Deprecated: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/GlobalFunctions.php on line 2578
Deprecated: Optional parameter $prefix declared before required parameter $code is implicitly treated as a required parameter in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/languages/Language.php on line 4036
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$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
Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/languages/LanguageConverter.php on line 726
Deprecated: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/search/SearchEngine.php on line 1502
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php on line 755
Warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php on line 907
Deprecated: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Pager.php on line 908
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 627
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 629
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 630
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 631
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 633
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 634
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php on line 402
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38 https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=SsellersMcClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-07-12T22:51:16ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_15_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 15 Questions/Comments-327 112011-12-07T15:39:04Z<p>Ssellers: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Shop Girls and Piece Workers by Helen Campbell, 1893 ==<br />
<br />
In Shop Girls and Piece Workers by Helen Campbell, she describes both the lives shop girls and women workers in trades. She describes the Shop Girls as viewing stores as "the high road to fortune." Furthermore, they have "no thought of permanence" for themselves and, rather, expect to marry. These women also try to imitate their rich customers. On the other hand, women in trades work because "there is no one to earn for them," as they are widows, have drunken husbands who demand support themselves, or have children they must take care of. These two sets of women would have wildly different points of view on what is important to them. This idea is important because the document is from 1893, a time of women's rights movements. These groups of women's would likely not have the same ideals concerning women's rights, based on why they earn livings. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Political Lessons by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, 1882 ==<br />
<br />
I believe this article offers insight into the tension between those who fought for black male suffrage and those who fought for female suffrage. Obviously these women feel betrayed by the men who supposedly were interested in helping gain equality for all. "But with arms folded, Greeley, Curtis, Tilton, Beecher, Higginson, Phillips, Garrison, Frederick Douglass, all calmly watched the struggle from afar, and when defeat came to both propositions, no consoling words were offered for woman's loss, but the women who spoke in the campaign were reproached for having 'killed negro suffrage.'" (page 360-361). It was really bold of these women to directly call out the men they believed were acting against them, even unlady like, but I think it reflects the hurt that these women felt. It's easy to reflect upon society and think that women who chose to fight for woman's rights over black rights were racist, but it's also important to see that these women were wounded and hurt by people who pledged allegiance to acquiring woman's rights before abolition and broke that promise as soon as their original goal was reached and women were no longer needed. This article reads almost like a sibling rivalry and it would be interesting to see the response of the men whose names are listed above. It's easy to write off an act as racist, sexist or bigoted, but no act, value or speak has intrinsic value without the context of it's situation. I also would like to point out that even though Anthony and Stanton urge women to no longer depend on men both of these women were married and Stanton left the activist lifestyle to play the mother/wife role before returning to her work. These actions do not reflect women who reject interaction and dependence upon men. It is important to understand context of expressions before interpreting them. Otherwise these women would be portrayed as man-hating misers by their rejection of male help when they simply wished to state that a woman should not rely on a man to fight her battles for her. --Sara S. <br />
<br />
== A Sweatshop Girl's Story by Sadie Frowne, 1902 ==<br />
<br />
I thought this document was enlightening. The woman writing was clearly a woman who was educated and who had ambition which is so interesting to read about in her own words. Even though the amount of money she makes is only double what she pays in rent each month (which she shares an apartment in order to afford it)she still manages to save up money. I also thought it was interesting to see the line "But tho I belong to the Union I am not a Socialist or Anarchist" (page 311) because it means that the ideology and fear of being associated with these two groups existed before the red scares that happened later. She talks so supportively of the Union yet is afraid to be associated with the good of the Union for being socialist or anarchist. The not-wanting-to-get-married aspect at the end of the document was pretty interesting as well. I wish she would have explained more about this desire and why. I can't help but wonder if she did ever marry Henry and what became of the money which she had managed to save. --Sara S<br />
<br />
In the Office Clerk by Clara Lanza, she describes women as going out into the business place to work as clerks. This led the women to see themselves as "pioneers in the business world," because they were moving out of the domestic sphere and having an active role outside of the home. It is interesting because towards the end of the document, it is stated that "the girls make good wives," something associated with the domestic sphere. She asserts that it is because men now admire independence, but it is difficult to determine whether that is true. -- Clare O.</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_15_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 15 Questions/Comments-327 112011-12-07T15:27:41Z<p>Ssellers: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== Shop Girls and Piece Workers by Helen Campbell, 1893 ==<br />
<br />
In Shop Girls and Piece Workers by Helen Campbell, she describes both the lives shop girls and women workers in trades. She describes the Shop Girls as viewing stores as "the high road to fortune." Furthermore, they have "no thought of permanence" for themselves and, rather, expect to marry. These women also try to imitate their rich customers. On the other hand, women in trades work because "there is no one to earn for them," as they are widows, have drunken husbands who demand support themselves, or have children they must take care of. These two sets of women would have wildly different points of view on what is important to them. This idea is important because the document is from 1893, a time of women's rights movements. These groups of women's would likely not have the same ideals concerning women's rights, based on why they earn livings. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
<br />
== A Sweatshop Girl's Story by Sadie Frowne, 1902 ==<br />
<br />
I thought this document was enlightening. The woman writing was clearly a woman who was educated and who had ambition which is so interesting to read about in her own words. Even though the amount of money she makes is only double what she pays in rent each month (which she shares an apartment in order to afford it)she still manages to save up money. I also thought it was interesting to see the line "But tho I belong to the Union I am not a Socialist or Anarchist" (page 311) because it means that the ideology and fear of being associated with these two groups existed before the red scares that happened later. She talks so supportively of the Union yet is afraid to be associated with the good of the Union for being socialist or anarchist. The not-wanting-to-get-married aspect at the end of the document was pretty interesting as well. I wish she would have explained more about this desire and why. I can't help but wonder if she did ever marry Henry and what became of the money which she had managed to save. --Sara S<br />
<br />
In the Office Clerk by Clara Lanza, she describes women as going out into the business place to work as clerks. This led the women to see themselves as "pioneers in the business world," because they were moving out of the domestic sphere and having an active role outside of the home. It is interesting because towards the end of the document, it is stated that "the girls make good wives," something associated with the domestic sphere. She asserts that it is because men now admire independence, but it is difficult to determine whether that is true. -- Clare O.</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_13-14_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 13-14 Questions/Comments-327 112011-11-30T02:20:27Z<p>Ssellers: </p>
<hr />
<div>In Louisa May Alcott's description of being a Union nurse, it is apparent that women are new to the field of nursing, and even then, their definition of nursing is not what it is today. Alcott writes, "I find real pleasure in comforting, tending, and cheering these poor souls who seem to love me, to feel my sympathy though unspoken, and acknowledge my hearty good-will, in spite of the ignorance, awkwardness, and bashfulness which I cannot help showing in so new and trying a situation." Alcott's main role was to keep up the spirits of the men, not doing any actual medical aide. Furthermore, she describeds fulfilling these duties with awkwardness and bashfulness. This is likely because ladies were supposed to be in the home, and if they are out of the home they are certainly not supposed to be dealing with men they are not married to. --Clare O<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Teaching the Freedmen: Sarah Chase and Lucy Chase, 1866-1868 ==<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed these articles because these women existed as outliers in a nation where race is a decisive issue. I especially liked the end of the last letter by Sarah Chase to Mr. May "No matter how strict the rules, and wise and kind the teachers plans, for the comfort, and rights of the black scholar; the ''feeling'' of the whites expressd or not -- ''will'' keep the sensitive African away; though he would willingly bear cold, hunger, and whippings if need be--to 'get a little larning.' (280)" This expression of doubt by Sarah Chase bears a reflection of the tension of race relations in the south and other integrated areas. If I had to choose between feeding and clothing myself or attending college it really would not be a choice. One can talk about the importance of education until they're blue in the face, but basic necessities, including safety for these blacks, are ultimately more important. --Sara S. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Ada Bacot, a Confederate Nurse, Comments on Two Wounded Yankees, 1862 ==<br />
<br />
I found Ada Bacot's comments on Two Wounded Yankees extremely interesting. She is a Confederate nurse, and yet she feels she has a duty to treat them. She describes them as human beings, something her male counterparts would likely gloss over and simply describe them as the enemy. But Ada feels pity, and although she doesn't like it, she helps the soldiers. This is likely due to the role of women as being caretakers and motherly. She continues to fill that role regardless of the color of the men's uniforms. --Clare O<br />
<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Clare on this. This document made me feel really empathetic towards the people fighting in the Civil War. It's easy to paint the picture of Southerners being barbaric slave owners and Northerners being too concerned with industrialization and profit to care about the lives of humans, but here it is a confederate woman who isn't fighting for slavery or against industrialization, but is fighting to keep dying men alive. "I can't help feeling pity for them, they are human beings. They are our enemys too, wounded and in our power. It will be hard to treat them as I do the other men but I know it is my duty. The heat is almost over powering. (202)" This makes the war human, and having been in Charlottesville for the summer months before, I can only imagine how awful the hospital smelled and felt especially without air-conditioning. --Sara S.</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_13-14_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 13-14 Questions/Comments-327 112011-11-30T02:12:09Z<p>Ssellers: </p>
<hr />
<div>In Louisa May Alcott's description of being a Union nurse, it is apparent that women are new to the field of nursing, and even then, their definition of nursing is not what it is today. Alcott writes, "I find real pleasure in comforting, tending, and cheering these poor souls who seem to love me, to feel my sympathy though unspoken, and acknowledge my hearty good-will, in spite of the ignorance, awkwardness, and bashfulness which I cannot help showing in so new and trying a situation." Alcott's main role was to keep up the spirits of the men, not doing any actual medical aide. Furthermore, she describeds fulfilling these duties with awkwardness and bashfulness. This is likely because ladies were supposed to be in the home, and if they are out of the home they are certainly not supposed to be dealing with men they are not married to. --Clare O<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Ada Bacot, a Confederate Nurse, Comments on Two Wounded Yankees, 1862 ==<br />
<br />
I found Ada Bacot's comments on Two Wounded Yankees extremely interesting. She is a Confederate nurse, and yet she feels she has a duty to treat them. She describes them as human beings, something her male counterparts would likely gloss over and simply describe them as the enemy. But Ada feels pity, and although she doesn't like it, she helps the soldiers. This is likely due to the role of women as being caretakers and motherly. She continues to fill that role regardless of the color of the men's uniforms. --Clare O<br />
<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Clare on this. This document made me feel really empathetic towards the people fighting in the Civil War. It's easy to paint the picture of Southerners being barbaric slave owners and Northerners being too concerned with industrialization and profit to care about the lives of humans, but here it is a confederate woman who isn't fighting for slavery or against industrialization, but is fighting to keep dying men alive. "I can't help feeling pity for them, they are human beings. They are our enemys too, wounded and in our power. It will be hard to treat them as I do the other men but I know it is my duty. The heat is almost over powering. (202)" This makes the war human, and having been in Charlottesville for the summer months before, I can only imagine how awful the hospital smelled and felt especially without air-conditioning. --Sara S.</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_12_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 12 Questions/Comments-327 112011-11-15T19:54:32Z<p>Ssellers: /* Sarah Josepha Hale, Editor of ''Godey's Lady's Book,'' Praises Women's Indirect Political Influence, 1852 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Lucy Stone's Marriage Protest; Henry B. Blackwell and Lucy Stone, 1855==<br />
I really enjoyed the insight which this document offered to us. In the introduction it states that "Stone kept her name, refused to 'obey' and challenged the system of coveture." Although this protest by her and her husband has done nothing significant (women still take their husbands name, many religious ceremonies still discuss obedience of the wife, etc) in the overall societal impact of marriage, it was shocking to read that women didn't take their husbands name in 1855! And that her husband was in on the protest! I know this doesn't offer much into the lives of average American wives, but it surprised me to say the very least. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Ordinary Women in the Antisalvery Movement by Julie Roy Jeffrey ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sarah Josepha Hale, Editor of ''Godey's Lady's Book,'' Praises Women's Indirect Political Influence, 1852 ==<br />
<br />
Even though it was short, this document was insightful because of the last sentence of it "This is the way American women should vote, namely, by influencing rightly the votes of men." This sentence implies a sort of power which women have over their husbands within their household and I have to wonder to the extent which this so-called power manifested itself. Sure, persuasion is powerful, but not having control of one's finances or lifestyle cannot be construed as power. --Sara S. <br />
<br />
<br />
In A Letter to the Liberator by the Andover Female Antislavery Society, I thought it was interesting in the way the women use religious rhetoric compared to womens role in religion in the past. For example, the assert that "God never mad [women] to be inactive-- nor in all cases to follow in the wake of man." Furthermore, they state that they believe "God gave woman a heart to feel-- an eye to weep-- a hand to work-- a tongue to speak." Not very long before this time, women were absolutely expected to 'follow' man and were expected to be silent in church. Women's new role as moral pillar of the family certainly aided this, as the women state they "will do a Christian woman's duty." --Clare O.<br />
<br />
The idea of a middle class is apparent in the document "Mrs. Isabella Graham Addresses Members of the Society for the Relief of Poor Widows with Small Children, April 1800, and Their Daughters (Volunteer Teachers), April 1806." Graham discusses the comforts that the members of the society enjoy, such as dwellings, fires, and parties, while the poor widows have no comforts whatsoever. One of the most important aspects of the idea of the middle class to women is their new ability to help others due to their privileged status. This document is an excellent example of this emerging charity. --Clare O.</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_12_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 12 Questions/Comments-327 112011-11-15T19:54:00Z<p>Ssellers: /* Lucy Stone's Marriage Protest; Henry B. Blackwell and Lucy Stone, 1855 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Lucy Stone's Marriage Protest; Henry B. Blackwell and Lucy Stone, 1855==<br />
I really enjoyed the insight which this document offered to us. In the introduction it states that "Stone kept her name, refused to 'obey' and challenged the system of coveture." Although this protest by her and her husband has done nothing significant (women still take their husbands name, many religious ceremonies still discuss obedience of the wife, etc) in the overall societal impact of marriage, it was shocking to read that women didn't take their husbands name in 1855! And that her husband was in on the protest! I know this doesn't offer much into the lives of average American wives, but it surprised me to say the very least. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Ordinary Women in the Antisalvery Movement by Julie Roy Jeffrey ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sarah Josepha Hale, Editor of ''Godey's Lady's Book,'' Praises Women's Indirect Political Influence, 1852 ==<br />
Even though it was short, this document was insightful because of the last sentence of it "This is the way American women should vote, namely, by influencing rightly the votes of men." This sentence implies a sort of power which women have over their husbands within their household and I have to wonder to the extent which this so-called power manifested itself. Sure, persuasion is powerful, but not having control of one's finances or lifestyle cannot be construed as power. --Sara S. <br />
<br />
<br />
In A Letter to the Liberator by the Andover Female Antislavery Society, I thought it was interesting in the way the women use religious rhetoric compared to womens role in religion in the past. For example, the assert that "God never mad [women] to be inactive-- nor in all cases to follow in the wake of man." Furthermore, they state that they believe "God gave woman a heart to feel-- an eye to weep-- a hand to work-- a tongue to speak." Not very long before this time, women were absolutely expected to 'follow' man and were expected to be silent in church. Women's new role as moral pillar of the family certainly aided this, as the women state they "will do a Christian woman's duty." --Clare O.<br />
<br />
The idea of a middle class is apparent in the document "Mrs. Isabella Graham Addresses Members of the Society for the Relief of Poor Widows with Small Children, April 1800, and Their Daughters (Volunteer Teachers), April 1806." Graham discusses the comforts that the members of the society enjoy, such as dwellings, fires, and parties, while the poor widows have no comforts whatsoever. One of the most important aspects of the idea of the middle class to women is their new ability to help others due to their privileged status. This document is an excellent example of this emerging charity. --Clare O.</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_12_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 12 Questions/Comments-327 112011-11-15T19:43:53Z<p>Ssellers: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
<br />
== Lucy Stone's Marriage Protest; Henry B. Blackwell and Lucy Stone, 1855==<br />
I really enjoyed the insight which this document offered to us. In the introduction it states that "Stone kept her name, refused to 'obey' and challenged the system of coveture." Although this protest by her and her husband has done nothing significant (women still take their husbands name, many religious ceremonies still discuss obedience of the wife, etc) in the overall societal impact of marriage, it was shocking to read that women didn't take their husbands name in 1855! And that her husband was in on the protest! I know this doesn't offer much into the lives of average American wives, but it surprised me to say the very least. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
In A Letter to the Liberator by the Andover Female Antislavery Society, I thought it was interesting in the way the women use religious rhetoric compared to womens role in religion in the past. For example, the assert that "God never mad [women] to be inactive-- nor in all cases to follow in the wake of man." Furthermore, they state that they believe "God gave woman a heart to feel-- an eye to weep-- a hand to work-- a tongue to speak." Not very long before this time, women were absolutely expected to 'follow' man and were expected to be silent in church. Women's new role as moral pillar of the family certainly aided this, as the women state they "will do a Christian woman's duty." --Clare O.<br />
<br />
The idea of a middle class is apparent in the document "Mrs. Isabella Graham Addresses Members of the Society for the Relief of Poor Widows with Small Children, April 1800, and Their Daughters (Volunteer Teachers), April 1806." Graham discusses the comforts that the members of the society enjoy, such as dwellings, fires, and parties, while the poor widows have no comforts whatsoever. One of the most important aspects of the idea of the middle class to women is their new ability to help others due to their privileged status. This document is an excellent example of this emerging charity. --Clare O.</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_11_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 11 Questions/Comments-327 112011-11-08T17:26:59Z<p>Ssellers: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
For Irish families, such as the Conway's, having a family member make the voyage to America was incredibly difficult. The likelihood of that family member returning to Ireland was very low. Mary Ann Sadlier describes this sentiment vividly by saying her family "felt at the moment as if they had left Bessy in the churchyard clay," likening Bessy's voyage to America to being like her death. This separation was not easy for Bessy or other Irish women for that matter. Perhaps this is why when Bessy arrived in New York, her "comrade-girls" assured her they were happy to see her and kind to her. These women want to try and form bonds with each other since they are all in similar situations. -- Clare O. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Xin Jin's Contract, San Francisco, 1886==<br />
<br />
When reading the Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, I was surprised by how standard they are. All work for about four years, are paid no wages, and there is no interest on the money. Furthermore, extended periods of sickness add a month to the service. What I thought was most surprising was that the Chinese prostitutes all are contracted with other Chinese people. I had assumed they would be contracted to American people. I wonder why some Chinese did well enough to contract prostitutes while others did poor enough to have to work as prostitutes. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
I actually had a problem with the introduction to this article. It talks about women existing as prostitutes but does not acknowledge why these women were there as prostitutes. This was NOT like the prostitution of white society. First, there were laws prohibiting all asians, but particularly women (who to the whites were of NO use but sexuality). Secondly, It was forbidden for these asian men to fraternize with women who were not asian. Their numbers were not as high as that of blacks in the south so disobeying this law was not common and was severely punishable. The existence of prostitution had nothing to do with one being well-off enough to contract a woman to be a prositute, but had more do to with the fact that these women had to be brought in illegally due to American immigration laws and cost a lot of time and money to do so. It is not mentioned in the introduction to this paragraph and is put immediately after a document about white prostitutes and i feel this is in bad taste. The hardships of Asians in America even until the end of the 1900's are not that easily comparable to the hardships of those who could "pass" as english. --Sara S<br />
<br />
== New York Prositutes by William Sanger, 1858==<br />
"'When a woman drinks she is lost.' It will be conceded that the habit of intoxication in woman, if not an indication of actual depravity or vice, is a sure precursor of it, for drunkenness and debauchery are inspearable companions, one almost invariably following the other." page 290. I choose this quote to exemplify this document for a couple of reasons. 1. it is actually funny to think about how alcohol was viewed as this causer of evil, not as though the person was evil and alcohol just allowed them to be evil. 2. Because it does not mention the debauchery of men while they drink and is only concerned with women's behavior when the entire prohbition and temperance movement sprung out of woman's desire for men to stop drinking away all of the family's money, sleeping with prostitutes and beating there wives when drunk. 3. I think the sympathy which the doctor had to these prostitutes is remarkable for the time period in which it existed. --Sara S.</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_10_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 10 Questions/Comments-327 112011-11-01T19:02:49Z<p>Ssellers: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== "A Reply to Harriet Beecher Stowe" Louisa S. Cheeves McCord, 1853 ==<br />
<br />
I thought this document was enlightening and so interesting. True, she was writing things that by today's standards are offensive and politically incorrect, but this is what primary sources offer to us, someone who isn't ashamed to admit their beliefs. I want to offer a quote from the reading "To Conclude. We have undertaken the defence of slavery in no temporizing vein. We do NOT say it is a necessary evil. We do NOT allow that it is a temporary make-shift to choke the course of Providence for man's convenience. It is NOT 'a sorrow and a wrong to be lived down.' We proclaim it, on the contrary, a Godlike dispensation, a providential caring for the weak, and a refuge for the portionless." (page 219). Understanding this statement helps one understand the entire patriarchal society. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
== Angelina Grimke Weld ''The Cruel Mistress'' ==<br />
<br />
In this source we hear the horrid stories of slavery. However, it is different because it does not focus on the oppressive white male but on the mistress. It is interesting to see the fault in white women. Also, it is interesting that Weld pushes on the physically abuse. She has to argue that most slave owners act like this cruel mistress. Even though she hints at slaves with souls, she focuses on the physically abuse. Michelle M.<br />
<br />
I think it is important that Angelina Grimke Weld continually emphasizes the the cruel mistress in question is "at the head of the fashionable elite city of Charleston" and more importantly "at the head of the moral and religious female society there." It is astounding that someone who claims to be of moral and pious authority can be so abusive and uncaring. However, the violence against the slaves is justified by slaveholders because slaves are viewed as property and not actual human beings. -- Clare O.<br />
<br />
Going off of what Clare wrote I have to point at that even Grimke ackonledges the belief that "God in his providence had set over them--it was their DUTY to abide in abject submission, and hers to COMPEL them to do so--IT WAS THUS THAT SHE REASONED" (page 216. the Capitalization is in place of italics). This wasn't about cruelty to the woman mistresses, rather a belief that the slave was not a human being (mentioned at the end of the document). i also have to wonder to what extent the women mistresses were so violent and cruel had to do with an inadvert expression of their distaste for their own oppression. The slaves offerred them power so they took full advantage of it. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
==Mrs. Chesnut's Complaint==<br />
<br />
This is an important source because it shows a woman who is part of a large slave-holding family realizing the atrocity of the slave system. One particularly important realization is that "Men and women are punished when their masters and mistresses are brutes and not when they do wrong..." This notion is related to that of "The Cruel Mistress," in which the mistress would punish at her own whim regardless of whether the slaves had erred. Regardless of this insight, Chesnut still closes with "my countrywomen are as pure as angels - tho surrounded by another race who are -- the social evil!" It seems that Chesnut believes the institution of slavery is wrong but not the idea of racism. --Clare O. <br />
<br />
== Yee "Free Black Women in Abolitionist Movement" ==<br />
<br />
This article recounts what most of the primary sources describe, which is slave women's lives were extremely difficult. They had to worry about family, separation, forced sexual relations, sexual abuse, work, being a housekeeper, and so much more. African American slave women dealt with so much under the system of patriarchy because not only were they under the white master, but the white mistress, and her "husband" as well. Her life was always in an imbalance and in survival mode. --Michelle M.</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_10_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 10 Questions/Comments-327 112011-11-01T18:57:37Z<p>Ssellers: /* Angelina Grimke Weld ''The Cruel Mistress'' */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Angelina Grimke Weld ''The Cruel Mistress'' ==<br />
<br />
In this source we hear the horrid stories of slavery. However, it is different because it does not focus on the oppressive white male but on the mistress. It is interesting to see the fault in white women. Also, it is interesting that Weld pushes on the physically abuse. She has to argue that most slave owners act like this cruel mistress. Even though she hints at slaves with souls, she focuses on the physically abuse. Michelle M.<br />
<br />
I think it is important that Angelina Grimke Weld continually emphasizes the the cruel mistress in question is "at the head of the fashionable elite city of Charleston" and more importantly "at the head of the moral and religious female society there." It is astounding that someone who claims to be of moral and pious authority can be so abusive and uncaring. However, the violence against the slaves is justified by slaveholders because slaves are viewed as property and not actual human beings. -- Clare O.<br />
<br />
Going off of what Clare wrote I have to point at that even Grimke ackonledges the belief that "God in his providence had set over them--it was their DUTY to abide in abject submission, and hers to COMPEL them to do so--IT WAS THUS THAT SHE REASONED" (page 216. the Capitalization is in place of italics). This wasn't about cruelty to the woman mistresses, rather a belief that the slave was not a human being (mentioned at the end of the document). i also have to wonder to what extent the women mistresses were so violent and cruel had to do with an inadvert expression of their distaste for their own oppression. The slaves offerred them power so they took full advantage of it. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
==Mrs. Chesnut's Complaint==<br />
<br />
This is an important source because it shows a woman who is part of a large slave-holding family realizing the atrocity of the slave system. One particularly important realization is that "Men and women are punished when their masters and mistresses are brutes and not when they do wrong..." This notion is related to that of "The Cruel Mistress," in which the mistress would punish at her own whim regardless of whether the slaves had erred. Regardless of this insight, Chesnut still closes with "my countrywomen are as pure as angels - tho surrounded by another race who are -- the social evil!" It seems that Chesnut believes the institution of slavery is wrong but not the idea of racism. --Clare O. <br />
<br />
== Yee "Free Black Women in Abolitionist Movement" ==<br />
<br />
This article recounts what most of the primary sources describe, which is slave women's lives were extremely difficult. They had to worry about family, separation, forced sexual relations, sexual abuse, work, being a housekeeper, and so much more. African American slave women dealt with so much under the system of patriarchy because not only were they under the white master, but the white mistress, and her "husband" as well. Her life was always in an imbalance and in survival mode. --Michelle M.</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_9_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 9 Questions/Comments-327 112011-10-27T17:14:13Z<p>Ssellers: /* Miss Burnham’s Report, “A Choctaw Mission School,” 1824 */</p>
<hr />
<div>FOR THIS WEEK POST TWO QUESTIONS BY THURSDAY AND CHECK BACK TO RESPOND TO TWO QUESTIONS BY SATURDAY.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== General Questions ==<br />
<br />
I was surprised (although I shouldn't really have been) at the number of these documents which refer to religion as important to their daily lives: from the lowell girls' rules enforcing religious practice to the teachers in the American west to the women on the gold mines everyone was obsessed with the sanctity of their own religion and the lack of religion in their society. Were these women simply becoming teachers to help those less fortunate than them or were they really seeking an attempt at missionary work of people they truly believed to be spiritually beneath them. Although the outcome of their work would still be the same, it would be important to know the background for which their work was done for it would tell more about the woman doing the work. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
In "A Spirit of Protest" (which I didn't see a heading for, for whatever reason that may be), the "Lowell Factory Girl" protests against capitalism and fights for labor rights. Mid-eighteenth century American society does not come off to me as an extremely capitalist society (compared with modern USA). How much did capitalism affect the lives of Americans in this time period. And was this a common viewpoint on the economy of the day? --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
== Emma Willard, “Matrimonial Risks,” 1815 ==<br />
<br />
Willard is concerned with the happiness of marriage. She warns her sister not to get her hopes up, when it comes to her suitor Mr. L because he might be disappointing. I wonder if this is a change to "companionate marriages." Willard sees or wants marriage to be happy, but realizes that marriage could be miserable. Since Willard knows that men can fail at companionate marriages, does that mean the idea of marriage changing? Do women feel they have a choice? --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
In "Matrimonial Risks," Willard seems to be attempting to warn her sister off of all marriages and all relationships; the advice she gives is so generalized against marriage that it almost seems that she must have been unhappy in her marriage. I started reading this expecting, based on the editors' introduction, for Willard to be essentially warning her sister off of Lincoln. On the contrary, it almost seems that Willard is trying to warn her sister off of any and all marriage. Intriguingly, she then tells her sister she'd love to see Lincoln and visit with him. I got such mixed signals from this letter that I'm really wondering whether Willard disliked Lincoln (if so, why say she'd like to see him?) or the idea of her sister getting married at all (and if that, why? Most women wound up married!) -- Nicole<br />
<br />
This reading was quite depressing how she wrote about how she should question her happiness. This shows how unhappy Emma was herself. I wonder how common this was among most women? --Emma<br />
<br />
== Caroline Gilman, “The Deferential Wife,” 1838 ==<br />
<br />
I liked in ''The Deferential Wife'' by Caroline Gilman the quote "Men are not often unreasonable; their difficulties lie in not understanding the moral and physcial structure of our sex. They often wound through ignorance and are surprised at having offended. How clear is it, then, that woman loses by petulance and recrimination! Her first study must be self-control, almost to hypocrisy. A good wife must smile amid a thousand perplexities, and clear her voice to tones of cheerfulness when her frames is drooping with disease, or else languish alone. Man on the contrary, when trials beset him, expects to find her ear and heart a ready receptacle." (page 147) Basically this is the formation of the idea that woman is reponsible for the morality and self-control of the man. It is from this ideologue (which did develop concurrently with Republican Motherhood) that the arguments today about the dress and style of women are based upon. It is interesting to see it in its' original context in The Deferential Wife. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
The Deferential Wife was an interesting piece. A woman that wanted to carter to the audience of women is an interesting concept. This would play into the idea of republican motherhood and that women would want to be more educated. That being said, if the idea of educating women were important, why don’t we see more papers and magazines geared toward the women that are staying on the plantations and raising the children? –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Catharine Beecher, “System and Order,” 1841 ==<br />
<br />
Beecher's believes that motherhood/domesticity is the greatest occupation for humanity. She believes that it will create a heaven on earth or a perfect society. This statement brings a true meaning to motherhood and housework. People are happier when they have meaning to their lives. Her belief gives women so much more to live for (not saying it is right or wrong). However, with all ideals, her advice must have stressed most women in case they failed. --- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
In Beecher's "System and Order," she states that "The formation of the moral and intellectual character of the young is committed mainly to the female hand....The proper education of a man decides the welfare of an individual; but educate a woman, and the interests of a whole family are secured." This quote reminded me of "if you teach a man to fish..." because Beecher is saying only one person benefits from the education of a man (the man). However, a woman is responsible for the education of her children as well as a role model of morals for both her children and husband. Therefore, if you educate a woman, everyone in the family will profit. This idea combines the early idea of republican motherhood, in which the mother is the prime educator and moral guide, but combines with emerging middle class ideals in which the woman is the head of the domestic sphere. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
Beecher asserts that "another important item is the apportioning of regular employment to the various members of the family....There is no greater mistake, than in bringing up children to feel that they must be taken care of, and waited on, by others, without any corresponding obligations on their part." I found this interesting because middle class families did not need children to work at the family business (as had been so many years previously, on farms for example) and therefore the mother had more time to focus on her children and the home. I am surprised to find Beecher encouraging mothers to "employ" their children around the house, when I had assumed children did not do any work in their families. Perhaps the change was that children did not need to do actual hard labor anymore, but were still expected to help around the house, as Beecher suggests. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
Beecher lists a series of chores that housewives must accomplish on each day of the week. She states, "''Monday'', with some of the best housekeepers, is devoted to preparing for the labors of the week...''Tuesday'' is devoted to washing, and ''Wednesday'' to ironing. On ''Thursday'', the ironing is finished off, the clothes folded and put away, and all articles which need mending put in the mending basket, and attended to. ''Friday'' is devoted to sweeping and housecleaning. On ''Saturday''...every department is put in order...and everything about the house put in order for ''Sunday''." Such a strict daily schedule may explain why women became so bored and lonely. Their husbands could go out of the house and do business, meet with other people, or attend to different aspects of business at different times of the year. Women, on the other hand, were expected to accomplish the same tasks on the same day no matter the month or week. Do you think this could explain why women, such as Caroline Gilman, discuss the idea of women missing their husbands? Also, do you think that this weekly schedule that Beecher suggests was necessary in maintaining a household? Why or why not? -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
The two things that interested me the most in Catharine Beecher's "System and Order" was here description of how to manage work within the week and the mode of "systematizing, [relating] to providing proper supplies of conveniences." The details for arranging a week seem quite logical and in fact are similar to actually accounts I have read that follow a similar outline. It does not seem That Catharine's ideas on this front could have been that new. As for the arranging items in particular places, did women really have the extra rooms just for doing laundry? And why, for the trunks full of extra supplies, were they kept locked? --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
