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: 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=RocknrowleyMcClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T22:33:21ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_6_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 6 Questions/Comments-327 092009-10-01T03:47:19Z<p>Rocknrowley: /* Judith Murray, “The Story of Margaretta,” */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Susanna Haswell Rowson, ''Charlotte: A Tale of Truth'', 1794 ==<br />
<br />
So, this novel was the most popular in America for almost ''sixty years''? Wow. This one's a real bodice ripper, folks. Here we have the 18th century version of the Harlequin novel and a good plot for a Lifetime Original Movie. I would almost call it the worst thing I’ve ever read that's been published, except it was so entertaining. However, I don’t think I was entertained in the same way that 18th century women were (and I very much hope that it was mostly women reading this). I thought it was interesting how the preface says the novel is based on a true story, but the people involved are all dead and the names are changed, and, of course, the “Tale of Truth” bit in the title. Well, it’s nice to know people have been using ''that'' one for so long. Apparently, this book was replaced in popularity by ''Uncle Tom’s Cabin'', so it’s interesting that women seem to have a lot of success with novels in America. Does it have to do with the audience, which I presume is more often women than men? In the case of ''Uncle Tom's Cabin'', I imagine part of the reason it was successful was because it was so controversial. Was ''Charlotte'' considered controversial in it's time? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
This was such I great read I have to comment it on it more! So, what have I learned from this exceptional piece of literature? Do not under any circumstances disobey your parents or you will live a horrible life and then die (God might forgive you though, if you're repentant). If you do promise yourself to a man at the disapproval of your parents, don’t go back on your word or the once dashing officer will turn into Snidely Whiplash and kidnap you to another country, take advantage of you (but it’s not rape if you enjoy it), neglect you, and leave you pregnant and in poverty, and it will be all YOUR fault, because YOU forced him to take action due to your indecisiveness even if he’s the one that manipulated you into agreeing to be with him in the first place. Isn’t it so great that women can be just as and sometimes even more misogynistic than men? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Taylor's comments after reading this piece I was reminded of a modern day soap opera, filled with betrayal, love/lust, and desertion of a husband to take care of the children. I have to ask though how many women of the eighteenth century read this novel, and much less were literate? For a novel that was popular for 60 years I assume it did well, but I do think "Charlotte" was typical of women at the time. She went from the supervision of her father to a world run by her husband and was confined to the home. How did women feel about the novel? Did they agree their lives followed ideals of romance? And child rearing? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
This document did a good job of keeping me entertained and interested. I probably would have been one of many who read this book during the time. Charlotte's character annoyed me a little. At first I wanted her to be with the man, but then when she started saying how she did not want to dishonor her family and respected them too much to leave, I thought those were good points also. One minute she's on her way to tell him she is not going with him and the next thing you know he is picking her up and putting her in the carriage to take her away. Were men in reality really this suave and cunning to be able to change a women's mind so quickly? She seemed to be determined and knew what she wanted but she sure threw that out the window. It's cool to see how a situation like this can also be seen today in modern times, when men are able to work their charm to capture womens' hearts. The endings can be quite sad sometimes, however. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
Regarding what Amy says, about Charlotte's indecisiveness: I think Susanna Rowson's story might be considered an example of what we discussed in class on Tuesday- that men of the "New Republic" did not consider women "fit" for politics because they had "weak" minds and, further, thought them to be incapable of even making their own decisions without the assistance or guidance of their male relatives (either husband, or father, etc.). Thus, the "dependency" of women is reinforced. I think this thought process is exhibited in "Charlotte: A Tale of Truth". As Amy states, Charlotte starts out determined but then quickly changes her mind and opinions throughout the story. As a result, I think Rowson's piece ultimately might have had a negative impact and influence on women in the long run, because it reinforced the ideas of male superiority and female dependence. -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
I feel like Susanna Haswell Rowson was attempting to get a point across through this story. I feel she was trying to warn girls about what might happen if they were to decide to step out of the bounds of socially acceptable behavior. She portrayed Charlotte as a young woman who was very protected in her world, but it was a world that was aligned with the idea of women at the time. She went to boarding school, and was very proper. Then she met a boy and deserted her family, which at the time I'm sure was frowned upon greatly, and ran away with him. While it seemed romantic that she followed her heart, Rowson instantaneously portrays Charlotte as unhappy with her current life with Montraville. She regretted her decision especially when she became ill and was without Montraville. I feel Rowson displayed Charlotte in this way to show her readers/fans how easy it was for a woman to become blinded by love, how easy it was to throw away all social responsibility, and how it would end up in a disappointing life. ---- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
I really did not like how she said her no one would censure her because the story was she is a moral woman and her story promoted good morals. Why does she feel the need to tell us that. Then she talks to the mothers who are reading her work not to worry again as if her work was raunchy. Her story was ridiculous. Charlotte was annoying, always crying and waiting for a man who does not love her. Then she dies as soon as her parents find her. The moral of the story is to obey your parents or you will be the most miserable person in the world and then you will die. I guess its nice that she was trying to warn girls about loving the wrong man but the story was melodramatic. LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
== Judith Murray, “The Story of Margaretta,” ==<br />
<br />
In the piece by Judith Murray, “The Story of Margaretta,” In the introduction it states, “The maze of gender identities created as the views of a girl and a women are filtered through the perspective of a man, who is himself a fictional creation of a woman, adds another layer of meaning to the story.” So in reading this piece, I kept this layer of meaning in mind. I had a hard time reading some sections were blurred out. However, it seemed to me that the male view of Margaretta and her intelligence and education was positive. I am sure this probably wasn’t the overarching view that most males would have had at the time, so I am curious if this would have any impact on the readers at the time. What was Judith Murray going for? --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
In "The Story of Margaretta," I am not sure if she is writing through the eyes of a man because she thinks it would be read by more people or her agenda was to show Mr. Vigillius view on educating women in hopes that it would have changed things for women. In the story, a reference was made about Mary not being concerned with a women's dress though she was still a "complete housewife," showed that it was more important for Margaretta to be taught things that made her more intellectual. I think this made her more the exception. Mary had an extensive plan for Margaretta's education. Her education went outside the realm of housewifery duties which Mr. Vigillius stated Margaretta did with proficiency. Mr. Vigillius was not fond of Mary's education plans for Margaretta but he let the matter go. Through Mr Vigillius eyes, he thought in the long run Margaretta will be more intellectual for the education she received, after all a woman was to "inform the future man." I think Mr. Vigillius was also an exception because he admitted that in the long run Margaretta's extensive education would make her life more distinguished. -Marsha H<br />
<br />
I think Judith Murray was writing as a man because women generally did not publish their work. In "The Study of Margaretta" she talks about educating women. I am all for that especially the languages and actual education outside being a house wife. I was a little annoyed that it was assumed she would be conceited because of her education. Her parents had to cultivate a good woman and had to watch out that she would not become conceited in her superior knowledge. Educations does not equate to being conceited.It also annoyed me that they were talking about her virtues and how basically she was the perfect woman. She should not be eager for other people admiration's. Who would even think about that? It almost seemed to me that Margaretta should not want people to be envious but people should because she is such a good woman. LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
I was surprised about the wide variety of aspects in which women were expected to "perfect." Not only did girls need to learn housewifery skills like their mothers did when they were young, this new generation also learned more academic subjects so that they could teach their sons. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
I think Murray might be justifying women's education in a more subtle manner. Mr. Vigillins views on women's education shows some reluctance along with acceptance. The ''Story of Margaretta'' seems to attempt to gradually change people's minds on women's education than demand equal education. Do you think this would be a more effective approach for the time? -John Rowley<br />
<br />
== "On the Importance of the Obstetrick Art" by Catherine Scholten ==<br />
<br />
The change in childbirth from 1760 to 1825 was dramatic and changed the medical field forever. I found the inclusion of men into the field of childbirth as early as the 1750s with Dr. William Shippen Jr. suprising. But I do agree that it led to childbirth becoming more of a private matter rather than one that involved society. The portion of the reading that stood out to me was the exclusion of women in childbirth. Men believed women could no longer be midwives due to their lack of understanding "throughly the profession of medicine as a whole." But men chose to leave out that women were not allowed to attend medical school thus losing any status they had in society when men overtook the practice of childbirth. I do wonder if labor became more private due to women being embarassed with having a male physician or due to husbands threatening doctors if they looked at their wives? To answer my own question I think it became a private matter due to embarassment of a man other than their husband participating in the intimate activity of childbirth. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
On page 79 of the piece by Catherine Scholten what stood out for me was the section where Scholten argued that birth became increasingly regarded as a medical problem to be managed by physicians. This is a complete 180 from the women in the colonial period of the 17th centuries that were expected to have as many children as possible until their death. This is a crucial turning point, from childbirth being celebrated to childbirth being a medical problem. This goes to show that what are considered norms are only a function of society at that particular time. -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I found this piece interesting because the one thing women had some control over and dominated was then being transferred to men. All because physician were men during that time. This piece raises many questions in my mind. You have trained midwives and fill in midwives. Then you have women in suburban areas where midwives delivered most of the babies because there was no doctor around. In urban areas, there was doctor available if there were any problems arose during childbirth. Then there was the problem of women being concerned with the presence of a "man" looking at a woman in this "delicate" way. Another point, it that when you have a midwife with years of a experience delivering babies and a man who is "medically trained" with little experience, what would you feel most comfortable with? There was a large transition here from women to men in childbirth. During this time, you had women being more educated and they may have felt they had more choices. In making these choices do they oust other women out of the arena? -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
I did not know how much birth used to be a "spectator's sport". All these women standing around trying to soothe the woman who is giving birth and going through extreme amounts of pain. I guess I understand that a joke might ease the mood, but I am personally glad men stepped into the picture. I think it would be a little awkward having people stand around even if they were all females. Most of the time, the midwives were not even trained that well. I like the idea of having a doctor who is medically trained and knows what he is doing involved in the process of birth.I thought it was a little comical how prude people were and did not want the male physician to look at the female as much as possible. No wonder "things" got cut off on occasion. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I feel that the idea of men taking over midwife positions was an infringement to women's rights. As midwives, women had a responsibility, and a respectable one at that. Many women worked within their own homes, but these midwives were in the business of helping women outside of their own homes. When male physicians entered the scene, female midwives slowly lost their jobs. At the time, I believe female midwives would have been better than male physicians because the midwives understood the female body, and could sympathize with the women they helped. Also, Scholten talks about how the male physicians could not even look at specific parts of the woman's body... I'm sure that made giving birth even more unsafe than it already was. It just seemed contradictory because people believed that male physicians made childbirth safer because they knew more about medicine and had pain relief, etc, yet they were constrained in their duties by social norms, which sometimes put the woman or baby in danger.I also thought it was interesting how the women supported one another in child birth. It goes back to the idea of women forming bonds with one another through similar experiences, and childbirth was definitely one of those bonding experiences among women, especially how they would take up the pregnant woman's chores and would give moral support. --- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
I also found this piece extremely interesting, as well as thought provoking. I don't think, however, that Catherine Scholten did a very good job of explaining exactly why such a transformation in the childbirth experiences of women occurred when it did. She states that similar changes undoubtedly would have taken place even without the American Revolution, but that "heightened concern with establishing 'American' institutions and expertise speeded the development of medical schools and professional associations in the New Republic." (p.78)I'm still not really convinced. I feel as if this is explaining the changes in terms of the "male" perspective, and while Scholten does include many details as to how women going through childbirth with the assistance of a male physician rather than a midwife felt (such as their initial reservations about the use of "instruments", as well as their embarrassment at being attended to by a person of the opposite sex), I wish she had articulated her argument better and provided more thorough explanations and reasoning. I'm not sure if I'm even articulating my thoughts very well, but at the end of the piece I did feel as if she left several questions unanswered. -Allison Godart <br />
== Headline text ==</div>Rocknrowleyhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_4_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 4 Questions/Comments-327 092009-09-17T04:42:49Z<p>Rocknrowley: /* Eulalia Perez Recalls her work in a mission in Spanish CA in early 19th Century (1877) */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Cross-source questions/comments ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Anne Bradstreet, “A Spiritual Autobiography,” ~1670 ==<br />
<br />
When I read Anne Bradstreet’s spiritual autobiography, I was amazed by the necessity of Puritans to deny their individual wants, needs, and rationale. Anne described joining the church as ‘submitting’. When Anne was sick, she said God was trying to humble her. Then once God finally granted Anne children, she began a new struggle to extinguish their individuality and worked “till Christ bee formed in you [her children].”(pg 100) Given this context, one can see that an individual thinking on his/her own, such as Anne Hutchinson, was very radical and seen as dangerous. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
I was surpised in this article that Anne Bradstreet considered whether the Catholic doctrine was right when she herself was a Puritan (she decides to stick with her Puritan beliefs) but that moment of questioning was interesting to me, especially given the violent history that Catholics and Protestants had in the previous century and the mistrust that each side had for the other. - Will Hechmer<br />
<br />
== Anne Hutchinson’s trial, 1637 ==<br />
Anne Hutchinson is now one of my top 10 favorite women in history. The overall summary of her trial is stated on page 103: she was charged with dishonoring the community fathers, of holding meetings at her home in a manner inappropriate to her sex, and of insulting ministers at a private conference by accusing them of laboring under a Covenant of Works. Anne Hutchinson then admits having a revelation where God told her that he would destroy her prosecutors. This was considered heresy. Anne was then sentenced to banishment from the jurisdiction. Overall, I just found the trial to be hilarious. Some of the accusations were such a stretch. I especially enjoyed the accusation that Anne broke the law of the fifth commandment, honoring your mother and father. It took me a minute to figure out that that they actually thought that this meant honoring the “fathers of the commonwealth” (seriously!? …Yes) the governor states on page 105, “if they be the fathers of the commonwealth, and they of another religion, if you entertain them then you dishonor your parents and are justly punishable.” …wow….<br />
I was also surprised at how blunt the puritan men were about the status of women. When Anne Hutchinson was being sentenced, the governor states: “Mrs. Hutchinson, the sentence of the court you hear is that you are banished from out of our jurisdiction as ''being a women not fit for our society''….” Harsh words. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I had one main question when reading the trial, I had no idea what a Covenant of Works was. I googled it, and I came up with this definition:<br />
<br />
The covenant of works is God's promise to Adam. In return for perfect obedience, he would merit God's reward. The reward in this covenant does not result from grace; rather, it is a debt owed to Adam for keeping his part of the covenant. Unfortunately, Adam failed to keep the covenant and "after the fall, the free gifts on which salvation depends were withdrawn, and natural gifts corrupted and defiled" (Calvin). [[http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/english/melani/novel_18c/defoe/puritanism.html#works]]<br />
<br />
