It sounds like women are trying to gain some independence and superiority by ordering around their servants. --Kari W.<br />
<br />
'''Children''' It just struck home again as to how vital children were to the working class economy. They were errand-runners, scavengers, domestic workers and wage earners. Without them, many working class families would not have, or did not, survive in urban areas like New York. If the mother was able to stay home children were emissaries to the outside world, running errands to buy things, or scavenging them to save their family a few pennies, perhaps they were even sent outside the home to earn money for the family. And yet, the middle class and upper class residents of the city did not deign to see that without these children the working class family would have collapsed and their lives of relative comfort and security would not have been possible. Even working class families were not always able to appreciate their children because they did not meet their standards of production, thus the House of Refuge. There are an incredible number of dynamics that affect the lives of children in such a place, so many that it seems a number of them were lost to the people who were there for the experience. -Lacey<br />
<br />
'''Domestic Service.'''I have to say, that Chapter 8 gave me some new insights that I didn't know beforehand. One of the main things that was new to me was that even though there were so many new immigrants, and so much overcrowding, according to ''City of Women'', young women who worked in domestic service had enough leverage to negotiate their terms of service because demand for them was so high. This amazed me with the types of negotiations mentioned, and threats they used to get their way. Granted, I doubt it worked every time, but it must have been nice having some say in what they would and would not do. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
'''Children.''' The part of the excerpt from ''City of Women'' that discussed what the children's roles in family were actually kind of amazed me. I mean I always figured those old enough to walk around, but too young to do wage worked helped somewhere, I just never really thought of how. The scavenging that some of them did is just amazing. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
'''Scavenging''' The bits in chapter 3 about scavenging really blew me away. Throughout this entire section, I kept picturing The Kid from Dick Tracy (yes, The Kid in capital letters. I checked it on IMDB to be sure) before he gets rescued. I think we tend to take the immense responsibility of the parents for granted in these situations, assuming that the children involved would not have to contribute at the same level. It really brought home the idea of family as a community, and not just the parents bringing in supplies and income. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
'''Thesis''' What is the main argument of Stansell's work?<br />
<br />
'''Connection''' How do the sections of reading today connect to the understand we established yesterday between the diffrence between the ideal and the practical family system?<br />
<br />
'''Neighborhood''' The concept of the neighborhood and its effect on working class women was a concept in Chapter 3 that I found extremely important. The argument of Stansell is that working-class neighborhoods gave women leverage in their dealings with men and was the "court system" of urban working class society. Although there was no glorifying physical aspect of the neighborhood, the idea that '''aid to neighbors structured expectations of reciprocal help''' was the accepted tradition among the working class. -Joe C.<br />
<br />
'''Thesis''' I think the thesis of Stansell's work is that although the role and class structure of women in 19th century urban society varied, they all shared an accepted inequality to men. I think the argument also breaks down the class structure of all men and women in urban society and it describes how the lifestyle of working class women contrasted with those of the middle class. Clearly there was much more freedom for women living in the upper echelon of urban society, yet they were also still subjected to a defined and accepted role that was unequal to their male counterparts. -Joe C.<br />
<br />
'''Standards''' It seemed to me that the women in these chapters were dealing with standards they would never be able to achieve. How would it be possible for these women to scrounge for enough money to try and make ends meet for themselves and their families, while also finding it necessary to wear the CLOTHES to seem acceptable in society's eyes? I realize I've been saying this a lot lately in these wiki entries, but I dunno if I would even have it in me to get out of bed in the morning with that kind of pressure on me. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
'''Domestic Service''' I think chapter 8 touches on a very big transition for women and the family, namely the strong shift towards domestic service. With an influx of immigrants there was an abundance of domestic servants. As it became fashionable to have servants, the family experienced a change. I think that this is a big transition for the family because middle class families now included an extra member or members, the servants. This certainly changed the role of women in relation to household duties and child care. –Andrew B<br />
<br />
'''Children''' I am still amazed at how important the role of children was in working class families. I understand that they needed to work in order to help provide support for the family but it never really occurred to me to what extent or how hard they had to work to help their families. They had to put in just as much effort and work as their parents. I guess part of me didn't want to believe that these children would be put in that situation. It is kind of depressing, but it really shows how close it could pull the family together. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
'''Domestic Service''' I feel that if anything having domestic servants would cause families to grow apart. Now children could look to the domestic servant for care instead of their mother, creating a new motherly figure. As these women became closer to a family it changed to role of family and redefined it as well. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
'''Domestic Service''' I can understand after reading these sections of Stansell how domestic servants caused families to grow apart, like Kellye mentioned. Replacing some of the motherly duties with servants perhaps diminished the relationship between a mother and her children. At the same time there were other "extra" members of the family before servants, like midwives. I think it just goes to show that throughout this long 19th century, families have been more than a mother, father and children.--Amanda<br />