In response to Jennifer S, I think that Beecher asserts that women should have extra rooms solely for laundry so as to make the household even more organized. Her whole document is called "System and Order," so to do laundry in any other place in the home besides the room devoted specifically to it would disrupt the order and cleanliness of the household. Also, perhaps the trunks full of extra supplies were kept locked so that children could not get into them and disrupt the order the wife had put them in. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
== Catharine Sedgwick, “First to None,” 1828 ==<br />
<br />
From our readings we can guess that the main goal in life (for most not all) women was to get married and make babies. But as with the case of Catharine Sedgwick she claims that her "perfectionist" vision of what she wants is the reason that she has stayed single. I feel that this may have been a common theme with others who did not marry but we just don't know about it because unlike her they probably didn't write about it. Does anyone else get the sense that she is completely miserable not being married but wants to put on a brave face in front of everyone around her? --Remy B.<br />
<br />
Remy, yes I also felt that she was pretty unhappy. The last line of the essay stood out to me, "I do hope...to order my house for that better world where self may lose something of its engrossing power." This read to me, "things will be better when I'm dead." Pretty sad. A certain amount of risk accompanies any choice. If women have more freedom to choose their marital partners, they also have to accept the consequences of their decisions. In Sedgwick's case, she rejected a few suitors because they didn't meet her expectations. Because she only has herself to blame (instead of blaming her parents or society, or just accepting an unpleasant marriage without question, as would have happened in the past), it seems like it makes her loneliness more painful. --Stef L.<br />
<br />
Like Emma, Catherine seems unhappy about her life, only she is not married. It was interesting to see how women felt about their decision to not marry. Once again, I wonder how common this unhappiness is. Is it more common to be unhappy as an unmarried woman or a married woman? -- Emma<br />
<br />
In responnse to Emma I feel as though the women writing are pretty bold to be expressing their unhappiness at all. After all, it is rather unlady like to complain about the situation these women were in, and the ones who were writing were obviously educated. It is more common for women even today, regardless of marital status, with educations to be more discontent with societies impositions upon them. I think the fact of marriage or not is irrelevant because both types of women were unhappy. --Sara<br />
<br />
== Sarah Connell Ayer, “The Widowed State,” 1832-33 ==<br />
<br />
It is evident that Sarah Connell Ayer's life consisted of a continual pattern of death surrounding her. Ayer clings to the Lord in these times of trial and demonstrates a remarkable trust, at least in her diary entries. How did death affect Ayer's view of God and influence the role of religion in her life? --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
== Eliza Ann Mulford, “Rules of the School,” 1814 ==<br />
<br />
I wonder how the girls felt about these rules. Were they sincerely considering their excuses for skipping church in light of what they'd tell God at judgement day? Did they consider whether they wanted to read a novel or have a casual conversation in light of whether they were properly using God's time? I want to know what these rules say about the young women they applied to. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
What stands out about this reading is the fact that the rules designed by the schools constrained every aspect of the girls live all to meet the standards of the ideal middle class woman. It appears that the school was not only there to educate it students but transform them into the moral authority that women were expected to be. Also playing into the image of an a partnership within a marriage, by creating a wife who was not only equal in education but a example to be followed in moral behavior. Like Kate, I wonder what the students thought of these rules, did they see them as necessary for the life they wanted to live or excessive? --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
Eliza Ann Mulford's account of the rules that existed at this school reflected the close watch these girls were kept under. Like Kate and Rachel have pointed out, I wonder if these girls felt oppressed by these rules or whether they truly felt like these rules were necessary to achieve the status of a respectable woman? --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
== Emma Willard, “A Rationale for Female Education,” 1819 ==<br />
What I found interesting in Emma Willard's piece was that it was a seminary for girls. What church/denomination was she a part of? And when did women become more involved in religion in the United States? The major difference between this document and the source before it is that it encourages morality and intellect, while it seemed that Eliza Ann Mulford's promoted piety only. --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
== Miss Burnham’s Report, “A Choctaw Mission School,” 1824 ==<br />
<br />
I found this reading very interesting. Very young girls were forced to leave their families, and wear European clothing, speak English, and learn the bible. I assume some girls even starved to death because the food was so different than what they were used to. My question is, after returning home from this school, how had the girls' relationships with their native people and families changed? --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
In response to Catherine I think that the relationship between the teachers and the individual natives' relationship would be a strong one, but overall, they would still view "Natives" as savage and ungodly. All of the teachers' documents we read mention the godlessness, lack of churches, lack of interest in pursuing the religion by the natives or lack of honoring of the Sabbath. This means that even if they felt better about the individual girls they taught, they probably felt as though they "saved" them. Not respected them --Sara S.<br />
<br />
== Letters from Teachers, “Reports on Western Schools,” 1847 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
These letters are really pitiful, and it's amazing to me that we have a public school system at all, considering its origins. One thing that really stands out to me is the sense of moral duty/religious obligation that keeps these teachers working, even though (much of the time) they weren't being paid. Is this a continuation of the ideals (and responsibilities) of republican motherhood, that women are responsible for the moral uplift of the entire nation? --Stef L.<br />
<br />
I found these letters to be quite interesting. First, the fact that these new teachers were so concerned about the religion and morals of the people in the community. Religion seemed to be one of the biggest concerns of these new teachers. Why was that? Second, it was interesting to see the these two very different experiences. The first teacher seemed to have some real problems with the community excepting her. It almost seemed as if they though education was silly, possibly because they were more concerned about the success of their farms, of surviving, instead of reading and writing. Where as the second teacher seemed to have real success in her bringing her community together. I am quite amazed by what she was able to accomplish.It would be interesting to know exactly where these women went to do this teaching. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
== Rules of the Mill from Lowell and Lancaster, 1820-1840 ==<br />
How extensive rules for living in a mill community seem to be very personally invasive for a job. The rules that were applied to the boarders seems equivalent to life under a male figurehead through parental controls or marriage. Mandating when the workers had to be in bed to forcing their attendance in church molded these women into the ideals of the mill managers as well as into the evolving perception of female work roles. What I found to be the most interesting point was that it was more socially acceptable for women to be single longer and have jobs of their own yet it appears that the women who worked in the mill only fell back into patriarchal relationships that these new forms of female freedom seem to oppose. Could it be that women were so eager to embrace the world of employment and financial independence that they were willing to fit into the mold instilled by the mill? Or could it had been from the women workers being attracted into a world that was very familiar to them? -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
== Harriet Farley, “A Letter from Lowell,” 1844 ==<br />
<br />
I wonder how accurately this reflects mill life? It was published in a mill journal, which would have an interest in showing the best side of the mill, but it isn't a completely rosy picture. I thought it was particularly interesting to see a story of a woman off on her own, making her own income, in a way that I don't think we've seen as often before - do you think 'Susan's' story reflects how young women felt about living as single women? --Katie C.<br />
<br />
This letter struck me as being so propagandized, I would not have been surprised if it turned out that it had been written by an overseer. The small complaints ("these rooms are kept very warm, and are disagreeably scented"..."it makes my feet ache and swell") serve to give the letter an air of respectability, and make it seem like a legitimate letter, but the emphasis on the positive and lack of emphasis on negative aspects (If my feet were painful and swelling, I'd factor it much more into my overall sense of happiness!) makes the letter seem utterly false--which of course it is. I can't help but wonder whether Harriet and her compatriots truly felt this was an accurate representation of their lives? -- Nicole<br />
<br />
== The Voice of Industry, “A Spirit of Protest,” 1846 ==<br />
<br />
The movement which is the subject of this article was conducted entirely or almost entirely by women, who recognized a "sisterhood" of workers. How might the tactics used by movement leaders have been influenced by the gender roles of their day? Might they have faced any particular difficulties in negotiating with male management? --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
== Amelia Stewart Knight, “Crossing the Plains,” 1853 ==<br />
<br />
I found this to be very interesting. I had never heard much about the wagon trains, other than “They were going west for a better life.” This added a different element to the train and gave me a whole different perspective. Everyone knows that the wagon train was difficult but when you are reading someone else’s words and to read what they struggled with, it gives the information a new dimension. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
While I was reading Crossing the Plains by Knight, I did not notice anything out of the ordinary. They were on the way to Oregon and made their way through so many difficult things. This includes cold temperatures, hot sun, and many bothersome bugs. To my surprise, at the end of this journal the reader finds out that everything that Knight went through, she did it while she was with child. Can you imagine what she endured while traveling in this manner? I guess during this time even if you were uncomfortable you still had to do what was necessary to survive.--Pam P.<br />
<br />
In response to Pam P, I think that Knight endured the hardships of westward movement so that her child could have a better life. The introduction states that the migrations were "made by people who were neither extremely rich nor extremely poor." Perhaps, since Knight would have been somewhere in the middle, a westward movement could have provided new opportunities for her child. --Clare O<br />
<br />
== Mary Ballou, “A Woman’s View of the Gold Rush,” 1852 ==<br />
<br />
QUESTION:<br />
In the October 21st entry, she tells her son Selden about the days she goes to church. She expresses that she goes whenever she can. However, it is interesting to see that she is the only lady. Why is she the only lady at these church sermons? She is in this work that calls for women with domestic skills, but she is the only one in church? Was she more religious? Did other women not have time? Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
When I read A Woman’s View of the Gold Rush by Mary Ballou, I almost feel bad for her and her situation. She takes it in stride though and while looking for gold she also is running a boarding house. She misses her children terribly and she was not the only one who was feeling this way. She spoke to a couple of different women who were also “homesick” and did not think that the gold rush was what everyone made it out to be. I would assume the reason why they cannot go back to where they came from is because they sold everything to go look for gold? Did her husband feel the same way? – Pam P.<br />
<br />
Reading "A Woman's View of the Gold Rush," I almost felt that Ballou was trying to cover up her sadness by discussing all that she was doing for the miners at the boarding house. It seemed that she was upholding that notion of keeping home as a refuge for her husband by doing all of that cooking! I wonder if her discussing her cooking in her letter was her way of keeping herself from badmouthing her poor situation to her son? --Heather T.<br />
<br />
== Petitions of the Cherokee Women’s Council on Removal, 1817, 1818 ==<br />
<br />
Throughout this reading, I was confused as to who "our father, the great president" was? The women address that they've done everything the "Father/president" has asked of them: become farmers, manufacture clothes, etc. Who is the father though? And if it really is the president, why do they call him father? --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== Sarah Winnemucca, “Life Among the Paiutes,” 1883 ==<br />
<br />
I think the most important thing I took away from this reading is how children of the Paiutes are taught to be good, and to love everybody. So when the white settlers first arrived, Sarah's grandfather, the chief, tried to make them feel welcome. However, later in her account, Sarah writes of how unhappy her people are. Mothers begin to fear getting pregnant, because they do not think they would be able to provide for their young. Religion plays a large role in this tribe, and war is not a favorable decision when two tribes are in conflict. --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
Towards the end of this reading, Sara Winnemucca comments that "If women could go into your Congress I think justice would soon be done to the Indians." In what ways did her culture encourage this belief? What aspects of her own life supported these egalitarian views? My other question would be, are these views totally separate from the Euro-American belief that women were more spiritually and morally pure? --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
== A Sioux Tale, “A Woman Kills Her Daughter” ==<br />
<br />
This has to be one of my favorite readings so far! I knew that Indians were great story tellers and that it was part of their traditions of keeping their history going but I've never heard a story like this. Was this type of story telling common? Was this to warn women of jealousy? --Remy B.<br />
<br />
I agree with Remy! This was a great story. I think it was amazing how when the son-in-law realized something was wrong, he continued to follow the rules and did not become disrespectful or say anything to her directly. The note at the bottom of the page explains that he must address her through his wife; even in a crazy situation like that, he still abides by this rule. --Aqsa Z.yy <br />
<br />
I loved all of the supernatural elements to this tale. I felt that it amplified the morals that the story was trying to convey (don't kill others for your own gain, especially family members). However, since this is technically a part of oral history, despite it being written down, I wonder how much of this story is the original tale? If there is more, which characters would have more of a presence?-- Heather T.</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_9_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 9 Questions/Comments-327 112011-10-27T17:09:56Z<p>Ssellers: /* Catharine Sedgwick, “First to None,” 1828 */</p>
<hr />
<div>FOR THIS WEEK POST TWO QUESTIONS BY THURSDAY AND CHECK BACK TO RESPOND TO TWO QUESTIONS BY SATURDAY.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== General Questions ==<br />
<br />
I was surprised (although I shouldn't really have been) at the number of these documents which refer to religion as important to their daily lives: from the lowell girls' rules enforcing religious practice to the teachers in the American west to the women on the gold mines everyone was obsessed with the sanctity of their own religion and the lack of religion in their society. Were these women simply becoming teachers to help those less fortunate than them or were they really seeking an attempt at missionary work of people they truly believed to be spiritually beneath them. Although the outcome of their work would still be the same, it would be important to know the background for which their work was done for it would tell more about the woman doing the work. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
In "A Spirit of Protest" (which I didn't see a heading for, for whatever reason that may be), the "Lowell Factory Girl" protests against capitalism and fights for labor rights. Mid-eighteenth century American society does not come off to me as an extremely capitalist society (compared with modern USA). How much did capitalism affect the lives of Americans in this time period. And was this a common viewpoint on the economy of the day? --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
== Emma Willard, “Matrimonial Risks,” 1815 ==<br />
<br />
Willard is concerned with the happiness of marriage. She warns her sister not to get her hopes up, when it comes to her suitor Mr. L because he might be disappointing. I wonder if this is a change to "companionate marriages." Willard sees or wants marriage to be happy, but realizes that marriage could be miserable. Since Willard knows that men can fail at companionate marriages, does that mean the idea of marriage changing? Do women feel they have a choice? --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
In "Matrimonial Risks," Willard seems to be attempting to warn her sister off of all marriages and all relationships; the advice she gives is so generalized against marriage that it almost seems that she must have been unhappy in her marriage. I started reading this expecting, based on the editors' introduction, for Willard to be essentially warning her sister off of Lincoln. On the contrary, it almost seems that Willard is trying to warn her sister off of any and all marriage. Intriguingly, she then tells her sister she'd love to see Lincoln and visit with him. I got such mixed signals from this letter that I'm really wondering whether Willard disliked Lincoln (if so, why say she'd like to see him?) or the idea of her sister getting married at all (and if that, why? Most women wound up married!) -- Nicole<br />
<br />
This reading was quite depressing how she wrote about how she should question her happiness. This shows how unhappy Emma was herself. I wonder how common this was among most women? --Emma<br />
<br />
== Caroline Gilman, “The Deferential Wife,” 1838 ==<br />
<br />
I liked in ''The Deferential Wife'' by Caroline Gilman the quote "Men are not often unreasonable; their difficulties lie in not understanding the moral and physcial structure of our sex. They often wound through ignorance and are surprised at having offended. How clear is it, then, that woman loses by petulance and recrimination! Her first study must be self-control, almost to hypocrisy. A good wife must smile amid a thousand perplexities, and clear her voice to tones of cheerfulness when her frames is drooping with disease, or else languish alone. Man on the contrary, when trials beset him, expects to find her ear and heart a ready receptacle." (page 147) Basically this is the formation of the idea that woman is reponsible for the morality and self-control of the man. It is from this ideologue (which did develop concurrently with Republican Motherhood) that the arguments today about the dress and style of women are based upon. It is interesting to see it in its' original context in The Deferential Wife. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
The Deferential Wife was an interesting piece. A woman that wanted to carter to the audience of women is an interesting concept. This would play into the idea of republican motherhood and that women would want to be more educated. That being said, if the idea of educating women were important, why don’t we see more papers and magazines geared toward the women that are staying on the plantations and raising the children? –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Catharine Beecher, “System and Order,” 1841 ==<br />
<br />
Beecher's believes that motherhood/domesticity is the greatest occupation for humanity. She believes that it will create a heaven on earth or a perfect society. This statement brings a true meaning to motherhood and housework. People are happier when they have meaning to their lives. Her belief gives women so much more to live for (not saying it is right or wrong). However, with all ideals, her advice must have stressed most women in case they failed. --- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
In Beecher's "System and Order," she states that "The formation of the moral and intellectual character of the young is committed mainly to the female hand....The proper education of a man decides the welfare of an individual; but educate a woman, and the interests of a whole family are secured." This quote reminded me of "if you teach a man to fish..." because Beecher is saying only one person benefits from the education of a man (the man). However, a woman is responsible for the education of her children as well as a role model of morals for both her children and husband. Therefore, if you educate a woman, everyone in the family will profit. This idea combines the early idea of republican motherhood, in which the mother is the prime educator and moral guide, but combines with emerging middle class ideals in which the woman is the head of the domestic sphere. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
Beecher asserts that "another important item is the apportioning of regular employment to the various members of the family....There is no greater mistake, than in bringing up children to feel that they must be taken care of, and waited on, by others, without any corresponding obligations on their part." I found this interesting because middle class families did not need children to work at the family business (as had been so many years previously, on farms for example) and therefore the mother had more time to focus on her children and the home. I am surprised to find Beecher encouraging mothers to "employ" their children around the house, when I had assumed children did not do any work in their families. Perhaps the change was that children did not need to do actual hard labor anymore, but were still expected to help around the house, as Beecher suggests. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
Beecher lists a series of chores that housewives must accomplish on each day of the week. She states, "''Monday'', with some of the best housekeepers, is devoted to preparing for the labors of the week...''Tuesday'' is devoted to washing, and ''Wednesday'' to ironing. On ''Thursday'', the ironing is finished off, the clothes folded and put away, and all articles which need mending put in the mending basket, and attended to. ''Friday'' is devoted to sweeping and housecleaning. On ''Saturday''...every department is put in order...and everything about the house put in order for ''Sunday''." Such a strict daily schedule may explain why women became so bored and lonely. Their husbands could go out of the house and do business, meet with other people, or attend to different aspects of business at different times of the year. Women, on the other hand, were expected to accomplish the same tasks on the same day no matter the month or week. Do you think this could explain why women, such as Caroline Gilman, discuss the idea of women missing their husbands? Also, do you think that this weekly schedule that Beecher suggests was necessary in maintaining a household? Why or why not? -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
The two things that interested me the most in Catharine Beecher's "System and Order" was here description of how to manage work within the week and the mode of "systematizing, [relating] to providing proper supplies of conveniences." The details for arranging a week seem quite logical and in fact are similar to actually accounts I have read that follow a similar outline. It does not seem That Catharine's ideas on this front could have been that new. As for the arranging items in particular places, did women really have the extra rooms just for doing laundry? And why, for the trunks full of extra supplies, were they kept locked? --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
In response to Jennifer S, I think that Beecher asserts that women should have extra rooms solely for laundry so as to make the household even more organized. Her whole document is called "System and Order," so to do laundry in any other place in the home besides the room devoted specifically to it would disrupt the order and cleanliness of the household. Also, perhaps the trunks full of extra supplies were kept locked so that children could not get into them and disrupt the order the wife had put them in. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
== Catharine Sedgwick, “First to None,” 1828 ==<br />
<br />
From our readings we can guess that the main goal in life (for most not all) women was to get married and make babies. But as with the case of Catharine Sedgwick she claims that her "perfectionist" vision of what she wants is the reason that she has stayed single. I feel that this may have been a common theme with others who did not marry but we just don't know about it because unlike her they probably didn't write about it. Does anyone else get the sense that she is completely miserable not being married but wants to put on a brave face in front of everyone around her? --Remy B.<br />
<br />
Remy, yes I also felt that she was pretty unhappy. The last line of the essay stood out to me, "I do hope...to order my house for that better world where self may lose something of its engrossing power." This read to me, "things will be better when I'm dead." Pretty sad. A certain amount of risk accompanies any choice. If women have more freedom to choose their marital partners, they also have to accept the consequences of their decisions. In Sedgwick's case, she rejected a few suitors because they didn't meet her expectations. Because she only has herself to blame (instead of blaming her parents or society, or just accepting an unpleasant marriage without question, as would have happened in the past), it seems like it makes her loneliness more painful. --Stef L.<br />
<br />
Like Emma, Catherine seems unhappy about her life, only she is not married. It was interesting to see how women felt about their decision to not marry. Once again, I wonder how common this unhappiness is. Is it more common to be unhappy as an unmarried woman or a married woman? -- Emma<br />
<br />
In responnse to Emma I feel as though the women writing are pretty bold to be expressing their unhappiness at all. After all, it is rather unlady like to complain about the situation these women were in, and the ones who were writing were obviously educated. It is more common for women even today, regardless of marital status, with educations to be more discontent with societies impositions upon them. I think the fact of marriage or not is irrelevant because both types of women were unhappy. --Sara<br />
<br />
== Sarah Connell Ayer, “The Widowed State,” 1832-33 ==<br />
<br />
It is evident that Sarah Connell Ayer's life consisted of a continual pattern of death surrounding her. Ayer clings to the Lord in these times of trial and demonstrates a remarkable trust, at least in her diary entries. How did death affect Ayer's view of God and influence the role of religion in her life? --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
== Eliza Ann Mulford, “Rules of the School,” 1814 ==<br />
<br />
I wonder how the girls felt about these rules. Were they sincerely considering their excuses for skipping church in light of what they'd tell God at judgement day? Did they consider whether they wanted to read a novel or have a casual conversation in light of whether they were properly using God's time? I want to know what these rules say about the young women they applied to. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
What stands out about this reading is the fact that the rules designed by the schools constrained every aspect of the girls live all to meet the standards of the ideal middle class woman. It appears that the school was not only there to educate it students but transform them into the moral authority that women were expected to be. Also playing into the image of an a partnership within a marriage, by creating a wife who was not only equal in education but a example to be followed in moral behavior. Like Kate, I wonder what the students thought of these rules, did they see them as necessary for the life they wanted to live or excessive? --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
Eliza Ann Mulford's account of the rules that existed at this school reflected the close watch these girls were kept under. Like Kate and Rachel have pointed out, I wonder if these girls felt oppressed by these rules or whether they truly felt like these rules were necessary to achieve the status of a respectable woman? --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
== Emma Willard, “A Rationale for Female Education,” 1819 ==<br />
What I found interesting in Emma Willard's piece was that it was a seminary for girls. What church/denomination was she a part of? And when did women become more involved in religion in the United States? The major difference between this document and the source before it is that it encourages morality and intellect, while it seemed that Eliza Ann Mulford's promoted piety only. --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
== Miss Burnham’s Report, “A Choctaw Mission School,” 1824 ==<br />
<br />
I found this reading very interesting. Very young girls were forced to leave their families, and wear European clothing, speak English, and learn the bible. I assume some girls even starved to death because the food was so different than what they were used to. My question is, after returning home from this school, how had the girls' relationships with their native people and families changed? --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
== Letters from Teachers, “Reports on Western Schools,” 1847 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
These letters are really pitiful, and it's amazing to me that we have a public school system at all, considering its origins. One thing that really stands out to me is the sense of moral duty/religious obligation that keeps these teachers working, even though (much of the time) they weren't being paid. Is this a continuation of the ideals (and responsibilities) of republican motherhood, that women are responsible for the moral uplift of the entire nation? --Stef L.<br />
<br />
I found these letters to be quite interesting. First, the fact that these new teachers were so concerned about the religion and morals of the people in the community. Religion seemed to be one of the biggest concerns of these new teachers. Why was that? Second, it was interesting to see the these two very different experiences. The first teacher seemed to have some real problems with the community excepting her. It almost seemed as if they though education was silly, possibly because they were more concerned about the success of their farms, of surviving, instead of reading and writing. Where as the second teacher seemed to have real success in her bringing her community together. I am quite amazed by what she was able to accomplish.It would be interesting to know exactly where these women went to do this teaching. --Jennifer S.<br />
<br />
== Rules of the Mill from Lowell and Lancaster, 1820-1840 ==<br />
How extensive rules for living in a mill community seem to be very personally invasive for a job. The rules that were applied to the boarders seems equivalent to life under a male figurehead through parental controls or marriage. Mandating when the workers had to be in bed to forcing their attendance in church molded these women into the ideals of the mill managers as well as into the evolving perception of female work roles. What I found to be the most interesting point was that it was more socially acceptable for women to be single longer and have jobs of their own yet it appears that the women who worked in the mill only fell back into patriarchal relationships that these new forms of female freedom seem to oppose. Could it be that women were so eager to embrace the world of employment and financial independence that they were willing to fit into the mold instilled by the mill? Or could it had been from the women workers being attracted into a world that was very familiar to them? -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
== Harriet Farley, “A Letter from Lowell,” 1844 ==<br />
<br />
I wonder how accurately this reflects mill life? It was published in a mill journal, which would have an interest in showing the best side of the mill, but it isn't a completely rosy picture. I thought it was particularly interesting to see a story of a woman off on her own, making her own income, in a way that I don't think we've seen as often before - do you think 'Susan's' story reflects how young women felt about living as single women? --Katie C.<br />
<br />
This letter struck me as being so propagandized, I would not have been surprised if it turned out that it had been written by an overseer. The small complaints ("these rooms are kept very warm, and are disagreeably scented"..."it makes my feet ache and swell") serve to give the letter an air of respectability, and make it seem like a legitimate letter, but the emphasis on the positive and lack of emphasis on negative aspects (If my feet were painful and swelling, I'd factor it much more into my overall sense of happiness!) makes the letter seem utterly false--which of course it is. I can't help but wonder whether Harriet and her compatriots truly felt this was an accurate representation of their lives? -- Nicole<br />
<br />
== The Voice of Industry, “A Spirit of Protest,” 1846 ==<br />
<br />
The movement which is the subject of this article was conducted entirely or almost entirely by women, who recognized a "sisterhood" of workers. How might the tactics used by movement leaders have been influenced by the gender roles of their day? Might they have faced any particular difficulties in negotiating with male management? --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
== Amelia Stewart Knight, “Crossing the Plains,” 1853 ==<br />
<br />
I found this to be very interesting. I had never heard much about the wagon trains, other than “They were going west for a better life.” This added a different element to the train and gave me a whole different perspective. Everyone knows that the wagon train was difficult but when you are reading someone else’s words and to read what they struggled with, it gives the information a new dimension. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
While I was reading Crossing the Plains by Knight, I did not notice anything out of the ordinary. They were on the way to Oregon and made their way through so many difficult things. This includes cold temperatures, hot sun, and many bothersome bugs. To my surprise, at the end of this journal the reader finds out that everything that Knight went through, she did it while she was with child. Can you imagine what she endured while traveling in this manner? I guess during this time even if you were uncomfortable you still had to do what was necessary to survive.--Pam P.<br />
<br />
In response to Pam P, I think that Knight endured the hardships of westward movement so that her child could have a better life. The introduction states that the migrations were "made by people who were neither extremely rich nor extremely poor." Perhaps, since Knight would have been somewhere in the middle, a westward movement could have provided new opportunities for her child. --Clare O<br />
<br />
== Mary Ballou, “A Woman’s View of the Gold Rush,” 1852 ==<br />
<br />
QUESTION:<br />
In the October 21st entry, she tells her son Selden about the days she goes to church. She expresses that she goes whenever she can. However, it is interesting to see that she is the only lady. Why is she the only lady at these church sermons? She is in this work that calls for women with domestic skills, but she is the only one in church? Was she more religious? Did other women not have time? Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
When I read A Woman’s View of the Gold Rush by Mary Ballou, I almost feel bad for her and her situation. She takes it in stride though and while looking for gold she also is running a boarding house. She misses her children terribly and she was not the only one who was feeling this way. She spoke to a couple of different women who were also “homesick” and did not think that the gold rush was what everyone made it out to be. I would assume the reason why they cannot go back to where they came from is because they sold everything to go look for gold? Did her husband feel the same way? – Pam P.<br />
<br />
Reading "A Woman's View of the Gold Rush," I almost felt that Ballou was trying to cover up her sadness by discussing all that she was doing for the miners at the boarding house. It seemed that she was upholding that notion of keeping home as a refuge for her husband by doing all of that cooking! I wonder if her discussing her cooking in her letter was her way of keeping herself from badmouthing her poor situation to her son? --Heather T.<br />
<br />
== Petitions of the Cherokee Women’s Council on Removal, 1817, 1818 ==<br />
<br />
Throughout this reading, I was confused as to who "our father, the great president" was? The women address that they've done everything the "Father/president" has asked of them: become farmers, manufacture clothes, etc. Who is the father though? And if it really is the president, why do they call him father? --Aqsa Z.<br />
<br />
== Sarah Winnemucca, “Life Among the Paiutes,” 1883 ==<br />
<br />
I think the most important thing I took away from this reading is how children of the Paiutes are taught to be good, and to love everybody. So when the white settlers first arrived, Sarah's grandfather, the chief, tried to make them feel welcome. However, later in her account, Sarah writes of how unhappy her people are. Mothers begin to fear getting pregnant, because they do not think they would be able to provide for their young. Religion plays a large role in this tribe, and war is not a favorable decision when two tribes are in conflict. --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
Towards the end of this reading, Sara Winnemucca comments that "If women could go into your Congress I think justice would soon be done to the Indians." In what ways did her culture encourage this belief? What aspects of her own life supported these egalitarian views? My other question would be, are these views totally separate from the Euro-American belief that women were more spiritually and morally pure? --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
== A Sioux Tale, “A Woman Kills Her Daughter” ==<br />
<br />
This has to be one of my favorite readings so far! I knew that Indians were great story tellers and that it was part of their traditions of keeping their history going but I've never heard a story like this. Was this type of story telling common? Was this to warn women of jealousy? --Remy B.<br />
<br />
I agree with Remy! This was a great story. I think it was amazing how when the son-in-law realized something was wrong, he continued to follow the rules and did not become disrespectful or say anything to her directly. The note at the bottom of the page explains that he must address her through his wife; even in a crazy situation like that, he still abides by this rule. --Aqsa Z.yy <br />
<br />
I loved all of the supernatural elements to this tale. I felt that it amplified the morals that the story was trying to convey (don't kill others for your own gain, especially family members). However, since this is technically a part of oral history, despite it being written down, I wonder how much of this story is the original tale? If there is more, which characters would have more of a presence?-- Heather T.</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_9_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 9 Questions/Comments-327 112011-10-21T19:51:11Z<p>Ssellers: New page: I liked in ''The Deferential Wife'' by Caroline Gilman the quote "Men are not often unreasonable; their difficulties lie in not understanding the moral and physcial structure of our sex. T...</p>
<hr />
<div>I liked in ''The Deferential Wife'' by Caroline Gilman the quote "Men are not often unreasonable; their difficulties lie in not understanding the moral and physcial structure of our sex. They often wound through ignorance and are surprised at having offended. How clear is it, then, that woman loses by petulance and recrimination! Her first study must be self-control, almost to hypocrisy. A good wife must smile amid a thousand perplexities, and clear her voice to tones of cheerfulness when her frames is drooping with disease, or else languish alone. Man on the contrary, when trials beset him, expects to find her ear and heart a ready receptacle." (page 147) Basically this is the formation of the idea that woman is reponsible for the morality and self-control of the man. It is from this ideologue (which did develop concurrently with Republican Motherhood) that the arguments today about the dress and style of women are based upon. It is interesting to see it in its' original context in The Deferential Wife. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
I was surprised (although I shouldn't really have been) at the number of these documents which refer to religion as important to their daily lives: from the lowell girls' rules enforcing religious practice to the teachers in the American west to the women on the gold mines everyone was obsessed with the sanctity of their own religion and the lack of religion in their society. Were these women simply becoming teachers to help those less fortunate than them or were they really seeking an attempt at missionary work of people they truly believed to be spiritually beneath them. Although the outcome of their work would still be the same, it would be important to know the background for which their work was done for it would tell more about the woman doing the work. --Sara S.</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_8_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 8 Questions/Comments-327 112011-10-19T18:53:32Z<p>Ssellers: </p>
<hr />
<div>When reading the divorce laws of Connecticut, I expected the reasons for granting of divorces to be things such as adultery or desertion. What I did not expect was the long periods of time a spouse has to be away before the law considers the absence desertion. Three years with a total neglect of duty or seven years of providential absence seems like an extremely long amount of time, particularly for the wife being deserted. Especially since the woman cannot get married to another before the period is up and the divorce is granted, likely leaving the woman in very poor economical standing. In the case of Bridget Baxter, after the divorce was granted, the court allowed her to sell her husbands estate to pay off debts but I can imagine this would not be enough in the case of many women, especially if they were becoming indebted for the years their husbands were gone. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