However, I am still confused as to what Anne Hutchinson was being charged with. She was charged with accusing ministers of laboring under a Covenant of Works. What exactly does that mean? -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I was also confused about what that means. I know Dr. M said in class that she was charged with saying bad things about the ministers and going against the church so I'm guessing that is what that means. -- Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
: I am no theologian but I will try to answer some of these questions as best I can, anyone else feel free to jump in. It is my understanding that Puritans believed that God no longer spoke to anyone in direct revelation and that His last word to people was through the Bible. Anne Hutchinson claims that God spoke to her directly and the Puritans believe that kind of claim to be heresy. So that is what they get Hutchinson on. Quickly defining Covenant of Works...In the Old Testament God makes a covenant with His people that if they obey Him they will be saved (so they are saved through their actions i.e. works). For Christians the Covenant of Works no longer is necessary because of Christ's life, death, resurrection He makes a new covenant with His people and that is one of salvation through grace (the grace of God that is) stepping in and saving people.<br />
:Hutchinson is also under scrutiny because of the Puritan belief in predestination that she challenged; arguing that if we were predestined to go to Heaven or Hell then it would not matter what ones actions were in the slightest. She also criticized many preachers of emphasizing the importance of good works over salvation through grace, implying (as some saw it) that she was saying that these preachers were saying that salvation was through works (covenant of works) rather than salvation through grace (covenant of grace / new covenant). Hope that helped some. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 21:54, 16 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Regarding Anne Hutchinson's Trial<br />
I find it interesting that whenever the governor asks her a question that she rebukes it. In particular, when the governor asks her why she keeps a meeting at her house on a set day. She responds that is lawful for her to do so. Implying that she has not broken any law and then puts "unlawful act" in his lap by saying "can you find a warrant for yourself and condemn me for the same thing?" Meaning do you not have a religious meetings in your home. She is witty and clever with her words in proving her case. The governor seems to stumble to find fault towards her act of meeting. With each question the governor asked she has a rebuttal. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
Anne Hutchinson’s transgressions seemed to take on a deeper significance to Puritan leaders because of her gender. Not only did she express a different, radical theology, she, a woman, preached this theology to men. When the court asked her if she taught men, Anne Hutchinson artfully replied that she was teaching the men of the court at that very moment. To these leaders, Anne Hutchinson threatened their religion and their patriarchal social order where women never had authority over men. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
The transcript of Anne Hutchinson’s trial had me wondering about the recording techniques of the 17th century. How did they go about making courtroom transcripts? It’s not like they had recording equipment. I really doubt anyone could have written fast enough to keep up with everything everyone was saying. You’d have to be the Jesse Owens of scribes to keep up with some of those long monologues of Anne Hutchinson. Did they have several people recording at the same time? Or maybe the transcriber just asked everyone to speak really slowly? All kidding aside, that brings up issues of how accurate and trustworthy these trial records are. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
: While I am not familiar with stenography in the colonial court systems I'm willing to bet that the stenographer is writing everything in shorthand (seeing that shorthand has been around for many centuries) so that could aid someone in writing down the court proceedings. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 21:32, 16 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Lancashire, England Women’s Meeting structure, Quaker women in 1675 ==<br />
The Quakers seemed to give equality more of a chance than Puritans. This document reiterates many common themes of female inferiority. Women were weaker and they needed to stay at home with their families. However, this epistle ends in a way that really strengthened women. The female authors of this document asserted that God could make the weak strong and even used a masculine, military analogy. Puritans would never refer to women as “valliant Souldiers of Jesus Christ” or arm them with “Armour of Light” and “the Sword of his Eternal Spirit.” (pg 113) -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
Although the Quakers did give women a more active role, it seemed like the women's meetings were more for the purpose of policing each other. They had the "authority" to "Judge" and "Condemn" those who had done something wrong. So, were all of these matters dealt with just among the women's meetings or were there some offenses that were brought before the men's and women's meetings jointly? There is also a reference to the "new Covenant." Is this a distinct belief difference as opposed to the "covenant of works" (referred to in Anne Hutchinson's trial)? -Nancy Lee<br />
<br />
: I agree with much of your interpretation here. At first blush it seems like that Quaker women have more freedom (and they certainly do) when the text is analyzed more closely their power only seems to extend to other women and children, although that may just be my reading of it. As a theological aside I will attempt to answer your last question. The "New Covenant" theologically speaking is the covenant Christ made with His Church and that is one of salvation through grace and not by works. So yes, the new covenant is in direct opposition to the the covenant of works (which is often associated with the old covenant that was based on obedience to Mosaic Law). I think in this part of the trial they are having a semantic argument over the definition of "covenant of works" so it can be a little confusing if you are not familiar with the term. Hope I didn't just make things more confusing. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 21:28, 16 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
In agreeing with the others, they do seem to have some power and control, but yyes it is limited to other women, children, and womanly duties. The emphasis placed on religion and God is so clear and evident it just makes me wonder what were the woman of the time in Virginia or Maryland thinking and doing. Did they value these roles as much even though they may not have been so devoutly religious? I think so. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
== David Brainerd, 1746, account of the Great Awakening ==<br />
<br />
A Remarkable Instance of Awakening-Woloch Reading<br />
The ideas ministers had during the Great Awakening seize to amaze me, as in David Brainerd's case he really did believe he was saving the young Indian woman. "This was indeed a suprising day of God's power, and seemed enough to convince an atheist of the truth, importance, and power of God's word." He believed her not being able to control herself nor speak to anyone was a sign that God had reached her and the Anglo way of life was coming forward in Native American culture. My question is did Native Americans really wish to conform? Or did they see it as a way to avoid confrontation, when they were now outnumbered by the settlers? But overall did ministers think they were reaching all the people they saw as "uncivilized"? -Megan W. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Narrative of Old Elizabeth, published in 1863 when she was 97, about her religious conversion in the 1770s. ==<br />
<br />
When I was reading this passage I kind of felt like she was justifying the things that had gone wrong in her life, and almost making exucses for God. It seemed as though she was trying to make sense of the times when she felt she got the short end of the stick, for example, when she coudln't conceive for several years, or when she had poor health. It's as if she were trying to talk herself into thinking that God had a purpose in it all, and that it wasn't just random bad luck. I felt sorry for her in a way.--[[User:Mturner|Mary Turner]] 21:01, 16 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
First of all, my good gracious how did she live so long, 97 yeard old in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Her story is very unique and I've never heard of anyone like her. It is sad that she had so much misery, followed by uplift, but at least she got the uplift and 97 years of life!! - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
== Elizabeth Godman lawsuit (1653); Elizabeth Godman tried for witchcraft, 1655 ==<br />
<br />
'''I understand that it was a completely different time and that the Puritans and other early colonists believed in witchcraft. But, when I started reading this story it almost made me laugh.''' Mr. Atwaters had dreams about witches while his son was sick so that made him think that a witch made his son sick. It just seems so crazy to me. I was also surprised that Elizabeth could sue her neighbors for calling her a witch. I guess since this instance was before the 1692 witch trials in Salem Village, maybe it wasn't taken so seriously. '''Why do you think Elizabeth Godman's situation was different from the witch trials in Salem Village?'''--Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought the claims against Elizabeth Godman along with '''the fact that she filed a lawsuit was interesting'''. Many of the people claiming she was a witch seemed to think that their pigs or chickens died because of her; because she was a witch. I thought that was comical. I liked the fact that she was able to sue them too. The time of the trial was before the Salem Witch trials so maybe that is why the claims did not have enough justification. I am sure if they were made in 1692 she would have lost the case. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
<br />
After reading the trial transcripts, '''I was almost positive that an indiscretion had taken place between Elizabeth Godman and Mr. Bishop. It sounded like there might have been an affair, and in order to save himself from the wrath of his wife, he accused Godman of being a witch'''. Of course, I'm sure that nobody had to twist Mrs. Bishop's arm about accusing Godman of being a witch. I think there was definately some foul play and jealousy at hand. --[[User:Mturner|Mary Turner]] 21:06, 16 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Bridget Bishop convicted of witchcraft 1692; “Casco Girls” accuse George Burroughs, 1692 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
The Salem witch trials I could not help but wonder where they came up with the ridiculous accusations, pigs dying after a visit from a women equaled her being a witch, did any of the citizens ever consider alternatives? I think the magistrate felt they were given a power and to secure general security they would convict a woman for looking at a child the wrong way or muttering a prayer seen as an incantation. '''In the case of Bridget Bishop, I did wonder did she wish to be seen as a witch?''' Or did all of the offenses against her make the claim of her being a witch come true? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I agree that they really do jump to conclusions. It is like they think there could be no other possible reason why the pigs died. I think it goes back to what we talked about in class, that maybe the accusers were accusing people of witchcraft to show that they are holy. Because only the truly holy people could recognize evil? Religion is such a huge influence on the NE colonists. I think that cases like Bridget Bishop and George Burroughs show just how strong that influence was. --Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
I found it interesting in the trial of Bridget Bishop (as well as other witchcraft trials) one of the big arguments for her to be a witch was the illness and death of Children. That''' a witch is shown to be the very opposite of the proper woman (who gives birth to children) she therefore it connected with the deaths or illnesses of children. She is the corrupted version of the perfect wife, mother, and woman inverting all morality and virtue.''' She is often also physically corrupted as in Bishops case upon examination they found a “preternatural teat” that ceased to exist but a few short hours later. With Halloween coming upon us soon, it is interesting to think about how these trials may have affected our ideas of such a perverted creature and her connection to the inverted holiday. -- Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
== Elizabeth Sandwith Drinker, wealthy Philadelphia woman, diary – 1758-1794 ==<br />
<br />
'''I think Elizabeth Sandwith Drinker's diary entries really reflect the discrepancies between the experiences of different colonial women, as a result of race, social and class status, geographic location,''' etc. Elizabeth is described as a "wealthy Philadelphian", and thus I think her accounts and experiences differ dramatically from those of other women- not just women living in different regions or areas (i.e., the Southern colonies), but also in her own town. For example, Karin Wulf describes the "Hucksters" in Philadelphia who were "at the lower end of the scale" (p.101) and would purchase second-hand or damaged goods and then re-sell them on the city streets as a way to earn money. Conversely, Elizabeth describes the work that others are doing for her: "Phebe Morris here this Afternoon fitting a Gown for me...", "George Baker drove up Polly Campbell, whome I have hir'd this day to tind my little Henry...". She also describes the frequent comings-and-goings of different maids in her service. '''Her experiences are in stark contrast to the every-day experiences and lives of the female slaves on Landon Carter's Virginia plantation,whom he refers to as "sordid creatures" (p.83).''' Carter states, "I have ordered the wench to be tyed up and severely slashed to keep her care if possible; but I am afraid it will not be long enough remembered." (p.83) From these excerpts, the reader can safely conclude that Elizabeth was leading a very different life than those of African American female slaves. -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
== Landon Carter complains about his female slaves (1771-1773) ==<br />
You can read throughout his complaints, he sees himself to be superior to them, calling them "absurd" and "lazy and careless." As he complains about how someone must be there when they are cutting down the tobacco or they will do it wrong. Is someone around to show his slaves how to properly do it or explain to them? I'm sure the complaints of slaves being in pain are legitimate and Landon Carter is just not sympathetic to their aches and pains. He disregards their complaints and treats them like work horses. He says they need a "good whipping" and that will make the pain go away as it cured Mrs. Dairy Mary's "invisible pain in her hip." Then eventually he admits that no matter what the punishment they still will not work well because they are "negros". I think that during that time that black slaves were looked at inferior to the white colonists but '''what was the degree of treatment of slaves? Was Landon Carter's assumption about black slaves generally agreed upon or was he the exception? When I read George Washington Assigns Work to His Slaves, there wasn't any comments about slaves being mistreated.''' -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
'''Landon Carter’s diary showed that he was frustrated with what he saw as the stupidity and laziness of his slaves. I think it is more likely that these slaves were engaged in a passive aggressive resistance to his authority. A slave woman such as Sicely, the cowkeeper, had very little control over her own life, but she could ruin her master’s day by allowing a cow to wander into a swamp.''' -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
<br />
Landon Carter must have been extremely annoyed and fed up with his female slaves to record their laziness and his agitation in his journal so often. He mentioned the women being over dramatic, claiming they are sick but in actuality are not, and being bored with their work so mistakes are made.''' To me,he doesn't seem like a "typical" southern slave owner. Most would force their slaves to do work and not except excuses for their laziness. He seemed to be giving up in his last entry claiming that he can't do anything to train them to do their work.''' -Amy Van Ness<br />
'''<br />
Landon Carter is a whiner.''' He complains when his slaves make mistakes and whips them to help them remember to do their jobs right. I do not understand how he can think that will make them work harder. To me that would just make me angry and I would do worse then I did before. I guess maybe he tried to help Mary Mcginis daughter but that was not really help. When things do not get done it could be for another reason then they were lazy. He is so arrogant and feel superior to his slaves. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
== George Washington's slave list (1786) and slave work assignments (1786-88) ==<br />
'''I thought it was a bit odd the way some of the work assignments were referred to. The reference "all the plows...were plowing the Corn and the Hoes weeding it" seems like the people doing the work were just pieces of equipment.''' - Nancy Lee<br />
<br />
I found George Washington’s listing his slaves to be rather interesting. He seemed to be very much aware of all of them. He knew all of their names, though of course the majority had no surnames, and jobs. He also knew which children went with what parent, listed by their mother not father, and how old these children were. '''Were all slave owners so knowledgeable of their slaves? Or was this common practice, along the lines of knowing all the details of your property? It did seem like GW was simply cataloging his property more than anything, particularly when he listed some slaves as blind, lame, or old.''' -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
== Eulalia Perez Recalls her work in a mission in Spanish CA in early 19th Century (1877) ==<br />
<br />
Why did Father Sanchez want Perez to marry Juan Marine after she past the age of child bearing (which I assume since she stated that all of her daughter's were married)? I suppose I just assumed that marriage was more important for the younger generation. I'm sure Father Sanchez honestly thought it would better her life I just never thought of the idea of arranging marriages for older widows. - John Rowley<br />
<br />
== Karin Wulf, “Women’s Work in Colonial Philadelphia,” 2000 ==<br />
<br />
Karin Wulf concludes her article by stating that "work", especially for women of 18th Century Philadelphia and other urban cities, became "an important source of personal and community identity." (p.103) She continues by arguing that many workers identified with their work, especially if it "enmeshed them in networks of obligation and association." '''I am wondering if a colonial woman's perception and close identification of her work as being related to her place in the larger community is resulting from a sense of wanting to feel "needed" by others, especially if the woman who was working (either outside or inside the home) was single or a widow'''. Perhaps work offered such women a means of fulfillment- a way to feel that they had an obligation and responsibility to fulfill to the larger community. I'm not sure if I am making much sense. I guess I am thinking that upon the death of their husbands, or if they were single and did not have any children, working allowed such women to feel that they were "needed" (I can't think of a better word)and could contribute to the community and society in their own way. '''I think exploring the emotions and motivations of the women to take up work would be very interesting, though probably difficult to research.''' -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