<br />
'''Domestic Service''' I found the chapter on servants to be very interesting. Like Ashley, I was surprised by the amount of leverage immigrant Irish women had in setting their terms of service. Initially, I was also surprised that women would sometimes rather work in a factory then in a household. After reading all of the expectations a mistress had of her servants, in addition to being subjected to censure and moral judgment, I can see how being a servant, while a secure position, was often seen as less then desirable. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
'''Marriage''' The nature of marriage among poor urban laborers was rather surprising to me. While I never thought it was without problems, I was amazed at the level, frequency, and relative acceptance of marital abuse that occurred in these poor neighborhoods. The role that the neighborhood played in settling these domestic disputes also surprised me. It is sad that at a time when women of the middle-classes were able to forge a new image demanding more respect as symbols of morality, their poorer counterparts were being beaten by their often drunken spouses for poor housework or indulging in drink themselves. I thought the double standard between the genders was really expressed in the interactions and expectations of married couples. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
'''Religion''' Chapter Four's discussion of the role that evangelicalism played in the changing nature of philanthropy really shocked me. I believe that the warped nature of the middle classes charity to the poor is best expressed in the women's refusal to help a women who was 9 months pregnant, simply because she could not verify that she was married. People genuinely in need of help died because the did not live up to the moral criteria of those who were in a position to assist them. While I am sure that there were genuinely chartable men and women working to help the urban poor at that time, it seems that most reformers were looking to help a class of people which truly did not exist. Their good works appear to be aimed more at assuring themselves of their moral superiority then their Christian duty to lend a helping hand. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
'''Evangelicals:''' In Chapter 4 we see the emergence of an evangelical movement within the cities to eradicate sin and save souls. In particular the idea of home visits emerge, where evangelical Christians would visit homes of poor, working-class families to check in, evaluate the conditions, and possibly provide religious information or support in the form of Bibles or pamphlets. We also see that men in particular were interested in visiting the poor and eradicating sins such as drunkenness, sins that directly affected their workers in order to increase the work that poor men could complete. Home visits and evangelical outreach into the community was also a means for women to appropriately act charitable towards poor women. I found it particularly interesting that there were standards (i.e. character references and marriage certificates) that helped to limit which poor women were helped. We still see the bourgeois’ views of the role of women within the family and household as standards to which to measure all women. Childrearing, housekeeping, paid work done by women and other factors were issues scrutinized and in some cases used to eliminate potential women candidates for aid. – Mary Beth <br />
<br />
'''Necessity''' Although the ideal way of life for a women in this time period was to be the "stay-at-home, reclusive mother," sometimes that's not the way life worked. As we talked about some on Tuesday, the situation the family was in determined whether or not a family could uphold that bourgeois ideal. The absence of a husband or the husband's job in and of itself sometimes did not provide enough income for the mother to be able to stay at home and make sure the kids got to school and were doing their homework and that the meal was on the table, etc. Sometimes it was necessary for the woman of the house to not only uphold that expectation, but also work outside the home and also contribute to the familial income. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
'''Class Domination''' Stansell makes it clear that Middle-class women who worked for social reform were as conscious about class as they were about religion. It was the duty of the rich to take care of and convert the poor. They deepened the gap between the classes as they were attempting to care for those less fortunate. It was evident that they saw themselves as more virtuous then those of the working classes and therefore they were given this "heavy burden"- similar to "the white man's burden" made famous by Kipling. The fact that they only accepted women of reputable background and those who could provide references as recipients of their care is a sign that they saw themselves as morally superior to those less fortunate as well as avoiding any scandel that could weaken their image as "virtuous middle-class." -- Celia<br />
<br />
'''Reliance''' One thing that the relationship between families in these cities seemed to create was a network for working class women. It almost, as Joe sort of mentions, creates this expectation that you have someone to go to when you need help. It's almost the same sort of reliance women had on one another in farming communities, just in a different way because of the situations these women are in. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
'''Middle Class:''' I wonder how much of our understanding of the poor working class is shaped by the development of the middle class at this time. We have touched on this idea before in class, but I think this reading really highlighted it. For example, poor women were seen as depraved because they did not have a clear division between domestic spheres and public spheres. But the notion that a home was a private refuge was actually a new middle class idea.<br />
<br />
'''Sources:''' How might the available sources skew our understanding of poor working class families? Most of the sources in this book seem to be court cases and personal accounts, which is probably all we have available to us, but these sources were probably all written by middle or upper class people. I wonder if the descriptions of filth and squalor of the tenements and the raucous inhabitants are at all skewed because they come from outside observers. I think Stansell speaks to this a bit when she talks about how the "home visits" (and the resulting tracts) from the evangelical middle class were in large part about the self-definition of the middle class.</div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_4_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 4 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-02-03T05:13:18Z<p>Rgraham: /* Stansell */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Cross-Document Questions/Comments ==<br />