In many of the readings, I was surprised to read that women tended to leave possessions in unequal amounts to their heirs whereas men tended to split up what was theirs equally. I would have assumed that men would favor their sons over their daughters, but they tended to leave their offspring relatively equal shares (although in the form of land for sons and movable things for daughters). It is interesting that women favored their daughters in wills. Perhaps this is because women did not have many rights of ownership so the women wanted to aid their female relatives in any way possible. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
In the divorce laws, I was surprised at how much they made marriage sound like slavery. The laws included words like "sett her free from her said husband," or "be free from her conjugall bonds." Even in the case of Robert Wade, the law said that he was "free from Joanne Wade." At first I thought that it was a negative portrayal of marriage, but I have reconsidered the possibility that they mean "bonds" in the best way, as marriage was a bond between people. --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
I was really surprised by the Feme Sole Trader Acts in South Carolina. Obviously these women still had to have permission from their hubsands to be labeled as Feme Sole, but once they got that label they were free to do as they wished as far as their business went. It seems far outside of "progressive" for the time period. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
<br />
I read the New England Divorce notices and was really surprised and appalled by the 1662 "whereas the estate that her husband Baxter left with her is sold to pay debts, all excepting a bed and her wearing aparell" meaning they took EVERYTHING BUT THE SHIRT OFF HER BACK. I thought this was just an expression, but apparently it was not. So strange that they would be so harsh to a woman when the debt was her husbands and not her owns. --Sara S.</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_7_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 7 Questions/Comments-327 112011-10-10T18:39:42Z<p>Ssellers: </p>
<hr />
<div>The diary of Martha Ballard was an insightful view into the world of midwifery by helping to clarify the deep connection women had to this responsibility. In last week's readings there was discussion of male doctors replacing the role of midwifes during child delivery and the resentment that was harbored by these women because of it. By reading Martha's diary, it becomes clear that being a midwife was much more than just a job but to women like her it was a way of life. Martha constantly discusses delivering babies and attending to the mothers in a very passionate way, displaying her own personal drive to help her community. Being a midwife appears to be what defines Ballard as a person, more so than her husband or religion, helping to clarify how dramatic the lifestyle change was for these women who were forced out of the delivery room by medical professionals. Being a midwife is what gave women power and social standing, and Martha appears to use her abilities as a successful midwife to obtain just that. --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
<br />
I think Martha Ballard had a terrible life. I also did my document paper on part of her diary and it seems like all she ever did was take care of other people and her family. That is just awful. She also spent a week or so in the portion of her diary that I worked with ill because of all the sick people she takes care of. It made me really sad. I do have to agree with Rachel, however, that she was defined by her status as a midwife. Probably because that is all she ever did, but still, at least it is a defining trait. Most women didn't have that. --Sara S.</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_6_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 6 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-29T22:08:12Z<p>Ssellers: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== JUDITH SARGENT MURRAY ==<br />
<br />
It is particularly strange to me that a book excerpt written by a woman pretending to be a man about a woman was a best seller. Especially one so subtly in support of women's education, at the very least for the sake of the children whom she was raising. I think that had this been written by less eloquent and well-versed of a writer, it would have been blatant in its' authors' sex and vulgar in its' attempt at constructing a fake family. Since Judith Sargent Murray was atypical to her society (and would probably be atypical in today's society) in both sex roles and in intelligence levels, this fake story passed off as a true story succeeds. Even I would've thought this was a man writing if I had not reminded myself of such. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
<br />
== SUSANNA HASWELL ROWSON ==<br />
<br />
''"While the tear of compassion still trembled in my eye for the fate<br />
of the unhappy Charlotte, I may have children of my own, said I, to<br />
whom this recital may be of use, and if to your own children, said<br />
Benevolence, why not to the many daughters of Misfortune who, deprived<br />
of natural friends, or spoilt by a mistaken education, are thrown<br />
on an unfeeling world without the least power to defend themselves<br />
from the snares not only of the other sex, but from the more dangerous<br />
arts of the profligate of their own."'' (page 190). <br />
I include this quote because I really think that this is a concept that so many activist leaders could relate to... the dream of wanting a better world, not for themself, but for their CHILDREN. It also is significant because the person for whom Susanna Rowson feels had a bad life was not that of her own, but of Charlotte. Maybe it is that oppression is seen more extensively in those around the oppressed than in the oppressed themself, or maybe Susanna felt her life was NOT oppressed after hearing that of Charlottes. --Sara S.</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_6_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 6 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-29T21:50:08Z<p>Ssellers: New page: == SUSANNA HASWELL ROWSON == ''"While the tear of compassion still trembled in my eye for the fate of the unhappy Charlotte, I may have children of my own, said I, to whom this recital m...</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== SUSANNA HASWELL ROWSON ==<br />
<br />
''"While the tear of compassion still trembled in my eye for the fate<br />
of the unhappy Charlotte, I may have children of my own, said I, to<br />
whom this recital may be of use, and if to your own children, said<br />
Benevolence, why not to the many daughters of Misfortune who, deprived<br />
of natural friends, or spoilt by a mistaken education, are thrown<br />
on an unfeeling world without the least power to defend themselves<br />
from the snares not only of the other sex, but from the more dangerous<br />
arts of the profligate of their own."'' (page 190). <br />
I include this quote because I really think that this is a concept that so many activist leaders could relate to... the dream of wanting a better world, not for themself, but for their CHILDREN. It also is significant because the person for whom Susanna Rowson feels had a bad life was not that of her own, but of Charlotte. Maybe it is that oppression is seen more extensively in those around the oppressed than in the oppressed themself, or maybe Susanna felt her life was NOT oppressed after hearing that of Charlottes. --Sara S.</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_5_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 5 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-27T21:27:30Z<p>Ssellers: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== Excellency in Our Sex by Judith Sargent Murray, 1790 ==<br />
<br />
I really liked the line "was this activity properly directed, what beneficial effects would follow. Is the needle and kitchen sufficient to employ the operations of a soul thus organized? I should conceive not. Nay, it is a truth that those very departments leave the intelligent principle vacant, and at liberty for speculation. Are we deficient in reason?" (page 135) because it exhibited that women thought about the same things that we, as women, today think about them. Really, it is a lot nicer to think about women wondering about their status than to accept it unwillingly or on religious basis. I know this is probably not the case for most women, but probably for educated ones this was the case. Too bad not every woman was Judith Sargent Murray or Abigail Adams. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
== A Carolina Patriot by Eliza Wilkinson, 1782 ==<br />
<br />
"What contemptible earth worms these authors make us! they won't even allow us the liberty of thought, and that is all i want. I would not wish that we should meddle in what is unbecoming female delicacy, but surely we may have sense enough to give our opinions" (page124). I really like this quote because unlike that of Judith Sargent Murray, Eliza Wilkinson seems less anachronistic in her expression of female empowerment. Still it is nice to read --Sara S.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In Mary Jemison’s account of the “War for Independence through Seneca Eyes,” it is extremely apparent at how little the English think of the Seneca. When the Native Americans were sent for to discuss the impending revolution with people of the colonies, they decided to observe a strict neutrality. This was perfectly fine with the colonial people. However, the British soon requested the help of the natives and in order to secure their assistance, the British offered many gifts and rewards. Furthermore, they “merited all the punishment that it was possible for the white man and Indians to inflict upon” the colonials. These offerings proved too seductive, and the Indians were swayed. However, once the support of the natives was agreed, the English took advantage of them. This is particularly apparent when the British invite the natives to watch the rebels being whipped, but are instead tricked into fighting for their lives, which many did not escape with. This manipulation by the British, to use the natives for their own means and essentially lie to them about great rewards shows that they believed anything would be justified, so long as they won the war. --Clare O<br />
<br />
Many of our readings discuss the growing patriotism of women in reaction to the revolutionary war. Sarah Osborn’s account particularly stood out because of her active role in helping the troops fighting. She helped the men by washing, sewing, and cooking for them. Most interesting is when General Washington himself asked her if she “was not afraid of the cannonballs?” to which she replied “No, the bullets would not cheat the gallows” and that “it would not do for the men to fight and starve too.” This bold response shows the manner in which patriotism affected women, that they would put aside their fears and pull their own weight in the war for the land of liberty. --Clare O</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_4_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 4 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-22T03:34:33Z<p>Ssellers: /* Cross-source questions/comments */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Cross-source questions/comments ==<br />
<br />
I found the distinctions between Puritan and Quaker women fascinating. First, Anne Hutchinson was banished for leading meetings; yet, Quaker women are encouraged to lead (other women). Second, Anne Bradstreet acknowledges that she has no power to bring her children to God, yet Quaker women recognize their strong influence over the faith of their children. How could two such opposite groups have a faith based on the same book? -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
I actually was not appropriately happy with the description of the egalitarian society of the quakers. Equal in spirituality and religion is not the same thing as being equal in society. Also, Anne Hutchinson was banned for leading meetings that ran opposite of the government (Which was the same as religious organizations). I think it's really easy to take equality in spirituality and religious leadership to mean the same thing as having power. Quaker women were not equal in society with their male counterparts, simply the society was not as important and the city of god was more important. --Sara <br />
<br />
What I found interesting about Sarah Fiske's Conversion was its connection to Susanna Wesley's parenting techniques. Fiske, right or wrong , had to bend her will to the congregation and to god in order to be accepted. Wesley taught that bending the child's will is one of the most important tasks, so that the child will bend to god's will. ---Michelle Martz<br />
<br />
== Anne Bradstreet, “A Spiritual Autobiography,” ~1670 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
S== Anne Hutchinson’s trial, 1637 ==<br />
I'm amazed no one has commented on this one yet. I mean, we've learned who Anne Hutchinson was since we were in high school. This means not only is she a significant woman, but typical history itself finds her significant as well. There are very few women in history for whom this can be said. To read her words, where she eloquently destroys her opponent and uses her understanding of legal proceedings to her defense. The fact that she was so learned in the ways of commonlaw is almost as significant as the fact that we've learned about her for so long-- even back then not every one was learned in legal understandings. The more important question is, however, who are the women in this situation we don't learn about? --Sara<br />
<br />
== Lancashire, England Women’s Meeting structure, Quaker women in 1675 ==<br />
<br />
These all female meetings show a safe place for women to confide in each other. Not that these women are going to start a revolution, but to vent about the troubles of marriage, raising children and following god's will. It reminds me of Esther Burr's letters to her friend. Also, it is similar to Victorian era women's strong bonds in friendship. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== David Brainerd, 1746, account of the Great Awakening ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In “A Remarkable Instance of Awakening,” David Brainard discusses two “awakenings” of two Native Americans. The reliability of this source is extremely questionable. Brainard claims to have convinced a Native American woman of having a soul and she cries out for her soul’s salvation. However, Brainard states he “perceived the burden of her prayer to be [in Indian language] i.e. have mercy on me.” Brainard himself uses the word “perceived” which means he interpreted what the Indian woman was saying, which is not always reliable. Furthermore, it is questionable whether Brainard truly had a grasp on in Indian language and therefore it is possible that he misinterpreted what she said or even made things up. The information before the text stated that Brainard was expelled from Yale and was only later made a minister. It is possible he embellished or fabricated his missionary work to improve his reputation. -Clare O<br />
<br />
== Narrative of Old Elizabeth, published in 1863 when she was 97, about her religious conversion in the 1770s. ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Elizabeth Godman lawsuit (1653); Elizabeth Godman tried for witchcraft, 1655 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Nothing is more of a testament to the power of words than the Salem witch trials. I find it astounding that accusations from neighbors can completely cost people their reputation and even their life, when widely believed. Furthermore, even if the accused takes the accusers to trial for slander, as in the case of Elizabeth Godman, it is likely that it will have no effect. It is shocking that people could lose their lives based on coincidences, such as Elizabeth, who was near when a child got sick, and supposed witchlike behavior, such as grinning in a “strange manner.” Perhaps this shows that there still was ties between religion and the courts, because fear of witchcraft is closely tied to religion, and the courts were likely to convict an accused witch. - Clare O<br />
<br />
== Bridget Bishop convicted of witchcraft 1692; “Casco Girls” accuse George Burroughs, 1692 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Elizabeth Sandwith Drinker, wealthy Philadelphia woman, diary – 1758-1794 ==<br />
<br />
As someone who knits and sews myself, I have to say - wow, this woman's list of finished pieces is impressive. I'm curious about the change of format about a page into the diary, from a list of pieces worked on to more comments on her social relations. I wonder why she changed her focus in what she deemed important to write about. The list seems to come mostly before she was married, so maybe developing her skills as a housewife was important to her? She mentions a gift for her future husband among her products. Whereas after she married, maybe her role in the community became more important? I wonder why that would be? -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Landon Carter complains about his female slaves (1771-1773) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== George Washington's slave list (1786) and slave work assignments (1786-88) ==<br />
<br />
I have seen inventories from the colonial time period much like this one. For someone in 2011, it is sad to see human beings in a list like livestock. The list does provide us with information on how slaves were used or what skills slaves had. George Washington had his owns self sufficient village at Mont Vernon. --Michelle<br />
<br />
== Eulalia Perez Recalls her work in a mission in Spanish CA in early 19th Century (1877) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Karin Wulf, “Women’s Work in Colonial Philadelphia,” 2000 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Within the Karin Wulf's entry "Womens Work in Colonial Philadelphia" I found the portion pertaining to the widows and their inheritance to be very enlightening. Wulf is able to clarify the assumptions that widows were solely dependent on the wealth left to them by their spouses. By explaining that women and men were interdependent upon each other with household income being a dual effort. It led me to wonder why widowed women were looked as so helpless and dependent on their deceased partners by society when it well known that it was far from the case? Even when citing prominent Benjamin Franklin and George Washington as inheritors to wealth the stereotype of the helpless widow was carried on. --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
<br />
One thing I found striking was the pay difference between men and women doing the same work - women earned between 1/4th and 1/2th of what men did. After talking about the economics of changing from indentured servants to slaves last class, I wondered... wouldn't hiring women or supporting women's businesses then become the more economically viable option, since they worked for so much less? Did that encourage female business owners at all? I was also surprised that mortuary work was considered a woman's job; I wonder what sort of tasks were involved in that, and how the transition was made from women as mortuary workers to the modern image of a creepy male undertaker. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
What I found interesting about "Womens Work in Colonial Philadelphia" is the apparent difference in societal circumstances for women in this region than from other areas. Even though it took widowhood or an inheritance of some other sort for women to go into business, it appears that this was a pretty accessible option for women to make a living for themselves. I wonder if women in the other regions would be able to easily go into this work like these Philadelphia women did (even though it was not a terribly easy thing to do for them either).--Heather T.</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_4_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 4 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-22T03:30:44Z<p>Ssellers: /* Anne Hutchinson’s trial, 1637 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Cross-source questions/comments ==<br />
<br />
I found the distinctions between Puritan and Quaker women fascinating. First, Anne Hutchinson was banished for leading meetings; yet, Quaker women are encouraged to lead (other women). Second, Anne Bradstreet acknowledges that she has no power to bring her children to God, yet Quaker women recognize their strong influence over the faith of their children. How could two such opposite groups have a faith based on the same book? -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
What I found interesting about Sarah Fiske's Conversion was its connection to Susanna Wesley's parenting techniques. Fiske, right or wrong , had to bend her will to the congregation and to god in order to be accepted. Wesley taught that bending the child's will is one of the most important tasks, so that the child will bend to god's will. ---Michelle Martz<br />
<br />
== Anne Bradstreet, “A Spiritual Autobiography,” ~1670 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
S== Anne Hutchinson’s trial, 1637 ==<br />
I'm amazed no one has commented on this one yet. I mean, we've learned who Anne Hutchinson was since we were in high school. This means not only is she a significant woman, but typical history itself finds her significant as well. There are very few women in history for whom this can be said. To read her words, where she eloquently destroys her opponent and uses her understanding of legal proceedings to her defense. The fact that she was so learned in the ways of commonlaw is almost as significant as the fact that we've learned about her for so long-- even back then not every one was learned in legal understandings. The more important question is, however, who are the women in this situation we don't learn about? --Sara<br />
<br />
== Lancashire, England Women’s Meeting structure, Quaker women in 1675 ==<br />
<br />
These all female meetings show a safe place for women to confide in each other. Not that these women are going to start a revolution, but to vent about the troubles of marriage, raising children and following god's will. It reminds me of Esther Burr's letters to her friend. Also, it is similar to Victorian era women's strong bonds in friendship. --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== David Brainerd, 1746, account of the Great Awakening ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In “A Remarkable Instance of Awakening,” David Brainard discusses two “awakenings” of two Native Americans. The reliability of this source is extremely questionable. Brainard claims to have convinced a Native American woman of having a soul and she cries out for her soul’s salvation. However, Brainard states he “perceived the burden of her prayer to be [in Indian language] i.e. have mercy on me.” Brainard himself uses the word “perceived” which means he interpreted what the Indian woman was saying, which is not always reliable. Furthermore, it is questionable whether Brainard truly had a grasp on in Indian language and therefore it is possible that he misinterpreted what she said or even made things up. The information before the text stated that Brainard was expelled from Yale and was only later made a minister. It is possible he embellished or fabricated his missionary work to improve his reputation. -Clare O<br />
<br />
== Narrative of Old Elizabeth, published in 1863 when she was 97, about her religious conversion in the 1770s. ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Elizabeth Godman lawsuit (1653); Elizabeth Godman tried for witchcraft, 1655 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Nothing is more of a testament to the power of words than the Salem witch trials. I find it astounding that accusations from neighbors can completely cost people their reputation and even their life, when widely believed. Furthermore, even if the accused takes the accusers to trial for slander, as in the case of Elizabeth Godman, it is likely that it will have no effect. It is shocking that people could lose their lives based on coincidences, such as Elizabeth, who was near when a child got sick, and supposed witchlike behavior, such as grinning in a “strange manner.” Perhaps this shows that there still was ties between religion and the courts, because fear of witchcraft is closely tied to religion, and the courts were likely to convict an accused witch. - Clare O<br />
<br />
== Bridget Bishop convicted of witchcraft 1692; “Casco Girls” accuse George Burroughs, 1692 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Elizabeth Sandwith Drinker, wealthy Philadelphia woman, diary – 1758-1794 ==<br />
<br />
As someone who knits and sews myself, I have to say - wow, this woman's list of finished pieces is impressive. I'm curious about the change of format about a page into the diary, from a list of pieces worked on to more comments on her social relations. I wonder why she changed her focus in what she deemed important to write about. The list seems to come mostly before she was married, so maybe developing her skills as a housewife was important to her? She mentions a gift for her future husband among her products. Whereas after she married, maybe her role in the community became more important? I wonder why that would be? -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Landon Carter complains about his female slaves (1771-1773) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== George Washington's slave list (1786) and slave work assignments (1786-88) ==<br />
<br />
I have seen inventories from the colonial time period much like this one. For someone in 2011, it is sad to see human beings in a list like livestock. The list does provide us with information on how slaves were used or what skills slaves had. George Washington had his owns self sufficient village at Mont Vernon. --Michelle<br />
<br />
== Eulalia Perez Recalls her work in a mission in Spanish CA in early 19th Century (1877) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Karin Wulf, “Women’s Work in Colonial Philadelphia,” 2000 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Within the Karin Wulf's entry "Womens Work in Colonial Philadelphia" I found the portion pertaining to the widows and their inheritance to be very enlightening. Wulf is able to clarify the assumptions that widows were solely dependent on the wealth left to them by their spouses. By explaining that women and men were interdependent upon each other with household income being a dual effort. It led me to wonder why widowed women were looked as so helpless and dependent on their deceased partners by society when it well known that it was far from the case? Even when citing prominent Benjamin Franklin and George Washington as inheritors to wealth the stereotype of the helpless widow was carried on. --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
<br />
One thing I found striking was the pay difference between men and women doing the same work - women earned between 1/4th and 1/2th of what men did. After talking about the economics of changing from indentured servants to slaves last class, I wondered... wouldn't hiring women or supporting women's businesses then become the more economically viable option, since they worked for so much less? Did that encourage female business owners at all? I was also surprised that mortuary work was considered a woman's job; I wonder what sort of tasks were involved in that, and how the transition was made from women as mortuary workers to the modern image of a creepy male undertaker. -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
What I found interesting about "Womens Work in Colonial Philadelphia" is the apparent difference in societal circumstances for women in this region than from other areas. Even though it took widowhood or an inheritance of some other sort for women to go into business, it appears that this was a pretty accessible option for women to make a living for themselves. I wonder if women in the other regions would be able to easily go into this work like these Philadelphia women did (even though it was not a terribly easy thing to do for them either).--Heather T.</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_3_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 3 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-13T01:57:57Z<p>Ssellers: /* Tied Hand an Foot */</p>
<hr />
<div>== AN ABOMINABLE WICKEDNESS ==<br />
''Abigail Bailey, 1815''<br />
<br />
<br />
I really was directed to the passage "Though all the conduct of Mr. B. from day to day, seemed to demonstrate my apprehension that he was determined, and was continually plotting, to ruin this poor young daughter, yet it was so intolerably crossing to every feeling of my soul to admit such a thought, that I strove with all my might to banish it from my mind and to disbelieve the possibility of such a thing(43)" because it made her daughter a passive, not conscientious, partner to her father, which would make it at the very least sexual assault, which is not at all what she is worried about. So much for being a good mother. I think it'd be interesting to see the story from the father's viewpoint or the daughters to figure out if it was consensual or not. Regardless, sexual predator=okay; incest=grounds for divorce. --Sara<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== TIED HAND AND FOOT ==<br />
''Esther Burr, 1756-1757''<br />
<br />
First of all, I love that this is from Aaron Burr's mother (which is not important, I just like Aaron Burr). More importantly the line by Mr. Ewing which states that women should talk about "things that they understood. He did not think women knew what Friendship was. They were hardly capable fo anything so cool and rational as friendship (41)." First I had to wonder, was he talking about the Quakers when she captialized the word "Friendship" or was that just making it a proper noun instead of the contemporary usage of the word. I have to wonder. Second, funny that after reading how busy and tedious her life is in this journal I am saddened by the lack of respect for her sex (if not for herself) she deals with. Obviously he had to have viewed her as somewhat of a companion (not unusual for a woman of her status when you consider the Adams, Adams and Jefferson correspondence of the same time period) or he would not have discussed "women" with her as though she was not one of them, but still an insult to ALL women is an insult to particular women. --Sara</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_3_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 3 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-13T01:57:37Z<p>Ssellers: /* AN ABOMINABLE WICKEDNESS */</p>
<hr />
<div>== AN ABOMINABLE WICKEDNESS ==<br />
''Abigail Bailey, 1815''<br />
<br />
<br />
I really was directed to the passage "Though all the conduct of Mr. B. from day to day, seemed to demonstrate my apprehension that he was determined, and was continually plotting, to ruin this poor young daughter, yet it was so intolerably crossing to every feeling of my soul to admit such a thought, that I strove with all my might to banish it from my mind and to disbelieve the possibility of such a thing(43)" because it made her daughter a passive, not conscientious, partner to her father, which would make it at the very least sexual assault, which is not at all what she is worried about. So much for being a good mother. I think it'd be interesting to see the story from the father's viewpoint or the daughters to figure out if it was consensual or not. Regardless, sexual predator=okay; incest=grounds for divorce. --Sara<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== Tied Hand an Foot ==<br />
''Esther Burr, 1756-1757''<br />
<br />
First of all, I love that this is from Aaron Burr's mother (which is not important, I just like Aaron Burr). More importantly the line by Mr. Ewing which states that women should talk about "things that they understood. He did not think women knew what Friendship was. They were hardly capable fo anything so cool and rational as friendship (41)." First I had to wonder, was he talking about the Quakers when she captialized the word "Friendship" or was that just making it a proper noun instead of the contemporary usage of the word. I have to wonder. Second, funny that after reading how busy and tedious her life is in this journal I am saddened by the lack of respect for her sex (if not for herself) she deals with. Obviously he had to have viewed her as somewhat of a companion (not unusual for a woman of her status when you consider the Adams, Adams and Jefferson correspondence of the same time period) or he would not have discussed "women" with her as though she was not one of them, but still an insult to ALL women is an insult to particular women. --Sara</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_3_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 3 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-13T01:48:12Z<p>Ssellers: /* AN ABOMINABLE WICKEDNESS */</p>
<hr />
<div>== AN ABOMINABLE WICKEDNESS ==<br />
''Abigail Bailey, 1815''<br />
<br />
<br />
I really was directed to the passage "Though all the conduct of Mr. B. from day to day, seemed to demonstrate my apprehension that he was determined, and was continually plotting, to ruin this poor young daughter, yet it was so intolerably crossing to every feeling of my soul to admit such a thought, that I strove with all my might to banish it from my mind and to disbelieve the possibility of such a thing(43)" because it made her daughter a passive, not conscientious, partner to her father, which would make it at the very least sexual assault, which is not at all what she is worried about. So much for being a good mother. I think it'd be interesting to see the story from the father's viewpoint or the daughters to figure out if it was consensual or not. Regardless, sexual predator=okay; incest=grounds for divorce. --Sara</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_3_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 3 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-13T01:47:53Z<p>Ssellers: /* AN ABOMINABLE WICKEDNESS */</p>
<hr />
<div>== AN ABOMINABLE WICKEDNESS ==<br />
''Abigail Bailey, 1815''<br />
<br />
<br />
I really was acute to the passage "Though all the conduct of Mr. B. from day to day, seemed to demonstrate my apprehension that he was determined, and was continually plotting, to ruin this poor young daughter, yet it was so intolerably crossing to every feeling of my soul to admit such a thought, that I strove with all my might to banish it from my mind and to disbelieve the possibility of such a thing(43)" because it made her daughter a passive, not conscientious, partner to her father, which would make it at the very least sexual assault, which is not at all what she is worried about. So much for being a good mother. I think it'd be interesting to see the story from the father's viewpoint or the daughters to figure out if it was consensual or not. Regardless, sexual predator=okay; incest=grounds for divorce. --Sara</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_3_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 3 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-13T01:47:20Z<p>Ssellers: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
<br />
== AN ABOMINABLE WICKEDNESS ==<br />
== Abigail Bailey, 1815 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I really was acute to the passage "Though all the conduct of Mr. B. from day to day, seemed to demonstrate my apprehension that he was determined, and was continually plotting, to ruin this poor young daughter, yet it was so intolerably crossing to every feeling of my soul to admit such a thought, that I strove with all my might to banish it from my mind and to disbelieve the possibility of such a thing(43)" because it made her daughter a passive, not conscientious, partner to her father, which would make it at the very least sexual assault, which is not at all what she is worried about. So much for being a good mother. I think it'd be interesting to see the story from the father's viewpoint or the daughters to figure out if it was consensual or not. Regardless, sexual predator=okay; incest=grounds for divorce. --Sara</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_3_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 3 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-13T01:46:42Z<p>Ssellers: New page: == AN ABOMINABLE WICKEDNESS Abigail Bailey, 1815 == I really was acute to the passage "Though all the conduct of Mr. B. from day to day, seemed to demonstrate my apprehension that he wa...</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== AN ABOMINABLE WICKEDNESS <br />
Abigail Bailey, 1815 ==<br />
<br />
I really was acute to the passage "Though all the conduct of Mr. B. from day to day, seemed to demonstrate my apprehension that he was determined, and was continually plotting, to ruin this poor young daughter, yet it was so intolerably crossing to every feeling of my soul to admit such a thought, that I strove with all my might to banish it from my mind and to disbelieve the possibility of such a thing(43)" because it made her daughter a passive, not conscientious, partner to her father, which would make it at the very least sexual assault, which is not at all what she is worried about. So much for being a good mother. I think it'd be interesting to see the story from the father's viewpoint or the daughters to figure out if it was consensual or not. Regardless, sexual predator=okay; incest=grounds for divorce. --Sara</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_2_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 2 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-06T19:25:16Z<p>Ssellers: /* Overarching questions */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching questions ==<br />
<br />
So little is known about the complex and diverse group of Native American women. How much should we trust the accounts of literate white men and women? How can we be sure that we recieve an unaltered and unbiased view of these women's lives? We cannot, thus, it is imperative that we take an objective eye when reading others narritives on a people without a clear voice in our history books. Although it is interesting and beneficial to compare the differing accounts of Mary Jemison and Mary Rowlandson we do not have the accounts from their captors. -- Hannah W.<br />
<br />
The arrival of Europeans can truly mark the end of one people's way of life through conforming to a foreign model of religion and social structure demonstrated through changing gender roles. Through many of these early encounters as well as from ''The First Ship'' reading that both parties view of each other was completely alien. As told my Mary Rowlandson and Mary Jemison, it is evident the social structure that they were forced into was foreign with gender roles carried out in a nontraditional sense. These contrasts, in ways of life sharply decline, as seen in the story of Sarah Ahhaton were she was made to feel remorseful for her adulterous actions. Actions that some fifty years early would have "incur no ill repute or insult" according to Champlain. It is clear that when Europeans arrived in America they encountered a people whose female members shared a mutual respect with male members, maintaining positions of power in both the public and private world. Although, documentation throughout this time was heavily biased, the permanent shift in culture and life ways for the Native Americans is abundantly clear. -- Rachel T.<br />
<br />
In chapter one of Woloch, it is said that “all tribes adhered to a gendered division of the labor.” This division of labor was very interesting to the Europeans who wrote about Indian life, as women had many responsibilities that required hard labor. John Heckewelder didn’t seem to have much respect for the Native American women or of “savage life” in general. He talks of the women harshly saying: their “labours… are hard, compared with the tasks that are imposed upon females in civilized society; but they are no more than their fair share…” This opinion is opposed by Samuel de Champlain who is harsher on the Native American men saying they “do nothing but hunt for deer and other animals…make cabins and go to war.” This seems a healthy list of duties to me, but compared to the long list Champlain provided of the women’s duties, it seems small and of little consequence. Some European accounts of Indian life seem to think that these tasks seem fair and are often shared among the men and women out of respect to each other. This respect between the two sexes seems to be somewhat universal in many of the essays. Both women and men alike have a say in the government, particularly among the Iroquois. I was surprised that this seemed less shocking to the Europeans than the amount of work the Native American women did. -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
Woloch says that all tribes had a gendered division of labor, but doesn't Brooks' essay claim that, at least in Navajo tribes, a lot of labor was gender-integrated? I wonder how much different divisions of labor impacted captive women's experiences. I also found the idea of "ransomed" captives curious. Did the captors see it as "ransoming" too, or was it just selling for them? -- Katie C.<br />
<br />
The European accounts of the Native American marriages, I found very interesting. Samuel de Champlain describes it as “a sort of marriage” while Heckelwelder looks down upon it: “Marriages among the Indians are not, as with us, contracted for life; it is understood…that the parties are not to live together any longer than they shall be pleased with each other.” It seems that there was a lot of, for lack of a better term, “sleeping around” and that children could “not be sure of being legitimate. What I found more interesting than anything else were the personal accounts of the two women who had been taken captive. I found myself asking myself what I would have done in that situation. Mary Rowlandson obviously disliked her captors, though her opinion of them may have changes slightly in their moments of kindness. Rowlandson had a husband and other family members waiting for her at a home she had already formed roots in. Her captors were her enemies and she naturally thought poorly of them. Mary Jemison’s scenario is more unique. She was young when she was taken and when given the chance to be free, she chose to stay with her adopted Indian family. Did she stay out of convenience because she had nothing to go home to? -- Emma C.<br />
<br />
I, as well, thought the impression of marriage was of importance. I mean, what even were Native American marriages like? I don't know, but I can assume they didn't entail the sort of things we post-Victorian romantics assign to them. I especially thought it was of importance to note the article which discussed jumping from hut to hut with the acquiesce of ones' spouse. Although it was probably meant to detail just how barbaric and promiscious the Natives were, it also reinfornces my point that even the European's marriages were not what we are naturally inclined to think of them as. --Sara S. <br />
<br />
I also found the accounts of the two women taken captive interesting. Since most Native American stories and traditions were passed down orally rather than written I think it's important to use these accounts to add to Native American History. I think that you can neither believe all, some or none with what you read with these accounts. I would be more skeptical of the male accounts since they were observing based on their beliefs of what women's roles should be. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
European culture coming to the "new" world did destroy in part the Native American way of life and structure. This group of people had a system of justice (chiefs and councils) and the men and women had a working relationship that is so rarely seen in other cultures that was basically demoralized by these new settlers. --Remy B.<br />