Karin Wulf describes how women made money despite the fact that they were not really to work the men were. Retailing was huge for women in colonial times. Wulf says that women could have made up half of the retailing business and I find that interesting because there are still more women in retail then there are men. I like how she pointed out that even rich widows worked shopkeepers at high end stores. Women from all social classes made money. Most women needed income after they became widows because their husbands did not leave them their entire inheritance. Most of that would go to there sons. I like this article because we are not taught that much about how women made money in colonial times. -LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
I thought this article on Women’s work in Colonial Philadelphia was very interesting as we often do not think of the roles women played being connected to independently generating money during this colonial period. '''I think the key phrase from this section is on page 98 where the author states that a problem with assuming women’s sole source of income was that it “casts women as only passive recipients of wealth, rather than generators of wealth.” Indeed the author goes about disproving this idea showing how women were capable of generating their own income capable of sustaining them and their families upon the death of their husbands or if they chose never to marry.''' Work consisted of gender specific works, such as was connected with the family and home, and nongender specific works that could be picked up from the trade of husband or father. Whichever the case, this article shows women as being productive citizens, contributing to their own wealth as well as that of their community and doing so, it is an important contribution to the study of women in colonial America. -- Elyse Lawrence</div>Rocknrowleyhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_4_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 4 Questions/Comments-327 092009-09-17T04:42:27Z<p>Rocknrowley: /* Eulalia Perez Recalls her work in a mission in Spanish CA in early 19th Century (1877) */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Cross-source questions/comments ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Anne Bradstreet, “A Spiritual Autobiography,” ~1670 ==<br />
<br />
When I read Anne Bradstreet’s spiritual autobiography, I was amazed by the necessity of Puritans to deny their individual wants, needs, and rationale. Anne described joining the church as ‘submitting’. When Anne was sick, she said God was trying to humble her. Then once God finally granted Anne children, she began a new struggle to extinguish their individuality and worked “till Christ bee formed in you [her children].”(pg 100) Given this context, one can see that an individual thinking on his/her own, such as Anne Hutchinson, was very radical and seen as dangerous. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
I was surpised in this article that Anne Bradstreet considered whether the Catholic doctrine was right when she herself was a Puritan (she decides to stick with her Puritan beliefs) but that moment of questioning was interesting to me, especially given the violent history that Catholics and Protestants had in the previous century and the mistrust that each side had for the other. - Will Hechmer<br />
<br />
== Anne Hutchinson’s trial, 1637 ==<br />
Anne Hutchinson is now one of my top 10 favorite women in history. The overall summary of her trial is stated on page 103: she was charged with dishonoring the community fathers, of holding meetings at her home in a manner inappropriate to her sex, and of insulting ministers at a private conference by accusing them of laboring under a Covenant of Works. Anne Hutchinson then admits having a revelation where God told her that he would destroy her prosecutors. This was considered heresy. Anne was then sentenced to banishment from the jurisdiction. Overall, I just found the trial to be hilarious. Some of the accusations were such a stretch. I especially enjoyed the accusation that Anne broke the law of the fifth commandment, honoring your mother and father. It took me a minute to figure out that that they actually thought that this meant honoring the “fathers of the commonwealth” (seriously!? …Yes) the governor states on page 105, “if they be the fathers of the commonwealth, and they of another religion, if you entertain them then you dishonor your parents and are justly punishable.” …wow….<br />
I was also surprised at how blunt the puritan men were about the status of women. When Anne Hutchinson was being sentenced, the governor states: “Mrs. Hutchinson, the sentence of the court you hear is that you are banished from out of our jurisdiction as ''being a women not fit for our society''….” Harsh words. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I had one main question when reading the trial, I had no idea what a Covenant of Works was. I googled it, and I came up with this definition:<br />
<br />
The covenant of works is God's promise to Adam. In return for perfect obedience, he would merit God's reward. The reward in this covenant does not result from grace; rather, it is a debt owed to Adam for keeping his part of the covenant. Unfortunately, Adam failed to keep the covenant and "after the fall, the free gifts on which salvation depends were withdrawn, and natural gifts corrupted and defiled" (Calvin). [[http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/english/melani/novel_18c/defoe/puritanism.html#works]]<br />
<br />
However, I am still confused as to what Anne Hutchinson was being charged with. She was charged with accusing ministers of laboring under a Covenant of Works. What exactly does that mean? -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I was also confused about what that means. I know Dr. M said in class that she was charged with saying bad things about the ministers and going against the church so I'm guessing that is what that means. -- Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
: I am no theologian but I will try to answer some of these questions as best I can, anyone else feel free to jump in. It is my understanding that Puritans believed that God no longer spoke to anyone in direct revelation and that His last word to people was through the Bible. Anne Hutchinson claims that God spoke to her directly and the Puritans believe that kind of claim to be heresy. So that is what they get Hutchinson on. Quickly defining Covenant of Works...In the Old Testament God makes a covenant with His people that if they obey Him they will be saved (so they are saved through their actions i.e. works). For Christians the Covenant of Works no longer is necessary because of Christ's life, death, resurrection He makes a new covenant with His people and that is one of salvation through grace (the grace of God that is) stepping in and saving people.<br />
:Hutchinson is also under scrutiny because of the Puritan belief in predestination that she challenged; arguing that if we were predestined to go to Heaven or Hell then it would not matter what ones actions were in the slightest. She also criticized many preachers of emphasizing the importance of good works over salvation through grace, implying (as some saw it) that she was saying that these preachers were saying that salvation was through works (covenant of works) rather than salvation through grace (covenant of grace / new covenant). Hope that helped some. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 21:54, 16 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Regarding Anne Hutchinson's Trial<br />
I find it interesting that whenever the governor asks her a question that she rebukes it. In particular, when the governor asks her why she keeps a meeting at her house on a set day. She responds that is lawful for her to do so. Implying that she has not broken any law and then puts "unlawful act" in his lap by saying "can you find a warrant for yourself and condemn me for the same thing?" Meaning do you not have a religious meetings in your home. She is witty and clever with her words in proving her case. The governor seems to stumble to find fault towards her act of meeting. With each question the governor asked she has a rebuttal. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
Anne Hutchinson’s transgressions seemed to take on a deeper significance to Puritan leaders because of her gender. Not only did she express a different, radical theology, she, a woman, preached this theology to men. When the court asked her if she taught men, Anne Hutchinson artfully replied that she was teaching the men of the court at that very moment. To these leaders, Anne Hutchinson threatened their religion and their patriarchal social order where women never had authority over men. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
The transcript of Anne Hutchinson’s trial had me wondering about the recording techniques of the 17th century. How did they go about making courtroom transcripts? It’s not like they had recording equipment. I really doubt anyone could have written fast enough to keep up with everything everyone was saying. You’d have to be the Jesse Owens of scribes to keep up with some of those long monologues of Anne Hutchinson. Did they have several people recording at the same time? Or maybe the transcriber just asked everyone to speak really slowly? All kidding aside, that brings up issues of how accurate and trustworthy these trial records are. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
: While I am not familiar with stenography in the colonial court systems I'm willing to bet that the stenographer is writing everything in shorthand (seeing that shorthand has been around for many centuries) so that could aid someone in writing down the court proceedings. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 21:32, 16 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Lancashire, England Women’s Meeting structure, Quaker women in 1675 ==<br />
The Quakers seemed to give equality more of a chance than Puritans. This document reiterates many common themes of female inferiority. Women were weaker and they needed to stay at home with their families. However, this epistle ends in a way that really strengthened women. The female authors of this document asserted that God could make the weak strong and even used a masculine, military analogy. Puritans would never refer to women as “valliant Souldiers of Jesus Christ” or arm them with “Armour of Light” and “the Sword of his Eternal Spirit.” (pg 113) -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
Although the Quakers did give women a more active role, it seemed like the women's meetings were more for the purpose of policing each other. They had the "authority" to "Judge" and "Condemn" those who had done something wrong. So, were all of these matters dealt with just among the women's meetings or were there some offenses that were brought before the men's and women's meetings jointly? There is also a reference to the "new Covenant." Is this a distinct belief difference as opposed to the "covenant of works" (referred to in Anne Hutchinson's trial)? -Nancy Lee<br />
<br />
: I agree with much of your interpretation here. At first blush it seems like that Quaker women have more freedom (and they certainly do) when the text is analyzed more closely their power only seems to extend to other women and children, although that may just be my reading of it. As a theological aside I will attempt to answer your last question. The "New Covenant" theologically speaking is the covenant Christ made with His Church and that is one of salvation through grace and not by works. So yes, the new covenant is in direct opposition to the the covenant of works (which is often associated with the old covenant that was based on obedience to Mosaic Law). I think in this part of the trial they are having a semantic argument over the definition of "covenant of works" so it can be a little confusing if you are not familiar with the term. Hope I didn't just make things more confusing. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 21:28, 16 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
In agreeing with the others, they do seem to have some power and control, but yyes it is limited to other women, children, and womanly duties. The emphasis placed on religion and God is so clear and evident it just makes me wonder what were the woman of the time in Virginia or Maryland thinking and doing. Did they value these roles as much even though they may not have been so devoutly religious? I think so. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
== David Brainerd, 1746, account of the Great Awakening ==<br />
<br />
A Remarkable Instance of Awakening-Woloch Reading<br />
The ideas ministers had during the Great Awakening seize to amaze me, as in David Brainerd's case he really did believe he was saving the young Indian woman. "This was indeed a suprising day of God's power, and seemed enough to convince an atheist of the truth, importance, and power of God's word." He believed her not being able to control herself nor speak to anyone was a sign that God had reached her and the Anglo way of life was coming forward in Native American culture. My question is did Native Americans really wish to conform? Or did they see it as a way to avoid confrontation, when they were now outnumbered by the settlers? But overall did ministers think they were reaching all the people they saw as "uncivilized"? -Megan W. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Narrative of Old Elizabeth, published in 1863 when she was 97, about her religious conversion in the 1770s. ==<br />
<br />
When I was reading this passage I kind of felt like she was justifying the things that had gone wrong in her life, and almost making exucses for God. It seemed as though she was trying to make sense of the times when she felt she got the short end of the stick, for example, when she coudln't conceive for several years, or when she had poor health. It's as if she were trying to talk herself into thinking that God had a purpose in it all, and that it wasn't just random bad luck. I felt sorry for her in a way.--[[User:Mturner|Mary Turner]] 21:01, 16 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
First of all, my good gracious how did she live so long, 97 yeard old in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Her story is very unique and I've never heard of anyone like her. It is sad that she had so much misery, followed by uplift, but at least she got the uplift and 97 years of life!! - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
== Elizabeth Godman lawsuit (1653); Elizabeth Godman tried for witchcraft, 1655 ==<br />
<br />
'''I understand that it was a completely different time and that the Puritans and other early colonists believed in witchcraft. But, when I started reading this story it almost made me laugh.''' Mr. Atwaters had dreams about witches while his son was sick so that made him think that a witch made his son sick. It just seems so crazy to me. I was also surprised that Elizabeth could sue her neighbors for calling her a witch. I guess since this instance was before the 1692 witch trials in Salem Village, maybe it wasn't taken so seriously. '''Why do you think Elizabeth Godman's situation was different from the witch trials in Salem Village?'''--Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought the claims against Elizabeth Godman along with '''the fact that she filed a lawsuit was interesting'''. Many of the people claiming she was a witch seemed to think that their pigs or chickens died because of her; because she was a witch. I thought that was comical. I liked the fact that she was able to sue them too. The time of the trial was before the Salem Witch trials so maybe that is why the claims did not have enough justification. I am sure if they were made in 1692 she would have lost the case. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
<br />
After reading the trial transcripts, '''I was almost positive that an indiscretion had taken place between Elizabeth Godman and Mr. Bishop. It sounded like there might have been an affair, and in order to save himself from the wrath of his wife, he accused Godman of being a witch'''. Of course, I'm sure that nobody had to twist Mrs. Bishop's arm about accusing Godman of being a witch. I think there was definately some foul play and jealousy at hand. --[[User:Mturner|Mary Turner]] 21:06, 16 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Bridget Bishop convicted of witchcraft 1692; “Casco Girls” accuse George Burroughs, 1692 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
The Salem witch trials I could not help but wonder where they came up with the ridiculous accusations, pigs dying after a visit from a women equaled her being a witch, did any of the citizens ever consider alternatives? I think the magistrate felt they were given a power and to secure general security they would convict a woman for looking at a child the wrong way or muttering a prayer seen as an incantation. '''In the case of Bridget Bishop, I did wonder did she wish to be seen as a witch?''' Or did all of the offenses against her make the claim of her being a witch come true? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I agree that they really do jump to conclusions. It is like they think there could be no other possible reason why the pigs died. I think it goes back to what we talked about in class, that maybe the accusers were accusing people of witchcraft to show that they are holy. Because only the truly holy people could recognize evil? Religion is such a huge influence on the NE colonists. I think that cases like Bridget Bishop and George Burroughs show just how strong that influence was. --Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
I found it interesting in the trial of Bridget Bishop (as well as other witchcraft trials) one of the big arguments for her to be a witch was the illness and death of Children. That''' a witch is shown to be the very opposite of the proper woman (who gives birth to children) she therefore it connected with the deaths or illnesses of children. She is the corrupted version of the perfect wife, mother, and woman inverting all morality and virtue.''' She is often also physically corrupted as in Bishops case upon examination they found a “preternatural teat” that ceased to exist but a few short hours later. With Halloween coming upon us soon, it is interesting to think about how these trials may have affected our ideas of such a perverted creature and her connection to the inverted holiday. -- Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
== Elizabeth Sandwith Drinker, wealthy Philadelphia woman, diary – 1758-1794 ==<br />
<br />
'''I think Elizabeth Sandwith Drinker's diary entries really reflect the discrepancies between the experiences of different colonial women, as a result of race, social and class status, geographic location,''' etc. Elizabeth is described as a "wealthy Philadelphian", and thus I think her accounts and experiences differ dramatically from those of other women- not just women living in different regions or areas (i.e., the Southern colonies), but also in her own town. For example, Karin Wulf describes the "Hucksters" in Philadelphia who were "at the lower end of the scale" (p.101) and would purchase second-hand or damaged goods and then re-sell them on the city streets as a way to earn money. Conversely, Elizabeth describes the work that others are doing for her: "Phebe Morris here this Afternoon fitting a Gown for me...", "George Baker drove up Polly Campbell, whome I have hir'd this day to tind my little Henry...". She also describes the frequent comings-and-goings of different maids in her service. '''Her experiences are in stark contrast to the every-day experiences and lives of the female slaves on Landon Carter's Virginia plantation,whom he refers to as "sordid creatures" (p.83).''' Carter states, "I have ordered the wench to be tyed up and severely slashed to keep her care if possible; but I am afraid it will not be long enough remembered." (p.83) From these excerpts, the reader can safely conclude that Elizabeth was leading a very different life than those of African American female slaves. -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
== Landon Carter complains about his female slaves (1771-1773) ==<br />