'''Do me a favor and at the begining of each set of comments, write and bold ONE WORD which decribes your view/question/comment/or thought about the reading.'''<br />
<br />
'''Comparison''' I thought the differences in the use of sources was very interesting. Boydston used a lot of numerical data and analysis thereof to formulate an understanding of the meaning of being a poor woman in American cities. Stansell on the other hand seems to be using other sorts of records, including first hand accounts of people who were living in New York at the time. I found it fascinating to look at the similar outcomes that came from these two different methods of study.<br />
<br />
'''“Family Wage”''': All three readings for Tuesday in some form dealt with the notion of a family wage. Boydston defined it as the ability for the male, head of household to be able to provide enough income for his family to survive as well as prevent women in the family from working outside the home. Mintz and Kellogg also discussed it as the father’s responsibility to provide a sufficient income for the entire family. All three readings deal with this ideal that was established by the middle-class that women were expected to remain at home and work within the sphere of domesticity, while fathers were the sole economic provider for the entire family. Boydston discussed how women were responsible for stretching the income of their husbands by buying items in bulk, utilizing food from a garden, and working outside the home either helping husbands or being a domestic servant. Stansell spent a significant time discussing that the cult of domesticity was class specific and created by a bourgeois self-consciousness. The notion of “poor” changed substantially from ideas of elder, handicapped or widowed individuals to those people simply struggling to survive in a new system of manufacturing. Stansell also alludes to the notion of charity extended by genteel women to working-class women. We see again the struggle to meet an ideal based upon religion and the home as appropriate spheres for women, yet these spheres are unrealistic for working-class women who cannot work just within their homes or participate fully in religious clubs or activities. In all three readings we see the working-class family struggle to live up to an ideal that is simply unrealistic and out of reach. We also see how this ideal family causes stress and tension on the working-class family as they struggle to meet this ideal, but more importantly as they struggle to survive. – Mary Beth<br />
<br />
'''Misfortune''' So are we to assume from this week's readings that women of the time were either itinerant peddlers or brothel fodder? -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== Boydston ==<br />
<br />
'''Do me a favor and at the begining of each set of comments, write and bold ONE WORD which decribes your view/question/comment/or thought about the reading.''' <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Invisibility:''' Boydston talks about how the woman's contribution to the household became increasingly invisible as wages became equated with family subsistence. I think that is even more true today than in the mid 1800s. For example, a man reported in 1830 that "Lynn shoemakers were full time wage earners with no important means of support other than their income from shoemaking." Today we would not even think to comment on this. For instance, if a guy is a banker, we just assume that all of his income comes from banking. So, I would guess that this notion of 'wage equals family subsistence' is even stronger today than it was in the 1800s. Does that mean that a non-wage-earning woman's contribution to the working class household is even more invisible now than it was then? -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
'''Inequality:''' Boydston talks about the impact of a worker's wage being equated to his family subsistence. He mentions that employers would often talk about paying employees a certain amount because that is what they needed to support their families. This made me think about how women are typically paid less than men to do the same jobs. I suspect that the reasoning behind this is that women are either single, which means they probably have no kids and therefore don't need to make as much, or they are married, in which case they can partially rely on their husbands' incomes and therefore don't need to make as much. Men, on the other hand, can justify needing to be paid more because they are, ostensibly, supporting a family, or are saving up money to do so in future. I think that the issues that Boydston explores are still very relevant for women today, because the belief that men are supposed to be the primary, if not the sole, providers for families, and the belief that wages equate to subsistence, are beliefs that still hurt women's earning potential today. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
I wanted to add to Rebecca's first comment on the non-wage-earning woman because I think that there are other factors that play in. To some extent the housewife's role is more appreciated, because it means that their family is well-enough off to be able to afford to have a family member who does not earn an external income. Also, there is the factor that the wife is willing to not work in order to take care of the household and any young children. In both cases, I think the work of the homemaker is appreciated, but at the same time I think they are overlooked or dismissed because women now have the option of working outside the home and not being seen as amoral or pretending above their station. I think many of these women would be passed off as not being able to stand up for themselves or able to support themselves outside of the nuclear family structure. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I think the role of none-wage-earning women is hard to compare to today. Gender equality was not nearly as evolved as it is today and equality in the workplace is something women in the 1800s did not experience. The contributions women made then and make today are very different as well. I don't think as many working-class wives and mothers today need to scavenge the docks for shoes or scrape flour out of an old barrel. However this essay tells us of where women fit in with the transition to family wages and we know how important they were. What I don't understand is how men in some families could witness women's contributions and still think they spent "more time trifling than a baby"? -Amanda<br />