<br />
I think it is important to note that a culture will not change if one attempts to force that change upon the people of that culture (unless you kill them, then they give in pretty easily to your new customs). The men in these tribal systems had to have some predisposed ability to get rid of their way of life or they would have been killed or been fighting against it (which did happen, plenty were killed and plenty fault simply because of a difference of cultural beliefs). --Sara S.<br />
<br />
<br />
In reading Heckewelder's account of the division of labor and responsibility within Delaware Indian families, I was struck by the parallels and differences between the narrative of an American non-Native American woman and that of a Native American woman. While Native American men performed the majority of the more intense physical labor, women also had responsibilities that took them out of the house and allowed them to play a key role in the foodgathering. Additionally, the fact that the parents of both interested parties would bring food that had been caught/grown by their child fascinated me, because unlike the European/early US model of women's worth, a woman in Native American societies brought to the marriage her skill sets as related to food growth and scavenging, and those skills played an important role in finding a partner. In European tradition, a woman would bring to a marriage the dowry that her father/family could afford, bringing to the table on her own behalf only her character and looks. In assessing a potential daughter-in-law's farming and cooking skills, parents could consider more than charm. -- Nicole Steck<br />
<br />
I was particularly intrigued by the account of John Heckewelder and the way in which he described the gender roles of the Delaware Indian Families. Heckewelder was thorough in his descriptions about the work of the women. However, he was always quick to compare their labor with that of the men and made it clear that the women's work was inferior. Because the men were out hunting, they were doing work in which "their existence depend[ed]" (32). It is evident by looking at this text that Heckewelder was assessing the Native Americans through the lens of the static European gender roles that existed at the time. --Ellen S.<br />
<br />
I found the first chapter of Woloch’s book quite interesting, and it seems to shed some light on the varying social structures between the American natives and the European colonists. In many native tribes, it was customary for the women to not only play the wife, mother and housekeeper role, but they were the main agriculturists for the tribes as well. Viewed as being savage by the colonists, these native women were only doing what they considered to be their “fair share” of the duties. Although their work was considered hard and strenuous just as well as the men’s, they were still accustomed to performing those duties and they were still responsible for everything else involving family life. They were not forced into slave labor, nor were they forced to remain in their relationships or marriages when they became unhappy. In comparison to the white women settlers, I feel as if the native women had more rights and freedoms than they did. In some cases, native women were even allowed to serve as council members. It’s amazing to see how much culture and environment has an effect on an overall perspective and way of life. --Lindsey S.</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_1_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 1 Questions/Comments-327 112011-08-30T18:56:48Z<p>Ssellers: </p>
<hr />
<div>Being the second time I have been required to read this section (which is why I was so quick about posting) I have to comment on the fact that the concept of social history and its restraints have a larger meaning to me now, further in my education, than they did the first time I read this. Being primarily a Religion major, it is easy to see how different perspectives and different outlooks on gender, race, socioeconomic class, culture and community play a huge role in the shape of the story of history. --Sara S.<br />
<br />
On page 11 in "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" by Gisela Bock the author mentions "The concept 'gender' has been introduced into women's history and women's studies in the 1970s as a social, cultural, political and historical category, in order to express the insight that women's subordination, inferiroity and powerlessness are not dictated by nature, but are social cultural, politcal and historical constructions." To me, this can be expanded to inlcude all other categories of identities (i.e. race, sexuality, culture, etc.) and is behind the complexity found in historical study. --Sara S.</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_14_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 14 Questions/Comments2010-04-21T20:38:29Z<p>Ssellers: /* The Voice of the an Anorexic, Abra Fortune Chernik, 1995 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Susan Eisenberg, Hard-Hatted Women ==<br />
<br />
I like the comparison Susan Eisenberg made on page 279 when she says, “Entering construction in the late 1970s was a little like falling in love with someone who you weren’t supposed to.” It seems that the problem for these women was not enjoying the job, but the hostility they faced from men and the fear they had of what the men would think of things such as pregnancy. It is good that these women had each other to lean on and form close bonds. I would guess that the majority of them would not have lasted if they didn’t have these strong connections to other women. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin on her post. It is great that these women had a community of a few other women who were going through the same things to motivate and identify with each other. Many women did not have that in the work place. I found it interesting when Eisenberg talked about working up until being about 6 months pregnant. Her friends outside of work couldn’t conceive (no pun intended) of the notion that people wouldn’t notice that she was pregnant, but as she said “no one expected to see a pregnant woman on a construction site”(280) so they didn’t see it at all under her baggy work cloths. She also presented herself as “she always had” (280) so they really didn’t see a difference. What I found to be sad was her experience on the work-site with the banter that the men had with each other. While they were joking about beating their wives and other assorted misogynistic things, she was quietly crying to herself in private. It is unfortunate because I feel like that still goes on. When I used to work in restaurants that banter was certainly happening behind the scenes which made many female co-workers uncomfortable. The difference now is that we are able to speak out against and potentially have action taken whereas Eisenberg really felt that had no power to do so in her position and industry. -Caryn<br />
<br />
I also agree with Erin and Caryn. It like how the women formed a support network amongst each other when working with the crass men became too much for any one of them to bear alone. However, I also found it interesting how the women didn't just get support from other "hard hatted" women, but from all women in general. Eisenberg talks about how she ran into women who wished they had led the lifestyle she had and who constantly encouraged her to keep going when things got tough. I think this really illustrates the "sisterhood" aspect of the women's lib movement. Women of different backgrounds rallied behind Eisenberg and her peers to make sure they had the support and the opportunity that they needed to keep going. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin, that line describes her passion in being a journeywoman. I found her experiences with combining her position and her pregnancy most moving. Pregnancy is an emotional and delicate process that a woman goes through. Pregnancy combined with feeling that co-workers would look at you differently and change the dynamics of work if they knew of the pregnancy. It is understandable why she didn’t tell them until later in her pregnancy. She did not want her co-workers to think she couldn‘t do her job any less than them. She was dealing with a lot of opposition in a field so new to women. As I read this piece, I got a sense of the enormous pressure she had on her and how it would be natural for her to draw strength from other women in the field. -Mhimes<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin and Mhimes, in respect to the passion Eisenberg felt for her job and her willingness to conceal her pregnancy. The line that grabbed my attention was when she stated, "Not talking about my pregnancy exaggerated the feeling I often have in construction of feeling split in two" (281). I think this piece really shows how women, like Eisenberg, felt as though they had to hide their pregnancy because they feared ridicule, or job loss. I think these are very real, articulated fears, because it was common for women in the past to be let go from jobs when pregnant or married. I enjoyed Eisenberg's perseverance as a working mother and how she was able to form a good relationship with her male co-workers who actually accepted her as a working woman and a mother. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading this piece about a woman who became an electrician. I thought it was really neat to read about how much she loved her blue-collar job. Working in this type of occupation which was a predominantly male field must have been pretty hard at times. Thankfully women had the support of other women. Pregnancy was definitely an issue for these women especially because of their higher risk of miscarriages. I can't imagine having to do certain tasks and do labor intensive work while being pregnant. The idea of miscarrying must have also led to increase stress. These women were brave and strong women for working these kinds of jobs alongside men and also being pregnant and/or mothers at the same time. -avanness<br />
<br />
I agree with Anna and the “sisterhood” ideal of the women liberation movement. I think that it was really important for women to have each other while they were breaking into something that was seen as entirely male. Anyone doing something out of the ordinary would need that support system, especially from her peers. I doubt that Susan would have done and gone as far as she did without her female supporters. Obviously the men on the job weren’t very supportive, of course there is always the exception, but from what Susan describes it seems like most were unsupportive. “The journeymen were extremely hostile and unwilling to train me,” (279). About the pregnancy I would be really reluctant to speak anything about it as well. Especially after hearing what the men talk about on a day-to-day basis, “jokes about beating up wives, racist and anti-Semitic slurs, degrading remarks about each other’s girlfriends or some women who happened to pass by,” (280). If I heard those remarks every day, even being a strong woman who broke into a new field, I would be worried for myself too. Susan is still a woman and men are still going to be stronger than her no matter what profession she is in. -Morgan<br />
<br />
== Connaught C. Marshner Explains What Social Conservatives Really Want, 1988 ==<br />
<br />
This is great because I have always wanted to know what social conservatives really want =) On a serious note, I think the reason I like this so much is because it was written in 1988 and these are arguments that I have personally heard people make. Honestly, what I really got out of this article was how hard it is to study and interpret history that is so recent because it really is difficult to separate your own feelings from the facts. I think it is important to see where one side is coming from, and even though I hate to admit it, I think that social conservatives, as described in this article, have some valid points (though they are few and far between). For example, women who choose to stay at home should get more credit in forms of tax breaks. <br />
On a side note -- I am curious about whom the audience of this article was intended to be and if they were trying to sway opinions in any particular way. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
== The Real "Norma Rae" Tells Her Story, Crystal Lee Sutton ==<br />
<br />
<br />
The Real “Norma Rae” was interesting. Sutton seemed to fall into union activity, but proved to be quite brave in the end. She really stuck to her guns throughout this piece. I was not entirely surprised when the Mill forbid the copying the “What the Company Will Do for You”. That doesn’t seem legal but it was a brave thing for Sutton to copy that letter for the National Labor Relations Board. I think that this empowerment allowed Sutton to really make a difference at this mill. She would not give up the fight even at the very end when she got fired and removed from the premises, “I was trying to get back in. I was fighting.” (277) It’s amazing how, in such a short time, she was educated and indoctrinated into the labor movement. – Caryn<br />
<br />
This piece almost reminded me of the interview I did for the paper. My interviewee's father did not agree with what Unions were doing at the time and forbade her to join them, just like Suttons mother and sister did. "[They] didn't think I ought to go" (274). However, unlike my interviewee, Sutton eventually fell into the Unions and I think the main reason was opportunity. Sutton did not have too much of this in the south and the workings conditions were not very favorable. Also, the economic status was most likely worse than my interviewee who was upper middle class. Sutton was almost certainly a lower class than this and in the south she had fewer options and was therefore forced into the Unions. This excerpt shows that economic status and location growing up definately contribute to opportunities for women. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I agree with Caryn, I really liked Sutton's determination. She literally did everything she could to get that letter. I also liked how she knew that it was more important to get the plant unionized than for her to keep her job. She gave up her own livelihood for the greater good of the factory workers, which is really admirable. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
Norma Rae was an interesting piece. Most intriguing was when she looked around and thought to herself as the boss was lying about what she’d been doing trying to find reasons to fire her [talking on the phone, hanging out in the bathroom, etc] that no one stood up for her, not even ones that had picnics together. Of course these people were afraid of loosing their jobs but that’s what the boss men expected -to use that fear to prevent them from creating or joining unions. Norma Rae stood up even though her knees were shaky and it wasn’t in her plan for the day, she did it. A lot of the readings this week were about women standing up. When they stood up, they set a precedent… if she made it, so can I! -MHimes<br />
<br />
<br />
Crystal Lee Sutton was a very brave and determined woman. She took risks because she knew what was right. Two things that I thought was interesting in this piece were the fact that after she was fired in 1973, no one would hire her until 1978. That is a long time she went without work and it shows how much employers and businesses really disliked unions and union activity. The other thing that was interesting was the fact that the plant didn't sign the union contract until 1989, almost six years after the union won an election at the plant. Again, people were very determined to keep unions out of plants and their businesses. -Avanness<br />
<br />
Crystal Lee Sutton was a powerful woman for her time and wanted to challenge the norms of male/corporate superiority. The line that struck was when Sutton was at the factory for dinner and the union organizer was pressuring her to get the letter off the bulletin board. When Eli said, "Look, Crystal, you can afford to lose a few pounds and I need that letter."(275). Was this a normal tactic used by men to get women to help the union effort? I am pretty sure it is an unwritten rule that you never call a woman fat, yet did it accomplish what Eli wanted? I think he may have said that to get the rise out of her, it would out of me but probably in retailiation against him, and it ultimately led to her being released from the company but it was a powerful move to challenge the head of corporations and I commend her for it. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
==Women on Welfare, Johnnie Tillmon, 1972==<br />
<br />
First, let me just say that I love Mrs. Tillmon. Second, I would hate to be on welfare and I hope I will never have to deal with it and by reading this piece I really felt for Mrs. Tillmon. It really helped me to see a different side of being on welfare. I see that we as a society have always looked down on those who resort to the use of welfare because we tend to think of them as inhuman. “In this country, if your any one of those things-poor, black, fat, female, middle-aged, on welfare-you count less as a human being,” (268). We see such people as taking our money because they are too lazy to work, but who are we to place such stereotypes upon these people? We just assume things having never experienced them and I see that we tend to believe what the politicians say as welfare being a “cancer eating at our vitals,” (287). We never see the people as mothers or children, just poor people taking away more of our money, aliens to the little world we live in. I’ll admit that I thought that same before because I’ve never had to deal with it. I like that Mrs. Tillmon comes up with a solution though and a smart one at that: “I’d start paying women a living wage for doing the work we are already doing-child-raising and housekeeping,” (289). This way the welfare crisis would be over and housewives wouldn’t be looked down upon either. We’ve spoken of working women as being more outgoing and not seen as “true women” either. Wouldn’t that all fix itself as women got paid for their domestic work in their house? I think we would be respected more and have more opportunities. I would definitely be rich by now. =) -Morgan<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with what Morgan has stated. It is clear from this piece that being on welfare automatically labels a person with a negative stereotype. I think that this piece shows the difficulty that women have raising a family as a single mother, especially since the A.F.D.C, in most cases, prohibited a male in the household in order to qualify. The part that stuck out to me was Tillmon's distinction between ''a'' man and ''the'' man. She showed how the government was, in essence, controlling women who accepted this welfare. Her line, "The truth is that A.F.D.C is like a supersexist marriage. You trade in ''a'' man for ''the'' man" (287). It seems like these women who have no other options, but to be on welfare because they do not make enough money to support themselves and their children, have to loose a part of their sexuality as a consequence. This statement really grabbed me when Tillmon states, "There's one good thing about welfare. It kills your illusions about yourself, and about where this society is really at...You have to learn to fight, to be aggressive, or you just don't make it. If you can survive being on welfare, you can survive anything" (289). If this doesn't read like empowerment, I'm not sure what else does. -abratchi<br />
<br />
What I noticed most about this article was that it was published in 1972 yet it appears (by Morgan's and Abratchi's comments) that I am not the only one who forgot this while I was reading it. It doesn't say a lot for the improvement of the welfare system in this country when a statement like "In this country if you're any one of those things--poor, black, fat, female, middle-aged, on welfare- you count less as a human being. If you're all those things you don't count at all except as a statistic." ( page 286) is still just as relevant in today's society. I cant even count how many times I personally have had to remind people that most of the people in this country on welfare are children, and that the fat, lazy, unemployed story they like to bring up so often is not the norm. I hope that 38 years from now someone doesn't read a testimonial of today's Johnnie Tillmon and think the same exact thing as I have.... -Ssellers<br />
<br />
==The Voice of the an Anorexic, Abra Fortune Chernik, 1995==<br />
<br />
This article scared and gave hope to me. Of course I’ve heard of anorexic and I’ve seen it, but I’ve never felt the pain like I did in reading Mrs. Chernik’s first-hand account. But through all of the pain of eating and binging she persevered through it and that was what really got through to me. Instead of beating herself up for being anorexic and not being able to fix it, she found what was wrong with society and how they saw her as a woman. As women we try to live up to unrealistic standards thinking that that is what men want and what other women will be jealous of. It’s what society has done to us, it’s damaged us. Mrs. Chernick finally broke through this when she saw herself and “observed a woman held up by her culture as the physical ideal because she was starving, self-obsessed, and powerless, a women called beautiful because she threatened no one except herself,” (323) . Women are not suppose to be powerful and dominate of themselves, that’s what were told. Men are to be the superior and made to feel that way; maybe that is why they seem so confident in their bodies. “As long as society resists female power, fashion will call healthy women physically flawed,” (324). If only we could all learn to be “based on an image of a women warrior,” (324) and be happy as ourselves. -Morgan<br />
<br />
<br />
I personally was touched by the article because even me and my sister have had a running joke that any girl who hasn't had an eating disorder has just failed at having one. Although it's just a joke and neither of us are really serious about it, it still would better for a girls self esteem to be a "size" 00 and never have to worry about anything like eating ever again than to be fat and ridiculed for the rest of your life. It sucks, but its' true. I felt most touched, (and most appalled by the society that I live in), by the statement "Gazing in the mirror at my emaciated body, I observed a woman held upby her culture as the physcial ideal because she was starving, self obsessed and powerless, a women called beautiful because she threatened no one except herself. Despite my intelligence, my education and my supposed manhattan sophistication I had believed all of the lies; I had almost given my life in order to achieve the sickly impotence that tis culture aggressively links with female happiness, love and success" (page 323-324). WHY is this? I don't understand how a male who isn't exactly the fittest of the fit can walk around without a shirt on (because it's hot) and have no qualms about the fact that his beer belly is hanging out, but most of my girl friends won't run outside in a sports bra because of the self consciousness attached with being shirtless (and because it substantially increases the amount of people who think it's okay to yell, holler, whistle and even take pictures of you.). It doesn't make sense. I'm not saying that the man should be self-conscious but at the same time. It's a ridiculous double standard that leads to terrible diseases and someone almost killing themselves to never be skinny enough. I consecutively run for at least an hour every day of my life, and I barely fit into society's standard for clothing sizes. Beauty isn't an eating disorder, or at least if it is, can there not be a double standard about it? --Ssellers<br />
<br />
==Organizing the Farm Workers, Jessie Lopez De La Cruz==<br />
<br />
This article made me believe in not only the union fight but the power women could have in the union struggle. The line that clearly stood out to me was, "It doesn't take courage. All it takes is standing up for what you believe in,..."(285). Jessie did not want to be known as courageous, as someone who should be idiolzed but she was, for a woman to step outside societal norms and challenge practices was not common. She just wanted people to come together and fight for what they deserved and the help she had from the nurse to enter Parlier proved that many people felt the same and just wanted to see a good outcome.-Megan W.<br />
<br />
==Date Rape: Hysteria or Epidemic? Katie Roiphe==<br />
<br />
Although when I first started reading this piece I thought that Roiphe was making some streched claims, she did bring up a lot of great points. I think her willingness to show that the issue of "date rape" actually produces a negative view on women is interesting. She believes that "date rape" victimizes women and labels women as incapable of being sensual beings. I thought this was interesting because a lot of women in the feminist movement (first and second) were trying to move away from this Victorian stereotype of women being pure and pious. Roiphe shows that this date rape movement is actually, in some ways, harking back to this old ideal that rejects women as sexual beings. Roiphe is instead promoting that women take responsibility for their own actions and not subject themselves to this stereotype and to not be afraid to be sexual. -abratchi<br />
<br />
==Women and Disabilities, Nancy Mairs==<br />
<br />
This article I found to be empowering for anyone who has a degenerative disease, they know they are not alone and while a cure would be ideal, they can survive and still enjoy life. The one issue I had with the article was when she discussed the use of the word, "cripple" and said, "[people]-wince at the word ''cripple'', as they do not at handicapped or disabled."(317). I do not think that is true, as someone who has personal experience with a disabled person I know they are still looked at differently when the word disabled is brought up, or someone notices their license plate with disabled tags, and people make comments. No matter how a person is classified as crippled, disabled, or handicapped there is always an ignorant person who will make a remark, but people like Nancy make the best of it. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
==Lindsy Van Gelder Reports on the "World Series of Sex-Discrimination Suits," 1978==<br />
<br />
The idea of reverse discrimination against men is something I find quite interesting. Affirmative action programs were not meant to push men out, but were intended to give women a fair chance. I just think men felt threatened by the idea of women working at an equal level with them. I couldn't believe the disparity between men and women's pay, such as this woman: "whose annual salary was $2500 less than that of the average male in the ''Times''' Washington bureau." (P. 464) What astounded me was that one woman was more than qualified for a job, but was passed up for it multiple times, with the job going to men. The article stated, "sexism does indeed exist there, but in a genteel form in keeping with the overall tone of the paper." (P. 465) So does that make sexism okay? That it is only a "genteel form" that goes along with what the paper wants? Another thing I was shocked at and didn't understand was when the executive was talking about how he should hire the woman who was overqualified for the job. He said, "If she weren't a woman, she'd be in the bullpen right now!" (P. 465) Why didn't he just hire her? I think it was more about what was socially acceptable at the time as well as maybe his reputation? Whatever the reason, it amazes me at how restricting social norms could be, to both men and women. The worst part about this entire suit that these women of the Post brought to court is that even if the case was argued well in court, what is the most progress the women would have made...what would they have achieved? Even if they won, it would be difficult to actually institute change in that particular workplace, which is probably what kept many women from suing.. they knew it would become a dead end. --Alex M.</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_14_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 14 Questions/Comments2010-04-21T20:28:06Z<p>Ssellers: /* Women on Welfare, Johnnie Tillmon, 1972 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Susan Eisenberg, Hard-Hatted Women ==<br />
<br />
I like the comparison Susan Eisenberg made on page 279 when she says, “Entering construction in the late 1970s was a little like falling in love with someone who you weren’t supposed to.” It seems that the problem for these women was not enjoying the job, but the hostility they faced from men and the fear they had of what the men would think of things such as pregnancy. It is good that these women had each other to lean on and form close bonds. I would guess that the majority of them would not have lasted if they didn’t have these strong connections to other women. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin on her post. It is great that these women had a community of a few other women who were going through the same things to motivate and identify with each other. Many women did not have that in the work place. I found it interesting when Eisenberg talked about working up until being about 6 months pregnant. Her friends outside of work couldn’t conceive (no pun intended) of the notion that people wouldn’t notice that she was pregnant, but as she said “no one expected to see a pregnant woman on a construction site”(280) so they didn’t see it at all under her baggy work cloths. She also presented herself as “she always had” (280) so they really didn’t see a difference. What I found to be sad was her experience on the work-site with the banter that the men had with each other. While they were joking about beating their wives and other assorted misogynistic things, she was quietly crying to herself in private. It is unfortunate because I feel like that still goes on. When I used to work in restaurants that banter was certainly happening behind the scenes which made many female co-workers uncomfortable. The difference now is that we are able to speak out against and potentially have action taken whereas Eisenberg really felt that had no power to do so in her position and industry. -Caryn<br />
<br />
I also agree with Erin and Caryn. It like how the women formed a support network amongst each other when working with the crass men became too much for any one of them to bear alone. However, I also found it interesting how the women didn't just get support from other "hard hatted" women, but from all women in general. Eisenberg talks about how she ran into women who wished they had led the lifestyle she had and who constantly encouraged her to keep going when things got tough. I think this really illustrates the "sisterhood" aspect of the women's lib movement. Women of different backgrounds rallied behind Eisenberg and her peers to make sure they had the support and the opportunity that they needed to keep going. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin, that line describes her passion in being a journeywoman. I found her experiences with combining her position and her pregnancy most moving. Pregnancy is an emotional and delicate process that a woman goes through. Pregnancy combined with feeling that co-workers would look at you differently and change the dynamics of work if they knew of the pregnancy. It is understandable why she didn’t tell them until later in her pregnancy. She did not want her co-workers to think she couldn‘t do her job any less than them. She was dealing with a lot of opposition in a field so new to women. As I read this piece, I got a sense of the enormous pressure she had on her and how it would be natural for her to draw strength from other women in the field. -Mhimes<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin and Mhimes, in respect to the passion Eisenberg felt for her job and her willingness to conceal her pregnancy. The line that grabbed my attention was when she stated, "Not talking about my pregnancy exaggerated the feeling I often have in construction of feeling split in two" (281). I think this piece really shows how women, like Eisenberg, felt as though they had to hide their pregnancy because they feared ridicule, or job loss. I think these are very real, articulated fears, because it was common for women in the past to be let go from jobs when pregnant or married. I enjoyed Eisenberg's perseverance as a working mother and how she was able to form a good relationship with her male co-workers who actually accepted her as a working woman and a mother. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading this piece about a woman who became an electrician. I thought it was really neat to read about how much she loved her blue-collar job. Working in this type of occupation which was a predominantly male field must have been pretty hard at times. Thankfully women had the support of other women. Pregnancy was definitely an issue for these women especially because of their higher risk of miscarriages. I can't imagine having to do certain tasks and do labor intensive work while being pregnant. The idea of miscarrying must have also led to increase stress. These women were brave and strong women for working these kinds of jobs alongside men and also being pregnant and/or mothers at the same time. -avanness<br />
<br />
I agree with Anna and the “sisterhood” ideal of the women liberation movement. I think that it was really important for women to have each other while they were breaking into something that was seen as entirely male. Anyone doing something out of the ordinary would need that support system, especially from her peers. I doubt that Susan would have done and gone as far as she did without her female supporters. Obviously the men on the job weren’t very supportive, of course there is always the exception, but from what Susan describes it seems like most were unsupportive. “The journeymen were extremely hostile and unwilling to train me,” (279). About the pregnancy I would be really reluctant to speak anything about it as well. Especially after hearing what the men talk about on a day-to-day basis, “jokes about beating up wives, racist and anti-Semitic slurs, degrading remarks about each other’s girlfriends or some women who happened to pass by,” (280). If I heard those remarks every day, even being a strong woman who broke into a new field, I would be worried for myself too. Susan is still a woman and men are still going to be stronger than her no matter what profession she is in. -Morgan<br />
<br />
== Connaught C. Marshner Explains What Social Conservatives Really Want, 1988 ==<br />
<br />
This is great because I have always wanted to know what social conservatives really want =) On a serious note, I think the reason I like this so much is because it was written in 1988 and these are arguments that I have personally heard people make. Honestly, what I really got out of this article was how hard it is to study and interpret history that is so recent because it really is difficult to separate your own feelings from the facts. I think it is important to see where one side is coming from, and even though I hate to admit it, I think that social conservatives, as described in this article, have some valid points (though they are few and far between). For example, women who choose to stay at home should get more credit in forms of tax breaks. <br />
On a side note -- I am curious about whom the audience of this article was intended to be and if they were trying to sway opinions in any particular way. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
== The Real "Norma Rae" Tells Her Story, Crystal Lee Sutton ==<br />
<br />
<br />
The Real “Norma Rae” was interesting. Sutton seemed to fall into union activity, but proved to be quite brave in the end. She really stuck to her guns throughout this piece. I was not entirely surprised when the Mill forbid the copying the “What the Company Will Do for You”. That doesn’t seem legal but it was a brave thing for Sutton to copy that letter for the National Labor Relations Board. I think that this empowerment allowed Sutton to really make a difference at this mill. She would not give up the fight even at the very end when she got fired and removed from the premises, “I was trying to get back in. I was fighting.” (277) It’s amazing how, in such a short time, she was educated and indoctrinated into the labor movement. – Caryn<br />
<br />
This piece almost reminded me of the interview I did for the paper. My interviewee's father did not agree with what Unions were doing at the time and forbade her to join them, just like Suttons mother and sister did. "[They] didn't think I ought to go" (274). However, unlike my interviewee, Sutton eventually fell into the Unions and I think the main reason was opportunity. Sutton did not have too much of this in the south and the workings conditions were not very favorable. Also, the economic status was most likely worse than my interviewee who was upper middle class. Sutton was almost certainly a lower class than this and in the south she had fewer options and was therefore forced into the Unions. This excerpt shows that economic status and location growing up definately contribute to opportunities for women. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I agree with Caryn, I really liked Sutton's determination. She literally did everything she could to get that letter. I also liked how she knew that it was more important to get the plant unionized than for her to keep her job. She gave up her own livelihood for the greater good of the factory workers, which is really admirable. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
Norma Rae was an interesting piece. Most intriguing was when she looked around and thought to herself as the boss was lying about what she’d been doing trying to find reasons to fire her [talking on the phone, hanging out in the bathroom, etc] that no one stood up for her, not even ones that had picnics together. Of course these people were afraid of loosing their jobs but that’s what the boss men expected -to use that fear to prevent them from creating or joining unions. Norma Rae stood up even though her knees were shaky and it wasn’t in her plan for the day, she did it. A lot of the readings this week were about women standing up. When they stood up, they set a precedent… if she made it, so can I! -MHimes<br />
<br />
<br />
Crystal Lee Sutton was a very brave and determined woman. She took risks because she knew what was right. Two things that I thought was interesting in this piece were the fact that after she was fired in 1973, no one would hire her until 1978. That is a long time she went without work and it shows how much employers and businesses really disliked unions and union activity. The other thing that was interesting was the fact that the plant didn't sign the union contract until 1989, almost six years after the union won an election at the plant. Again, people were very determined to keep unions out of plants and their businesses. -Avanness<br />
<br />
Crystal Lee Sutton was a powerful woman for her time and wanted to challenge the norms of male/corporate superiority. The line that struck was when Sutton was at the factory for dinner and the union organizer was pressuring her to get the letter off the bulletin board. When Eli said, "Look, Crystal, you can afford to lose a few pounds and I need that letter."(275). Was this a normal tactic used by men to get women to help the union effort? I am pretty sure it is an unwritten rule that you never call a woman fat, yet did it accomplish what Eli wanted? I think he may have said that to get the rise out of her, it would out of me but probably in retailiation against him, and it ultimately led to her being released from the company but it was a powerful move to challenge the head of corporations and I commend her for it. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
==Women on Welfare, Johnnie Tillmon, 1972==<br />
<br />
First, let me just say that I love Mrs. Tillmon. Second, I would hate to be on welfare and I hope I will never have to deal with it and by reading this piece I really felt for Mrs. Tillmon. It really helped me to see a different side of being on welfare. I see that we as a society have always looked down on those who resort to the use of welfare because we tend to think of them as inhuman. “In this country, if your any one of those things-poor, black, fat, female, middle-aged, on welfare-you count less as a human being,” (268). We see such people as taking our money because they are too lazy to work, but who are we to place such stereotypes upon these people? We just assume things having never experienced them and I see that we tend to believe what the politicians say as welfare being a “cancer eating at our vitals,” (287). We never see the people as mothers or children, just poor people taking away more of our money, aliens to the little world we live in. I’ll admit that I thought that same before because I’ve never had to deal with it. I like that Mrs. Tillmon comes up with a solution though and a smart one at that: “I’d start paying women a living wage for doing the work we are already doing-child-raising and housekeeping,” (289). This way the welfare crisis would be over and housewives wouldn’t be looked down upon either. We’ve spoken of working women as being more outgoing and not seen as “true women” either. Wouldn’t that all fix itself as women got paid for their domestic work in their house? I think we would be respected more and have more opportunities. I would definitely be rich by now. =) -Morgan<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with what Morgan has stated. It is clear from this piece that being on welfare automatically labels a person with a negative stereotype. I think that this piece shows the difficulty that women have raising a family as a single mother, especially since the A.F.D.C, in most cases, prohibited a male in the household in order to qualify. The part that stuck out to me was Tillmon's distinction between ''a'' man and ''the'' man. She showed how the government was, in essence, controlling women who accepted this welfare. Her line, "The truth is that A.F.D.C is like a supersexist marriage. You trade in ''a'' man for ''the'' man" (287). It seems like these women who have no other options, but to be on welfare because they do not make enough money to support themselves and their children, have to loose a part of their sexuality as a consequence. This statement really grabbed me when Tillmon states, "There's one good thing about welfare. It kills your illusions about yourself, and about where this society is really at...You have to learn to fight, to be aggressive, or you just don't make it. If you can survive being on welfare, you can survive anything" (289). If this doesn't read like empowerment, I'm not sure what else does. -abratchi<br />
<br />
What I noticed most about this article was that it was published in 1972 yet it appears (by Morgan's and Abratchi's comments) that I am not the only one who forgot this while I was reading it. It doesn't say a lot for the improvement of the welfare system in this country when a statement like "In this country if you're any one of those things--poor, black, fat, female, middle-aged, on welfare- you count less as a human being. If you're all those things you don't count at all except as a statistic." ( page 286) is still just as relevant in today's society. I cant even count how many times I personally have had to remind people that most of the people in this country on welfare are children, and that the fat, lazy, unemployed story they like to bring up so often is not the norm. I hope that 38 years from now someone doesn't read a testimonial of today's Johnnie Tillmon and think the same exact thing as I have.... -Ssellers<br />
<br />
==The Voice of the an Anorexic, Abra Fortune Chernik, 1995==<br />
<br />