You can read throughout his complaints, he sees himself to be superior to them, calling them "absurd" and "lazy and careless." As he complains about how someone must be there when they are cutting down the tobacco or they will do it wrong. Is someone around to show his slaves how to properly do it or explain to them? I'm sure the complaints of slaves being in pain are legitimate and Landon Carter is just not sympathetic to their aches and pains. He disregards their complaints and treats them like work horses. He says they need a "good whipping" and that will make the pain go away as it cured Mrs. Dairy Mary's "invisible pain in her hip." Then eventually he admits that no matter what the punishment they still will not work well because they are "negros". I think that during that time that black slaves were looked at inferior to the white colonists but '''what was the degree of treatment of slaves? Was Landon Carter's assumption about black slaves generally agreed upon or was he the exception? When I read George Washington Assigns Work to His Slaves, there wasn't any comments about slaves being mistreated.''' -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
'''Landon Carter’s diary showed that he was frustrated with what he saw as the stupidity and laziness of his slaves. I think it is more likely that these slaves were engaged in a passive aggressive resistance to his authority. A slave woman such as Sicely, the cowkeeper, had very little control over her own life, but she could ruin her master’s day by allowing a cow to wander into a swamp.''' -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
<br />
Landon Carter must have been extremely annoyed and fed up with his female slaves to record their laziness and his agitation in his journal so often. He mentioned the women being over dramatic, claiming they are sick but in actuality are not, and being bored with their work so mistakes are made.''' To me,he doesn't seem like a "typical" southern slave owner. Most would force their slaves to do work and not except excuses for their laziness. He seemed to be giving up in his last entry claiming that he can't do anything to train them to do their work.''' -Amy Van Ness<br />
'''<br />
Landon Carter is a whiner.''' He complains when his slaves make mistakes and whips them to help them remember to do their jobs right. I do not understand how he can think that will make them work harder. To me that would just make me angry and I would do worse then I did before. I guess maybe he tried to help Mary Mcginis daughter but that was not really help. When things do not get done it could be for another reason then they were lazy. He is so arrogant and feel superior to his slaves. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
== George Washington's slave list (1786) and slave work assignments (1786-88) ==<br />
'''I thought it was a bit odd the way some of the work assignments were referred to. The reference "all the plows...were plowing the Corn and the Hoes weeding it" seems like the people doing the work were just pieces of equipment.''' - Nancy Lee<br />
<br />
I found George Washington’s listing his slaves to be rather interesting. He seemed to be very much aware of all of them. He knew all of their names, though of course the majority had no surnames, and jobs. He also knew which children went with what parent, listed by their mother not father, and how old these children were. '''Were all slave owners so knowledgeable of their slaves? Or was this common practice, along the lines of knowing all the details of your property? It did seem like GW was simply cataloging his property more than anything, particularly when he listed some slaves as blind, lame, or old.''' -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
== Eulalia Perez Recalls her work in a mission in Spanish CA in early 19th Century (1877) ==<br />
<br />
Why did Father Sanchez want Perez to marry Juan Marine after she past the age of child bearing (which I assume since she stated that all of her daughter's were married)? I suppose I just assumed that marriage was more important for the younger generation. I'm sure Father Sanchez honestly thought it would better her life I just never thought of the idea of arranging marriages for older widows.<br />
<br />
== Karin Wulf, “Women’s Work in Colonial Philadelphia,” 2000 ==<br />
<br />
Karin Wulf concludes her article by stating that "work", especially for women of 18th Century Philadelphia and other urban cities, became "an important source of personal and community identity." (p.103) She continues by arguing that many workers identified with their work, especially if it "enmeshed them in networks of obligation and association." '''I am wondering if a colonial woman's perception and close identification of her work as being related to her place in the larger community is resulting from a sense of wanting to feel "needed" by others, especially if the woman who was working (either outside or inside the home) was single or a widow'''. Perhaps work offered such women a means of fulfillment- a way to feel that they had an obligation and responsibility to fulfill to the larger community. I'm not sure if I am making much sense. I guess I am thinking that upon the death of their husbands, or if they were single and did not have any children, working allowed such women to feel that they were "needed" (I can't think of a better word)and could contribute to the community and society in their own way. '''I think exploring the emotions and motivations of the women to take up work would be very interesting, though probably difficult to research.''' -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
Karin Wulf describes how women made money despite the fact that they were not really to work the men were. Retailing was huge for women in colonial times. Wulf says that women could have made up half of the retailing business and I find that interesting because there are still more women in retail then there are men. I like how she pointed out that even rich widows worked shopkeepers at high end stores. Women from all social classes made money. Most women needed income after they became widows because their husbands did not leave them their entire inheritance. Most of that would go to there sons. I like this article because we are not taught that much about how women made money in colonial times. -LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
I thought this article on Women’s work in Colonial Philadelphia was very interesting as we often do not think of the roles women played being connected to independently generating money during this colonial period. '''I think the key phrase from this section is on page 98 where the author states that a problem with assuming women’s sole source of income was that it “casts women as only passive recipients of wealth, rather than generators of wealth.” Indeed the author goes about disproving this idea showing how women were capable of generating their own income capable of sustaining them and their families upon the death of their husbands or if they chose never to marry.''' Work consisted of gender specific works, such as was connected with the family and home, and nongender specific works that could be picked up from the trade of husband or father. Whichever the case, this article shows women as being productive citizens, contributing to their own wealth as well as that of their community and doing so, it is an important contribution to the study of women in colonial America. -- Elyse Lawrence</div>Rocknrowleyhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_3_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 3 Questions/Comments-327 092009-09-10T14:19:36Z<p>Rocknrowley: /* Katherine Kish Sklar article, “To Use her as His Wife” */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching/comparative comments ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In the Nancy Woloch reading '''I found the use of the family to be very functional to the colonizers, and it changed greatly through time based off of necessity. This meant major changes in the placement of women in society.''' In 1672 family was a “fundamental economic unit” (25) and meant the health of the colony. Due to the focus on family harmony, women were able to remarry and create new homes that would be more beneficial to society. Furthermore, men often left their estates to their spouse. This meant that women had a certain amount of power. By 1712, the power of women was minimized and a hierarchy among the family unit arose where men were on top, then women, followed by male children and female children. At this time, women were supposed to be obedient to their husbands, and in return, the husbands would treat the women as a piece of themselves. Divorce was rare. By 1815, women had virtually no power. Divorce was almost non-existent and “married women had no independent legal existence, property rights, or control over their children”(42). Women’s roles changed quickly based off of what function the family needed to have at that particular time. '''It’s no wonder why so many women ran away.''' –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
After spending some time last week learning about the lifestyles of the Native American women, through the lense of the somewhat bias English colonists, '''I found it interesting this week to see that as the settlers faced certain unfamiliar obstacles in their new surroundings, they adapted to many of the Native Americans' way of life. It almost seems like once they had to roll their sleeves up and actually make a living for themselves here, they realized that at times-- women must tend the field, people must marry several times, and community networks become the heart of the social structure, all of which had been elements of Native American life that the colonists had previously thought to be unnatural.'''--[[User:Mturner|Mary Turner]] 17:44, 9 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
What connects these pieces are the issues of morality and religion. These works reflect how morality and religion affected the family/household (Wadsworth and Wesley), law (Bailey) and daily life/work. Issues of morality and religion play a part in our lives today, but not nearly as much. Today we must abide by very secular and rigid institutions of government and education. For Colonial woman however, religion and issues of morality were the dominant institution. It affected their daily lives. Gender for them was not something recognized by law, but rather recognized by the bible. For some, this led to relatively better conditions. For others, harsher standards of living and a longer path to legal and societal equity. – Natalie Weiner<br />
<br />
== Katherine Kish Sklar article, “To Use her as His Wife” ==<br />
<br />
It is stated on page 80 that '''Martha Root pushed her claim against Elisha even though her actions incurred further risks to her reputation and hence to her future ability to marry. So why would she do this?''' Another question that came up in the reading was the issue of marriage. '''Would Martha have even wanted to marry Elisha after he ruined her reputation?''' --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
'''It seemed that most of a woman's support in a case of having a child out of wedlock came from the church, which i find surprising because of the "man being above the woman" idea that they followed.''' In the article wasn't it the church that took the father of the child to court after Martha received a settlement? - Will Hechmer<br />
<br />
I was surprised to find out how relaxed the attitudes towards getting pregnant before marriage was. Though Martha did not win her case, the fact that she could take him to court to try to get him to marry him indicates to me that perhaps women had a little more control over their lives that I had previously thought. Perhaps women used pregnancy as a way to get more influence on their marriage, since who you married was so important at the time. -John Rowley<br />
<br />
== Benjamin Wadsworth, 1712 – Well-Ordered Family ==<br />
Wadsworth begins by talking about how a husband and a wife are supposed to love each other, take care of each other when they are sick..etc. '''I was surprised when I first read this because it seemed almost like an equal relationship.''' Of course, then I read the part about the husband being the wife's head and that he is meant to govern over her.''' Wadsworth says that the "husband's government ought to be gentle and easy, and the wife's obedience ready and cheerful". I think Wadsworth's choice of words is important. He makes it sound that like the husbands gently guide the wives along and that the wives are happy to be told what to do.''' The influence of religion on married life is very evident. Quarelling is "the Devil's work" and it dishonors God. Today, it's pretty clear that every married couple argues sometimes and that doesn't mean you are doing the "devil's work". -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
I agree with Katelyn. When I first read this, it seemed as if he were counting men and women to be (almost) the same, then he pulls the whole, "man is the woman's head" thing. The quote that really caught my eye was when he was talking to women and said, '''"God has made him (husband), your head, and set him above you, and made it your duty to love and revere him." So, there is a STRONG implication that men ruling women is a religious decree and anyone who were to break that would then be unholy.'''-Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
I agree with both of the comments made by Katelyn and Kristina, the article by Wadsworth really struck me. The quote on page 27 stuck out "[f]amily, whatever its liabilities, remained the most important social institution..." Women could not do anything outside of the family, were required to fall back on it, and let her husband have complete rule over her and if he died before her, the eldest son took over the estate. It was a never-ending cycle once a woman was married that she was never to have control over her mind/body/land/or any other asset. '''Religion was a much stronger contributing factor in those days, but did God really approve of a women becoming completely inferior to her husband? I do not think that is written in the Bible, so did colonists relate problems back to Adam and Eve instead?''' -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I agree with the previous comments made about the Husbands and Wives Article written by Benjamin Wadsworth. At the very beginning it seems that men and women are equal by saying that there love is mutual and it should be performed by each and overall that they both needed to work together in order to have a good family. Then Wadsworth’s views turn completely around by saying “the husband is called the head of the woman” and that they ought to be under their husband’s government. '''Did all Puritan men around this time feel the same way as Wadsworth? ''' Nick J<br />
<br />
Benjamin Wadsworth’s description of marriage seemed ironic. Marriage was meant to involve mutual affection, yet the husband was always in charge of the wife and the wife was always supposed to be obedient to the husband. '''I thought the end of Wadsworth’s account was funny because he reminded women that although they really may be superior to their husbands in intelligence, wealth, and class, God still intended them to be ruled by these stupid, poor, common men. That made me wonder if Puritans considered gender roles more binding than social class.''' -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
'''(Wadsworth's balancing act)''' I agree with Allison about how ironic his description of marriage was. He says "It is their duty to dwell together with one another." (P. 28) The ironic thing was that he says how men and women should "dwell" together, which implies equality, yet he says the woman must submit to the husband and obey him. Another interesting thing I found was that Wadsworth says "Though he governs her he must not treat her as a servant, but as his own flesh; he must love her as himself." (P. 29) Wadsworth contradicts himself because he makes references such as the "husband's government" yet calls for men to see their wives as equals. --- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
I also wanted to comment on the wife/husband relationship. He does make it a point of the man's superiority, but he also does say that the wife should be treated with love and respect and not like a servant. He didn't have to add in that last part, but he did, and I like that. However, then he goes on to say how the wife must love the husband no matter what. Even if the wife is smarter or from better beginnings, she better recognize the husbands superiority. That part of course, while is no good today, is very reflective of the times. -- Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
== Susanna Wesley, 1732, Evangelical Child-Rearing ==<br />
'''The letter from Susanna Wesley was by far the most impressionable reading, to me, this week. The best way for me to put it is that it really freaked me out.''' I suppose it is because her methods of child-rearing were a bit alien to the methods of the typical American family today. Yet, I actually found it interesting that I did see some similarities :(on the bottom of page 32) she talks about rewarding children for doing good things, which I think is a relatively good policy. '''Throughout the reading I felt like she was talking about some well trained dogs that she had, not her children. It was literally as if she were training pets.''' A particular sentence caught my eye, on page 32, where she said "That civil behavior which made them admired when they were at home by all who saw them was in a great measure lost,..." I can just imagine her friends coming over for lunch one day and commenting on how well trained her children are. Now, I am all for well behaved children, but the methods by which she makes them so well behaved seems a little too excessive. '''They are not allowed to be kids. They are adults by the time they are old enough to walk. Was this a typical religious family upbringing in the 1700's?'''-Kristina .S.<br />
<br />
Susanna Wesley has some pretty interesting instructions of how to raise children. '''I know that the Puritans thought that children were born evil and needed to be taught right and wrong but I think her methods were rather excessive.''' Before a child is one year old they were taught to "fear the rod". We would call beating children child abuse. I did not like her strict routine and none of us would ever survive if we had to live in that time now. The only part I liked about her essay was how she thought girls should be able to read above all other things. I think that is very important for girls especially in a time period where many could not read. LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
I agree with what LeAnn mentioned above- '''I did think it was interesting that Susanna thought that young girls should be taught to read before they learn skills such as sewing, etc. By placing an emphasis on education, I think she also might be reflecting some of the beliefs of the Puritan society in general. However, I am not sure if the Puritan emphasis on education and self-improvement applied just to males or to women and young girls, as well?''' Susanna Wesley's statement, certainly, makes it seem as if this belief and value was extended to women, as well- but '''I am not sure if the Wesley family was an exception or reflective of the greater society as a whole.''' I also wonder about the role of region in influencing educational practices- '''did the southern colonies place such an emphasis on educating males (and perhaps females, as well), or was their focus more on commercial production, etc.? I think Susanna's statement brings up questions not only of gender roles and expectations but also the influence of geography and location.''' - Allison Godart<br />
<br />
'''One thing to keep in mind is that Susanna Wesley rules may not have reflected that of the majority of people living in England at the time. The reading says that she is from a place called Lincolnshire, from which many Puritans migrated.''' I think that her "rules" made sense for her particular lifestyle, but I also think that some of the ideas that Wesley, and the Puritans were indoctoring into their children may not have been condusive to the mission of colonization. '''After all, at a time when people are trying to settle a new area, and are faced with unfamiliar lands, it seems that for practical purposes they should have encouraged free thinking, imagination, and ingenuity from their youth.''' --[[User:Mturner|Mary Turner]] 17:55, 9 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I’m not surprised that this document is one of the ones most commented on because it did leave a very strong impression on the reader. In a time where there have been countless debates over spanking children as punishment, the idea of a parent using a rod to frighten a child barely one year old so that they cry softly seems absurd. <br />