<br />
To also comment on the non-wage-earning women, I also feel that there is growing acceptance now that housewives do work as well, that its not all fun and games. Taking care of a household (cooking, cleaning, maintaining), taking care of any pet(s) there are/maybe in the household, along with taking care of her husband is actually a lot of work. Its usually unpaid work, but I've heard of some husbands who give their wife part of his wages to spend as she wants (for little trifles she may want) that don't come out of the normal family budget. From reading Boydston's article, I think its made clear that even though the housewife's work was becoming more invisible it was still very important for her to do what she did because it saved the family money here and there, or in some cases also earned a little extra money. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
'''Obligation''' To what extent does Boydston provide evidence that the tasks performed by wifes were seen as obligations? What evidence does she give? - Stephen<br />
<br />
'''Implied Obligation'''I don't know if it is necessarily explicitly mentioned, Stephen, but there was definitely an undercurrent of the wives being expected to perform the jobs that they did. It's not that these are jobs that only women can perform, but there was definitely an idea of the women being the only ones who SHOULD perform them. -Cash Nelson <br />
<br />
'''Marx''' I find Boydston's crtique of Marxism as fundemental to her understanding of the role and definition of subsistence in a family. Does Boydston do a fair job in showing that housewives' labor was distinctive enough to be reconized outside of the typical Marxist analysis? - Stephen<br />
<br />
I the statement that the made the most sense to me was that the reason industrial capitalism grew was because of the denial of the economic value of housework. This really seemed to make a lot of sense to me. It seemed that as long as men had control over the family's income women would never truly be considered able to contribute to the family's economic growth. While they do accept the fact that women do work at home, such as, caring for the children or cooking and cleaning, they still hold the belief that their work had little to no economic value. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
'''Interesting''': I thought that this article concerning the value of housework was fascinating. The process Boydston used to approximate the monetary value of women's housework and labor was something that I had never contemplated doing. However, I am not terribly familiar with what the average wage would have been for a working male laborer so it was hard for me to understand exactly how much she was bringing in compared to her husband. It is unfortunate that women were not recognized by their husbands, or by society, for their work in providing for themselves and their families. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
'''Comparison''' While reading this article, my mind went immediately to the Faragher reading last week. At the end of his article, Faragher stated that though women worked continuously in the home, it was an invisible occupation. The man's work was in the public eye, he was the one who dealt with the community and the market, while his wife was hidden behind the "domestic curtain." Boydston points out that men rarely acknowledged the woman's contribution to the goods sold at market. So of course it looks like the man is pulling all the weight of the family's income; he is just the only income-provider visible to the public eye. Boydston's article also tied in to the article we read on the ideal middle-class family and how the wives role is to provide "comfort and counsel" to the husbands returning from a long, hard day at the factory. It is fascinating seeing the different sides of American families tie together.--Celia<br />
<br />
== Mintz & Kellogg ==<br />
<br />
'''Do me a favor and at the begining of each set of comments, write and bold ONE WORD which decribes your view/question/comment/or thought about the reading.'''<br />
<br />
'''Homestead''' How does the Homestead example used by Mintz and Kellogg provide a good/bad example of the work life, hours, wages, lifestyle, and living standards of American working families at this time in history? - Stephen<br />
<br />
'''Destruction''' Do you agree with Carroll Wright (pg. 85) who maintained that the factory system destroys family life? - Stephen<br />
<br />
'''Immigration''' What are the fundemental diffrences outlined by Mintz and Kellogg regarding immigrant families and those who were already established in this country? - Stephen<br />
<br />
'''Homestead''' I think Homestead is a good example of typical life in a mill town during the mid-19th Century in a northern city. Mintz& Kellogg go on to explain conditions in other northern cities, especially for immigrants. One continuity for all working-class families is the need for subsistence from all members (or more than the male head of house) of the family. Like Stansell, M&K describe scavenging as a way to produce more income. It reminded me of immigrant or "guest worker" programs of today to read about the Italian brothers who wanted to take/send their earnings home. --Amanda<br />
<br />
'''Immigration''' I found it interesting that people who immigrated alone created a type of community with each other. Most came alone to earn money to bring the rest of their family to the new world and they bonded over their common situations. They created their own type of family. People also created a sense of family by boarding with other low income families. It is interesting how important a sense of family was to these immigrants. -- Kari W.<br />
<br />
'''Strength''': In response to Stephen's question concerning Wright's statement, I believe that the factory system did not in fact "destroy family life." While certainly any environment has the potential to cause hardship on family life, the factory did, as Mintz and Kellogg discuss, provide opportunities for increased family togetherness. For instance, children were allowed to live at home longer and were not send off to live somewhere else and learn a trade at an early age. Additionally, working in the factories allowed for a shard sense of family identity and promoted the common good. While this idea certainly leaves room for jealousy and contempt for having to sacrifice for the greater good, it appears that many families were strengthened by their shared work and economic dependence. While today we may view child labor as having a negative impact on family life, it was a common practice, if these families were farmers, all of their children would have been contributing to the economic benefit of the family in some way. Therefore, I believe that it was really what each family chose to make of the situation that meant division or cohesion and that factory life did not inherently destroy the life of American families. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