This article scared and gave hope to me. Of course I’ve heard of anorexic and I’ve seen it, but I’ve never felt the pain like I did in reading Mrs. Chernik’s first-hand account. But through all of the pain of eating and binging she persevered through it and that was what really got through to me. Instead of beating herself up for being anorexic and not being able to fix it, she found what was wrong with society and how they saw her as a woman. As women we try to live up to unrealistic standards thinking that that is what men want and what other women will be jealous of. It’s what society has done to us, it’s damaged us. Mrs. Chernick finally broke through this when she saw herself and “observed a woman held up by her culture as the physical ideal because she was starving, self-obsessed, and powerless, a women called beautiful because she threatened no one except herself,” (323) . Women are not suppose to be powerful and dominate of themselves, that’s what were told. Men are to be the superior and made to feel that way; maybe that is why they seem so confident in their bodies. “As long as society resists female power, fashion will call healthy women physically flawed,” (324). If only we could all learn to be “based on an image of a women warrior,” (324) and be happy as ourselves. -Morgan<br />
<br />
==Organizing the Farm Workers, Jessie Lopez De La Cruz==<br />
<br />
This article made me believe in not only the union fight but the power women could have in the union struggle. The line that clearly stood out to me was, "It doesn't take courage. All it takes is standing up for what you believe in,..."(285). Jessie did not want to be known as courageous, as someone who should be idiolzed but she was, for a woman to step outside societal norms and challenge practices was not common. She just wanted people to come together and fight for what they deserved and the help she had from the nurse to enter Parlier proved that many people felt the same and just wanted to see a good outcome.-Megan W.<br />
<br />
==Date Rape: Hysteria or Epidemic? Katie Roiphe==<br />
<br />
Although when I first started reading this piece I thought that Roiphe was making some streched claims, she did bring up a lot of great points. I think her willingness to show that the issue of "date rape" actually produces a negative view on women is interesting. She believes that "date rape" victimizes women and labels women as incapable of being sensual beings. I thought this was interesting because a lot of women in the feminist movement (first and second) were trying to move away from this Victorian stereotype of women being pure and pious. Roiphe shows that this date rape movement is actually, in some ways, harking back to this old ideal that rejects women as sexual beings. Roiphe is instead promoting that women take responsibility for their own actions and not subject themselves to this stereotype and to not be afraid to be sexual. -abratchi<br />
<br />
==Women and Disabilities, Nancy Mairs==<br />
<br />
This article I found to be empowering for anyone who has a degenerative disease, they know they are not alone and while a cure would be ideal, they can survive and still enjoy life. The one issue I had with the article was when she discussed the use of the word, "cripple" and said, "[people]-wince at the word ''cripple'', as they do not at handicapped or disabled."(317). I do not think that is true, as someone who has personal experience with a disabled person I know they are still looked at differently when the word disabled is brought up, or someone notices their license plate with disabled tags, and people make comments. No matter how a person is classified as crippled, disabled, or handicapped there is always an ignorant person who will make a remark, but people like Nancy make the best of it. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
==Lindsy Van Gelder Reports on the "World Series of Sex-Discrimination Suits," 1978==</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_13_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 13 Questions/Comments2010-04-16T02:28:52Z<p>Ssellers: /* */</p>
<hr />
<div>THIS WEEK'S DISCUSSION IS ABOUT THE PAPERS TURNED IN, NOT THE READING. You are still responsible for the reading, but the posting should be about the papers. A link to the papers will be emailed to you by Wednesday, April 14.<br />
<br />
NOTE: You do not need to post about the reading for April 15 (though you are responsible for reading it).<br />
<br />
Class discussion: We will pick up the wiki discussion during class on Tuesday, April 20.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''What patterns do you see? What experiences stand out? Did these interviews challenge or meet with the trends we've talked about in class?'''<br />
<br />
== ==<br />
<br />
I definitely see that "typical housewife and mother" trend with a majority of the women interviewed. The women who did work either had to work for economic reasons or because they really enjoyed their jobs. I think only one woman regretted working because she hadn't been able to focus on her kids and another felt bad about it at the time because it just wasn't what society expected. However, there were a few women who focused on a higher education and a professional career, whether they stayed single or got married later. With some exceptions, the trend was to work in female positions (i.e. nursing, teaching). Overall, I think it's important to note that most of these women can look back on their lives and are proud of how they lived them; even those who went with the flow and were homemakers. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I agree with CBrau. I was surprised by how many other women had experiences that were similar to the woman that I interviewed. Like CBrau stated, women seemed to enter into nursing and teaching the most, but it seemed like they were forced into these positions for lack of opportunity elsewhere. It also seems like most of the women were forced into these positions because their fathers or husbands believed that they would be starting a family and spending money on an education was wasteful. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I thought it was very interesting and amusing that in Alices' paper, Lois Wagner had miniature army corps suits and have fake machine guns and little did they know that the real women in the WAC never saw any action in battle. Also, these were just young girls and had no idea of a feminist movement or what women were going through at this particular period yet they were supporting the efforts of women, even if they were too young to understand. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I loved the story about the WAC suits! Normally you would think of boys putting on uniforms and imitating soldiers, and yet here was a little girl doing it. I've honestly never thought about little girls being interested in the military or what children had to balance during WWII ("fun and fear"). -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I saw many similarities between the women who were interviewed including the roles they had as mothers, wives, and women in the workforce and society. I definitely saw the pattern of many women who worked in the domestic sphere who also sometimes worked in careers outside the home. Most of the women seemed to have had children of the baby boom generation or were baby boomers themselves. In Dvorak's paper, the woman she interviewed challenged some of the trends of the time by focusing on her education and career of dentistry rather than on finding a husband and starting a family right away. I also noticed in Rowley's paper, the woman got a divorce about the time in the 1960s that we talked about in class when there seemed to be a high divorce rate. I think it's interesting so see the similarities between the people who were interviewed but good to also note that all of their stories are still unique in their own way. -Avanness<br />
<br />
The similarities between the women interviewed are clearly defined, many became mothers and housewives right after graduation and a few had careers but the majority of women thought they should fulfill the roles they were told to. They produced the children who led further reforms for women and I saw in a few papers such as Mary Ann's the women, who produced the baby boomers, did not have time to be politically active and brushed it aside. It reminded me of the woman I interviewed who admitted they were too tied up in their worlds to pay attention to outside influences. In a few papers I thought the women who were single mothers and able to support themselves and children were leaders of the Women's Movement even if they did not openly admit it. Those women started the trend towards independence and without their mark in the workplace and challenging "male dominated roles" women may not have acheived what they did in the 1960-1970s era. I agree with Avanness it is important to note that even with all the similarities all of the women were exceptional in their stories. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
As I read through these papers, many of us focused on working women because I think that is something that changed continuously throughout the 20th century. The trends of women working never remained the same; they changed almost decade to decade. It seemed that many of the women interviewed returned to work after raising their children and I think for most women that was a way of raising self-esteem, that women were capable of being both a wife and a career women. I think the idea of women not working because of the influence it would have on their children was another recurring trend. In Taylor Brann’s paper, she talked about a woman who left her job in the 1980s to take care of her children. It was almost socially unacceptable for women to even think of balancing work and a career at the time, espeically when the focus was transitioning more and more towards the family. Although I say that most experiences seemed similar, I think some stood out, such as Meg’s interview and Fitch’s interview. In both these interviews, the women they interviewed seemed to have no problem finding jobs or even moving into the professional world and I think that was definitely a step in the right direction. These women seemed to have defied some of the odds against women, especially for Meg's interviewee, who worked as a dental professional. Another noticeable feature was the jobs women traditionally took on. Many of them were related to nursing, or clerical work. Along with everyone else, it amazed me that although these women lived their life at different times in the 20th century, their experiences were quite similar, with history being passed down from generation to generation. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
First, I’d like to add a detail to my own paper that was in my footnotes, but since the footnotes did not show up in Google Docs, I want to say it here, because I think it’s important. Why exactly Lois left Mary Washington is uncertain, since in previous conversations I’ve had with her, she claimed that the school kicked her out for getting married. Though, if it’s true that the school kicked her out, I’m under the suspicion that it’s more likely because she was pregnant. However, when I sat down with her in the interview, she changed the story to the one presented in the main body of my paper. In the long run, it doesn’t change the fact that she has no regrets about never finishing college, but it would effect how we view the college’s policy towards such a situation. <br />
<br />
On a different topic, I found it interesting to see the women’s reactions to the feminist movement. Ms. Blalock outright opposed the movement, not because she objected to women working or equality between men and women, but because she saw it as detrimental to children. There is no denying the authority she has on the subject of children, having been an educator for so long, but it makes me think of our earlier discussions of how someone always sees the American family as being on the brink of failure. Other women, like Deb Lee and Sue Ward, don’t seem to particularly dislike the movement, but it did not appear to really play much into their lives, which judging from my own interview as well, seems typical. - Alice W<br />
<br />
Some women, including the one I interviewed, struggled with maintaining their careers and being mothers at the same time. Working mothers have struggled with maintaining both for many decades, but for the most part (aside from WWII), society was against them working. As was mentioned in the lecture (which I wish I could have used in my paper), society’s view on working women began to change in the 1960s and 1970s. Some women, as the papers showed, managed to balance work and family and do it successfully, and for once they had the backing of the public while they were doing it. Daycares, for instance, were a great help in maintaining this balance. However, many mothers still struggled with the balance, and while they had society more willing to support them working, they now had a new ideal to live up to. My interviewee, for instance, drove herself into depression in her attempt to “have it all,” and she believes that the media helped trick women into thinking they can do it all. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
It is interesting how strikingly similar the experiences of many of the interviewed women were. Among the slew of really well written papers that I read, I focused on three in particular, Taylor Braun's, Catherine Brau's, and Ellen Fritz's paper. These three interviewees shared a similar view to each other in the fact that they rejected or simply cared not to participate in the NOW movement and women's liberation. In Braun and Fritz's papers the women felt that they wanted to focus on raising their children and maintaining a healthy family. In Brau's paper, her interviewee had very little time to devote to the women's lib movement, though, like my interview subject, she was involved in the anti-war movement. These women expressed many of the concerns and comments that we have been discussing in class about a women's balance between domestic and public life, with their family and work, and the roles they played in all of these arenas. I appreciated how some of the other papers focused on the academic efforts that their interviewees pursued. My interviewee also received a college degree and returned to school later in life to pursue her law degree. What I thought was really interesting is that my interviewee felt that she did not live the “typical” life that many baby boomer women did, but after reading these papers, her answers turned out to be so similar to many of the others. I agree with Megan to an extent about how the women fulfilled the roles that they were “supposed to” fill, but some of them really seemed to want that life. In Taylor’s paper, her interviewee felt guilty and wrong for returning to work once the children were in school. It seems that some of the women did not want to fulfill the typical roles but others seemed content in their actions. -Caryn<br />
<br />
Coming off what Caryn said I think it is interesting that her subject felt that her experiences were not typical yet this project showed that alot of women had similar experiences. I think it reflects that perhaps some women felt they were alone in there desire to continue there life after children and marriage. It reminded me of Betty Friedans article where she found women discussing this "unnameable problem" as if it were taboo. I know my interviewee felt isolated in her experiences as a working mother and eventually a divorcee yet this study shows that many women were dealing with the same issues. But i do think it is interesting that the subjects would feel like there experience was atypical of other women, yet in reality it may not have been. -Emma<br />
<br />
Like Caryn, I noticed that a lot of the women had similar life experiences, or that there were at least some common themes among a lot of the papers. The fact that so many women were happy being housewives always strikes me, because I always revert to the image of the depressed and oppressed mid-century wife and mother. Yes, some women felt restricted by that life, but not all, and we shouldn't forget that many women were happy when we look at what, to many of us, appears to have been a pretty limiting situation. Socioeconomic status also played a huge role in these women's lives in terms of the education and opportunities open to them but also in the expectations set for them. For example, Women whose parents had some money were expected to go to college, meaning that they probably weren't marrying while still in high school. Finally, many of the women broke traditional norms in different ways, from not marrying at all, to going to dental school, to raising children as a single parent. The big name leaders of the women's rights movement did a lot, but it's really the collective actions of all of these everyday women that created the more egalitarian society we have today, yet most of them seem largely unaware of the changes they were helping to bring about. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Even if women were limited to specific fields when trying to obtain work, I found that many were working for at least a point in their lives. Many of these women were middle class and attended high school and even college. Most women got jobs after college or after high school and either kept working or got married. It seems like a fair amount of women stayed in the home, but it was becoming less expected of them and many worked even if they were also raising families. There were a few single mothers and they worked mostly because they had no choice and were the sole provider's for their family. Working women were certainly becoming more prominent. -afrisk<br />
<br />
Many of these women had similar life experiences regarding their role in the latter half of the 20th century. What I found fascinating was that the women that had children at an early age often sought a career after their children were older. These women found a second life at the age of 40 or 45 in which they had raised their family and now had the opportunity and freedom to pursue their dreams. Additionally, these women have the benefit of life experiences which would affect their choices for the future. The professional women who had gone to college right from high school often waited to their late 20's or early 30's to start a family and then were either forced to choose between their career or their kids; or to put their children into daycare. They are also more financially secure and stable than the women who married at a young age. Who's to say which option is better. Women, unlike men in society, are forced to be put in the position of making these decisions and living with any ramifications. - EFritz<br />
<br />
So, reading through a couple of these papers, I started to notice a trend around the third paper of women who were being (what is recognized today as) oppressed, but never really felt that it was that much of an issue to them. By that I mean, most of these women recognized that "women" in general were not permitted the same opportunity as men, but that it wouldn't affect them (Holman’s paper even says “Although she never felt restricted from any job she desired, she did observe that there were only so many positions open to women.8” which I think perfectly exemplifies my point). And of these women, I have to say, it seems to have produced a biased opinion that it worked out for every woman. I feel like these women in particular were very successful in their lives. They are now fairly old, have lived a long life, and seem to not fret and worry about the money or other particulars in their lives now. Maybe their life wasn't always easy, but it still says something that they made it to be over the age of 55. I think sometimes it is forgotten that that is a huge life accomplishment, to be old. I think it also may have been to the benefit of these women to ignore the fact that the oppression of women may affect them, because if they ignore it, then they can surpass it. As all of the women who are mentioned in the 4 papers, (Holman, Brau, Whiteaker, Makarios) in particular that I noticed this trend of not noticing the oppression of themselves in, have done. It also really surprises me that no one above me seemed to have noticed this. –ssellers</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_14_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 14 Questions/Comments2010-04-16T02:22:44Z<p>Ssellers: Removing all content from page</p>
<hr />
<div></div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_14_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 14 Questions/Comments2010-04-16T00:12:18Z<p>Ssellers: New page: So, reading through a couple of these papers, I started to notice a trend around the third paper of women who were being (what is recognized today as) oppressed, but never really felt that...</p>
<hr />
<div>So, reading through a couple of these papers, I started to notice a trend around the third paper of women who were being (what is recognized today as) oppressed, but never really felt that it was that much of an issue to them. By that I mean, most of these women recognized that "women" in general were not permitted the same opportunity as men, but that it wouldn't affect them (Holman’s paper even says “Although she never felt restricted from any job she desired, she did observe that there were only so many positions open to women.8” which I think perfectly exemplifies my point). And of these women, I have to say, it seems to have produced a biased opinion that it worked out for every woman. I feel like these women in particular were very successful in their lives. They are now fairly old, have lived a long life, and seem to not fret and worry about the money or other particulars in their lives now. Maybe their life wasn't always easy, but it still says something that they made it to be over the age of 55. I think sometimes it is forgotten that that is a huge life accomplishment, to be old. I think it also may have been to the benefit of these women to ignore the fact that the oppression of women may affect them, because if they ignore it, then they can surpass it. As all of the women who are mentioned in the 4 papers, (Holman, Brau, Whiteaker, Makarios) in particular that I noticed this trend of not noticing the oppression of themselves in, have done. –ssellers</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_12_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 12 Questions/Comments2010-04-07T21:35:18Z<p>Ssellers: /* "Polishing Brown Diamonds" and "More than a Lady" */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Civil Rights Activists, Rosa Parks and Virginia Foster Durr ==<br />
<br />
"Everybody knew everbody else was lying, but to save face, they had to lie" (p. 225). We have all heard the story of Rosa Parks and the bus boycotts, just with less detail. I was definitely not expecting the role that white women played. I suppose it makes sense to focus on those who were being directly affected by the Civil Rights Movement, but perhaps these boycotts would not have been as successful without the help of various white women. They generously offered rides to black women to and from work despite the chance of getting a ticket, something that could have helped keep the morale up for the strike. White women also understood the important of keeping black women's involvement in the boycotts a secret. It was obvious that these black women needed their jobs and being a part of the boycott would surely get them fired. I'm just wondering if all the white women who offered a ride or kept a secret agreed with the boycotts or even with the Civil Rights Movement? Durr is clearly biased in favor of civil rights, but maybe some women were just being nice and did not agree with civil rights or even understand what the women were boycotting against. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I enjoyed this article because it shows the role that white women played in the early stages of the Civil Rights Movement in the South. It is interesting because the initial thought one generally has when thinking of the 1950s South is the hatred whites had towards African Americans and the fear that caused in the African American community. However, what this article illustrates is the fact that many white women were as active in the Civil Rights movement as they could be. I seriously doubt that there are statistics regarding the number of white women who helped Black women in the bus boycott because of the fear that was in both parties. It is interesting because the white women would lie and say that they didn’t support the boycott or help the black women. And the black women would lie and say that they were not participating, they just needed to take care of a sick child (or something like that). I am curious about how widespread this actually was, but I guess we will never know because of how secretive these women had to be. I am curious if the husbands of these white women were aware of their participation and support. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
What Rosa Parks did was defy a social norm, that blacks were supposed to move when whites told them to do so. To our generation that seems ignorant but I remember my mother saying that she never went to school with an African American and that it was just expected you didn’t mix the two. My dad said they had two theaters one for blacks and one for whites but they never thought twice about it. Rosa Parks along with other civil rights activists were going against these unjust socially accepted policies that had been legalized. The idea of integration seemed like a social taboo and if you crossed it then you were looked at unjustly as well. I think this is why the white women giving rides kept it secret. The black women may have feared loosing their jobs if their employers knew they were involved in the boycott. -- Mhimes<br />
<br />
While I read this excerpt, I could only imagine Rosa Parks demeanor during her ordeal on the bus. She seemed so calm to publicly break the segregation laws for the bus. I'm sure her demeanor was quite calm and collected, with Parks being perfectly content to say no. The police arrested Rosa Parks on "suspicion," and even with that, Parks was unsure of what she was being arrested for. It just surprised me how corrupt the police were at the time; they did everything within their power, and even beyond that, to ensure that life was made harder for African Americans. Did nobody see a problem with that? Or did people just accept it? Also, what happened to white people who had dissenting opinions about the corruptness and the unfair treatment of African Americans at the time? I feel like nobody really spoke up about the injustices that were occurring, for fear of what might happen to them. I think it is interesting how the white women actually believed the African American women and men about why they were walking instead of riding the bus; it was because they were truly boycotting, but the boycotters lied to keep their jobs. "The white people really believed that. They didn't see through it all."(P. 225) Both the whites and African Americans were working together to help the boycott, yet neither group knew they were working in conjunction with the other. This was maybe the first time that whites and Blacks were working together for a common cause: civil rights. However, neither group even knew it. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
Rosa was sitting in her right section, the back section that was reserved to the blacks, and was then asked to move. I really don’t understand what gave the bus driver the right to ask her to move. She had done everything that was required of her and she hadn’t broken any rules. “After I had paid my fare and occupied a seat, I didn’t think I should have to give it up,” (222). Rosa was in the “right” section, had paid her fare, and was sitting down (she had paid for her seat). Just because white people came onto the bus and didn’t have a seat, the black people shouldn’t have been made to move. If black people had come onto the bus and didn’t have seats, they would have been made to stand in the aisle, so why shouldn’t have the white people been made too? Of course I am thinking in modern terms probably, it just seems so unfair. Just like the black and white people did, I would have lied about who was a part of bus boycott. I can understand why a majority of the white community would have lied for the black participates too. This way the black servants wouldn’t be locked up and they could continue to provide their services to the white families that employed them and in turn they would continue to receive a weekly check. Both parties would benefit from the unsaid agreement of lying for the other. “Everybody knew everybody else was lying,” (225). -Morgan<br />
<br />
Like several people above stated, I really liked the camaraderie that developed between some black and white women during the bus boycott. Although I'm sure this wasn't the case for every white woman in Montgomery, many of the white employers of black domestics pretended not to realize that their employees were participating in the boycott. This seems to me whatever facade the white women put up was just a thin disguise for the support of integration. Otherwise, why else would the women give their employees rides to work, or excuse frequent tardiness? Like the article stated, everyone knew everyone else was lying about their participation or support of the Montgomery bus boycott.--Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I liked how Anna referred to the relationship between black and white women as a camaraderie. I think that really captures the essence of this piece. I think another important thing that this piece does is show how black women HAD to work, yet they also felt that they had to participate in the civil rights movement if they wanted things to change. The relationship that developed between white and black women in this particular case is quite remarkable, but it makes me wonder, is this type of thing common, or is this just a special case? The civil rights movement seems to be flagged with a series of things that make one wonder, why did that happen? Rosa Parks did not appear to be the type of woman to get arrested for refusing to give up her seat on a city bus, yet she was. It also appears unlikely that white women would help black women, especially, I would think, out of fear. Yet, these things happened, as this piece showed. It helped me realize that there was more the civil rights movements than blacks fighting for black rights. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I have to add my two cents to the conversation about the relationship between white and black women during the bus boycott. A few people have pointed out that the situation was a positive one, a time when white women willingly helped their black employees support the bus boycott even if neither party directly admitted to it. Maybe I'm just more cynical, but I don't believe that most of the white women wanted to be helping the civil rights movement. These were not women who had showed any interest in equality before the boycott, and the "roar of indignation" over the issue only came when the mayor suggested women stop employing their black maids. In my view, Montgomery's white women were far more influenced by the domestic ideals of the day than civil rights protests. Black servants kept white homes neat and white children out of the mud so that white women could look their judgmental neighbors in the eye. Had the black women stopped coming to work, white wives and mothers would have had to do complete the never ending list of domestic chores required of "respectable women" themselves or risk letting some things fall through the cracks and losing some of the esteem of their neighbors. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I really agree with everything that everyone above me mentioned... especially the part about how we all know the story of Rosa Parks but never in such detail or especially told in such a novel manner. I think it was pretty amazing how much effort it took to cover up the boycott and it was interesting to think about how the white women covered up the boycotting action of their domestic servants because they knew that "the black women needed those jobs" (page 226). What a great potential sacrifice all parties involved were making in order to accomplish a goal that they wanted. -ssellers<br />
<br />
== Mirta Vidal Reports on the Rising Consciousness of the Chicana About Her Special Oppression, 1971 ==<br />
<br />
What caught my attention in this article was the forced sterilization that some Chicanas experienced. In class I was wondering why somebody would sterilize a woman without her permission, and Vidal gives one reason: "forced sterilization [is] justified by the viciously racist ideology that the problems of La Raza are caused by Raza women having too many babies." So, the procedure was a permanent birth control. I am hardly pro-abortion, but to have the ability to bear children taken away like that would truly be devastating. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
To go off of what CBrau was saying -- I wish I could say that I was surprised by the forced sterilization, I think it comes out of a racist ideology, and the fact that during this time there was a massive inflow of immigrants into the United States. This led to nativism among the Anglo population and fear that their jobs would be taken away. During this time, there was also a lot of scholarship that argued that the Anglo population was having fewer children while Chicana and other Latin American groups continued to have the same number of children, so a fear that the white population would eventually be overtaken existed as well. I think its important to understand the struggles of these women on the three levels: their nationality, the fact that they were workers, and the fact that they were women. Their unique circumstances meant that they specific demands, and I think that the fact that they could recognize this and come together is very powerful. I also think that this is something that is still being dealt with today. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
“Chicana motherhood should not preclude educational, political, social, and economic advancement,” (455). I felt like the chicana women were making this notion of being oppressed was new and exclusively to them. Having to choose between motherhood and their own ambitions was not a new idea at all. Women, of all races, felt like this and had been fighting for it. I don’t mean to demean Latin American women in any way; I merely think there were a little late in this thinking. Along with this premise of feeling like they were the only ones broken, black women had been facing the same triple oppression “as members of an oppressed nationality, as workers, and as women,” (455). Once again this feeling was nothing new to the world, to the Chicana’s who were just realizing their feeling of adversity, yes, but to other women they were late to the party. The sterilization freaked me out too, that was something I've only heard about happening in Africa. Very scary. La Raza means The Race by the way. -Morgan<br />
<br />
As difficult as it is to beleive this, I agree with Erin. The forced sterilization in large part came out of racism and oppression. They are severley oppressed and do not have access to freedoms that would certainly make their lives more manegable. The americans felt threatened by the massive influx of mexicans and jumped to the conlcusion of forced of forced sterilization as the way to prevent their population from multiplying. I wonder if they ever thought this matter through or automatically jumped to thinking forced sterilization was the best way to operate? Obvioiusly, it is not humane. When it mentions that these Raza women faced triple oppression, it reminded me of the oppression black women were facing. The Raza women were oppressed because of their nationality, as workers and women. Then there are the black women who were oppressed as women, the color of their skin, and occasionally in the workplace. Non-white women are certainly having a difficult time! -afrisk<br />
<br />
Everyone above has commented on the remark made by Vidal concerning sterilization. Although it seems shocking, this was a common practice throughout the 20th century in most states. Virgina ranked second among the 50 states for most forced sterilizations on both men and women (it is also good to note that it was not just among minorities either). It is all matter of eugenics and perfecting the human race (it is more familiar in regards to Hitler). I think that this piece is trying to show that women of all races were experiencing some form of oppression and desire for control of their own bodies. I think it is easy to brush off cases like this when it involves a minority, but it causes one to stop and think, what are the reasons for this need among minorities? I think it comes back to the idea that people often viewed minorities, especially women, as inferior. I think that Vidal is trying to show that there is an equal need among Chicanos women for birth control, child care, movement away from racist or sexists practices, etc. that is also common among many white urban women and African Americans. -abratchi<br />
<br />
Vidal’s point about Chicanas facing triple discrimination is important, because discrimination is never a simple cut and dry thing. If you solve the problem of class, that does not solve the problems of gender or race or sexuality. I think this is what made, and still makes, the push for equal rights so difficult. How does one choose what one focuses on in the fight? In the Hispanic community, Chicanas were told by Chicano leaders not to join the women’s liberation movement because “it is an ‘Anglo thing’” (455). Chicanas recognized that women’s liberation was not just for middle class white women, it was for them too. The men in the community were not offering much support, so Vidal, by connecting “machismo” to Anglo chauvinism, compares Chicanos to white males, and I’m sure that Hispanic men did not want to be connected with the very people they were fighting against. – Alice W<br />
<br />
== "More Than a Lady" Ruby Doris Smith Robinson and Black Women's Leadership in the SNCC, Cynthia Fleming ==<br />
<br />
Ruby Doris Smith Robinson commanded attention to herself and her affiliations like a man would. My favorite comment seems to sum up Robinson, “she had 100 percent effective shit detector,” (552). I believe this makes her a very intimidating figure to men and women alike, that’s saying something during a time when women and African American’s were both oppressed. Robinson may have been a very intimidating woman, but at the same time she didn’t ask for recognition. I suspect that she was such a strong woman that she needed no approval from anyone. To a degree I understand this because she didn’t want to make a big deal out of the fact that she was a woman running the SNCC, but I think that she should have realized that some recognition would have further propelled the organization too. Being the head of SNCC and an imitating figure, Rob was “accepted as one of the boys,” (555). I don’t think that this was a good or a bad thing. She commanded the authority and attention as a man, but I think she unconsciously lost some of her femininity too. She must have been torn with her standings, she wanted to be taken seriously like a man but at the same time she keep up her appearance, retaining some of her femininity. How could she have been happy? I feel like Robinson was fighting a battle within herself between being a strong leader: a manly figure and being a sensitive mothering figure, like she is biologically programmed to be. A tough choice for sure. -Morgan<br />
<br />
It bothered me that the women activists were attributed male qualities just because they didn't completely mold to the feminine ideals of the time. As the article stated, Robinson still completely embraced her femininity; she still took great care that her appearance and clothing were very ladylike & proper, even when shipping off to jail. If she didn't truly embrace who she was as a woman, she wouldn't have cared enough to do this. It also disturbed me that since Robinson's voice was powerful and commanding, it was automatically compared to a man's voice. If anything is aggressive and powerful, then it ''must'' belong to a man, and consequently must be unnatural for a woman to possess. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
Robinson obviously found her passion within the civil rights movement, and it's sad that she didn't live to see all the progress that's been made. The fact that, as a woman, she had to continue to justify her place within the leadership of the movement betrays how pervasive the white, middle class ideal of woman as submissive housewife became. As the author notes, Robinson's actions "fit comfortably into an established tradition of black female assertiveness" (pg 557), a trait we've seen in several other readings. But in this era, black women were told to be more "feminine" when they tried to speak out or organize. Ideals, quite obviously, are not one size fits all. -Mary Ann <br />
<br />
== "Polishing Brown Diamonds" and "More than a Lady" ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Outside the fact that Ebony magazine wanted to make money and focused more on the middle class, there was an attempt to change the stereotypical views of the black women from the Aunt Jemima look to a beautiful “brown-skinned” women. I think what Laila Haidarali was trying to show how "Ebony" tried to influence perceptions through this ideal “brown-skinned” woman. The charm schools weren’t just creating models but a self-confident woman who may not become a model but was ready to face the work force with less fears of knowing the right thing to say or the appropriate attire for the job. An interesting example she used was Watson’s Charm Clinic, that if you put too much make-up on you could look like you were going to a nightclub not to work. An important point made in Watson’s address was that one’s appearance reflects one’s abilities. These options led women to believe that they would improve the view of a black woman and bring her more social mobility. With all of that being said, where does the dark-skinned black woman fit in? As I read “More than a lady” by Fleming, they seemed contradictory. What women activists did defied this ideal notion of a woman black or white. But what is interesting was when I read how a black female civil rights worker was demonstrating and was grabbed and slapped in the face by a cop and his response grouped all black people together. If she was a white activist, she probably wouldn’t have been slapped around or beaten as these black women were. To the cop, she was black and he didn’t care if you were man or woman. --Mhimes<br />
<br />
<br />
I really was interested by the experience of the black model who was too light skinned to represent the African Americans, but too dark to represent the whites. That is just ridiculous to me in today's terms, especially since in black and white print you probably wouldn't be able to differentiate between whether she was white or light skinned black or a subtle shade of orange. It's not often that you think about the hardships of the models in the modeling industry, but it was enlighening to read about this experience of exclusion solely because you happened to be too light skinned, but not light skinned enough. -ssellers<br />
<br />
== "Polishing Brown Diamonds," Laila Haidarali ==<br />
<br />
It was great to read this article for many reasons; it was fascinating and enlightening. One of the things I found the most interesting about it, though, was how often Haidarali emphasized the fact that the ideal was, yes, feminine, hardworking and family oriented, but also heterosexual. I think in some of the articles we have read this semester they do not reiterate this point as much as Haidarali because they think it is understood. While I never really thought post-war America was open to homosexuality, I appreciate her continually reminding us that sexism and racism were not the only discriminations of the day. -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
== "We Marched for Our Rights," Rev. Naomi Craig ==<br />
<br />