'''Another thing I found rather odd in the letter was on page 31 “nor were they ever permitted to call each other by their proper names without the addition of brother or sister.”''' Nowadays I don’t know anyone who calls their sibling “brother” or “brother Jacob” (unless you count Buster in the tv series Arrested Development). The relationship between siblings today is a rather casual one, usually including nicknames for each other not calling each other by their family relationship. The addition of the title “brother” or “Sister” to one’s name brought about the image of a monastery or an Abbey in my mind. --Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I found reading Susanna Wesley's letter to be very enlightening. '''Many people see women being at home as a simple task and not very important, yet Wesley contradicts that view. She explains all the different methods that are used for raising a child throughout their young years and I realized that a great amount of work and time was placed into this.''' What I found especially interesting was how important it was for girls to be taught to read. We always talk about how women did not learn to read or write during this time, yet Wesley says "That no girl be taught to work till she can read very well." (Page 33) The way she stressed the importance of reading for girls struck me as odd and enlightening, and glad that she understood the importance of educating women, rather than just confining them to household duties as they were accustomed to. ---- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
== Eliza Pinckney, 1750s, To Improve in Every Virtue ==<br />
'''Eliza Pinckney's list of resolutions explains a lot about all of the roles that women were expected to fill in early America.''' Her first few resolutions are religious. She wanted to be a better Christian and to trust in God. Some of her other resolutions seem similar to many common resolutions today. When she says she wants "to be decent but frugal in my own expences", she sounds like many women who vow to stop spending so much money on themselves. She also vows to be a better wife, mother, daughter, and friend. These resolutions are probably the New Year's resolutions of women today. I think it was important to read the piece by Pinckney. It shows all of the different roles that women are expected to fill, many of which are still relevant today.- Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
<br />
I liked the document by Eliza Pinckney. It showcased one woman's focus in her life during the eighteenth-century. Along with other women of the time who lived in the colonies, Pinckney devoted most of her time and attention to her family. Each year she addressed the fact that her husband, children, and relatives were very important to her and wanted to do and be everything she could for them. Today, women and men alike, make resolutions to become a better wife, mother, father, or brother. '''I thought it was interesting that Pinckney's actions paralleled those that can be seen today in the twenty first century.''' -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading Eliza Pinckney's document. Not only did she illustrate common colonial gender roles regarding family and religious piety, but she also seemed to have a genuinely good heart. '''It was somewhat surprising to read her resolutions regarding slaves. She talks about being a "Good Mistress" and wishes not to be "tyrannical" over them. This is not the image of slave ownership that many white males seem to paint in their documents.''' - Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
I found Eliza Pinckney's one of the most interesting articles. The fact that she kept a list of resolutions for herself and updated them yearly showed just how serious she took them. '''Was this a common practice for women, in her similar position, of the time? ''' - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
== Esther Burr, 1756-57, Tied hand and foot ==<br />
'''In Esther Burr's journal you can see the basis she has in Puritan traditions.''' She relies on her faith, family, and her social network of friends. She refers to doing a lot of spinning, taking care of her children and awaiting her husband arrival from trips. She implicates in her letter to her friend that she must marry and not wait so long to do so. Also, '''at the same time she's not afraid to share her opinion, not that she does it that often. ''' She even astonishes herself when she makes a comment about what Mr. Ewing says about women and friendships. She was not afraid to hold her tongue "I talked him quite silent." '''The men around her were either appalled by her comments or surprised that she had an opinion on the idea of women not being capable of having friendships.''' The perception that men had of women was very different then. '''I think there were women in society (especially those from the elite) that were very intellectual. Were they afraid to show their intellectual abilities in public around males in society?''' -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
I think that is a really good question- perhaps women of colonial America were afraid to appear "superior" in some ways to some men, or that they were worried they would be judged critically for stepping outside of traditional gender roles and boundaries. I think a lot of men in the colonial period might have taken women for granted, in a way, and assumed certain gender roles and behavior as "fact", rather than allowing for interpretation or allowing each individual women to define who she was for herself. '''I think many males may have seen colonial women as a large, homogenous group with similar qualities (often dictated, perhaps, by the males themselves or by societal customs)rather than as individual people with distinct and different character traits and aspirations.''' - Allison Godart<br />
<br />
We talked about the people of the Chesapeake forming networks of mutual aid beyond family because extended kin was very rare. In New England, families have more strength, but there are still societal similarities to the Chesapeake. '''New England colonists had extended networks, particularly expressed through friendships, as seen with Esther Burr and her friend Sally Prince. Gossip certainly had a powerful role in maintaining or ruining reputations,''' with the extreme being represented in the Salem Witch Trials. And of course, these friendships and close knit community resulted in meddling. '''Esther seemed very much interested in her friend’s personal life, and apparently Mr. Burr had a great love for matchmaking (which is stereotypically regarded as a feminine trait, making for entertaining reading).''' However, Sally seemingly had a certain measure of control in being able to avoid the man courting her, though societal norms, represented in this case by Ester and her reprimands, were pushing her towards marriage. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I enjoyed the letters by Esther Burr they provided a lot more insight into the daily wives of women at the time. '''Though I do wonder why it was necessary to write to her friend about how April 6-9 was “all devoted to spinning folks.” The most interesting section to me was April 13, 1756 when she writes “How shall I get along when I have got ½ dzn. Or 10 Children I cant devise.”''' We’ve seen graphs and statistics of the demographics of the time period but just to see a woman write nonchalantly about having 6-10 children, as if it really was no big deal, stuck out at me. However, I suppose this is because of the differences between now and then. --Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
== Abigail Bailey, 1815, Abominable Wickedness ==<br />
Abigail Bailey's memoir was very interesting to read. '''Laws intended for men and women did not always protect women. Probably not in this case either. ''' Abigail admits her loyalties to her husband but when she realizes her husband is having an incestuous realtionship with their daughter she is unable to ignore it. She confronts him and threatens to take him to justice. She justifies her actions by saying to him that she is "acting on principle and with mature consideration." She knew that if her daughter did not testify against her father that it would be very hard to prove what he had done. '''She probably felt that one would believe her. Afterall, Abigail was a woman and women should not speak out against their husbands. The value of a man's word over a womans was not the same then.''' Instead of putting her daughter through the ridicule of the community she confronts her husband. She threatens to use the process of the law to scare him. '''She believes that the legal system will not uphold the law for her. ''' Abigail uses the one power she does have over her husband - she refuses to be intimate with him. <br />
-Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
'''Abigale Bailey's piece was quite disturbing.''' I felt that after reading about so much virtue in Eliza Pincknery's piece and the Susanna Wesley's letter's concerning religious practices and child-rearing, this piece was juxtaposed to the previous documents. It is not shocking that a man, a father in 1815 could virtually get away with molestation and incest, especially since as Mr. B noted, that Abigale was "under his legal control". '''It just illustrates the hard lines drawn between the genders and how women, who seemed to have at least a modicum of control in the child rearing and household affairs actually had no say at all.''' I felt proud of Abigale to vocalize her fears and suspicions at the cost of her reputation and, as she felt her safety. - Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
I thought An abominable wickedness written by Abigail Bailey was very fascinating. An abominable wickedness was about Abigial Bailey finding out that husband had slept with one of their children. First off that is really sick to think that the father would sleep with one of their own children. In early 19th century America there was little that Abigail Bailey could do about this horrible situation. She did not have prove that her husband was having a relationship with one of their daughters and also she could not get her daughter to testify against him. Also even if she did have information against her husband the Massachusetts Court would have sided with the men and not the women. Her memoir also discusses that when marriages failed it was exceptionally hard on women. Couples would try to reconcile their differences but if they couldn’t they would need to separate. '''Why was it extremely hard for women to obtain divorces?''' Nick Jesionka<br />
<br />
'''I was mortified by women’s inability to protect their own children from the authority of their husbands. Abigail Bailey rightly suspected misbehavior on the part of her husband but she could not even share her fears with anyone.''' However, eventually Abigail Bailey reminded her husband that a marriage was supposed to be mutually beneficial. Although she was under his complete authority, he promised her fidelity and protection. '''You could almost detect the triumph in her tone when she asserted that she was seeking a separation because he did not hold up his end of the bargain.''' -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree that this document about Abigail Bailey and her husband’s incestuous obsession with their daughter is very disturbing. The status of the “feme covert” along with a general issue of family virtue kept both mother and daughter from successfully stopping the husband’s / father’s infidelity except for through the help of male relatives. '''This shows that women were doubly controlled (perhaps in equal efficacy) in their actions not only through legal rights but also morality and their ability to uphold family honor facing civic supervision and judgment.''' -- Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
This article definitely differed from Esther Burrs diary where she councils her friend on having a happy marriage and being a dutiful servant of God. Esther seems genuinely happy in her marriage and lot in life. '''I wonder which was closer to the norm in colonial society a situation like hers or a situation like that of Abigails.''' I was horrified by the authors summary of the story where he noted that Abigail's husband took her on a trip to New York and deserted her there! Obviously he was an all around upstanding husband and father. The story is constantly reiterating the dominance that Mr. B had over both her and her children. WIves and children were taught to obey and honor their parents. The only ammunition that Mrs B seemed to have was that her husband had not upheld his half of the marriage. It is understandable why she apparently did not seek legal action right away. Id imagine that if it came down to her word against his the court would side with the husband. Her husband also sounded like a tyrant so she was probably afraid of the repercussions for herself and her children if she made an unsuccessful attempt at getting him arrested.-Emma Peck<br />
<br />
== New Spain’s (New Mexico’s) moral code as dictated by the Spanish Crown in 1752 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Laws on Slave Descent in VA and MD, 1662, 1664, 1691, 1692 ==<br />
<br />
I am completely shocked by some of these laws. Basically, if I understood the readings correctly, freewomen who had children with slaves, could then be subject to slavery herself. Is that right? I found it particularly disturbing that under the Virginia, 1691 law, if a woman has a bastard, half negro child, then she owes the church to which she belongs a fine of 15 pounds. Also, she has to serve time as a slave at the discretion of the church, and her child is at the discretion/mercy of the church as well. '''I thought this was completely illogical, unethical, and against everything moral that I know in life. I think that once again, these laws are a reflection of the FEAR that white men have, of women and people of different ethnicities than their own. How lame!'''--[[User:Mturner|Mary Turner]] 18:47, 9 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
This article which addresses Virginia and Maryland laws on the status of interracial liaisons and resulting children was very specific in stating the differences held for men and women and the legal status of the children. It was stated in the beginning that '''these laws were to discourage and prevent interracial relations but they also show the real concerns addressing issues of ambiguity on the legal status of the children and sexual partners as well as controlling social morality. I am especially interested in the reasons for these laws concerning white women and their children with male slaves. How necessary was the need for these preventative laws? Were there many cases in which these laws were actually enforced? When did this really become an issue?'''-- Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
I was shocked with the extremity of the laws that were in place in regards to relations between white colonists and slaves. Children of mixed decent seemed to have almost as poor a lot in life as slave children, since they were bound to servitude for up to thirty years in Virginia. '''I was surprised that the penalties for men and women were so strict, I wonder if this is a reflection on the emphasis and influence of church and religion in the lives of the colonists. Obviously it must have been considered a sin and one of serious moral repercussions. What would be the penalty for any of the slaves in question? Since they were already bound in servitude was a punishment considered unnecessary? I also found myself wondering if this was a common occurrence at the time'''.---Emma Peck<br />
<br />
== Skilled slaves in Maryland, 1748-1763, Maryland Gazette ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Complaint of Elizabeth Sprigs, indentured servant, 1756 ==<br />
Elizabeth's Sprigs complaint to her father is pretty sad. '''I am not sure if all she says is true. She might be exaggerating bu then again maybe she is not. I really wish we knew what she did to get her father to throw her on a ship where she was indentured.''' I felt terrible for her as she asks for clothes and not something else she may have wanted. The short but vivid description really worked and if i were her father I would send her the clothes if not paying out so she would not be indentured. '''I never really thought about being indentured could be as bad as being a slave.''' -LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
The reading that stuck out to me the most was the Sprigs reading. Here we have a girl in Maryland writing a letter to her father in England asking for aid. Why is she doing this? Because he sent her away as an indentured servant as a punishment for bad conduct and disobedience! Huh. Um, '''I’m thinking this is maybe a bit of an overreaction on daddy’s part. Still, if that’s not an incentive to be well behaved I don’t know what is. Is this the 17th century equivalent of taking your kid into a jail cell to scare them straight?''' '''''Whether or not Elizabeth is exaggerating her condition (which Wolach suggests she is not) is less important than the very fact that her father could make her an indentured servant in the first place''.''' As his daughter, she’s essentially his property, and he has the power to sell her, rent her off, whatever. What happened if she survived her indenture? Was she free and left in the colonies or was she sent back to her father? How often did this happen to other girls? Would her father have sent a son away for misbehaving? And what ''exactly'' did she do to make him react like this? --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
== Apprenticeship in PA, 1771-1773, Record of Indentures ==<br />
The list of indentures of 1771-1773 was interesting to read. '''The document mentioned that women apprenticeship was different than that of young men, which was unsurprising. Most of the work and skills learned by the females was housewifery, to read the bible, or write legibly.''' The entries listed were of women whose terms were anywhere between three to fourteen years. I thought that was a very long time. One example is of a woman named Abigail Adams, whose term was 14 years and one month, was taught to read the bible, write legibly, learn multiplication, and houswifery. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Advertisements, Gazettes of VA, PA, SC, NY – 1751-1776 ==<br />
'''I was surprised that there were so many advertisements for schools for young women.''' I found the ad for Mrs. Duneau's boarding school in South Carolina very interesting. Most of the other ads mentioned teaching needlework to the young ladies, but that was one of the only subjects that was taught. However, Mrs. Duneau's school taught French, English, math, geography, writing, and of course, needlework. '''I was also surprised that many of the school's included gentlemen and young women in their ads.''' This is probably because many of the schools were opened and operated by women. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
I thought it was particularly interesting that these schools were called "Adventure Schools" and that the courses offered included quilting, lacework, and embroidery. What exactly was the adventure part? I guess it could be the fact that the schools allowed girls to leave their homes if they were boarding schools. - Nancy Lee<br />
<br />
I found the advertisements pretty interesting. I am from Williamsburg so had seen some advertisements for schools for young women before; learning to sew, how to become a proper lady, housewifery, etc, but never had seen one for a young man. I knew they had apprenticeships but did not know they attended schools like women did. '''I also found interesting how different the ad for a school was compared to that of finding a slave, both adverstisements are looking for people and how women were referred to in a slave ad compared to wanting a young woman, "proper young lady" for a school.''' -Megan W.</div>Rocknrowleyhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_2_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 2 Questions/Comments-327 092009-09-03T14:19:36Z<p>Rocknrowley: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Cross-reading Questions -- These are particularly important... ==<br />
<br />
Just and observation I've made: '''the readings in Woloch about the rules and conduct that men and women should follow is a striking resemblence to social rules set forth by Confucius and his followers in China several hundred years prior to this.''' It just seems interesting to me that although the Europeans at this time always thought of themselves as superior to other peoples and cultures, that people in China hundreds of years before had already discussed and implemented these social rules. - Will Hechmer<br />