== Stansell ==<br />
'''Do me a favor and at the begining of each set of comments, write and bold ONE WORD which decribes your view/question/comment/or thought about the reading.''' <br />
<br />
<br />
The exert from Stansell's book brings up a lot of the same point that I recall reading in Boydston's article. First of all, the poor section of the city was overcrowded, with filthy housing and living conditions, and bad sanitary problems. Both also spoke of the disease epidemics that hit and spread in these areas from the bad sanitation conditions. However, Boydston's article seemed to exalt and shine light onto the lives of the non-wage-earner woman, while Stansell's book exert made it sound like women were help to be pieces of crap that were evil and sinful and men could do whatever they wanted to women because women provided little to nothing for the household, even if they did manage to earn some kind of wage... at least that's how I felt after reading it... --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
'''Republic''' How did "Republican ideas of government, authority, and power," support already familiar justifications of sexual hierarchies? That is to say "in a republican culture which placed the independence of the male citizen at its zenith," how did the dependent status of women effect this era in understanding the family? - Stephen<br />
<br />
'''Debauchery''' In the Bedlow/Sawyer rape trial it is argued that the girl should have been better attuned to the "etiquette of debauchery." Is this not both an example of the gender gap but also the inherent flaw of that gap? - Stephen<br />
<br />
'''Republican Motherhood:''' Stansell points out other factors that related to the changing family situation. The influx of immigrants, post-Revolution conditions, rise of the city, and economic and gender expectations all played a role in the change in family structure. It seems though that "republican motherhood" did not apply to women outside the middle class, and in fact, lower-class women were looked down upon for not being able to be educators. Also, as we discussed in class, the advent of American patriotism coincided with a new American family. Stansell mentions how women craftworkers banded together to stop the importation of British goods.--Amanda<br />
<br />
'''Ideal?'''This excerpt showed that the domestic "ideal" described in Mintz and Kellogg was rarely met. Women's domestic sphere was interrupted when they were forced to go to work in order to help provide for the family. However, some of the work women did was house work for families who wealthier. This kept some of the "ideal" norms for women but they were done outside of the home.--Kari W.<br />
<br />
'''Disruptive''' The fact that women ended up going to work and were being social and productive outside the home was disruptive, in my opinion, to the societal norms that families had adhered to for so long. A woman's place was in the home and when women began working outside the home in factories and other homes, the domestic spheres were thrown off. -Kelly W<br />
<br />
'''Educator''' To answer Stephen's question about the Republic ideal (and this kind of ties in with Amanda's comment about Republican Motherhood) I believe that without the woman in the family the entire unit would essentially fall apart. Although the wife was dependent on the man and his income and independence, the mother was the educator of the family. She was the caretaker and the one raising the sons who would one day lead the country. Women had quite a few roles within the family and were a vital asset, but were only as strong as the man of the house. -Kelly W<br />
<br />
'''Criminal''': In reading this article, I could not get past the treatment of women in cases of rape and kidnapping. The concept that a rape could be justified by women acting in what was construed to be a suggestive manner is very foreign to our modern concepts of sexual harassment and abuse. To me this really illustrated the lengths to which men would go to illustrate their authority and power over women and how they used womens supposed evil, seductive nature for their benefit and to justify their wrongs. I agree with Stephen that this illustrates both the gender gap itself but also its inherent flaw. Taking the separation of genders so far as to justify such acts against women is truly terribly and criminal. --Sarah Gardner<br />
<br />
'''Also Criminal:''' This is only tangentially related to Sarah's comment, but it popped in my head when I read her post. Did you know the Italian Supreme Court determined that a man cannot be convicted of raping a woman if she was wearing jeans during the alleged rape? The reasoning is that a man cannot possibly get a woman out of her jeans without her consent. Now granted, Italian jeans ARE pretty tight, but... I think this "jean alibi" is the same kind of misogynistic behavior we read about in "City of Women." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/277263.stm -- Rebecca</div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_4_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 4 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-02-02T22:18:49Z<p>Rgraham: /* Boydston */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Cross-Document Questions/Comments ==<br />
'''Do me a favor and at the begining of each set of comments, write and bold ONE WORD which decribes your view/question/comment/or thought about the reading.'''<br />
<br />
'''Comparison''' I thought the differences in the use of sources was very interesting. Boydston used a lot of numerical data and analysis thereof to formulate an understanding of the meaning of being a poor woman in American cities. Stansell on the other hand seems to be using other sorts of records, including first hand accounts of people who were living in New York at the time. I found it fascinating to look at the similar outcomes that came from these two different methods of study.<br />
<br />
== Boydston ==<br />
<br />