The last line of this article struck me the most, "I still have a piece that is missing in my life because I never got to really know him like I would have wanted to." If this was the start of the article or I had missed something, I would have thought she was talking about a father, a brother, a lover...someone that she would have had a close personal connection with that ended to soon. I certainly would not have expected her to be talking about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. This line, I think, shows how deeply MLK inspired not only African-Americans, but all Americans. His assassination was something personal. -- kokeefe</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_12_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 12 Questions/Comments2010-04-07T21:32:53Z<p>Ssellers: /* Civil Rights Activists, Rosa Parks and Virginia Foster Durr */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Civil Rights Activists, Rosa Parks and Virginia Foster Durr ==<br />
<br />
"Everybody knew everbody else was lying, but to save face, they had to lie" (p. 225). We have all heard the story of Rosa Parks and the bus boycotts, just with less detail. I was definitely not expecting the role that white women played. I suppose it makes sense to focus on those who were being directly affected by the Civil Rights Movement, but perhaps these boycotts would not have been as successful without the help of various white women. They generously offered rides to black women to and from work despite the chance of getting a ticket, something that could have helped keep the morale up for the strike. White women also understood the important of keeping black women's involvement in the boycotts a secret. It was obvious that these black women needed their jobs and being a part of the boycott would surely get them fired. I'm just wondering if all the white women who offered a ride or kept a secret agreed with the boycotts or even with the Civil Rights Movement? Durr is clearly biased in favor of civil rights, but maybe some women were just being nice and did not agree with civil rights or even understand what the women were boycotting against. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I enjoyed this article because it shows the role that white women played in the early stages of the Civil Rights Movement in the South. It is interesting because the initial thought one generally has when thinking of the 1950s South is the hatred whites had towards African Americans and the fear that caused in the African American community. However, what this article illustrates is the fact that many white women were as active in the Civil Rights movement as they could be. I seriously doubt that there are statistics regarding the number of white women who helped Black women in the bus boycott because of the fear that was in both parties. It is interesting because the white women would lie and say that they didn’t support the boycott or help the black women. And the black women would lie and say that they were not participating, they just needed to take care of a sick child (or something like that). I am curious about how widespread this actually was, but I guess we will never know because of how secretive these women had to be. I am curious if the husbands of these white women were aware of their participation and support. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
What Rosa Parks did was defy a social norm, that blacks were supposed to move when whites told them to do so. To our generation that seems ignorant but I remember my mother saying that she never went to school with an African American and that it was just expected you didn’t mix the two. My dad said they had two theaters one for blacks and one for whites but they never thought twice about it. Rosa Parks along with other civil rights activists were going against these unjust socially accepted policies that had been legalized. The idea of integration seemed like a social taboo and if you crossed it then you were looked at unjustly as well. I think this is why the white women giving rides kept it secret. The black women may have feared loosing their jobs if their employers knew they were involved in the boycott. -- Mhimes<br />
<br />
While I read this excerpt, I could only imagine Rosa Parks demeanor during her ordeal on the bus. She seemed so calm to publicly break the segregation laws for the bus. I'm sure her demeanor was quite calm and collected, with Parks being perfectly content to say no. The police arrested Rosa Parks on "suspicion," and even with that, Parks was unsure of what she was being arrested for. It just surprised me how corrupt the police were at the time; they did everything within their power, and even beyond that, to ensure that life was made harder for African Americans. Did nobody see a problem with that? Or did people just accept it? Also, what happened to white people who had dissenting opinions about the corruptness and the unfair treatment of African Americans at the time? I feel like nobody really spoke up about the injustices that were occurring, for fear of what might happen to them. I think it is interesting how the white women actually believed the African American women and men about why they were walking instead of riding the bus; it was because they were truly boycotting, but the boycotters lied to keep their jobs. "The white people really believed that. They didn't see through it all."(P. 225) Both the whites and African Americans were working together to help the boycott, yet neither group knew they were working in conjunction with the other. This was maybe the first time that whites and Blacks were working together for a common cause: civil rights. However, neither group even knew it. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
Rosa was sitting in her right section, the back section that was reserved to the blacks, and was then asked to move. I really don’t understand what gave the bus driver the right to ask her to move. She had done everything that was required of her and she hadn’t broken any rules. “After I had paid my fare and occupied a seat, I didn’t think I should have to give it up,” (222). Rosa was in the “right” section, had paid her fare, and was sitting down (she had paid for her seat). Just because white people came onto the bus and didn’t have a seat, the black people shouldn’t have been made to move. If black people had come onto the bus and didn’t have seats, they would have been made to stand in the aisle, so why shouldn’t have the white people been made too? Of course I am thinking in modern terms probably, it just seems so unfair. Just like the black and white people did, I would have lied about who was a part of bus boycott. I can understand why a majority of the white community would have lied for the black participates too. This way the black servants wouldn’t be locked up and they could continue to provide their services to the white families that employed them and in turn they would continue to receive a weekly check. Both parties would benefit from the unsaid agreement of lying for the other. “Everybody knew everybody else was lying,” (225). -Morgan<br />
<br />
Like several people above stated, I really liked the camaraderie that developed between some black and white women during the bus boycott. Although I'm sure this wasn't the case for every white woman in Montgomery, many of the white employers of black domestics pretended not to realize that their employees were participating in the boycott. This seems to me whatever facade the white women put up was just a thin disguise for the support of integration. Otherwise, why else would the women give their employees rides to work, or excuse frequent tardiness? Like the article stated, everyone knew everyone else was lying about their participation or support of the Montgomery bus boycott.--Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I liked how Anna referred to the relationship between black and white women as a camaraderie. I think that really captures the essence of this piece. I think another important thing that this piece does is show how black women HAD to work, yet they also felt that they had to participate in the civil rights movement if they wanted things to change. The relationship that developed between white and black women in this particular case is quite remarkable, but it makes me wonder, is this type of thing common, or is this just a special case? The civil rights movement seems to be flagged with a series of things that make one wonder, why did that happen? Rosa Parks did not appear to be the type of woman to get arrested for refusing to give up her seat on a city bus, yet she was. It also appears unlikely that white women would help black women, especially, I would think, out of fear. Yet, these things happened, as this piece showed. It helped me realize that there was more the civil rights movements than blacks fighting for black rights. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I have to add my two cents to the conversation about the relationship between white and black women during the bus boycott. A few people have pointed out that the situation was a positive one, a time when white women willingly helped their black employees support the bus boycott even if neither party directly admitted to it. Maybe I'm just more cynical, but I don't believe that most of the white women wanted to be helping the civil rights movement. These were not women who had showed any interest in equality before the boycott, and the "roar of indignation" over the issue only came when the mayor suggested women stop employing their black maids. In my view, Montgomery's white women were far more influenced by the domestic ideals of the day than civil rights protests. Black servants kept white homes neat and white children out of the mud so that white women could look their judgmental neighbors in the eye. Had the black women stopped coming to work, white wives and mothers would have had to do complete the never ending list of domestic chores required of "respectable women" themselves or risk letting some things fall through the cracks and losing some of the esteem of their neighbors. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I really agree with everything that everyone above me mentioned... especially the part about how we all know the story of Rosa Parks but never in such detail or especially told in such a novel manner. I think it was pretty amazing how much effort it took to cover up the boycott and it was interesting to think about how the white women covered up the boycotting action of their domestic servants because they knew that "the black women needed those jobs" (page 226). What a great potential sacrifice all parties involved were making in order to accomplish a goal that they wanted. -ssellers<br />
<br />
== Mirta Vidal Reports on the Rising Consciousness of the Chicana About Her Special Oppression, 1971 ==<br />
<br />
What caught my attention in this article was the forced sterilization that some Chicanas experienced. In class I was wondering why somebody would sterilize a woman without her permission, and Vidal gives one reason: "forced sterilization [is] justified by the viciously racist ideology that the problems of La Raza are caused by Raza women having too many babies." So, the procedure was a permanent birth control. I am hardly pro-abortion, but to have the ability to bear children taken away like that would truly be devastating. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
To go off of what CBrau was saying -- I wish I could say that I was surprised by the forced sterilization, I think it comes out of a racist ideology, and the fact that during this time there was a massive inflow of immigrants into the United States. This led to nativism among the Anglo population and fear that their jobs would be taken away. During this time, there was also a lot of scholarship that argued that the Anglo population was having fewer children while Chicana and other Latin American groups continued to have the same number of children, so a fear that the white population would eventually be overtaken existed as well. I think its important to understand the struggles of these women on the three levels: their nationality, the fact that they were workers, and the fact that they were women. Their unique circumstances meant that they specific demands, and I think that the fact that they could recognize this and come together is very powerful. I also think that this is something that is still being dealt with today. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
“Chicana motherhood should not preclude educational, political, social, and economic advancement,” (455). I felt like the chicana women were making this notion of being oppressed was new and exclusively to them. Having to choose between motherhood and their own ambitions was not a new idea at all. Women, of all races, felt like this and had been fighting for it. I don’t mean to demean Latin American women in any way; I merely think there were a little late in this thinking. Along with this premise of feeling like they were the only ones broken, black women had been facing the same triple oppression “as members of an oppressed nationality, as workers, and as women,” (455). Once again this feeling was nothing new to the world, to the Chicana’s who were just realizing their feeling of adversity, yes, but to other women they were late to the party. The sterilization freaked me out too, that was something I've only heard about happening in Africa. Very scary. La Raza means The Race by the way. -Morgan<br />
<br />
As difficult as it is to beleive this, I agree with Erin. The forced sterilization in large part came out of racism and oppression. They are severley oppressed and do not have access to freedoms that would certainly make their lives more manegable. The americans felt threatened by the massive influx of mexicans and jumped to the conlcusion of forced of forced sterilization as the way to prevent their population from multiplying. I wonder if they ever thought this matter through or automatically jumped to thinking forced sterilization was the best way to operate? Obvioiusly, it is not humane. When it mentions that these Raza women faced triple oppression, it reminded me of the oppression black women were facing. The Raza women were oppressed because of their nationality, as workers and women. Then there are the black women who were oppressed as women, the color of their skin, and occasionally in the workplace. Non-white women are certainly having a difficult time! -afrisk<br />
<br />
Everyone above has commented on the remark made by Vidal concerning sterilization. Although it seems shocking, this was a common practice throughout the 20th century in most states. Virgina ranked second among the 50 states for most forced sterilizations on both men and women (it is also good to note that it was not just among minorities either). It is all matter of eugenics and perfecting the human race (it is more familiar in regards to Hitler). I think that this piece is trying to show that women of all races were experiencing some form of oppression and desire for control of their own bodies. I think it is easy to brush off cases like this when it involves a minority, but it causes one to stop and think, what are the reasons for this need among minorities? I think it comes back to the idea that people often viewed minorities, especially women, as inferior. I think that Vidal is trying to show that there is an equal need among Chicanos women for birth control, child care, movement away from racist or sexists practices, etc. that is also common among many white urban women and African Americans. -abratchi<br />
<br />
Vidal’s point about Chicanas facing triple discrimination is important, because discrimination is never a simple cut and dry thing. If you solve the problem of class, that does not solve the problems of gender or race or sexuality. I think this is what made, and still makes, the push for equal rights so difficult. How does one choose what one focuses on in the fight? In the Hispanic community, Chicanas were told by Chicano leaders not to join the women’s liberation movement because “it is an ‘Anglo thing’” (455). Chicanas recognized that women’s liberation was not just for middle class white women, it was for them too. The men in the community were not offering much support, so Vidal, by connecting “machismo” to Anglo chauvinism, compares Chicanos to white males, and I’m sure that Hispanic men did not want to be connected with the very people they were fighting against. – Alice W<br />
<br />
== "More Than a Lady" Ruby Doris Smith Robinson and Black Women's Leadership in the SNCC, Cynthia Fleming ==<br />
<br />
Ruby Doris Smith Robinson commanded attention to herself and her affiliations like a man would. My favorite comment seems to sum up Robinson, “she had 100 percent effective shit detector,” (552). I believe this makes her a very intimidating figure to men and women alike, that’s saying something during a time when women and African American’s were both oppressed. Robinson may have been a very intimidating woman, but at the same time she didn’t ask for recognition. I suspect that she was such a strong woman that she needed no approval from anyone. To a degree I understand this because she didn’t want to make a big deal out of the fact that she was a woman running the SNCC, but I think that she should have realized that some recognition would have further propelled the organization too. Being the head of SNCC and an imitating figure, Rob was “accepted as one of the boys,” (555). I don’t think that this was a good or a bad thing. She commanded the authority and attention as a man, but I think she unconsciously lost some of her femininity too. She must have been torn with her standings, she wanted to be taken seriously like a man but at the same time she keep up her appearance, retaining some of her femininity. How could she have been happy? I feel like Robinson was fighting a battle within herself between being a strong leader: a manly figure and being a sensitive mothering figure, like she is biologically programmed to be. A tough choice for sure. -Morgan<br />
<br />
It bothered me that the women activists were attributed male qualities just because they didn't completely mold to the feminine ideals of the time. As the article stated, Robinson still completely embraced her femininity; she still took great care that her appearance and clothing were very ladylike & proper, even when shipping off to jail. If she didn't truly embrace who she was as a woman, she wouldn't have cared enough to do this. It also disturbed me that since Robinson's voice was powerful and commanding, it was automatically compared to a man's voice. If anything is aggressive and powerful, then it ''must'' belong to a man, and consequently must be unnatural for a woman to possess. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
Robinson obviously found her passion within the civil rights movement, and it's sad that she didn't live to see all the progress that's been made. The fact that, as a woman, she had to continue to justify her place within the leadership of the movement betrays how pervasive the white, middle class ideal of woman as submissive housewife became. As the author notes, Robinson's actions "fit comfortably into an established tradition of black female assertiveness" (pg 557), a trait we've seen in several other readings. But in this era, black women were told to be more "feminine" when they tried to speak out or organize. Ideals, quite obviously, are not one size fits all. -Mary Ann <br />
<br />
== "Polishing Brown Diamonds" and "More than a Lady" ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Outside the fact that Ebony magazine wanted to make money and focused more on the middle class, there was an attempt to change the stereotypical views of the black women from the Aunt Jemima look to a beautiful “brown-skinned” women. I think what Laila Haidarali was trying to show how "Ebony" tried to influence perceptions through this ideal “brown-skinned” woman. The charm schools weren’t just creating models but a self-confident woman who may not become a model but was ready to face the work force with less fears of knowing the right thing to say or the appropriate attire for the job. An interesting example she used was Watson’s Charm Clinic, that if you put too much make-up on you could look like you were going to a nightclub not to work. An important point made in Watson’s address was that one’s appearance reflects one’s abilities. These options led women to believe that they would improve the view of a black woman and bring her more social mobility. With all of that being said, where does the dark-skinned black woman fit in? As I read “More than a lady” by Fleming, they seemed contradictory. What women activists did defied this ideal notion of a woman black or white. But what is interesting was when I read how a black female civil rights worker was demonstrating and was grabbed and slapped in the face by a cop and his response grouped all black people together. If she was a white activist, she probably wouldn’t have been slapped around or beaten as these black women were. To the cop, she was black and he didn’t care if you were man or woman. --Mhimes<br />
<br />
== "Polishing Brown Diamonds," Laila Haidarali ==<br />
<br />
It was great to read this article for many reasons; it was fascinating and enlightening. One of the things I found the most interesting about it, though, was how often Haidarali emphasized the fact that the ideal was, yes, feminine, hardworking and family oriented, but also heterosexual. I think in some of the articles we have read this semester they do not reiterate this point as much as Haidarali because they think it is understood. While I never really thought post-war America was open to homosexuality, I appreciate her continually reminding us that sexism and racism were not the only discriminations of the day. -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
== "We Marched for Our Rights," Rev. Naomi Craig ==<br />
<br />
The last line of this article struck me the most, "I still have a piece that is missing in my life because I never got to really know him like I would have wanted to." If this was the start of the article or I had missed something, I would have thought she was talking about a father, a brother, a lover...someone that she would have had a close personal connection with that ended to soon. I certainly would not have expected her to be talking about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. This line, I think, shows how deeply MLK inspired not only African-Americans, but all Americans. His assassination was something personal. -- kokeefe</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_11_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 11 Questions/Comments2010-03-31T03:09:01Z<p>Ssellers: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
'''MAKE SURE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS UNDER THE RELEVANT AUTHOR/TITLE HEADING (OR TO CREATE A NEW HEADING IF THERE ISN'T ONE YET)'''<br />
<br />
== Betty Jeanne Boggs ==<br />
"Always this-- 'because you're a woman'" (page 208). I was really moved by this article and felt that as all of the articles get closer to current times, their revelance becomes so much more alarming. I can't believe that things written by females (what feels like) SO LONG AGO are still things that I look at society today and think are completely ridiculous. I did, however, really appreciate her husband in this article. FINALLY, a good man in history who wasn't pushing his wife into the home. He encouraged her to work while he finished school because she liked her work, even though they were married, and when they accidentially got married he still wanted her to continue working because he KNEW how much she liked her job. I wish there were more historically based documents that talked about things like this just because it makes things not always depressing. I still felt strong emotions towards her statement "For one thing, I wanted to stay home with the baby; two, I wanted to help Josh get through; three, I really enjoyed that job. I just didn't know what to do about it, because I enjoyed working and yet I thought I should really be home with that baby" (page 210) because it's something that I feel goes above the issue of sex and into the issue of parenthood. I can't imagine it's ever easy to look at your child bonding more with your husband/wife and NOT feel like you may be missing out on something because you feel like you have obligations that don't allow that access. I am sure that her husband felt the exact same way when he looked at her relationship with the children, though, because in a family it always seems greener on the other side. I feel as though this article truly represents a healthy relationship between husband and wife, and every insecurity that Betty Jeanne Boggs felt about working while she had a husband was something that was based upon society, not upon her husbands actions. This could just be my wishful thinking, but it's nice to imagine. -Ssellers<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Rachel Carson ==<br />
<br />
I am not the world's biggest environmentalist and I still loved this article. Rachel Carson did an awesome job defending herself against her critics in this article and for some reason I was in disbelief that even back then people questioned the existance of environmental problems like pesticides and pollutions. Ridiculous that her response "No, the problem of pesticides is not merely the dream of an avracious author, out to pile up royalties by frightening the public- it is very much with us, here and now" (page 229) even has to be made. Her proof of the levels of toxins in the dying animals was disgusting, to say the very least. and I completely agree with her statement that "A world that is no longer fit for wild plants that is no longer graced by the flights of birds, a world whose streams and forrests are empty and lifeless is not likely to be fit habitat for man himself, for these things are symptoms of an ailing world" (page 228). She certainly won me over. (And I would especially buy some more Samoas to support her environmentalist cause.) --Ssellers<br />
<br />
<br />
==Louisa Randall Church Explores the Duties of Parents as Architects of Peace, 1946==<br />
<br />
Out of Church’s fear of bombs, “in the hundreds and thousands,”(410) she decides that the only way to save the world is to raise children the right way. But aside from that, something struck me funny, the second full paragraph on page 411, Church discusses the importance of raising children correctly, but keeps referring to the child as “he”, “when ''he'' has achieved complete control over ''himself'' and his environment. Only then can ''he'' meet the exigencies of worthy citizenship in the world of tomorrow.” So what does this say about the author’s view of the roles of girls in the future? Do these rules listed by Church only apply to male children? Or perhaps it is the assumption that only the male children will be in the public arena and be able to make a difference in the “world of tomorrow” whereas female children will merely grow up to produce more children to raise in the same way her mother had? --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
==Nonconformist Joyce Johnson Recounts Her Experience in Obtaining an Illegal Abortion in New York City, 1955==<br />
<br />
Getting an abortion now seems like it would be a horrible, isolating experience. It is still so controversial that even if a woman makes that decision and is happy with it, she has to face judgment from everyone around her. Getting an abortion in 1955 seems like it would be so much worse. Abortion was to be unspoken of and it was really dangerous. In order to find a person to carry out an illegal abortion Joyce Johnson had to ask friends and friends of friends, all of whom probably judged her. She ended up having to meet a shady guy in a restaurant who had some sick obsession with helping girls get abortions. Joyce was truly alone through the entire process. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
To add, The fact that single women would rather face danger and health risks to have an illegal abortion than have a baby shows the amount of pressure that these women were under to fit into a mold. To Joyce Johnson, an abortion was living and having a child meant dying. That is a pretty serious statement. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
Regardless of one's moral idea on the subject, I have to say the idea of having a child to many young women today is still the equivalent of dying. If only 1955 had been more acceptable towards the use of contraception, then less women, like Joyce Johnson, would have had to make the decision to stop an unplanned pregnancy. Still, it is disgusting that this decision today, and in 1955, was considered a PUBLIC decision in regards to laws and social acceptability. I still think today that ultra-coservatives would be more willing to forgive a serial rapist and murderer than a woman who made the decision to NOT ruin her life, career, societal standing, education, dreams, ambition, etc., to have an abortion. Based upon unplanned pregnancy levels just because the opportunity to have an abortion is there doesn't mean that one is going to take advantage of that option. It is a very hard, and very personal decision; Which I think Joyce Johnson did an amazing job conveying. It isn't fair that a male can have sex unprotected for fun and not have to deal with the same consequences (which the article implied that Joyce Johnson just knew that it was as much of an obligation to the father as it was to her which i would LOVE to have more information upon... was this the thinking of society as a whole at the time? Was a man financially obligated to take care of the situation? How did that notion change into what it is today?)in today's world even with sexual protection opportunities. Contradictory to her belief on his financial responsibility however I found it interesting that she said "Life was considered sacred. But independence could be punishable by death. The punishment for sex was, appropriately, sexual" (page 419) which is seemingly contradictory to the financial responsibility she felt he had. I totally support her on that statement though. A woman's right to choose her life ends in this country when a zygote is involved, yet if she were sexually assaulted or raped the legal system would find a way to blame her as the Victim, instead of the male who was just acting naturally. more proof that the punishment for sex is appropriately sexual. I think having an abortion is something that Joyce Johnson thought about roughly, probably lost a ton of sleep over, and I'm happy that she had the opportunity to fly to Puerto Rico to get it done (although, I'm also sadly suprised that having a legal abortion at a facility in Puerto Rico would be safer than an illegal one in the United States...??) because if she hadn't had that opportunity then she would have been stuck with an unloved child and husband, and a disdain for their involvement in her life. Obviously, I feel very strongly in support of Joyce Johnson's decision to take control of her livelihood, and believe that because of this experience she, and the boy who knocked her up, would in the future both be more careful in regards to sexual activity. It wasn't a simple solution and from this article I can only imagine the disgust I would feel towards the society who would judge her for such a decision. It's amazing how morality derived from the teachings of the Catholic Church, in their passage onto the other christian faiths based upon them, play such an unfortunate role historically in the lives of Women in the United States, yet Boys will just be boys. -Ssellers<br />
<br />
<br />
=="An Unplanned Pregnancy", by Joanna Rubin==<br />
<br />
I found this article to be fascinating, insightful and harrowing. I wonder what audience Joanna Rubin was writing for and after having her abortion at a time when it was illegal, what made her be so willing to share her story. Were abortions also illegal in Puerto Rico at that time? I know Rubin did not see any other Americans at her clinic, but was it a likely occurrence that American women would go to Puerto Rico or other countries for the procedure? My curiosity was piqued about the beliefs of American doctors after the line, "When I found out I was pregnant, I went to see a doctor, and he told me to come and see him afterwards. I had a low-grade infection. He was very sweet, supportive, gave me antibiotics" (217). Did American Doctors refer their patients to unofficial clinics that they knew off or simply accept that it was inevitable? As it was illegal, were doctors encouraged to turn in women who got abortions? Were there any actions taken against these women? For me, this article raised a lot more questions about what was typical than it answered. -- Kokeefe<br />
<br />
=="Balancing Work and Family," Betty Jeanne Boggs==<br />
<br />
I admire this woman for paving the way for working mothers, if only for a time, but I also noticed her husband's willingness to rely on her for income while he finished school and often stayed home with their son. His attitude appears remarkably progressive for a time when many thought men should be resuming their places as heads of households after the war. I also noticed how conflicted the author felt about both wanting to work and wanting to be at home with her children, saying she "wanted to be in two places at one time." I went to the Great Lives lecture on Rosie the Riveter tonight, and the speaker quoted a poll taken during WWII about the most admired women in America. First was Eleanor Roosevelt, and second was Betty Crocker, and I think those contrasting results reflect the independence and work vs. domestic housewife dichotomy that women like the author experienced in those years. -Mary Ann</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 10 Questions/Comments2010-03-23T01:04:12Z<p>Ssellers: /* Rosie the Riveter, Fanny Christina Hill */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Rosie the Riveter, Fanny Christina Hill ==<br />
<br />
Having grown up accustomed to seeing Rosie the Riveter in any history of the United States in World War II, it's almost surprising to have a tangible and relatable "Rosie" to read about. I really enjoy the comparison between the work woman who presents herself through Rosie than the working woman who came before her, who had to constantly fight for her right to work. It's amazing how when the country needed the woman worker she was there even though society had always told her it was not her place. I think it'd be interesting to read more accounts of woman workers during this time. -Ssellers<br />
<br />
== Mrs. Norma Yerger Queen Reports on the Problems of Employed Mothers in Utah, 1944==<br />
<br />
"Those who quit have done so because of lack of good care for their children or of inability to do the housework and the job" (page 373). I like that quote from the article a lot because it emphasizes to me the difficultly some women must have had with working instead of fulfilling their obligation as wives and mothers. In today's understanding, it is possible to do both at the same time (although, not everyone would agree with that statement), and so it's easy to be sympathetic toward these women who had to deal with the status of society around them changing on an almost daily notion, while internally debating upon leaving the home to do a civic or familal duty or fulfilling her role in life as caretaker and mother. -ssellers</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 10 Questions/Comments2010-03-23T00:57:03Z<p>Ssellers: New page: == Rosie the Riveter, Fanny Christina Hill == Having grown up accustomed to seeing Rosie the Riveter in any history of the United States in World War II, it's almost surprising to have a ...</p>
<hr />
<div>== Rosie the Riveter, Fanny Christina Hill ==<br />
<br />
Having grown up accustomed to seeing Rosie the Riveter in any history of the United States in World War II, it's almost surprising to have a tangible and relatable "Rosie" to read about. I really enjoy the comparison between the work woman who presents herself through Rosie than the working woman who came before her, who had to constantly fight for her right to work. It's amazing how when the country needed the woman worker she was there even though society had always told her it was not her place. I think it'd be interesting to read more accounts of woman workers during this time. -Ssellers</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 9 Questions/Comments2010-03-17T22:56:16Z<p>Ssellers: /* Militant Housewives During the Great Depression, Annelise Orleck */</p>
<hr />
<div>==The Despair of Unemployed Women, Meridel LeSueur==<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this piece by LeSueur because she focused on the women waiting in the employment bureau for a job and told a story about their different backgrounds. It is interesting how LeSueur describes the options that these woman have. They could stay single or get married. A husband could bring security, but if they get married then their husbands could leave them with children and more mouths to feed. They could get money from charities, or they could be proud and starve in silence. The only part that I don’t know if I buy is the very last sentence, “being a slave without the security of a slave.” I am not sure if that is a fair comparison. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I can only imagine how it must have felt for these women to sit around all day, waiting for work. LeSueur describes women who "sit hour after hour, day after day, waiting for a job to come in" (146). One can really feel the desperation in these women's lives; to just simply sit around, hoping a job would come in and they would be the lucky one to take it reveals scarcity and despair. I think this piece shows the embarrassment that women felt when faced with the depression and unemployment. Women were loosing jobs but as LeSueur points out, not many of them appear in places of charity. Some women at this time must have felt ashamed when having to ask for food, shelter, etc. I wonder why women at this time were so ashamed to receive charity, especially when they were willing to choose starvation, over help. -abratchi<br />
<br />
This was a very moving piece and a very important one. We learn the stats, the percentages, but it also imperative to read stories like this, heartbreaking stories, that remind us of the human and individual side of the Great Depression. For years now, my image of the Great Depression has been the memorial in D.C. with the figures in the Bread Lines. As far as I can recall, all those figures are men. LeSueur reminded me of the extent that women suffered. In response to abratchi, I think women flirted with starvation and death instead of asking for charity, because though they were left with nothing else, at least then they still had their pride and self respect. --kokeefe<br />
<br />
I also found this piece heartbreaking. The desperation of these women was completely unbelievable. For me, the most moving part was the description of woman who went crazy because she couldn't find work, and how the woman working behind the desk reacted. It makes you wonder who was truly suffering more-the employed woman who has to watch poverty and despair everyday, or the woman who has to watch her family starve and suffer. This truly depicts the helplessness all the women must have felt. I never really gave much thought to women in the depression, but this piece proves they suffered equally as much, or greater, than the men.-Anna Holman<br />
<br />
Meridel LeSueur pointed out some very interesting things about women and their reactions to the depression. I think she was expressing that you don’t know what fear and hunger are until your faced with it, as well as the humiliation of asking for help. I thought what LeSueur said about the women who took their last little bit of money and bought a hat. She described it as being foolish and lustful,but in some ways I think, these were attempts of women reaching out for what life once was for them. That if they could only have that hat, it might make themselves feel better, somehow regain what they had lost and feel whole again, and erase the humiliation they faced daily. The hat became inward expression of a broken and humuliated women. -Mhimes<br />
<br />
This piece was nothing short of heartbreaking for me to read. It must have been so hard for women the Great Depression era to deal with starvation and lack of work. After coming so far in society (beginning to work more, obtaining suffrage), women far so far. To me, it seems as if there was an intense struggle between dependence and independence going on. On one hand, women wanted to be independent and able to provide for themselves and their family, but were unable to do so as a result of no work, poor wages, etc. This is especially evident when LeSueur says "if she's proud then she starves silently" (146). On the other hand, women were almost regressing to a state of dependence upon males and their roles as providers. LaSueur describes such a desolate time for women. A time of intense loneliness and hopelessness. It was an eye=opening read for me, predominantly because I have been given or blessed with so much. It is hard to recognize the hardships that so many women have had to overcome to arrive at today's societal norms.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
I thought this piece was really interesting because it showed us a new side to the women of the Great Depression. It made them human. As historians we tend to look at the facts and forget that what we read about were real people with real emotions. I think that LeSueur did a great justice to these women by providing us with an insight into their personal world. I found the most interesting part of this piece to be about the women’s faces. LeSueur doesn’t simply remark about each individual face but them as a whole “all familiar to each other,” (146). The faces of the women were all alike to one another because they saw each other every day and everyone always looked the same, desperate for work. Besides Mrs. Grey, whose face would stick out in any crowd, LeSueur describes the women as being unable to look into one another’s eyes, “dreading to see that knowledge in each other’s eyes,” (146). The eyes are said to be a window into the soul and looking into them only to see the knowledge that there is no work for them must have been devastating. It must have appeared that there was no light at the end of the tunnel, “like a women drowning and we turn away,” (149) as LeSueur said of Mrs. Grey. -Morgan<br />
<br />
==American Women Ask Eleanor Roosevelt for Help==<br />
Let me just say that almost all of the primary sources for this week broke my heart. Pain and sadness and such a thick sense of hope lost just oozing off of the paper. But the letters written to Eleanor Roosevelt struck me especially. That these women honestly believed Eleanor would try and help them says a lot about the way she related to Americans and how she tried to present herself as someone who understood how hard the Depression had become for American families. I couldn't believe that one of the women sent her rings to the White House in exchange for baby clothes. She is a perfect example of why birth control should have been made widely available to women, as these families will do anything for their children and it terrifies them to bring babies into the world that they can't afford. And her resistance to the idea of charity, as well as her desire for Eleanor Roosevelt to keep her request a secret, reflect the same attitudes of women Meridel LeSueur's writings about how women do not seek assistance in nearly the same numbers as men do. They are supposed to be the infallible mothers who always provide for their children, and when they cannot they don't want to admit that they haven't achieved the ideal. On a side note, the letters made me wonder what sort of things the Obamas read these days, as the current economic situation isn't the Depression, but I imagine they get some painful letters as well. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I found the letters to Eleanor Roosevelt to be really upsetting. I can’t imagine how desperate a person must be to send these letters, and their descriptions of what they need are so basic for survival. The only letter that didn’t touch me was the first, the woman has a $2000 mortgage that she can afford, but needs help finding a job for her husband because she has a baby on the way. When reading the other articles about women who had been saving for 15 years and had $30, to hear that this woman who could make a $2000 mortgage payment is really frustrating. But I guess it says a lot that an obviously well off woman is seeking help from the White House at the same time that very poor women are. (I wonder if Mrs. H.E.C. ever got her rings back that she sent Mrs. Roosevelt as security, that was really sad to read…) – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