<br />
For the readings this week I came up with a question that related throughout all of the texts:<br />
1. '''Why did Native American women's roles offend the Europeans and do we think it still would today?''' Or have the perceptions the Europeans had of women shape women's traditional roles today?<br />
<br />
---I believe that the Europeans were offended primarily due to the differences in marital practices. First, the Native Americans had sexual relations with "potential" spouses BEFORE they were to be married. This violated a religious practice of pre-marital abstinance that Europeans followed. Christians in particular beleive that a woman should be pure and virginal at the time of marriage. Second, it offened Europeans that the Native Americans could "divorce" or change partners so readily. As John Heckwelder notes, "Marriage among the Indians are not, as with us, contracted for life" (MP pg. 30).--[[User:Mturner|Mary Turner]] 05:24, 3 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''A common feature I noticed within the captive stories and whether they were able to adjust to their new lives appears to be their age and the roles in which they assumed.''' As with Mary Jemison and also John Tanner, they were both young without attachments, and could easily adapt into their new lives as made easier by being fully adopted into the tribe as a sister / daughter and son / brother. In the case of Mary R, she was a middle aged woman, set in her ways, having a husband back home as well as a church, friends, and a role within American society in which she was part of. These differences appear to have an effect on how the captives adjust to their new lives or not in these particular sources, and makes me wonder if this could be common to others as well or if there are other factors that were missed. – Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
Maybe I am just cynical because I have been in a few of Dr. McClurken's classes and have had to read many primary source documents (in fact many of these look familiar) but I find it very hard to trust a lot of these writings. Practically all of these writings are from a European perspective that was trying to make sense of what they were seeing through a distorted lens. This is not their fault of course because they did not have the advantage of Wikipedia to give them some background knowledge of what they were going to encounter. Just thinking about running into a culture that has had limited to zero contact with Europeans I can only wonder how both sides interpreted each other. The Europeans have the advantage in written history here so we get a very biased view of what is going on during this time. Even when the Europeans are attempting to be honest there is a perspective here that we are missing that I wish we had more access to. Even with my frustration (it is a good frustration mind you) reading primary source documents is a constant reminder that history does not come in neatly packaged text books we get in elementary school. It is the compilation of primary sources and the interpretation of each historian through time that makes history. /rant --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 07:24, 3 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Though the focus seems to be on differences in the relationships between men and women for the Europeans and the Native Americans in these documents, I was a little surprised in what I found similair. In both cultures there seems to be a large focus on marriage. I am not that familiar with the way marriages worked in Europe but the way Champlain described the suitors didn’t seem that different from my impression of the way it worked in Europe at the time. John Tanner also described how his mother was so intent on setting him up on a marriage. The emphasis on marriage and family seemed like it could have been more of a unifying force than a dividing force, though it often wasn’t. - John Rowley<br />
<br />
== Roger Williams Remarks on Narragansett women – 1643 ==<br />
<br />
After reading the Roger Williams little excerpt about him and his findings on the language and the people on the Narragansett women, I am left wondering how does he seem to have such a different view than other Europeans of his time. He believes that the land belonds to the Native Americas; he even tries to live and learn from them, to study them, even going so far as to publish a dictionary on their language arranged topically. '''What makes his perspective so different from the other European documentations and studies?''' - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
I also thought it was interesting that Roger William's had such a different view than other Europeans at his time. Before reading this article, I expected more of a negative view of the Native Americans and their "heathen" lifestyle. I was surprised by the way he described their work. I agree with Caryn that the work sounded a lot more difficult the way that Williams described it.- Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
While reading Roger Williams' Narragansett Women, I noticed that his description of the labor that the females did was, in his mind, much more challenging than described by John Heckewelder and Mary Jemison. I also noticed a parallel between Mary Rowlandson and Williams opinion that as Williams put it, "Indian women has escaped Gods curse on Eve." Of course Rowlandson described these feeling in a negative light but the idea was certainly the same. - Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
I feel like Roger Williams gave the Indians a lot of respect in his writing, as opposed to others who saw Indians as savages, etc. He recognized that, although the Indians had a different way of life, they worked hard for their living. I found it interesting how an issue such as "polygamy" was not even made to be a big issue by Williams, while another European may have seen it as absolutely disgusting. He noticed the differences in society between the Europeans and Indians, but found ways to justify why they did what they did and I think that was honorable of him, to respect the cultural differences. ---Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
== John Heckewelder’s 1819, Women’s Lives among the Delaware ==<br />
<br />
John Heckewelder describes the Native American women in Delaware. He comments about the differences and some of the aspects of lives between the Native Americans' lifestyles and the Europeans'. Among them are marriages: marriages among the Indians are not contracted for life. He also mentions the varying work men and women have. Men construct the house in which they are to live in, hunts, traps. Women take care of the home, sometimes become their husband's helpmate while he is hunting, tills the ground, gets the firewood, and pounds the corn in mortars. '''I think this group of Native American women followed the same kind of pattern that most European women followed at the time and would not offend most outsiders.''' Heckewelder's notes may prove that because most of the duties of the Native American women were similar to that of European women, there was no real reason to be shocked or offended. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting the way Heckewelder described marriage between Native Americans. It's the complete opposite of the way marriage was in Europe at the time. A Native American bride was usually not forced to marry or even to stay married. Native American women are not treated as much like the husband's property, as were the European women. I also found it interesting that Native American men would find whatever food that their pregnant or sick wife was craving.-Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
<br />
John Heckewelder’s description of Women’s Lives Among the Delaware is a much different account than from what other colonizers have described. While many Europeans have a biased view through ethnocentric eyes, Heckewelder seemed to empathize with the Native American way of life. Though I do think that he viewed his way of life as better and more civilized, he sees Native American way of life as understandable for a less civilized group. While he believes that Native American women’s work is difficult compared to women’s work in the civilized world, it is nothing compared to the work of the men. Heckewelder’s description of the women’s work as well as marriage practices seems much nicer than other descriptions from onlookers of the time who had a cynical view. The Native American family/societal structure seems like a nice way for women to live, to work cheerfully, to raise families, and to have the ability to leave when unhappy. I wonder if it is because John Heckewelder was able to live among the Indians for 15 years that he was able to see the true side of Native American life, rather then traders whose observations were short lived and distant. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
'''John Heckewelder's description of a woman's role in society is still seen through a Europeans eyes''' though I agree with Erin that it was less so then other European observers it is still bias. He still believes that women have no power where men have all the power in society. I liked that he grasped the fact that the women did not think they were being worked like slaves by farming. I would also like to note that Heckewelder when talking about marriages only mentioned that women will please her husband so that he will not leave her but said nothing about men pleasing their wives. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
John Heckewelder wrote of the differences in the daily lives of the men and women of the tribe he saw. '''What struck me most was particularly the word choice “The husband may put away his wife whenever he pleases, and the woman may in like manner abandon her husband.” Despite the fact that divorce was incredibly uncommon in Europe, he spoke of the men leaving their wife as if it was no big deal. Yet, he used the word /abandon/ when describing the wife leaving the husband which has a harsher connotation in my opinion.''' Another interesting thing I noticed was that Heckewelder said that the men’s job was to build the house which shows the Delaware tribe he was familiar with was not matrilocal- Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
== Pierre de Charlevoix, 1721, “Iroquois Women in Government” ==<br />
<br />
Pierre de Charlevoix's "Iroquois Women in Government" seemed on the surface to glorify the hierarchy which held women at the top but unraveled into an explanation of how Iroquois men only allowed the women to seem powerful. I wonder how much of Charlevoix's account was true and how much was a biased opinion based in Western ideals of the Patriarch Royalty. '''This piece prompts me to wonder if Charlevoix felt challenged by the reversal of gender empowerment and the implication and influence that could have on western women. ''' - Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
In this article Pierre de Charlevoix writes about how Iroquois women had a substantial role in their government. Even though it was rare for women to rise to the position of chief, the role of chief was inherited through the matrilineal line. As we discussed in class the older women of the tribe could unseat male chiefs. The Iroquois women had a lot more political opportunities than their European and fellow Indian counterparts. After reading the article I wonder why Native American Women had less political opportunities than the Iroquois. Nick Jesionka<br />
<br />
== Mary Rowlandson’s account (1681) and Mary Jemison’s account (1824) ==<br />
<br />
Also a topic I found important between the articles written by both "Mary's" were the differences/similarities of the women's experiences with the Eastern Woodland Native Americans. How each woman's experience varied based off tribe/age of capture/and release date (if released). -Megan<br />
<br />
'''I was particularly interested in the role religion played in their experiences, especially Mary Rowlandson.''' Her faith seemed to justify her experience, which in turn strengthened her sense of righteousness in the face of perceived barbarism. The topic of Christianity shaping the colonists' interactions with the native Americans seems important when looking at the overall experience. --Erin B.<br />
<br />
I think Erin raises a really good point about religion and the way it influenced or affected the experiences of the captives. I thought one of the major themes in Mary Rowlandson's captivity account, that of her trying to determine why God would allow and even help the "enemies" (the Native Americans)to survive and thereby inflict further injury on the English, resonates still with us today. I think many people still, in contemporary society, question God and his motives when they are faced with a troubling situation or a difficult time in their life- asking themselves, for example, why God would allow such things to happen. An individual's response (whether they believe it a test of faith and believe they will come out stronger because of it, or whether they take an entirely different approach) I think is highly individualistic and unique to the person. - Allison <br />
<br />
<br />
Mary Jemison provided an interesting point of view in which she is not entirely dis fond of living with the Indians. She was captured and lived with the Seneca Iroquois tribe for many years. '''I think this is an interesting example of another way that Europeans, especially European men, were shocked with the Native Americans and their lifestyle.''' Many white female captives were treated humanely, took up the duties of the women of the tribe, and may have been treated more equally than if they returned to white society. This decision was confusing to most white men. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading both of these accounts. They were both so varied that it was interesting to see the differences and similarities among the captive's situations. The main issue that caught my eye in the Rowlandson account was the employ of God during her whole captive experience. She would quote the bible and see situations through a very thick religious lens. I particularly liked how she commented on page 18 that "strangely did the lord provide for them." Essentially, wondering why, if God was on her (and the English peoples) side then why was he letting the "heathens" live? It is something that she brings up a couple of times through her account. But, what I found interesting was that she believed her God was watching over the Natives, even though they were not Christians. (at least that was how it seemed to me)<br />
In the Jemison account, I really liked how she talked about the benefits for women living among the Seneca tribe. And how she even compared, on the bottom of page 21, the Native woman’s life to that of an English woman’s.-Kristia S.<br />
<br />
The accounts of Mary Rowlandson and Mary Jemison who were captured by Native Americans were the most interesting things I read. '''I though it was fascinating in Rowlandsons account how one minute they were going to bash her head in and the next her master was giving her water to wash with and being kind.''' Mary Jemison had a more positive account of Native Americans and I liked how she said Native Americans were only cruel to their enemies but to their friends they were wonderful. That is not so different from the Europeans who were also cruel to their enemies. --LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
== Samuel de Champlain, 1616 ==<br />
<br />
'''The Champlain and Heckewelder readings provide as interesting contrast in the interpretations by Europeans regarding Native Americans. About a hundred years separates their accounts. Champlain was, of course, an explorer, and Heckenwelder was a missionary trying to convert the Indians to Christianity.''' Champlain comments on the figures of the Indians, with a special interest in the women’s appearances, including the fact that “their breasts hang down hardly at all.” Truly an important thing to note. He also tends towards the idea that the men are lazy and the women do most of the work. Heckewelder doesn’t bother commenting on appearances, perhaps due to his being a missionary, but he labels the women’s work as “quickly and easily performed.” Their fatigue is not comparable to the tireless work of the hunting men. Though the interpretations differ on the view of labor and gender roles (which may be a result of the particular tribe they visited and at what time of the year), both accounts are influenced by European thinking. Champlain writes the men off as lazy and unmanly because they appear to lie around while the women do the farming. Heckewelder completely dismisses women’s work, putting forth that the families depend solely on the men’s hunting. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
The article that Samuel de Champlain writes about Huron Women is good account of Native American Women. In the article he discusses the roles of women and men and how to him they women do a lot more work then the men do. He called the men lazy and described the women as really hard working and having most of the responsibilities. Overall it was a good account of the Huron tribe. Nick Jesionka<br />
<br />
'''Samuel de Champlain seemed to focus quite a bit of his attention on the courtship of the Natives.''' It was a big change compared to Europeans after all. He spoke of men and women running from cabin to cabin at night, enjoying whoever’s company they please. Then in the next paragraph he brings up the point of how the husband cannot be sure the child his wife bears is actually his. We talked about this in class, this is astonishing to Europeans as the “need” a male heir to carry on the family name or be the next in line to the throne (if they are royal.) –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I agree that the difference between Native American and European men when it comes to children is amazing. Champlain writes about how when a woman has children, her preceeding husbands come visit and claim the child is his. In Europe, women wouldn't have had so many ex-husbands, if they even had one ex. If the paternity of a child was questioned, his mother and the child would be stigmatized. I understand why Champlain was so interested in this, it is completely different from the practices he was used to. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
Did anyone get the impression that maybe there was a hint of jealousy among the Europeans when it came to the courtship of Native Americans? Perhaps they resented being so sexual restricted within their own communities, and felt that the only proper way to address those feelings were to pass negative judgments upon a culture they could not understand. After all, doesn't our culture resemble the pre-colonial Native Americans when it comes to modern day dating and marriage? Now days, it practically unheard of to marry a person you have not already lived with for a while. When a couple splits, the children usually go with the mother, or whoever is the more secure "bread winner." American's today divorce over the slightest irreconcilable differences, and there is little to no stigma on divorcees anymore, they way there had been in the past. Men court women with expensive gifts, and women usually turn to their family and network or "village" of best friends to help them decide if they should marry a man. It is really not much different from how the Native American's approached marriage several hundred years ago. So, I suppose that after all the Europeans effort to assimilate Native Americans into their way of life, modern day Americans have assimilated to the Native American way of life.--[[User:Mturner|Mary Turner]] 07:22, 3 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Mary Musgrove assists the Georgians in Dealing with the Choctaws, 1734 & Mary Musgrove Seeks aid for past service from GA, 1747 ==<br />
<br />
I can't say that I was surprised to read the 1747 letter written by Mary Musgrove, as historical evidence often shows that, the European settlers and traders often "went back" or renigged on promises, treaties, and debts that were made to the Native Americans. However, I did find the format of her letter interesting. Instead of just coming right out and asking for what she wants, she diligently lists all of the qualifying reasons why she is owed respect and currency first, and then she gets around to asking for what she wants secondly. It all sounded like something I would imagine a lawyer to do. Perhaps just saying "hey you owe me money" would not have sufficed. It's tragic that all of that explanation and justification was warranted, to seek out something that she and/or the people she represented were due anyways.--[[User:Mturner|Mary Turner]] 05:36, 3 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Captive John Tanner in 1830 ==<br />