'''Do me a favor and at the begining of each set of comments, write and bold ONE WORD which decribes your view/question/comment/or thought about the reading.''' <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Invisibility:''' Boydston talks about how the woman's contribution to the household became increasingly invisible as wages became equated with family subsistence. I think that is even more true today than in the mid 1800s. For example, a man reported in 1830 that "Lynn shoemakers were full time wage earners with no important means of support other than their income from shoemaking." Today we would not even think to comment on this. For instance, if a guy is a banker, we just assume that all of his income comes from banking. So, I would guess that this notion of 'wage equals family subsistence' is even stronger today than it was in the 1800s. Does that mean that a non-wage-earning woman's contribution to the working class household is even more invisible now than it was then? -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
'''Inequality:''' Boydston talks about the impact of a worker's wage being equated to his family subsistence. He mentions that employers would often talk about paying employees a certain amount because that is what they needed to support their families. This made me think about how women are typically paid less than men to do the same jobs. I suspect that the reasoning behind this is that women are either single, which means they probably have no kids and therefore don't need to make as much, or they are married, in which case they can partially rely on their husbands' incomes and therefore don't need to make as much. Men, on the other hand, can justify needing to be paid more because they are, ostensibly, supporting a family, or are saving up money to do so in future. I think that the issues that Boydston explores are still very relevant for women today, because the belief that men are supposed to be the primary, if not the sole, providers for families, and the belief that wages equate to subsistence, are beliefs that still hurt women's earning potential today. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
I wanted to add to Rebecca's first comment on the non-wage-earning woman because I think that there are other factors that play in. To some extent the housewife's role is more appreciated, because it means that their family is well-enough off to be able to afford to have a family member who does not earn an external income. Also, there is the factor that the wife is willing to not work in order to take care of the household and any young children. In both cases, I think the work of the homemaker is appreciated, but at the same time I think they are overlooked or dismissed because women now have the option of working outside the home and not being seen as amoral or pretending above their station. I think many of these women would be passed off as not being able to stand up for themselves or able to support themselves outside of the nuclear family structure. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I think the role of none-wage-earning women is hard to compare to today. Gender equality was not nearly as evolved as it is today and equality in the workplace is something women in the 1800s did not experience. The contributions women made then and make today are very different as well. I don't think as many working-class wives and mothers today need to scavenge the docks for shoes or scrape flour out of an old barrel. However this essay tells us of where women fit in with the transition to family wages and we know how important they were. What I don't understand is how men in some families could witness women's contributions and still think they spent "more time trifling than a baby"? -Amanda<br />
<br />
To also comment on the non-wage-earning women, I also feel that there is growing acceptance now that housewives do work as well, that its not all fun and games. Taking care of a household (cooking, cleaning, maintaining), taking care of any pet(s) there are/maybe in the household, along with taking care of her husband is actually a lot of work. Its usually unpaid work, but I've heard of some husbands who give their wife part of his wages to spend as she wants (for little trifles she may want) that don't come out of the normal family budget. From reading Boydston's article, I think its made clear that even though the housewife's work was becoming more invisible it was still very important for her to do what she did because it saved the family money here and there, or in some cases also earned a little extra money. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
'''Obligation''' To what extent does Boydston provide evidence that the tasks performed by wifes were seen as obligations? What evidence does she give? - Stephen<br />
<br />
'''Marx''' I find Boydston's crtique of Marxism as fundemental to her understanding of the role and definition of subsistence in a family. Does Boydston do a fair job in showing that housewives' labor was distinctive enough to be reconized outside of the typical Marxist analysis? - Stephen<br />
<br />
== Mintz & Kellogg ==<br />
<br />
'''Do me a favor and at the begining of each set of comments, write and bold ONE WORD which decribes your view/question/comment/or thought about the reading.'''<br />
<br />
'''Homestead''' How does the Homestead example used by Mintz and Kellogg provide a good/bad example of the work life, hours, wages, lifestyle, and living standards of American working families at this time in history? - Stephen<br />
<br />
'''Destruction''' Do you agree with Carroll Wright (pg. 85) who maintained that the factory system destroys family life? - Stephen<br />
<br />
'''Immigration''' What are the fundemental diffrences outlined by Mintz and Kellogg regarding immigrant families and those who were already established in this country? - Stephen<br />
<br />
== Stansell ==<br />
'''Do me a favor and at the begining of each set of comments, write and bold ONE WORD which decribes your view/question/comment/or thought about the reading.''' <br />
<br />
<br />
The exert from Stansell's book brings up a lot of the same point that I recall reading in Boydston's article. First of all, the poor section of the city was overcrowded, with filthy housing and living conditions, and bad sanitary problems. Both also spoke of the disease epidemics that hit and spread in these areas from the bad sanitation conditions. However, Boydston's article seemed to exalt and shine light onto the lives of the non-wage-earner woman, while Stansell's book exert made it sound like women were help to be pieces of crap that were evil and sinful and men could do whatever they wanted to women because women provided little to nothing for the household, even if they did manage to earn some kind of wage... at least that's how I felt after reading it... --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
'''Republic''' How did "Republican ideas of government, authority, and power," support already familiar justifications of sexual hierarchies? That is to say "in a republican culture which placed the independence of the male citizen at its zenith," how did the dependent status of women effect this era in understanding the family? - Stephen<br />