These letters were heart wrenching(as Mary Ann and Erin have already stated and I am sure everyone will continue to say).The desperation, the sadness, the hope all jump off the page. I think it was the hope that got me the most. I know it said that all the letters "were answered or passed on to the appropriate government agency for action" (149), but these were only 4 letters and the Roosevelts recieved up to 8,000 A DAY. I have hard time believing that they were all taken care of. I mean answering all these letters would have definitely created some jobs, but it just seems so sad that they had to call on the First Lady, the magical woman in D.C. with all the answers. It just seemed like they were (devastating)letters to Santa or something. --kokeefe<br />
<br />
I agree with all the other postings; this was terribly sad to read. The women who wrote to Eleanor Roosevelt seemed to have exhausted all of their other options and didn't know where else to turn. I found it especially depressing how it seemed to bother the women to ask a favor of the Roosevelts, despite their extreme need. The hurt pride must have been just as terrible as the empty stomachs.-Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I can't imagine asking the first lady and the president of the United States for help in buying neccesities or things I can not afford on my own. I wonder how many of the letters she responded to and if she actually gave the people what they asked for and not just advice or direction on where to go. I thought the one letter about the women who sent her prized possessions to Eleanor Roosevelt as security was sad. I also wonder if anyone today writes these kinds of letters to the president when they are not able to afford everything they need. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
As everyone else has noted the letters written to FDR and Eleanor broke my heart. As Erin asked I wonder if women not just Mrs. H.E.C. but also the other hundreds of women got their security deposits back? And as other letters showed some people wanted to send security deposits thinking that would help their case, did it? Or were the Roosevelts just as heart broken as I am today reading these letters and wished there was an easy fix-it button to hit? I could not imagine the lives of these women and what they endured to sit and write a letter asking for help not for them to survive but for the betterment of their families. Have any other administrations made public letters such as these or do they focus on other matters at hand and not internal affairs? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
==Eleanor Roosevelt Applauds the Repeal of the Married Persons Clause of the Economy Act, 1937==<br />
I can't imagine how out of touch with the reality Congress must have been to pass a law that assumed all married women who were working were doing so for perfectly frivolous reasons. I liked that Eleanor Roosevelt pointed out that even women who weren't working strictly for economic need had positive benefits on the economy and their communities. Yet even she feels the need to point out that working does not mean these women "are not good mothers and housekeepers" (pg. 348). Even in the midst of an economic disaster, somehow American society clung to those ideals of women as being strictly in the home. I guess the notion represented some kind of return to normalcy, though it had never really existed. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
==Militant Housewives During the Great Depression, Annelise Orleck==<br />
So many married lost their jobs or were barred from acquiring them because they were married, but this didn't stop them from carving out a role for themselves amidst the hardships of the Great Depression. As we learned in class, labor unions gained strength during this time, so it makes sense that women would also come to adopt organization as a means to be heard. Also, since it seems that so many women either did not seek public assistance or who could not because of the structure of the New Deal programs, activities like strikes and boycotts probably seemed the only real way to continue to feed their families, something that consistently fell on their shoulders to do. In a way these women were pulled out of their homes by their desire to stay in their homes, working to ensure that they could afford to continue to be proper wives and mothers. They only noticed that they were defying social norms when others, namely men, began to complain about it. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Orleck mentions that working-class women becoming involved in activism created public tensions because they were politicizing the traditional roles of women as wives and mothers. But hadn’t that been going on for a while? Reformers and suffragists became involved in the public world of politics, and they used their roles as wives and mothers and the associations that came with them as justification to enter that public realm. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I think that this public realm offered some release for these women, laws had put restrictions on them and they felt it was there duty to stand up though not to be just heard but adamant on change. Women had been an intricate part of the family income whether she worked in or outside the home. She was knowledgeable of how the system worked. It was no surprise that they took on this role. -MHimes<br />
<br />
As I was reading Annelise Orleck’s writing, what stood out to me was the exchanges of goods that took place without using any money. I thought about the story my great grandmother told me about her parents farm. It was a big farm and people throughout Culpeper county would come to exchange goods they had or work for food on their farm. She had commented that they were living comfortably till the depression hit. -MHimes<br />
<br />
The ways in which these women helped to define the family as a strong political unit and influence is interesting. In spite of all the examples Orleck has of the print media sort of mocking them, these women seem to have had a definite and intimidating presence in the commercial market and politics of their communities. I just got the sense from reading this article that these women were strongly organized and politicized - even just in the practices of barter and garden co-ops to ease the hardships of the depression - and all of this in the name of protecting their family. -Erin B.<br />
<br />
<br />
I'm sincerely impressed by the efforts of the housewives that were described in this section. My personal favorite is when "Black mothers in cleveland, unable to convince a local power company to delay shutting off electricity in the homes of families who had not paid their bills won resotration of power after they hung wet laundry over every utility line in the neighborhood." (page 402)That is crafty AND it got what they wanted to get accomplished accomplished. Although I don't support the logic that a woman's place is in the home, I have to give the housewives their credit for being as politically active as was described. -ssellers<br />
<br />
==Louise Mitchell Denounces the "Slave Markets" Where Domestics Are hired in New York City, 1940==<br />
I found it interesting how Mitchell compared domestic servitude to a slave market. This piece, like almost all the other primary sources, really reveal the sense of distress that many women, namely black, felt as a result of the Depression. Women were willing to stand on streets and street corners all day in the hopes of being selected for a domestic job, which at this time were scarce. Her piece hints at a backwards-ness for blacks because despite slavery's end after the civil war, working as domestics for primarily white families has similarities to [old] slavery. While domestic servitude was still one of the most common jobs for all women, the impact of the depression hit this profession hard, hence why Mitchell writes that women spent endless hours hoping for a job. The reality of this work is also reflected through this piece. Domestic servitude was not an easy job and it often required hard labor, long hours and little pay. I think the desperation of the depression reveals women's willingness to take these jobs, simply because some money was better than no money. Mitchell makes an important distinction about race, by stating that about half of all domestics are negro and ends her piece by stating that reform needs to occur for "the most oppressed section of the working class- Negro women" (350). Black women at this time felt the affects much harder than white women, but I think it is important to understand that most people, even whites were suffering from the effects of the depression, not just African Americans. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I also thought it was interesting that the black woman's domestic service would be labeled a "slave market." Reading about the life of those women and what they did for work makes me better understand why it was termed that. They stand outside waiting for someone(presumably a white person) to come hire them, they do back-breaking work, and get paid very little. I bet they were probably at least thankful to have any type of job though to earn some money during the depression for their family. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley Comments on Birth Control and the Depression, 1934==<br />
<br />
I think my favorite part of women that we have studied so far has been about the issue of birth control. I think it’s because, even as a women in the 21st century it’s something I can relate to the women of the 20th century and earlier. Birth control and the processes of staying a healthy woman have evolved over the years, but the ideals and concerns haven’t. I think it’s also very interesting to see the evolution of the methods and devices used before modern day birth control; it’s a very intriguing history. In my joy of learning about birth control, I loved this article. Some of the statics that Bromley presented were somewhat comical, such as “in 1932 there were 43 percent more births in families without any employed workers than in families with one or more full-time workers,” (338). In summary, couples who weren’t employed were having more children because they had more free time to get busy. Why couldn’t scientists just state that? Then the statistic that “rich classes who took no preventative measures were as fertile as the women of the poorer classes, colored women included,” (338). Did white, middle-class and upper-class women really think that working class women were more fertile? Could that be a racist issue? I suspect that white middle and upper-class women thought that because the “working-class” ranked low on the social hierarchy, that couldn’t control themselves, when they really just couldn’t afford or weren’t offered birth control? Besides that Bromley cites that the “chairman of the section on Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Abdominal Surgery, listed birth control as one of the four major problems in gynecology,” (339) but then the committee refused to study about. Why? Was the subject still too taboo to speak of, even at a committee meeting about Gynecology and Obstetrics? Just like last week's article on Generational Conflicts by Bromley, she writes in a certain way to influence people, this time the doctors and committees who need to make birth control available to everyone, not just to those that can pay for it. -Morgan<br />
<br />
I think that Bromley definitely makes some strong points for the use of birth control. However I think making birth control available to everyone is easier said than done, especially in the middle of a depression. How much could legislation do to actually get the lower classes to start using birth control? Spreading the use of birth control to the lower classes would no doubt cost money, and during this time the government had many other things to put money towards. - J Rowley<br />
<br />
Dorothy Dunbar Bromley’s Comments on Birth Control and the Depression were very informative. I had been wondering about child birth during the depression era for a few days now so I was pleased to read this article. As Morgan mentioned, I too realized that unemployed poor families had more time to get it on, hence the increasing birthrate. I find it disillusioning that an issue that is taboo like birth control was at the time, is only publicly considered because it is personally affecting the middle-classes pocket books. It seemed to me that the dialogue at this time began because the middle-class was getting real sick of paying for all of these new babies. It’s sad but that is just the way it goes with so many issues in politics. It was also not surprising to read that the legislation forward movement towards birth-control for families affected by the depression was dependent on the doctors forward motion, and vice versa, getting yet another piece of legislation tied up in bureaucratic hell! I agree J Rowley, that it is a challenge to provide birth control to the masses, it take research, time, and most of all money, but it seems to me that the major hold up was the religious opposition. Bromley’s comments mentioned the Protestant and Catholic opponents of the change in Comstock Laws felt that providing birth control was “synonymous with prostitution”(340). Many of the people who felt this way were themselves legislatures so I think that the issue was wrought with complications and challenges. I wonder how many of the poor families who were having so many children abandoned or gave away their babies…not a cheer thought, just something I have been wondering. –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
I also, like Morgan, completely agree that this is an issue that is still debated about today. Granted, our generation seemingly has an easier access to birth control, but even with insurance and information on it it still is pretty ridiculously expensive. On the other hand, if there is a chance that you could get pregnant AGAIN when you are already too poor to feed yourself and your children (even if it is because of circumstances outside of your control) then stop having sex. It seems like a pretty easy sacrifice to make (especially since there are other means of having an intimate relationship with your husband or wife...) when you're already struggling to survive. It's stupid. and on page 338 when Bromley quotes "it is evident that a high birth rate during the depression prevailed in families which could least afford, from any point of view, to assume this added responsibility" it makes me only imagine who suffers from the burden of that new responsibilty-- Society as a whole and more importantly that child born into a crappy world where it wont even be able to eat enough to survive. Having a child during the depression when you couldn't afford it, especially if you knew the risk you were taking by having sex, is selfish. I also am disgusted at the fact that society wouldn't allow a woman to control whether or not she HAD another child because the officials in society were sooooo afraid about talking about female sexuality, birth control, and the religious implications of a woman controlling her body has. Ultimately though, it is the children born accidentially into this society that suffer more than anyone and eventually end up perpetually on welfare because they had no other options because society wouldn't allow their mother to practice immoral birth control, and their parents couldn't refrain from having them. -Ssellers.<br />
<br />
==Margaret Jarman Hagood, The Life Cycle of a White Southern Farm Woman==<br />
<br />
This section was almost as heart-wrenching for me to read as the letters to the Roosevelt's. Mollie's life is something I could not imagine nor do I think endure. She grew up faster than many women due to her growing number of siblings and a mother who was unable to keep up with all of the chores, and let her education go by the wayside to help her parents. I did enjoy that she was able to get away from the farm for awhile and be her own woman, earning what she wanted and turning down potential suitors. Did all young women who made it away from the farm feel the same? And did they all settle for marriages as she did with Jim? I would want to know how the story would of ended had Mollie been allowed to return to work in the factory; how her ideas of family may have changed. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Margaret Jarman Hagood’s piece The Life Cycle of a White Southern Farm Woman was quite interesting and offered a personal glimpse into the transition of from a girl, to a young woman, and finally to a mother. The main character Mollie seems to already fill the role of the mother while her own mother continues to have child after child which takes a toll on her health. Mollie’s observation of her mother’s child rearing experience obviously shaped her own, to the point where she was often stating that she did not want to have children or get married. In the end of course she follows the same path and seems to come to terms with this. Though the narrative of this story was intriguing, it did not delve into the reasons why these women were having so many children. I would venture to say that it was due to a lack of access to birth control for white women in the south. That being said, this piece challenged me to compare the experiences of the women in the Urban North and the Agrarian south. While women in the South were birthing larger families, women in the North were hoping to decrease their family side. Mollie seems to view a large family as an albatross around her neck when she is a young woman because she has set goals for her life but when she is old she “transferred her efforts to achieving them for her daughter” (161). I could see how people without children would find this a depressing thought but I think that it is endearing a bit. When viewing Mollie’s situation with a modern eye, or forcing modern ideas onto her life, it is hard to see how this transfer is a beautiful thing but in reality, Mollie’s is doing something amazing, she was, throughout her life self sacrificing. –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
Sorry for writing so much, this story really sparked something for me. - Caryn<br />
<br />
==A Mexican-American Childhood during the Depression, Carlotta Silvas Martin==<br />
<br />
We have read sources that focused on the support of Mexican American communities in the West, but this source is evidence that those communities continued to exist during the Great Depression and even gained strength. I found Carlotta's family's generosity amazing during such a rough time. Of course her family had a little more security since her father was a miner, but they still did not receive a great deal of money. They seemed to be thankful that they receieved any money and shared their blessings with the less fortunate. The Great Depression is often characterized as a depressing, woeful time, and yet Carlotta and some of her fellow community members celebrated holidays with parties and parades, went to the movies and attended plays. Carlotta is also very involved in community service that raises money and provides entertainment for the community. While I'm sure the life was very hard for Superior during the Depression, Carlotta looks back on that part of her life in a positive light and remembers the strong, thriving community that existed. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
<br />
==Women in a Soup Line (photograph)==<br />
<br />
This picture surprised me because after reading the other sources, I got the distinct impression that most women were too proud to stand in soup lines and tried their hardest to avoid having to resort to them. And yet, here is a picture of quite a few women in a soup line happily accepting the charity. And they didn't oppose to having a picture taken of them! Do we just have an overwhelming amount of sources that focus on women who were anti-soup lines, when that wasn't actually the case? Or did those women actually stand in soup lines and were too proud to admit it? Something to consider is the fact that the women in the photo are Mexican Americans while the sources were written by white women. Perhaps the societal expectations were different for these two groups that would legitamately make white women afraid of being seen accepting charity. -- CBrau</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 9 Questions/Comments2010-03-17T22:49:47Z<p>Ssellers: /* Dorothy Dunbar Bromley Comments on Birth Control and the Depression, 1934 */</p>
<hr />
<div>==The Despair of Unemployed Women, Meridel LeSueur==<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this piece by LeSueur because she focused on the women waiting in the employment bureau for a job and told a story about their different backgrounds. It is interesting how LeSueur describes the options that these woman have. They could stay single or get married. A husband could bring security, but if they get married then their husbands could leave them with children and more mouths to feed. They could get money from charities, or they could be proud and starve in silence. The only part that I don’t know if I buy is the very last sentence, “being a slave without the security of a slave.” I am not sure if that is a fair comparison. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I can only imagine how it must have felt for these women to sit around all day, waiting for work. LeSueur describes women who "sit hour after hour, day after day, waiting for a job to come in" (146). One can really feel the desperation in these women's lives; to just simply sit around, hoping a job would come in and they would be the lucky one to take it reveals scarcity and despair. I think this piece shows the embarrassment that women felt when faced with the depression and unemployment. Women were loosing jobs but as LeSueur points out, not many of them appear in places of charity. Some women at this time must have felt ashamed when having to ask for food, shelter, etc. I wonder why women at this time were so ashamed to receive charity, especially when they were willing to choose starvation, over help. -abratchi<br />
<br />
This was a very moving piece and a very important one. We learn the stats, the percentages, but it also imperative to read stories like this, heartbreaking stories, that remind us of the human and individual side of the Great Depression. For years now, my image of the Great Depression has been the memorial in D.C. with the figures in the Bread Lines. As far as I can recall, all those figures are men. LeSueur reminded me of the extent that women suffered. In response to abratchi, I think women flirted with starvation and death instead of asking for charity, because though they were left with nothing else, at least then they still had their pride and self respect. --kokeefe<br />
<br />
I also found this piece heartbreaking. The desperation of these women was completely unbelievable. For me, the most moving part was the description of woman who went crazy because she couldn't find work, and how the woman working behind the desk reacted. It makes you wonder who was truly suffering more-the employed woman who has to watch poverty and despair everyday, or the woman who has to watch her family starve and suffer. This truly depicts the helplessness all the women must have felt. I never really gave much thought to women in the depression, but this piece proves they suffered equally as much, or greater, than the men.-Anna Holman<br />
<br />
Meridel LeSueur pointed out some very interesting things about women and their reactions to the depression. I think she was expressing that you don’t know what fear and hunger are until your faced with it, as well as the humiliation of asking for help. I thought what LeSueur said about the women who took their last little bit of money and bought a hat. She described it as being foolish and lustful,but in some ways I think, these were attempts of women reaching out for what life once was for them. That if they could only have that hat, it might make themselves feel better, somehow regain what they had lost and feel whole again, and erase the humiliation they faced daily. The hat became inward expression of a broken and humuliated women. -Mhimes<br />
<br />
This piece was nothing short of heartbreaking for me to read. It must have been so hard for women the Great Depression era to deal with starvation and lack of work. After coming so far in society (beginning to work more, obtaining suffrage), women far so far. To me, it seems as if there was an intense struggle between dependence and independence going on. On one hand, women wanted to be independent and able to provide for themselves and their family, but were unable to do so as a result of no work, poor wages, etc. This is especially evident when LeSueur says "if she's proud then she starves silently" (146). On the other hand, women were almost regressing to a state of dependence upon males and their roles as providers. LaSueur describes such a desolate time for women. A time of intense loneliness and hopelessness. It was an eye=opening read for me, predominantly because I have been given or blessed with so much. It is hard to recognize the hardships that so many women have had to overcome to arrive at today's societal norms.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
I thought this piece was really interesting because it showed us a new side to the women of the Great Depression. It made them human. As historians we tend to look at the facts and forget that what we read about were real people with real emotions. I think that LeSueur did a great justice to these women by providing us with an insight into their personal world. I found the most interesting part of this piece to be about the women’s faces. LeSueur doesn’t simply remark about each individual face but them as a whole “all familiar to each other,” (146). The faces of the women were all alike to one another because they saw each other every day and everyone always looked the same, desperate for work. Besides Mrs. Grey, whose face would stick out in any crowd, LeSueur describes the women as being unable to look into one another’s eyes, “dreading to see that knowledge in each other’s eyes,” (146). The eyes are said to be a window into the soul and looking into them only to see the knowledge that there is no work for them must have been devastating. It must have appeared that there was no light at the end of the tunnel, “like a women drowning and we turn away,” (149) as LeSueur said of Mrs. Grey. -Morgan<br />
<br />
==American Women Ask Eleanor Roosevelt for Help==<br />
Let me just say that almost all of the primary sources for this week broke my heart. Pain and sadness and such a thick sense of hope lost just oozing off of the paper. But the letters written to Eleanor Roosevelt struck me especially. That these women honestly believed Eleanor would try and help them says a lot about the way she related to Americans and how she tried to present herself as someone who understood how hard the Depression had become for American families. I couldn't believe that one of the women sent her rings to the White House in exchange for baby clothes. She is a perfect example of why birth control should have been made widely available to women, as these families will do anything for their children and it terrifies them to bring babies into the world that they can't afford. And her resistance to the idea of charity, as well as her desire for Eleanor Roosevelt to keep her request a secret, reflect the same attitudes of women Meridel LeSueur's writings about how women do not seek assistance in nearly the same numbers as men do. They are supposed to be the infallible mothers who always provide for their children, and when they cannot they don't want to admit that they haven't achieved the ideal. On a side note, the letters made me wonder what sort of things the Obamas read these days, as the current economic situation isn't the Depression, but I imagine they get some painful letters as well. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I found the letters to Eleanor Roosevelt to be really upsetting. I can’t imagine how desperate a person must be to send these letters, and their descriptions of what they need are so basic for survival. The only letter that didn’t touch me was the first, the woman has a $2000 mortgage that she can afford, but needs help finding a job for her husband because she has a baby on the way. When reading the other articles about women who had been saving for 15 years and had $30, to hear that this woman who could make a $2000 mortgage payment is really frustrating. But I guess it says a lot that an obviously well off woman is seeking help from the White House at the same time that very poor women are. (I wonder if Mrs. H.E.C. ever got her rings back that she sent Mrs. Roosevelt as security, that was really sad to read…) – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
These letters were heart wrenching(as Mary Ann and Erin have already stated and I am sure everyone will continue to say).The desperation, the sadness, the hope all jump off the page. I think it was the hope that got me the most. I know it said that all the letters "were answered or passed on to the appropriate government agency for action" (149), but these were only 4 letters and the Roosevelts recieved up to 8,000 A DAY. I have hard time believing that they were all taken care of. I mean answering all these letters would have definitely created some jobs, but it just seems so sad that they had to call on the First Lady, the magical woman in D.C. with all the answers. It just seemed like they were (devastating)letters to Santa or something. --kokeefe<br />
<br />
I agree with all the other postings; this was terribly sad to read. The women who wrote to Eleanor Roosevelt seemed to have exhausted all of their other options and didn't know where else to turn. I found it especially depressing how it seemed to bother the women to ask a favor of the Roosevelts, despite their extreme need. The hurt pride must have been just as terrible as the empty stomachs.-Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I can't imagine asking the first lady and the president of the United States for help in buying neccesities or things I can not afford on my own. I wonder how many of the letters she responded to and if she actually gave the people what they asked for and not just advice or direction on where to go. I thought the one letter about the women who sent her prized possessions to Eleanor Roosevelt as security was sad. I also wonder if anyone today writes these kinds of letters to the president when they are not able to afford everything they need. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
As everyone else has noted the letters written to FDR and Eleanor broke my heart. As Erin asked I wonder if women not just Mrs. H.E.C. but also the other hundreds of women got their security deposits back? And as other letters showed some people wanted to send security deposits thinking that would help their case, did it? Or were the Roosevelts just as heart broken as I am today reading these letters and wished there was an easy fix-it button to hit? I could not imagine the lives of these women and what they endured to sit and write a letter asking for help not for them to survive but for the betterment of their families. Have any other administrations made public letters such as these or do they focus on other matters at hand and not internal affairs? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
==Eleanor Roosevelt Applauds the Repeal of the Married Persons Clause of the Economy Act, 1937==<br />
I can't imagine how out of touch with the reality Congress must have been to pass a law that assumed all married women who were working were doing so for perfectly frivolous reasons. I liked that Eleanor Roosevelt pointed out that even women who weren't working strictly for economic need had positive benefits on the economy and their communities. Yet even she feels the need to point out that working does not mean these women "are not good mothers and housekeepers" (pg. 348). Even in the midst of an economic disaster, somehow American society clung to those ideals of women as being strictly in the home. I guess the notion represented some kind of return to normalcy, though it had never really existed. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
==Militant Housewives During the Great Depression, Annelise Orleck==<br />
So many married lost their jobs or were barred from acquiring them because they were married, but this didn't stop them from carving out a role for themselves amidst the hardships of the Great Depression. As we learned in class, labor unions gained strength during this time, so it makes sense that women would also come to adopt organization as a means to be heard. Also, since it seems that so many women either did not seek public assistance or who could not because of the structure of the New Deal programs, activities like strikes and boycotts probably seemed the only real way to continue to feed their families, something that consistently fell on their shoulders to do. In a way these women were pulled out of their homes by their desire to stay in their homes, working to ensure that they could afford to continue to be proper wives and mothers. They only noticed that they were defying social norms when others, namely men, began to complain about it. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Orleck mentions that working-class women becoming involved in activism created public tensions because they were politicizing the traditional roles of women as wives and mothers. But hadn’t that been going on for a while? Reformers and suffragists became involved in the public world of politics, and they used their roles as wives and mothers and the associations that came with them as justification to enter that public realm. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I think that this public realm offered some release for these women, laws had put restrictions on them and they felt it was there duty to stand up though not to be just heard but adamant on change. Women had been an intricate part of the family income whether she worked in or outside the home. She was knowledgeable of how the system worked. It was no surprise that they took on this role. -MHimes<br />
<br />
As I was reading Annelise Orleck’s writing, what stood out to me was the exchanges of goods that took place without using any money. I thought about the story my great grandmother told me about her parents farm. It was a big farm and people throughout Culpeper county would come to exchange goods they had or work for food on their farm. She had commented that they were living comfortably till the depression hit. -MHimes<br />
<br />
The ways in which these women helped to define the family as a strong political unit and influence is interesting. In spite of all the examples Orleck has of the print media sort of mocking them, these women seem to have had a definite and intimidating presence in the commercial market and politics of their communities. I just got the sense from reading this article that these women were strongly organized and politicized - even just in the practices of barter and garden co-ops to ease the hardships of the depression - and all of this in the name of protecting their family. -Erin B.<br />
<br />
==Louise Mitchell Denounces the "Slave Markets" Where Domestics Are hired in New York City, 1940==<br />
I found it interesting how Mitchell compared domestic servitude to a slave market. This piece, like almost all the other primary sources, really reveal the sense of distress that many women, namely black, felt as a result of the Depression. Women were willing to stand on streets and street corners all day in the hopes of being selected for a domestic job, which at this time were scarce. Her piece hints at a backwards-ness for blacks because despite slavery's end after the civil war, working as domestics for primarily white families has similarities to [old] slavery. While domestic servitude was still one of the most common jobs for all women, the impact of the depression hit this profession hard, hence why Mitchell writes that women spent endless hours hoping for a job. The reality of this work is also reflected through this piece. Domestic servitude was not an easy job and it often required hard labor, long hours and little pay. I think the desperation of the depression reveals women's willingness to take these jobs, simply because some money was better than no money. Mitchell makes an important distinction about race, by stating that about half of all domestics are negro and ends her piece by stating that reform needs to occur for "the most oppressed section of the working class- Negro women" (350). Black women at this time felt the affects much harder than white women, but I think it is important to understand that most people, even whites were suffering from the effects of the depression, not just African Americans. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I also thought it was interesting that the black woman's domestic service would be labeled a "slave market." Reading about the life of those women and what they did for work makes me better understand why it was termed that. They stand outside waiting for someone(presumably a white person) to come hire them, they do back-breaking work, and get paid very little. I bet they were probably at least thankful to have any type of job though to earn some money during the depression for their family. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley Comments on Birth Control and the Depression, 1934==<br />
<br />
I think my favorite part of women that we have studied so far has been about the issue of birth control. I think it’s because, even as a women in the 21st century it’s something I can relate to the women of the 20th century and earlier. Birth control and the processes of staying a healthy woman have evolved over the years, but the ideals and concerns haven’t. I think it’s also very interesting to see the evolution of the methods and devices used before modern day birth control; it’s a very intriguing history. In my joy of learning about birth control, I loved this article. Some of the statics that Bromley presented were somewhat comical, such as “in 1932 there were 43 percent more births in families without any employed workers than in families with one or more full-time workers,” (338). In summary, couples who weren’t employed were having more children because they had more free time to get busy. Why couldn’t scientists just state that? Then the statistic that “rich classes who took no preventative measures were as fertile as the women of the poorer classes, colored women included,” (338). Did white, middle-class and upper-class women really think that working class women were more fertile? Could that be a racist issue? I suspect that white middle and upper-class women thought that because the “working-class” ranked low on the social hierarchy, that couldn’t control themselves, when they really just couldn’t afford or weren’t offered birth control? Besides that Bromley cites that the “chairman of the section on Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Abdominal Surgery, listed birth control as one of the four major problems in gynecology,” (339) but then the committee refused to study about. Why? Was the subject still too taboo to speak of, even at a committee meeting about Gynecology and Obstetrics? Just like last week's article on Generational Conflicts by Bromley, she writes in a certain way to influence people, this time the doctors and committees who need to make birth control available to everyone, not just to those that can pay for it. -Morgan<br />
<br />
I think that Bromley definitely makes some strong points for the use of birth control. However I think making birth control available to everyone is easier said than done, especially in the middle of a depression. How much could legislation do to actually get the lower classes to start using birth control? Spreading the use of birth control to the lower classes would no doubt cost money, and during this time the government had many other things to put money towards. - J Rowley<br />
<br />
Dorothy Dunbar Bromley’s Comments on Birth Control and the Depression were very informative. I had been wondering about child birth during the depression era for a few days now so I was pleased to read this article. As Morgan mentioned, I too realized that unemployed poor families had more time to get it on, hence the increasing birthrate. I find it disillusioning that an issue that is taboo like birth control was at the time, is only publicly considered because it is personally affecting the middle-classes pocket books. It seemed to me that the dialogue at this time began because the middle-class was getting real sick of paying for all of these new babies. It’s sad but that is just the way it goes with so many issues in politics. It was also not surprising to read that the legislation forward movement towards birth-control for families affected by the depression was dependent on the doctors forward motion, and vice versa, getting yet another piece of legislation tied up in bureaucratic hell! I agree J Rowley, that it is a challenge to provide birth control to the masses, it take research, time, and most of all money, but it seems to me that the major hold up was the religious opposition. Bromley’s comments mentioned the Protestant and Catholic opponents of the change in Comstock Laws felt that providing birth control was “synonymous with prostitution”(340). Many of the people who felt this way were themselves legislatures so I think that the issue was wrought with complications and challenges. I wonder how many of the poor families who were having so many children abandoned or gave away their babies…not a cheer thought, just something I have been wondering. –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
I also, like Morgan, completely agree that this is an issue that is still debated about today. Granted, our generation seemingly has an easier access to birth control, but even with insurance and information on it it still is pretty ridiculously expensive. On the other hand, if there is a chance that you could get pregnant AGAIN when you are already too poor to feed yourself and your children (even if it is because of circumstances outside of your control) then stop having sex. It seems like a pretty easy sacrifice to make (especially since there are other means of having an intimate relationship with your husband or wife...) when you're already struggling to survive. It's stupid. and on page 338 when Bromley quotes "it is evident that a high birth rate during the depression prevailed in families which could least afford, from any point of view, to assume this added responsibility" it makes me only imagine who suffers from the burden of that new responsibilty-- Society as a whole and more importantly that child born into a crappy world where it wont even be able to eat enough to survive. Having a child during the depression when you couldn't afford it, especially if you knew the risk you were taking by having sex, is selfish. I also am disgusted at the fact that society wouldn't allow a woman to control whether or not she HAD another child because the officials in society were sooooo afraid about talking about female sexuality, birth control, and the religious implications of a woman controlling her body has. Ultimately though, it is the children born accidentially into this society that suffer more than anyone and eventually end up perpetually on welfare because they had no other options because society wouldn't allow their mother to practice immoral birth control, and their parents couldn't refrain from having them. -Ssellers.<br />
<br />
==Margaret Jarman Hagood, The Life Cycle of a White Southern Farm Woman==<br />
<br />