<br />
The major thought that came to my mind while reading this was how multiple Native American women wanted a young white son. I feel that if the roles were reversed and a white woman had a male Native captive, there wouldn't be any other woman who would want him or any hostility regarding it. I find it interesting that he was so valued that Net-no-kwa was so interested in having him. '''Did they find the whites valuable or was he simply filling the role of a son?''' - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
== Father Le Jeune on necessity of teaching native women, 1633 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Native women resist Jesuits, 1640 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Wamponoag women of Martha’s Vineyard, 1727 ==<br />
<br />
The readings provided some thoughtful insights into changing Native American lifestyles as colonists worked towards converting them to Christianity. '''Particularly interesting to me was determining the reasons why some women were easily converted (at least outwardly) and some women were very resistant.''' In one reading a women runs away, not “wishing to obey her husband” in his desire to convert, risking harsh retribution, while in another reading the women were more receptive and more pious than the men. The second reading also gives some possible reasoning why these women were easier to convert. I think the biggest factor was that many of the women were young and unlikely to be set in their ways, and therefore more receptive to conversion. Sarah Ahhaton's story provides support for this, as there were older women who were seemingly more traditionalist and subversive in their approach towards the English. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
As shown in the Pious Wampanoag Women of Martha’s Vineyard and the Adultery Trial of Sarah Ahhaton, the Europeans seem to be pushing their own ideas of woman morality upon the Native Americans that can be compared to as was made example by Eve from the bible. As is with the Adultery Trial and some of the conversions, women appear very susceptible to have a lapse in judgment where their passionate natures take them over. However they are being held accountable for their actions in ways that men are not due to the notion of woman’s virtue and their job of upholding and demonstrating social morals. '''I think it is possible that the hope of the Europeans is that should the women at least be successfully converted, the society and future generations will then follow suit''' and could be as believed half of the battle being already won such as was with the husband of Hannah Tiler who “overcame his evil by her goodness” (MP- Christianity p. 24). – Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
== Sarah Ahhaton’s trial, 1668 ==<br />
<br />
'''The story of Sarah Ahhaton, a Native American woman, is one that shows the dynamics of the old, pre-colonization, ways of life and the new, Christian way of life'''. In looking at the French Explorer Samuel de Champlain’s description of the lives of Huron Women and Men in 1616, he describes the marriage practices of the Huron. In this pre-colonized society, marriage is much different than the “civilized” Europeans. Women and men were able to be intimate with different individuals without jealousy it was the standard practice. By 1668, when Sarah Ahhaton told her story of adultery, there was a change in marriage practices due to the influence of European colonizers and the spread of Christianity. The change in women’s roles in such a short period of time must have been difficult, and often confusing. In a society were women were highly regarded, their role shifted to one of subordination. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
== Ann Marie Plane's essay ==<br />
'''In the account of Sarah Ahhaton’s adultery, I was really struck by the double standard for men and women.''' The rift in her marriage began when her husband, William, was not treating her very well and possibly having an affair of his own. Sarah turned herself in for her crime, but William’s position as an interpreter and Christian minister meant it would not have been difficult for English officials to investigate or correct his behaviors. This response is likely a result of English culture, which viewed women as lascivious and unable to control their desires. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
'''I like how Plane described Native American women as the group whose lives were possibly the most radically changed by European contact.''' Before contact, Native American gender relations involved a certain amount of give and take. Men may have held leadership positions, but much of their power depended on the support of women. After contact, the power held by men increased and the power held by women decreased. This deprived women of the means to defend themselves, for example, against an abusive husband, as in Sarah Ahhatan’s case. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the account of Sarah Ahhatons adultery to be extremely poignant. It truly showed in my opinion some of the negative effects the colonists had on the native americans. In many Native American societies women were highly respected and held a firm place in society and were allowed more freedoms within marriage. Yet Sarahs treatment exhibited none of that kind of treatment. It was evident the influence that the Europeans had on there culture at that point was a negative one. I found the part of the essay where the author discusses the negative aspects of european culture that the Native Americans picked up extremely interesting. Although the protestant marriage was supposed to be a well founded joining of two people in the faith in a happy marriage, women were often treated poorly by there husbands. So even though the Native Americans are being taught by the Christian doctrine they picked up the bad habits of the Europeans instead of the good habits. Also the double standards between men and women were particularly evident in her account of the trial because Joseph who was also married and had committed adultery presumably faced no punishment whatsoever. In addition the claims of adultery that were supposedly committed by her husband didn't seem to have been investigated any further. -Emma Peck<br />
<br />
I also found the double standard in the way Sarah Ahhaton was treated compared to both her husband and Joseph interesting -- and, not surprising.''' So, why did this happen? How did the change in the way Native American women and men viewed marriage occur? Were there some tribes who were more resistant to this than others? If so, why?''' -Nancy Lee</div>Rocknrowleyhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_1_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 1 Questions/Comments-327 092009-08-27T02:11:04Z<p>Rocknrowley: </p>
<hr />
<div>Enter your questions & comments on the readings below.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Comments that compare or contrast readings ==<br />
<br />
When reading “Definining ‘American Women’s History'” by Kate Haulman, I was fascinated by how complex American Women’s History is just by looking at the separate words: “American” “Women’s” and “History.” Focusing on the “Women” aspect, Kate Haulman mainly looks at the word “women” in opposition to men and a lump category that all individuals who identify themselves as women fit into. Gisela Bock in “Challenging Dichotomies in Women’s History” looks at the word “women” in terms of the dichotomy of sex versus gender and how people identify themselves (“sex” being biological, “gender” being social). As I read Antonia Castañeda’s essay, “Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History” the definition of “women” became even more complex in very important ways because she argues that you can’t look at women as one lump category, you have to reject the idea of a common sisterhood, because such a thing does not exist. Castañeda states, “Women’s gender experiences and definitions were as divers as the cultures from which they came”. Based off of these readings it is clear that no two scholars have the same definitions, so it is important to realize that categories and definitions are dynamic, changing with time and interpretation. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that all the essays agree that American Women's History needs some changing. Whether it be the definition of the field, the ideas, the various aspects (sex, gender, race, political), they all agree it needs some reconstruction. Also, when they touched on the idea that not all women are in this "sisterhood," it brought a very good point. Many people lump in all women (regardless of race, class, country of origin) together in the same category, but you don't see that in other historical subjects. When Bock says "For too long, women have baked the cake and taken only the smallest to eat for themselves," to me it exemplifies the ever-lasting struggles women have in the "equality versus difference" arena. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
<br />
In both Bock(p.8) and Haulman's(p.4) piece they discuss how the history of women is not just about the oppression of women but the how the confinement to a certain sphere knitted them together and created a unique community. They were not just victims but actively shaped their own lives. What does this mean for studying women's history? How does seeing women as active in the midst of oppression and not necessarily victims change our view of them? --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 19:14, 26 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Kate Haulman, Defining "American Women's History" ==<br />
<br />
I found Kate Haulman's essay Defining "American Women's History" to be interesting because it is a history of how historians thought about women in history. I never thought about the connotations of this phrase until she pointed it out. Being "American" is an identity that people have. She uses examples such as a textile worker, a Cherokee woman and an African American all of who defined being American differently. The word "women" brings up gender issues. She asks, " What are the consequences of identifying, or being positioned as a woman..." History in this phrase is a study of the past. Haulman thinks that studying woman's history can frame current debates about justice and human rights and I completely agree with that statement. The more we study women and their issues the more information we will have to help make an informed decision about issues that affect us today. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
As LeAnn and Erin noted, it is interesting how Haulman breaks down "American Women's History" into three separate ideas. Each person has a different connotation about each and when you place all three together, different people can assume different ideas about the subject. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
The historiography by Haulman gives a nice overview of the field of American women’s history studies. It’s somewhat incredible, though not necessarily shocking, that studying women’s history is a rather recent development. Historians have been recounting history for thousands of years, but women’s contributions have been nothing more than a footnote, if even that, for most of that time. Particularly interesting to me was one of the dichotomies the Bock essay mentioned regarding nature vs culture. Women being perceived as “natural” and unchanging labeled them as uninteresting, which vindicated the lack of studying women, while men being perceived as products of culture apparently made them great subjects for study. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
== Leslie Alexander, “Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women’s History” ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Leslie Alexander’s essay “Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women’s History” does a great job explaining where Black women fit into Women’s Studies and feminism as a whole. What I found out was that Black women don’t fit in at all. When I think of the feminist movement I think of white, upper middle class women. And after reading Alexander’s essay, this is not surprising. Women’s studies have historically been modeled based on white women and have largely left out other categories such as race and class. This model does not work for Black women. Alexander argues that it is impossible to analyze Black women based solely on their gender, and any model that tries to do so will fail. This is because Black women have a culture in which they identify themselves with their community. Alexander goes on to argue the importance of grappling with issues such as race, culture, community, and class to further understand the lives of women. While discussing this flaw in Women's Studies, Alexander pushes for scholars to analyze Black women “through their own eyes rather than through the lens of whiteness and oppression." –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I agree that Black women do not fit into Women's Studies. When I think of the feminist movement or even of the idea of women's history, I also picture white upper middle class women. I always remember learning about women's history, and then learning about African-American history, but the two never seemed to cross paths in lessons. I liked what Kate Haulman said in her essay, "A woman who self-identified as Chinese American...was not Chinese American four days out of the week and a woman the other three- she was always both." I think that idea could be used in the case of Black women, and for women of all other races. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
If the reading is on a women in American History then I think it does fit in this article. Black women are a part of American history no matter through a white person's point of of view or what class status they had. I do agree that the feminist movement would have mostly been white upper middle class but I also think that black women and white women each had their own social classes. I agree with Alexander that we should have scholars analyze the history of a black woman through their own eyes even though we know in the past that was not so easy. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
In Leslie Alexander's essay, I was interested in the comments made about black women and their role in women's history. I had never really given much thought to the idea, but realized after reading that they do not appear to be a huge part in women's history; historians and people interested in history may just assume that this group of women are included butit may be important to have a bit more focus. Historians may want to homogenize them but in reality they do have a separate history to that of white women. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
Traditionally, the women’s rights movement discriminated against women of different races and classes. While I think Alexander makes a very important point that feminism has excluded many people, I wonder if she has overexaggerated or simplified African American women’s ambivalence towards the women’s rights movement. Alexander stated that feminism has had a “gender first” requirement. I personally know more about earlier feminism, such as the fight for suffrage, rather than later feminism, but I think one can make an argument that much of at least earlier feminism was “class first” rather than “gender first.” -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
In agreement, I do say that traditionally I think most people think of American Women's History as an upper (maybe at time middle) class white subject. However, the problem lies in the fact that while there may be documentation (primary sources) on these white women due to their education and status levels, one might be hard-pressed to find the much lacking resources on Black women in history. For example, you may find plenty of information into the lives of a wealthy white woman plantation owner's wife, but you are not going to have the same time looking up her main house slave. I do believe the work should be done on elaborating American Women's History, it just seems that it would be a difficult task to take on. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
The Castañeda and Alexander readings examine contributions women of different ethnic/racial backgrounds have made to the women’s studies field outside of the traditional and dominate women’s liberation, white middle-class approach taken by most scholars. These historians have challenged overlooking race and class as an influence on women, as well as the idea of looking at women of color as little more than doubly oppressed victims. However, I feel that Leslie Alexander does a little of what she accuses other scholars of women’s history of doing: generalizing women’s experiences. She argues that “although feminism is a useful paradigm for White women, the attempt to force Black women into the same interpretive model in not applicable, and has prevented full understanding of Black women’s lives [19].” The feminism she seems to be describing is very much based in white middle-class ideology, so it’s just as inaccurate to try to fit ''all'' White women into this paradigm as it is to try to fit Black women into it. I would’ve liked to have seen a ''small'' acknowledgment of the complexities and cultural differences that exist not just between women of different races, but also between women of the same race, both Black and White. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
== Antonia Castañeda’s“Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History” ==<br />
<br />
The last sentence of this essay sums up her argument well. "The study of women of color requires us to reexamine, challenge, and change those structures. Only then will we decolonize western history." Castañeda points out how women's history can easily fall into the same error as "traditional" history does by focusing on one specific sub-group within women's history, in this case middle-class white women. Studying women of color places the historian at intersect that challenges both gender and racial studies.<br />
I also wonder how many presumptions we make about western history because of white European influence. I love this notion of "decolonizing" western history and Castañeda only can begin to touch on some of the issues. How entrenched is our history in this "colonized" thinking?<br />
--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 19:48, 26 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
I believe that Castañeda brings out some very interesting and thought-provoking ideas in her essay about the struggle against both gender and race discrimination in history. However, I would have liked her to be more clear about who she includes and does not include when she says "women of color." Additionally, I would have liked her to also clarify who she means when she says "white." There are many European countries from which women in America have ancestry. I found it a bit hypocritical that a person writing about the need for history to include the lives of "women of color" more fairly, would continuously clump all "women of non-color" into one generlized category of "white." --[[User:Mturner|Mturner]] 20:02, 26 August 2009 (MDT)-Mary Turner<br />
<br />
== Gisela Bock's "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I found many interesting ideas in Gisela Bock's "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History". When she discussed the work versus family dichotomy, she mentioned that women have always worked. For many women, their family was their work. However, since they were not employed outside the home, or even compensated for their hard work, these women were not considered to be "workers". I like the term "paid versus unpaid work" better. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