<br />
'''Debauchery''' In the Bedlow/Sawyer rape trial it is argued that the girl should have been better attuned to the "etiquette of debauchery." Is this not both an example of the gender gap but also the inherent flaw of that gap? - Stephen<br />
<br />
'''Republican Motherhood:''' Stansell points out other factors that related to the changing family situation. The influx of immigrants, post-Revolution conditions, rise of the city, and economic and gender expectations all played a role in the change in family structure. It seems though that "republican motherhood" did not apply to women outside the middle class, and in fact, lower-class women were looked down upon for not being able to be educators. Also, as we discussed in class, the advent of American patriotism coincided with a new American family. Stansell mentions how women craftworkers banded together to stop the importation of British goods.--Amanda</div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_4_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 4 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-02-02T22:18:16Z<p>Rgraham: /* Boydston */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Cross-Document Questions/Comments ==<br />
'''Do me a favor and at the begining of each set of comments, write and bold ONE WORD which decribes your view/question/comment/or thought about the reading.'''<br />
<br />
'''Comparison''' I thought the differences in the use of sources was very interesting. Boydston used a lot of numerical data and analysis thereof to formulate an understanding of the meaning of being a poor woman in American cities. Stansell on the other hand seems to be using other sorts of records, including first hand accounts of people who were living in New York at the time. I found it fascinating to look at the similar outcomes that came from these two different methods of study.<br />
<br />
== Boydston ==<br />
<br />
'''Do me a favor and at the begining of each set of comments, write and bold ONE WORD which decribes your view/question/comment/or thought about the reading.''' <br />
'''<br />
Invisibility:''' Boydston talks about how the woman's contribution to the household became increasingly invisible as wages became equated with family subsistence. I think that is even more true today than in the mid 1800s. For example, a man reported in 1830 that "Lynn shoemakers were full time wage earners with no important means of support other than their income from shoemaking." Today we would not even think to comment on this. For instance, if a guy is a banker, we just assume that all of his income comes from banking. So, I would guess that this notion of 'wage equals family subsistence' is even stronger today than it was in the 1800s. Does that mean that a non-wage-earning woman's contribution to the working class household is even more invisible now than it was then? -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
'''Inequality:''' Boydston talks about the impact of a worker's wage being equated to his family subsistence. He mentions that employers would often talk about paying employees a certain amount because that is what they needed to support their families. This made me think about how women are typically paid less than men to do the same jobs. I suspect that the reasoning behind this is that women are either single, which means they probably have no kids and therefore don't need to make as much, or they are married, in which case they can partially rely on their husbands' incomes and therefore don't need to make as much. Men, on the other hand, can justify needing to be paid more because they are, ostensibly, supporting a family, or are saving up money to do so in future. I think that the issues that Boydston explores are still very relevant for women today, because the belief that men are supposed to be the primary, if not the sole, providers for families, and the belief that wages equate to subsistence, are beliefs that still hurt women's earning potential today. -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
I wanted to add to Rebecca's first comment on the non-wage-earning woman because I think that there are other factors that play in. To some extent the housewife's role is more appreciated, because it means that their family is well-enough off to be able to afford to have a family member who does not earn an external income. Also, there is the factor that the wife is willing to not work in order to take care of the household and any young children. In both cases, I think the work of the homemaker is appreciated, but at the same time I think they are overlooked or dismissed because women now have the option of working outside the home and not being seen as amoral or pretending above their station. I think many of these women would be passed off as not being able to stand up for themselves or able to support themselves outside of the nuclear family structure. -Lacey<br />
<br />
I think the role of none-wage-earning women is hard to compare to today. Gender equality was not nearly as evolved as it is today and equality in the workplace is something women in the 1800s did not experience. The contributions women made then and make today are very different as well. I don't think as many working-class wives and mothers today need to scavenge the docks for shoes or scrape flour out of an old barrel. However this essay tells us of where women fit in with the transition to family wages and we know how important they were. What I don't understand is how men in some families could witness women's contributions and still think they spent "more time trifling than a baby"? -Amanda<br />
<br />
To also comment on the non-wage-earning women, I also feel that there is growing acceptance now that housewives do work as well, that its not all fun and games. Taking care of a household (cooking, cleaning, maintaining), taking care of any pet(s) there are/maybe in the household, along with taking care of her husband is actually a lot of work. Its usually unpaid work, but I've heard of some husbands who give their wife part of his wages to spend as she wants (for little trifles she may want) that don't come out of the normal family budget. From reading Boydston's article, I think its made clear that even though the housewife's work was becoming more invisible it was still very important for her to do what she did because it saved the family money here and there, or in some cases also earned a little extra money. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