I think the part in this essay that really struck me was when Bock discusses "Work versus family." Personally, I don't understand the significance of re-labeling the roles that women, or men for that matter play at home. Family life is seperate from career work, and in my opinion should not constitute being called "work." Bock also mentions that the opposition to the "work versus family" issue is linked to low-paying jobs for women. Maybe I am misunderstanding her point, but is she suggesting that women should be compensated for housework, or perhaps that because women typically take on housework--they have handicapped themselves in the workplace, even in jobs that aren't related to domestic work? Also, I think that the term "working mother" is reserved for women working outside the home because there is a stigma on women who demand that their responsibilities as a mother be considered "work." It makes it seem as though they think their children and home are equivalent to a job and workplace, which is not usually an accepted concept in American society.---[[User:Mturner|Mturner]] 20:02, 26 August 2009 (MDT)Mary Turner<br />
<br />
The piece on "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History," I found most interesting. There are obvious gender difference such as women can have babies and men cannot. But it is interesting because the roles of women and men have changed. I think that each individual is different and their expectations change for themselves and how they are viewed by those around them like family and society as a whole. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
In "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" Gisela Block writes about nature verses culture. I found it interesting that the activities of men were considered cultural and activities of women were natural. "Nature" in the context it was used undervalues the work women did. It just shows how far women have come since the 1970's. -LeAnn Taggart<br />
:I too found this point on nature vs culture fascinating. It makes me wonder what else in history we view through a distorted lens because we see certain things as nature and others as culture? Or if we take a look at the other dichotomies that Bock uses how could they be applied to other areas of study? --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 20:08, 26 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Gisela Bock's essay made me realize how intricate the study of women's history really is. Men and women are different in many ways including "working" at home or at the office and whether taking care of the family is considered work. The terms "sex" and "gender" are also scrutinized for one relates more to motherhood and being able to give birth than the other. I thought the dichotomies and the essay were interesting. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
<br />
The sex versus gender and the equality verses difference brought up some good and points about how women are looked at historically. I do see the difficulties of seperating biological and cultural difference and I think it is best not to seperate them too much since tey both influence one another. -John Rowley<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the essay about Women of Color and the rewriting of Western History very interesting for a couple of reasons. I thought that women of all races collaborated with one another during the Women’s movements of the 1960’s and 1970’s. As Castandeda states there were two different movements one being the women’s liberation movement and the second one being the third-world liberation movements. Women of color had a more difficult time obtaining equal rights than white middle class women because not only did they have to deal with the question of gender but also with race. -Nick Jesionka</div>Rocknrowleyhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_1_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 1 Questions/Comments-327 092009-08-27T02:10:46Z<p>Rocknrowley: </p>
<hr />
<div>Enter your questions & comments on the readings below.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Comments that compare or contrast readings ==<br />
<br />
When reading “Definining ‘American Women’s History'” by Kate Haulman, I was fascinated by how complex American Women’s History is just by looking at the separate words: “American” “Women’s” and “History.” Focusing on the “Women” aspect, Kate Haulman mainly looks at the word “women” in opposition to men and a lump category that all individuals who identify themselves as women fit into. Gisela Bock in “Challenging Dichotomies in Women’s History” looks at the word “women” in terms of the dichotomy of sex versus gender and how people identify themselves (“sex” being biological, “gender” being social). As I read Antonia Castañeda’s essay, “Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History” the definition of “women” became even more complex in very important ways because she argues that you can’t look at women as one lump category, you have to reject the idea of a common sisterhood, because such a thing does not exist. Castañeda states, “Women’s gender experiences and definitions were as divers as the cultures from which they came”. Based off of these readings it is clear that no two scholars have the same definitions, so it is important to realize that categories and definitions are dynamic, changing with time and interpretation. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that all the essays agree that American Women's History needs some changing. Whether it be the definition of the field, the ideas, the various aspects (sex, gender, race, political), they all agree it needs some reconstruction. Also, when they touched on the idea that not all women are in this "sisterhood," it brought a very good point. Many people lump in all women (regardless of race, class, country of origin) together in the same category, but you don't see that in other historical subjects. When Bock says "For too long, women have baked the cake and taken only the smallest to eat for themselves," to me it exemplifies the ever-lasting struggles women have in the "equality versus difference" arena. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
<br />
In both Bock(p.8) and Haulman's(p.4) piece they discuss how the history of women is not just about the oppression of women but the how the confinement to a certain sphere knitted them together and created a unique community. They were not just victims but actively shaped their own lives. What does this mean for studying women's history? How does seeing women as active in the midst of oppression and not necessarily victims change our view of them? --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 19:14, 26 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Kate Haulman, Defining "American Women's History" ==<br />
<br />
I found Kate Haulman's essay Defining "American Women's History" to be interesting because it is a history of how historians thought about women in history. I never thought about the connotations of this phrase until she pointed it out. Being "American" is an identity that people have. She uses examples such as a textile worker, a Cherokee woman and an African American all of who defined being American differently. The word "women" brings up gender issues. She asks, " What are the consequences of identifying, or being positioned as a woman..." History in this phrase is a study of the past. Haulman thinks that studying woman's history can frame current debates about justice and human rights and I completely agree with that statement. The more we study women and their issues the more information we will have to help make an informed decision about issues that affect us today. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
As LeAnn and Erin noted, it is interesting how Haulman breaks down "American Women's History" into three separate ideas. Each person has a different connotation about each and when you place all three together, different people can assume different ideas about the subject. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
The historiography by Haulman gives a nice overview of the field of American women’s history studies. It’s somewhat incredible, though not necessarily shocking, that studying women’s history is a rather recent development. Historians have been recounting history for thousands of years, but women’s contributions have been nothing more than a footnote, if even that, for most of that time. Particularly interesting to me was one of the dichotomies the Bock essay mentioned regarding nature vs culture. Women being perceived as “natural” and unchanging labeled them as uninteresting, which vindicated the lack of studying women, while men being perceived as products of culture apparently made them great subjects for study. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
== Leslie Alexander, “Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women’s History” ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Leslie Alexander’s essay “Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women’s History” does a great job explaining where Black women fit into Women’s Studies and feminism as a whole. What I found out was that Black women don’t fit in at all. When I think of the feminist movement I think of white, upper middle class women. And after reading Alexander’s essay, this is not surprising. Women’s studies have historically been modeled based on white women and have largely left out other categories such as race and class. This model does not work for Black women. Alexander argues that it is impossible to analyze Black women based solely on their gender, and any model that tries to do so will fail. This is because Black women have a culture in which they identify themselves with their community. Alexander goes on to argue the importance of grappling with issues such as race, culture, community, and class to further understand the lives of women. While discussing this flaw in Women's Studies, Alexander pushes for scholars to analyze Black women “through their own eyes rather than through the lens of whiteness and oppression." –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I agree that Black women do not fit into Women's Studies. When I think of the feminist movement or even of the idea of women's history, I also picture white upper middle class women. I always remember learning about women's history, and then learning about African-American history, but the two never seemed to cross paths in lessons. I liked what Kate Haulman said in her essay, "A woman who self-identified as Chinese American...was not Chinese American four days out of the week and a woman the other three- she was always both." I think that idea could be used in the case of Black women, and for women of all other races. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
If the reading is on a women in American History then I think it does fit in this article. Black women are a part of American history no matter through a white person's point of of view or what class status they had. I do agree that the feminist movement would have mostly been white upper middle class but I also think that black women and white women each had their own social classes. I agree with Alexander that we should have scholars analyze the history of a black woman through their own eyes even though we know in the past that was not so easy. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
In Leslie Alexander's essay, I was interested in the comments made about black women and their role in women's history. I had never really given much thought to the idea, but realized after reading that they do not appear to be a huge part in women's history; historians and people interested in history may just assume that this group of women are included butit may be important to have a bit more focus. Historians may want to homogenize them but in reality they do have a separate history to that of white women. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
Traditionally, the women’s rights movement discriminated against women of different races and classes. While I think Alexander makes a very important point that feminism has excluded many people, I wonder if she has overexaggerated or simplified African American women’s ambivalence towards the women’s rights movement. Alexander stated that feminism has had a “gender first” requirement. I personally know more about earlier feminism, such as the fight for suffrage, rather than later feminism, but I think one can make an argument that much of at least earlier feminism was “class first” rather than “gender first.” -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
In agreement, I do say that traditionally I think most people think of American Women's History as an upper (maybe at time middle) class white subject. However, the problem lies in the fact that while there may be documentation (primary sources) on these white women due to their education and status levels, one might be hard-pressed to find the much lacking resources on Black women in history. For example, you may find plenty of information into the lives of a wealthy white woman plantation owner's wife, but you are not going to have the same time looking up her main house slave. I do believe the work should be done on elaborating American Women's History, it just seems that it would be a difficult task to take on. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
The Castañeda and Alexander readings examine contributions women of different ethnic/racial backgrounds have made to the women’s studies field outside of the traditional and dominate women’s liberation, white middle-class approach taken by most scholars. These historians have challenged overlooking race and class as an influence on women, as well as the idea of looking at women of color as little more than doubly oppressed victims. However, I feel that Leslie Alexander does a little of what she accuses other scholars of women’s history of doing: generalizing women’s experiences. She argues that “although feminism is a useful paradigm for White women, the attempt to force Black women into the same interpretive model in not applicable, and has prevented full understanding of Black women’s lives [19].” The feminism she seems to be describing is very much based in white middle-class ideology, so it’s just as inaccurate to try to fit ''all'' White women into this paradigm as it is to try to fit Black women into it. I would’ve liked to have seen a ''small'' acknowledgment of the complexities and cultural differences that exist not just between women of different races, but also between women of the same race, both Black and White. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
== Antonia Castañeda’s“Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History” ==<br />
<br />
The last sentence of this essay sums up her argument well. "The study of women of color requires us to reexamine, challenge, and change those structures. Only then will we decolonize western history." Castañeda points out how women's history can easily fall into the same error as "traditional" history does by focusing on one specific sub-group within women's history, in this case middle-class white women. Studying women of color places the historian at intersect that challenges both gender and racial studies.<br />
I also wonder how many presumptions we make about western history because of white European influence. I love this notion of "decolonizing" western history and Castañeda only can begin to touch on some of the issues. How entrenched is our history in this "colonized" thinking?<br />
--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 19:48, 26 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
I believe that Castañeda brings out some very interesting and thought-provoking ideas in her essay about the struggle against both gender and race discrimination in history. However, I would have liked her to be more clear about who she includes and does not include when she says "women of color." Additionally, I would have liked her to also clarify who she means when she says "white." There are many European countries from which women in America have ancestry. I found it a bit hypocritical that a person writing about the need for history to include the lives of "women of color" more fairly, would continuously clump all "women of non-color" into one generlized category of "white." --[[User:Mturner|Mturner]] 20:02, 26 August 2009 (MDT)-Mary Turner<br />
<br />
== Gisela Bock's "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I found many interesting ideas in Gisela Bock's "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History". When she discussed the work versus family dichotomy, she mentioned that women have always worked. For many women, their family was their work. However, since they were not employed outside the home, or even compensated for their hard work, these women were not considered to be "workers". I like the term "paid versus unpaid work" better. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
I think the part in this essay that really struck me was when Bock discusses "Work versus family." Personally, I don't understand the significance of re-labeling the roles that women, or men for that matter play at home. Family life is seperate from career work, and in my opinion should not constitute being called "work." Bock also mentions that the opposition to the "work versus family" issue is linked to low-paying jobs for women. Maybe I am misunderstanding her point, but is she suggesting that women should be compensated for housework, or perhaps that because women typically take on housework--they have handicapped themselves in the workplace, even in jobs that aren't related to domestic work? Also, I think that the term "working mother" is reserved for women working outside the home because there is a stigma on women who demand that their responsibilities as a mother be considered "work." It makes it seem as though they think their children and home are equivalent to a job and workplace, which is not usually an accepted concept in American society.---[[User:Mturner|Mturner]] 20:02, 26 August 2009 (MDT)Mary Turner<br />
<br />
The piece on "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History," I found most interesting. There are obvious gender difference such as women can have babies and men cannot. But it is interesting because the roles of women and men have changed. I think that each individual is different and their expectations change for themselves and how they are viewed by those around them like family and society as a whole. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
In "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" Gisela Block writes about nature verses culture. I found it interesting that the activities of men were considered cultural and activities of women were natural. "Nature" in the context it was used undervalues the work women did. It just shows how far women have come since the 1970's. -LeAnn Taggart<br />
- I too found this point on nature vs culture fascinating. It makes me wonder what else in history we view through a distorted lens because we see certain things as nature and others as culture? Or if we take a look at the other dichotomies that Bock uses how could they be applied to other areas of study? --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 20:08, 26 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Gisela Bock's essay made me realize how intricate the study of women's history really is. Men and women are different in many ways including "working" at home or at the office and whether taking care of the family is considered work. The terms "sex" and "gender" are also scrutinized for one relates more to motherhood and being able to give birth than the other. I thought the dichotomies and the essay were interesting. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
The sex versus gender and the equality verses difference brought up some good and points about how women are looked at historically. I do see the difficulties of seperating biological and cultural difference and I think it is best not to seperate them too much since tey both influence one another. -John Rowley<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the essay about Women of Color and the rewriting of Western History very interesting for a couple of reasons. I thought that women of all races collaborated with one another during the Women’s movements of the 1960’s and 1970’s. As Castandeda states there were two different movements one being the women’s liberation movement and the second one being the third-world liberation movements. Women of color had a more difficult time obtaining equal rights than white middle class women because not only did they have to deal with the question of gender but also with race. -Nick Jesionka</div>Rocknrowley 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