'''Obligation''' To what extent does Boydston provide evidence that the tasks performed by wifes were seen as obligations? What evidence does she give? - Stephen<br />
<br />
'''Marx''' I find Boydston's crtique of Marxism as fundemental to her understanding of the role and definition of subsistence in a family. Does Boydston do a fair job in showing that housewives' labor was distinctive enough to be reconized outside of the typical Marxist analysis? - Stephen<br />
<br />
== Mintz & Kellogg ==<br />
<br />
'''Do me a favor and at the begining of each set of comments, write and bold ONE WORD which decribes your view/question/comment/or thought about the reading.'''<br />
<br />
'''Homestead''' How does the Homestead example used by Mintz and Kellogg provide a good/bad example of the work life, hours, wages, lifestyle, and living standards of American working families at this time in history? - Stephen<br />
<br />
'''Destruction''' Do you agree with Carroll Wright (pg. 85) who maintained that the factory system destroys family life? - Stephen<br />
<br />
'''Immigration''' What are the fundemental diffrences outlined by Mintz and Kellogg regarding immigrant families and those who were already established in this country? - Stephen<br />
<br />
== Stansell ==<br />
'''Do me a favor and at the begining of each set of comments, write and bold ONE WORD which decribes your view/question/comment/or thought about the reading.''' <br />
<br />
<br />
The exert from Stansell's book brings up a lot of the same point that I recall reading in Boydston's article. First of all, the poor section of the city was overcrowded, with filthy housing and living conditions, and bad sanitary problems. Both also spoke of the disease epidemics that hit and spread in these areas from the bad sanitation conditions. However, Boydston's article seemed to exalt and shine light onto the lives of the non-wage-earner woman, while Stansell's book exert made it sound like women were help to be pieces of crap that were evil and sinful and men could do whatever they wanted to women because women provided little to nothing for the household, even if they did manage to earn some kind of wage... at least that's how I felt after reading it... --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
'''Republic''' How did "Republican ideas of government, authority, and power," support already familiar justifications of sexual hierarchies? That is to say "in a republican culture which placed the independence of the male citizen at its zenith," how did the dependent status of women effect this era in understanding the family? - Stephen<br />
<br />
'''Debauchery''' In the Bedlow/Sawyer rape trial it is argued that the girl should have been better attuned to the "etiquette of debauchery." Is this not both an example of the gender gap but also the inherent flaw of that gap? - Stephen<br />
<br />
'''Republican Motherhood:''' Stansell points out other factors that related to the changing family situation. The influx of immigrants, post-Revolution conditions, rise of the city, and economic and gender expectations all played a role in the change in family structure. It seems though that "republican motherhood" did not apply to women outside the middle class, and in fact, lower-class women were looked down upon for not being able to be educators. Also, as we discussed in class, the advent of American patriotism coincided with a new American family. Stansell mentions how women craftworkers banded together to stop the importation of British goods.--Amanda</div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_4_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 4 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-01-31T22:45:37Z<p>Rgraham: </p>
<hr />
<div>Boydston talks about how the woman's contribution to the household became increasingly invisible as wages became equated with family subsistence. I think that is even more true today than in the mid 1800s. For example, a man reported in 1830 that "Lynn shoemakers were full time wage earners with no important means of support other than their income from shoemaking." Today we would not even think to comment on this. For instance, if a guy is a banker, we just assume that all of his income comes from banking. So, I would guess that this notion of 'wage equals family subsistence' is even stronger today than it was in the 1800s. Does that mean that a non-wage-earning woman's contribution to the working class household is even more invisible now than it was then? -- Rebecca<br />
<br />
Boydston talks about the impact of a worker's wage being equated to his family subsistence. He mentions that employers would often talk about paying employees a certain amount because that is what they needed to support their families. This made me think about how women are typically paid less than men to do the same jobs. I suspect that the reasoning behind this is that women are either single, which means they probably have no kids and therefore don't need to make as much, or they are married, in which case they can partially rely on their husbands' incomes and therefore don't need to make as much. Men, on the other hand, can justify needing to be paid more because they are, ostensibly, supporting a family, or are saving up money to do so in future. I think that the issues that Boydston explores are still very relevant for women today, because the belief that men are supposed to be the primary, if not the sole, providers for families, and the belief that wages equate to subsistence, are beliefs that still hurt women's earning potential today. -- Rebecca</div>Rgrahamhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_4_Questions/Comments--Tuesday426--Week 4 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2009-01-31T22:44:27Z<p>Rgraham: New page: Boydston talks about how the woman's contribution to the household became increasingly invisible as wages became equated with family subsistence. I think that is even more true today than ...</p>
<hr />
<div>Boydston talks about how the woman's contribution to the household became increasingly invisible as wages became equated with family subsistence. I think that is even more true today than in the mid 1800s. For example, a man reported in 1830 that "Lynn shoemakers were full time wage earners with no important means of support other than their income from shoemaking." Today we would not even think to comment on this. For instance, if a guy is a banker, we just assume that all of his income comes from banking. So, I would guess that this notion of 'wage equals family subsistence' is even stronger today than it was in the 1800s. Does that mean that a non-wage-earning woman's contribution to the working class household is even more invisible now than it was then? -- Rebecca</div>Rgraham Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38