This section was almost as heart-wrenching for me to read as the letters to the Roosevelt's. Mollie's life is something I could not imagine nor do I think endure. She grew up faster than many women due to her growing number of siblings and a mother who was unable to keep up with all of the chores, and let her education go by the wayside to help her parents. I did enjoy that she was able to get away from the farm for awhile and be her own woman, earning what she wanted and turning down potential suitors. Did all young women who made it away from the farm feel the same? And did they all settle for marriages as she did with Jim? I would want to know how the story would of ended had Mollie been allowed to return to work in the factory; how her ideas of family may have changed. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Margaret Jarman Hagood’s piece The Life Cycle of a White Southern Farm Woman was quite interesting and offered a personal glimpse into the transition of from a girl, to a young woman, and finally to a mother. The main character Mollie seems to already fill the role of the mother while her own mother continues to have child after child which takes a toll on her health. Mollie’s observation of her mother’s child rearing experience obviously shaped her own, to the point where she was often stating that she did not want to have children or get married. In the end of course she follows the same path and seems to come to terms with this. Though the narrative of this story was intriguing, it did not delve into the reasons why these women were having so many children. I would venture to say that it was due to a lack of access to birth control for white women in the south. That being said, this piece challenged me to compare the experiences of the women in the Urban North and the Agrarian south. While women in the South were birthing larger families, women in the North were hoping to decrease their family side. Mollie seems to view a large family as an albatross around her neck when she is a young woman because she has set goals for her life but when she is old she “transferred her efforts to achieving them for her daughter” (161). I could see how people without children would find this a depressing thought but I think that it is endearing a bit. When viewing Mollie’s situation with a modern eye, or forcing modern ideas onto her life, it is hard to see how this transfer is a beautiful thing but in reality, Mollie’s is doing something amazing, she was, throughout her life self sacrificing. –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
Sorry for writing so much, this story really sparked something for me. - Caryn<br />
<br />
==A Mexican-American Childhood during the Depression, Carlotta Silvas Martin==<br />
<br />
We have read sources that focused on the support of Mexican American communities in the West, but this source is evidence that those communities continued to exist during the Great Depression and even gained strength. I found Carlotta's family's generosity amazing during such a rough time. Of course her family had a little more security since her father was a miner, but they still did not receive a great deal of money. They seemed to be thankful that they receieved any money and shared their blessings with the less fortunate. The Great Depression is often characterized as a depressing, woeful time, and yet Carlotta and some of her fellow community members celebrated holidays with parties and parades, went to the movies and attended plays. Carlotta is also very involved in community service that raises money and provides entertainment for the community. While I'm sure the life was very hard for Superior during the Depression, Carlotta looks back on that part of her life in a positive light and remembers the strong, thriving community that existed. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
<br />
==Women in a Soup Line (photograph)==<br />
<br />
This picture surprised me because after reading the other sources, I got the distinct impression that most women were too proud to stand in soup lines and tried their hardest to avoid having to resort to them. And yet, here is a picture of quite a few women in a soup line happily accepting the charity. And they didn't oppose to having a picture taken of them! Do we just have an overwhelming amount of sources that focus on women who were anti-soup lines, when that wasn't actually the case? Or did those women actually stand in soup lines and were too proud to admit it? Something to consider is the fact that the women in the photo are Mexican Americans while the sources were written by white women. Perhaps the societal expectations were different for these two groups that would legitamately make white women afraid of being seen accepting charity. -- CBrau</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_8_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 8 Questions/Comments2010-03-14T15:15:29Z<p>Ssellers: /* Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''MAKE SURE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS UNDER THE RELEVANT AUTHOR/TITLE HEADING (OR TO CREATE A NEW HEADING IF THERE ISN'T ONE YET)'''<br />
<br />
'''EXTRA CREDIT: Focusing only on the primary source readings, discuss the context within which one or two of these documents were created: What were the goals of the people writing? Who were they writing for? Consider the circumstances of their creation. How would people at the time have received those ideas or claims and why? (Think broadly; some people would like some ideas that others would not.) ''' <br />
<br />
==Ma Rainey and Bessie Smith==<br />
Since we didn't get a chance to spend time on them in class, you can listen to some of their music [http://kokoro.umwblogs.org/2010/03/13/ma-rainey-and-bessie-smith/ here]. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
==Peiss, The Cosmetics Industry==<br />
<br />
I’ll admit that I never gave cosmetics much thought or even believed that they deserved thought, for that matter. This article is just another reminder of how even seemingly insignificant objects have a lot of historical value because they reflect broader social patterns. Even makeup. In the case of the article, cosmetics reflect the rise of consumer culture and marketing, as well as class and race connotations. These connotations continue to exist today. I’m sure we’ve all looked at a woman wearing a generous amount of makeup and immediately had less than charitable thoughts about her sexual practices and/or economic position. “Slut” and “trailer park trash” may be words that come to mind. And I’m sure we’ve all seen advertisements about ways to use makeup to look more “exotic,” which is just a politically correct way of saying “ethnic.” I think perhaps nowadays “exotic” is often more about being less offensive. In the past, when people were more overtly racist, maybe labeling things “exotic” was a way to recognize some kind of racial envy and provide a means to achieve what was envied without admitting to it. But that’s kind of a psychological can of worms. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I like the essay "Making Faces" by Kath Peiss. Comparing today's perceptions of cosmetics and beauty to that of the early 20th Century is very interesting. Most women today wear makeup and instead of refraining from using it to appear respectable it is more the norm to use it. Makeup has also been made available to women of almost any class thanks to stores such as Walmart and even dollar stores. The use of makeup is also not associated with prostitutes anymore because most women wear it. It is always interesting to see how beliefs and opinions change over time, compared to non marital sex which can still be debatable, most people agree that wearing makeup today is acceptable. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
It seems rather ironic that cosmetics, long associated with prostitution, would make their move to the mainstream at a time when society appeared so concerned about the moral well-being of women. At the same time though, this was the first era in which women could really claim income of their own; they represented a new market that cosmetics industries and the beauty culture took advantage of, marketing their products as necessities for women. And in a society that feared women may be loosing their femininity to traditionally male pursuits like wage work, voting, and casual relationships, make up became a way of showing that women were still neat and soft and fair, that they were still essentially women, despite the fact that they may have moved beyond the traditional domestic sphere. -Mary Ann <br />
<br />
Peiss provides a very different approach to the popularization of cosmetics throughout the 19th century. I never thought about it too much before, but it is apparent that the growth of the cosmetics industry is indicative of the growth of the market and society as a whole. Cosmetics not only became reflective of consumer culture (to include mass production and distribution) but aesthetics as well. People, women particularly, became much more concerned with their physical appearance, which led to the use of makeup. This is also reflected through society when women chose to participate in athletic events and sports. And also the use of women in advertising and other public forums. It is also important to recognize that some feelings about cosmetics have not changed. There are still two separate trains of thought: that cosmetics help enhance the femininity of women or that natural beauty is true beauty. These two opinions are still around and prevalent today Also, the forums in which makeup are sold have not changed. Cosmetics are still sold in drugstores, home-sellers like Mary Kay or Avon, and department stores, which tend to carry higher-end products. It took a decent amount of time for cosmetics to be accepted into the perception of being feminine, but since it has been accepted, opinions have not dramatically changed over the last century. --MDvorak<br />
<br />
<br />
In the cosmetics article that we read, there is mention of a few “natural” ways to achieve better beauty or a higher level of attractiveness. These actions are “breathing, exercise, diet, and bathing “(345). I understand exercise, diet and bathing, what I do not get is how breathing makes a difference? How were women breathing and were they breathing? I’m just confused and intrigued by that example. –jmarshal<br />
<br />
I was particularly intrigued by the concept of skin bleaching. I had heard before about African-American women bleaching their skin in an attempt to appear more white, but I had never heard of white women doing so. I would be interested to know more about the change from pale skin to tanned skin being the ideal. -Alice W<br />
<br />
I thought the phrase “hope in a jar” (P.360) was interesting because it showed how women depended so much on make up to bring them more importance in the world. They also expected make-up to make life smoother for them, bringing them new opportunities. So many acts, like using make up that were previously looked down upon, were suddenly accepted when society saw that movie stars/high class people would use cosmetics. Society and culture was so easily influenced by outside factors such as movies. I think during this time, cosmetics created a false sense of “the self." “A woman’s personal success relied on her appearance.” (P.355) What about her abilities, her work ethic, etc? -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
Wonder what the guys in the class think about makeup in this class. I personally don't like makeup, but that might be more of a personal opinion reflecting my upbringing and interpretations of media. I suppose the question is--if makeup is not linked to prostitution anymore, then what is, because for some reason I think that makeup still represents that oldest of professions to some degree. I have no idea how looking "exotic" is supposed to be less offensive...I don't really understand the WASP middle class fascination with all things different--is this a new development or something that arose around this time period? I like Mary Ann's interpretation of the rise of makeup, highlighting feminine features when increasing numbers of women were entering the public sphere. So my question is whether or not the rising popularity of makeup indicative of a new level of freedom experienced by women or something that more firmly entrenched and highlighted their separateness from men? I suppose this goes back to the arguments between the feminists and social feminists insofar as making a truly equal society or preserving protective legislation... -schang<br />
<br />
==Mosher Survey, 1892-1913==<br />
<br />
The Mosher survey was very fascinating. I found it interesting that one of the interviewees in her twenties in the 1890s seemed to have a more conservative view on sexual practices than the woman in her fifties in the 1890s. Number 1 felt there was danger in too much sex for a woman and that it was necessary to men but not women. Number 35 felt that both husbands and wives needed sex and that people became too nervous and twitchy without it. The survey didn’t note where the women were raised or various other features (though I assume they were middle-class at least if they were regular patients), which I think would have been a big influence on their answers. The survey also provided an interesting contrast to Dr. Frederick’s assumptions about women. Had he actually bothered to interview women about their feelings towards sex, which I’m sure he wouldn’t have dared do for sake of propriety, he would have discovered that women also had an interest in sex and could find it just as satisfying as men. Of course, he probably would have tried to explain it away. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
It was interesting that the study done on sexual habits of women was able to obtain opinions from women during that time. It seemed that sex was just not talked about. But after reading the excerpts from the online reading, it was visible in my mind that women were searching for answers to the inter workings of their marriages and needed help. That need to talk came out of the desperation they felt towards preventing their own marriages from falling apart and maintaining their own health and control over their own body. -MHimes<br />
<br />
I found this so interesting! The varied answers of the women showed just how much discourse there was within women at this time. The women definitely saw intercourse, orgasms, marriage, etc. as very different functions/facets of their lives. - christine l<br />
<br />
I found the Mosher survey very interesting. I too agree that it was surprising that the younger women seemed more sexually conservative than the older women, especially the 53 year old. Through this survey you can see the shift from the traditional family to the Companionate marriage. Though respondent number 1 believed that sexual satisfaction was only necessary for the male, most of the other women believed that it was necessary for the female as well. I wonder how shocking this survey was to these women who were interviewed because it deals with such salacious issues, and reveals that women do have sexual desires which were thought of as immoral in the past. –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
Why would Dr. Frederick "of course...tried to explain it away?" Didn't Jane Addams, Louise DeKoven Brown and other Chicago reformers blame overwork, commercialized recreation and alcohol for "bringing out natural yearnings and instincts that THEY preferred to see repressed"? Why would these women want to see these instincts repressed? Wouldn't a prominent woman such as Addams OF COURSE have approved of open sexual practices? And why would Dr. Frederick have bothered to interview women about their feelings towards sex? Mosher's study wasn't common nor was it published, so why are we assuming today that it was a common thing to ask women about their attitudes towards sex a century ago? And didn't the Mosher survey find that some women didn't have an interest in sex? I'm sure that women's history is a contentious topic but objectivity needs to be maintained and we need to make sure that we don't project our modern day assumptions into history. -schang<br />
<br />
Um, no one’s assuming that it was common practice for women to be interviewed about sex at that time, or really for anyone to be interviewed about it at that time. Nor do I see anyone projecting modern day assumptions. Frederick’s suggesting that “sexual desire is entirely absent in a much larger number of women than is generally supposed" (291) and that any woman who expresses real sexual desire is pretty much a nymphomaniac. I simply pointed out that, despite the impropriety of asking such questions at the time and in particular coming from a man, if he had done ''actual'' scientific research, such as the interviews conducted by Mosher (and from the samples we saw, all of the women often found sex agreeable), that he would have probably disregarded the answers and tried to explain them away because it didn’t jive with his and society’s beliefs about women. A lot of people probably would have done the same. Yet, clearly the Mosher survey shows that there were some women of the period who were more open to sex and recognized that they enjoyed it or even that it was necessary to their health. So, sure, maybe there were women like Jane Addams who preferred to see sex repressed, but there were also women who didn’t want to repress their sexual desires. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
==Phyllis Blanchard and Carolyn Manasses Discuss the Ideals and Problems of Modern Marriage, 1930==<br />
<br />
Phyllis Blanchard and Carolyn Manasses stressed the importance of the sexual relationship between the husband and wife, in order to obtain a fulfilled and happy marriage. Their goals were to make sex education more available to the “average” person and not limited to only professional classes and to show the importance of women’s own active participation in the physical relationship of marriage. They acknowledged that women had recognized themselves as sexual beings in this modern era and needed to be educated to fulfill those roles in a marriage of mutual companionship. I think they were writing for those who restricted this information from getting out. They are showing that by restricting this information that they are impairing (what they called handicapping) women from obtaining that fulfilled happy marriage and encouraging personality conflicts by allowing ignorance on the subject of sex. In general, I don’t think people knew how to react to this information. They probably felt it was needed and wanted but some were afraid to openly acknowledge this but secretly may have wanted to obtain it. There were religious reasons that encouraged people to reject this in fear of being immoral and inappropriate. Some women may have been comfortable with the rigidity of women’s role whereas others felt that it allowed women a more equal partner in the marriage. Blanchard and Manasses were saying that by educating women, they would meet the needs of their own sexual desires and expectations and being more apt to satisfying her partner. These women are liberal in their thoughts on pre-marital sex and emphasized that one should try their partners out sexually before marriage to see if they would be compatible. I don’t think that this was generally accepted though it wouldn’t necessarily mean that it wasn’t being practiced. In the eyes of these two Psychologists, the modern marriage required a larger emphasis on the physical side and this made the importance of educating women about sex and contraceptives even more important. -MHimes<br />
<br />
== Manifestations of Nymphomania, 1907 ==<br />
<br />
I loved his assessment that, were women as sexually interested as men, the world would be "one vast brothel." The history of the sexual repression of women is long, and these beliefs, or ones like them, persist for long after this was written. It's amazing to consider that so many people still feel similarly towards homosexuality. Dr. Frederick likens lesbianism to some weird practice of child molestation, not unlike ways in which those opposed to same sex marriage offer the 'slippery slope' argument that allowing gay marriage will lead to marriages between adults and children, or adults and animals. -Erin B.<br />
<br />
Carlton C. Fredericks, M.D.’s assessment of what he calls “Nymphomania” was absurd. He even goes as far to propose that women who view sex or masturbation as gratifying automatically classify them as perverts. It seems that any sexual expression that he deemed as improper was in some way perverse. It was such a contrast to the Mosher study because Fredericks views a women’s sexual appetite as “insane or mildly insane”(291) where Mosher is finding that many women feel it is necessary to carry on a healthy marriage. It is interesting as well because the Mosher's study took place at around the same time, the duality between these two school of thought are amazing! –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
I would be interested to see about how Dr. Frederick came to some of his conclusions in this piece. As we have learned in class, in was much more lady-like for a woman to be less interested in sex at the time, so if Dr. Frederick came to these conclusions by talking to female patients, it could be the result of many of them trying to create an more wholesome image of themselves. This of course would only reinforce the old idea that women did not enjoy sex as much. -John Rowley<br />
<br />
<br />
I love your comparison, Erin! It seems that Dr. Frederick believes that women that have any sexual interests beyond procreating must be sexually perverted. Developing and exploring such interests will only lead to an indifference towards men and the desire to molest children with other women. I feel Frederick was trying to reinforce the idea of a "proper" lady that wasn't particularly interested in sex, as John mentioned, by making sexuality seem horrible. And yet, Dr. Frederick's claims are lacking any kind of clear evidence. I wonder if more readers believed or didn't believe what this man wrote. I laughed at the last line, "the numbers and variations of practices are so various that it would take pages to mention them" (p. 4). This is probably an exaggeration, yet I could see Dr. Frederick coming up with pages of exaggerated claims just to prove his point. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
If there was one article I read out loud incredulously as I forced my roommate to listen, it was this one. Fredericks gets the Women's History prize for Official Idiot, and I hope he was recognized as such during his time, although I doubt it. His accusations are not only wildly speculative and libelous, but also unfounded and unsupported by neutral documentation. Even if you took out the ridiculous subject material, his disturbing lack of evidence and wild examples would make for an extremely weak argument. --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
I wonder if I am finding this thread to be a bit ridiculous because I am a male or if there is just a little hint of a bias in peoples' interpretations of this primary source. First, unless I am mistaken and if I am, then someone please correct me, but I had thought that masturbation by anyone, males or females, was considered a perversion of sorts during this time period. Second, did Mosher find anything contrary to what Frederick did? I don't remember reading any of Mosher's own interpretations of the interview results, the reading is just the interview questions and answers--none of Mosher's own analysis there, unless I forgot something. Differences between results? Where was Frederick based out of? Were Californians more liberal back then as they are now? Even if they weren't, geographical considerations have to be taken into account before a comparison can be made. Why is Frederick's study less convincing? Does it not represent the popular AND professional understanding of femininity and sexuality at the time? And before we dismiss his claim that the numbers and variations of practices were too various to include and such, this was published in a journal, and therefore couldn't include whatever raw data he might or might not have collected. Again, why was Frederick an idiot--for publishing something that was in line with the prevalent medical opinion concerning this issue? Same argument for the other complaints about Frederick. I'm not defending Frederick as a person, I am only arguing for trying to retain some semblance of objectivity when reading primary documents and trying to put them in the context of their time period rather than impose our own conceptions onto history. -schang<br />
<br />
It seems to me that the people finding Frederick’s report ridiculous do recognize that it would have been in line with traditional medical assumptions of the day. You’re right that the survey has none of Mosher’s own analysis, but I think the answers (at least the ones we were able to read and that’s key for anything we say regarding it) speak for themselves. All of the women found sex agreeable, except for one woman who found it agreeable “usually.” All of them said there were times when they desired sex, and some of them said the ideal would be to have sex when both the husband and wife wanted it. The idea of a woman actually ''wanting'' sex, and not being a nympho, is the complete opposite of Frederick’s report. So, to answer your question, yes, the survey contradicts Frederick, and that’s putting it lightly. Reading the Mosher survey right before Frederick’s report really highlights his lack of evidence for his claims, and maybe that’s why people were reacting so harshly towards him in their comments. Wanting scientific evidence isn’t even out of line with the time period either. Frankly, for all of your talk about looking at primary sources within their context, I think you’re ignoring the Mosher survey within its context. To me, the survey (in the parts we read) suggests that perhaps Frederick’s assumptions about women and their sexual desire, or lack thereof, weren’t as prevalent in actual society as believed. Perhaps public assumptions about sex didn’t completely match up with personal assumptions about sex, if that makes any sense. Unfortunately, we don’t have many surveys like Mosher’s. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
== Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV ==<br />
<br />
Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV seems to be a call for women to keep fighting and to try to position themselves on the inside of politics as opposed to from the outside. She states that it has been a battle for 60 years to get the right to vote, and argues that it isnt the time to stop. She says on page 121, “Are we going to petition them [the political parties] as we have always done? Well, if so, what was the use of getting the vote?” and, “the only way to get things in this country is to find them on the inside of the political party.”<br />
I think Catt is pretty level headed, though she may be underestimating the difficulty women will have getting into positions of power. She seems to understand that just because women gained the right to vote does not mean that the country’s biases dissolved overnight. She believes that it will be a slow change, but women must work from the inside to make that change happen. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I disagree with the implication of Catt's undersestimation of the difficuluty of women to get into postiions of power; I think she knew full and well that the fight for Women was nowhere near over (it's still being fought today even). For example, on page 122 she states "Women must persuade men to respect and have conidence in the capacities of women just as we have been doing for 60 odd years; and on the other hand, they must stimulate other women to forward movement and encourage them to increased self respect. This is the same old struggle, but in a new field. Because women have the vote, it doesn't follow that every man... has suddenly become convinced that women can do things as well as men". I think she fully understood that men were, and always had been, afraid of powerful women and that the right to vote for women may have been an attempt to a means of appeasement for the women so that they would shut up and retain their place in society happy that they had the meaningless vote. -Ssellers.<br />
<br />
I agree with this statement. I also believe that Catt knew what was in front of her as well as why women were given the right to vote in the first place. She mentioned that it was a tactical reason that persuaded men to give women the vote (121) and that many would need to be convinced that women were capable of performing the same tasks as men (122). The way she choses her words makes it seem that she knew that men were only consenting to allow the suffrage amendment to pass so that women would quiet down, which is why she pushes women to want to get involved in politics in order to bring about more change. –jmarshal <br />
<br />
I agree with SSellers here. I think Catt (at least in reference to this speech) seems like she was full aware of the hardships involved for the new generation of women. "You won't be so welcome there, but that is the place to be," (page 122), she says in regards to women being on the inside. I do like that she called to the younger women to come forth to wage this battle, seeing as how she was a leader in the suffrage movement and 60 years old at this point. She probably felt she had done her part in the fighting for the right to vote, and now it was the next generations turn to put that vote to good use. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
I agree with the previous comments and I also think its important to note that Catt is proud of their accomplishments, but also makes it clear that not much has really changed. On page 122 she says "this is the same old struggle but in a new field." She new that just because women had the right to vote didn't mean that things were going to necessarily change. She knew that men could make it very hard for women to have political power unless they were persuaded that women could handle it. Essentially, Catt is saying that the right to vote is really just a chance for women to prove that they can handle the same responsibility as men and that she hopes all of those women who fought so hard to vote are still up to the challenge because its not even close to being over. -Angie<br />
<br />
I think that Catt was fully aware of the struggles facing future generations in the fight for equal rights. The passage of the 19th Amendment, according to Catt’s reasoning, was just the first step in a long process. Further, she thought that to succeed women would have to approach change from the inside and the right to vote was just a foot in the door, so to speak. EFritz<br />
<br />
I concur (big word) with EFritz with the acknowledgement that Catt was fully aware of the impending struggles of women. She recognizes the difficulties women will now face as voters. Though they have the right to vote, it does not inherently mean that everything else they desired, namely equality with men, will be achieved. Though suffrage was obtained it does not bring about total reconstruction in societal norms, which have been in place for centuries. --MDvorak<br />
<br />
I believe that at the bottom of this article there is a very simple goal for Carrie Chapman Catt, to get recognition from the world of the actual substantiality of women. Since that is a rather large, ambiguous, and (considering it still has not been a completed goal)impossible goal she had to first start aiming that goal toward the women she expected to lead the fight to accomplish it. Although it almost seems as though Catt is talking to women she had already convinced to join her in the fight towards suffrage, I personally believe she is attempting to persuade women who may not understand that they are being oppressed by the lack of societal recognition for their greatness. She is trying to inform them that they were born great women and should fight to be recognized for that, even if that fight means going against the crowd that would rather the women would just shut up and deal with their place in life. I think the people who she wasn't trying to persuade with this message would take it the same way that people in today's society react when they're reminded with the continued inequality of Women in places like the workforce; They'd either not care, not understand why anyone would bother to care, care a lot, or justify the reasoning for the inequalities on arbitrary facts (like women being capable of getting pregnant meaning that they will use that capability to miss out on working and lose the company money, which is why they aren't paid as much). On the other side, people hearing this argument from the other side might find an invigoration for the cause so great that they dedicate their life to changing and fighting for the rights of women. Men might read this article and realize that they have no justification within society for the woman to still be dealing with the same fight she'd been dealing with throughout the entirety of the existence of the United States. That reaction, however, I feel is entirely unlikely and considering the lack of women's equality still existing today to a great extent, it probably was unlikely. Carrie Chapman Catt, however, probably felt that she had to write this article because she had to express to her followers, potential followers and dissenters that she wasn't done fighting just because women finally got the right to vote. To her, that was just the first step. -Ssellers.<br />
<br />
== Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment ==<br />
<br />
I can understand both perspectives in this debate, but can only beleive the perspective of the women who were in favor of an equal rights amendment. Women just obtained the right to vote but, are not complete as a gender, until they are viewed as equal to men in society. To me, the right to vote cannot truly come into effect until women are viewed equally as men. Men still do not take their political views very seriously and simply giving women the right to vote will not change this opinion. Hamilton says that the goal for all feminists is the same, and based on what we have learned so far, this is obviously not true. She is referring to traditional feminism, which has its roots with white middle class women. She claims an equal rights amendment will make things more complicated, but in my opinion, things will be much easier and obviously women would be able to accomplish more.-afrisk<br />
<br />
When reading each side of the Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment I tried to choose which side I found more convincing. I found that I took the side of the Doris Stevens of the National Women’s Party. The argument is quite simple, women and men don’t live under equal protection of the law, and the laws that exist still reflect old English Common Law. The Equal Rights Amendment would remove all legal discriminations against women on account of sex (Stevens goes on to list all the rights/protections women would gain). What I liked about Stevens argument is that she states that women should have the right to do what they want. Just because they have equal rights to inheritance does not mean that they can’t give it to their brother, or son, or whoever. Women don’t have to hold positions of power if they don’t want to. They should just have the ability to do so if they so choose. <br />
Alice Hamilton, on the other hand, seems to have tunnel vision. She is solely focused on working women. I agree that women should be protected, but she does not seem to understand the reasons why working women fail to unionize, nor does she look at the negative impacts of protective legislation on working women. She does not seem to focus on any of the other things women would gain out of the Equal Rights Amendment. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think that Alice Hamilton emphasizes protective legislation because she comes into the picture with the idea that women are naturally different than men though this does not take away from their abilities to perform work. She talked about how men have already achieved strong labor unions and women have not yet achieved theirs and need the chance to grow. She had already separated the male and female arenas. The expectations of society for a woman to fulfill those “ideal” roles (even though not realistic for the working class) makes it hard for women who have families that are working long hours with low wages. What time is left for children, husband, and home? It was interesting that the National Women’s Party wants to get rid of this legislation. I think that Doris Stevens makes a good point when she emphasizes choice. Women have worked hard and organized as “self-governing units of society” and by getting rid of protective legislation it omit’s that difference. It will govern laws that allow men and women to be able to make the choice based on decisiveness and preference as an entity not by gender. They both have their strong points but with different perspectives. -MHimes<br />
<br />
<br />
I am actually quite surprised that Alice Hamilton and so many others are against the Equal Rights Amendment considering how much they could potentially gain from it. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I do see both sides. While some women are all WOOHOO WE CAN VOTE WE'RE EQUAL!! Others didn't quite that stance. It's important to remember that many women approved of women's suffrage soley on the basis they wanted to fix things within the domestic realm, i.e. they wanted women to still be outside the public arena because men and women were NOT equal. Those were the women pushing for protective legislation, they believed women still needed protection under the law. However, I think those women pushing for the equal rights amendment had the right idea. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that Alice Paul stated that “the goal of all feminists is the same” (125), and I assume she meant only white, middle class women when she said “all”, because as we have read, not all women had necessarily the same goals when pushing for suffrage. There were different motivations behind each demographics’s desire for women suffrage; not only where the motivations different, but the means of communicating these desires were also vastly different. She then introduces the idea of following in Holland’s footsteps for equality among the sexes, and I would like to know where she got that information? Had she traveled to Holland and seen it first hand? It’s not central to the article, however it would be more compelling if she had seen this practice in action and was not repeating something that was not verified. ---jmarshal<br />
<br />
Of the two arguments that Alice Hamilton and Doris Stevens gave I found Steven’s debate to be more influential than Hamilton’s. Steven’s was very straight forward about what she wanted, especially in listing what the Equal Rights Amendment would achieve for women. The list itself is eye-catching because it isn’t part of a paragraph, a radical move by a radical woman I suppose. I think that Doris is the epitome of what younger women didn’t not want to be like, as Bromley suggest in her article. -Morgan<br />
<br />
== Joanne Meyerowitz, "Sexual Geography & Gender Economy" in Unequal Sisters ==<br />
<br />
This essay discusses the growing sexual and emotional freedom that women were obtaining in the eartly 20th century. They were able to choose how they wanted to carry themselves sexually in society. However, to me, this essay was also a great paradox. Although these women expressed themselves more feely than in the past, they were also severley tied down to men still. Even in these so-called "furnished-room" districts, there was still sexual oppression and these women were subject to rape, poor conditions and economic dependence. Although they could conceibably choose their different sex partners, they were also very dependent on these men for their business. They need to break away from these districts in order to be truly sexually liberated. Many downplayed these factors, but in order for women to liberated, these constraints must be lifted.-afrisk<br />
<br />
I thought the essay by Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters about the furnished-room districts was very interesting. In particular, the different types of relationships women had including "dating," "pickups," "occasional prostitution", and "temporary alliances" stood out to me. I didn't know they actually labeled these kind of relationships, dating and sexual activities so specifically. Meyerowitz also explains on page 331 that there were mixed opinions of whether these kinds of practices or "non marital sexual expression" was acceptable. I think the idea of sex outside of marriage is still something people are in debate about today. So, many years later these opinions haven't really changed. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I think the notion that "employers paid self-supporting women wages intended for dependent daughters and wives" (pg. 329) is tremendously important in looking at the furnished-room districts. Those who were concerned about the morality of the women living in these districts seemed to largely overlook the fact that many of the women engaging in the relationships deemed scandalous were doing so at least in part out of economic necessity. Maybe they believed paying women a living wage would encourage more women to leave the home in favor of wage work and so further contribute to America's loss of morality, but in reality if women who could have afforded to support themselves things like "occasional prostitution" probably would not have become so rampant among women living on their own. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with Amy I found this whole essay interesting and the way Joanne Meyerowitz describes feminine culture back from the 1830s to the 1960s shows a dramatic shift in the roles women played. I liked how she described the role film played in the changing role of women and how Hollywood banked on the notion, sex sells. On page 334 she discusses the film, ''The ''Model:'' Or, Women and Wine'' and in it Marcelle admits she is a "gold digger" which I compare to Kayne West's song about a woman who is a gold digger. Showing Meyerowitz's theory that "the sexual behavior of women in turn-of-the-century furnished-room districts is not an isolated episode in women's history."(335). -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Reading "Sexual Geography and Gender Economy," I was struck by the part of the essay that discussed "going steady" as a supplemental wage. Mary Ann has already discussed occasional prostitution, but I wonder fact if vice investigators were more lenient and accepting of these women than the typical prostitute because they were also involved in "honest" work? I was also intrigued by the fact that the women were so candid about the fact that they were using their feminine wiles to go on these dates, to go to these places because they could not afford to. It seems like it was another job, albeit a more enjoyable, recreational one. -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
I loved this articles insinuation that dating was a supplement to poor wages because dates would pay for women to live the life of the rich and famous without actually having to be rich or famous. Basically, the man is at fault for what males complain about today (in paying for things out on dates, or drinks at a bar, or anything they have to spend money on) because he couldn't just pay the women a living wage so she went and used the weakness of the male sex to her new found sexuality to her advantage. -ssellers<br />
<br />
This sexual revolution was definitely a big change for women. I think Joanne Meyerowitz's article does a good job of explaining how the migration to cities created this new type of women. Because women were in these cities working, it created a new atmosphere, one Meyerowitz describes as, "opening possibilities for both sexual experimentation and sexual coercion" (US, 335). This "freedom of urban life" gave women the opportunity to use their bodies for both economic and personal gains. -- David Fitch<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading Joanne Meyerowitz’s article, especially about the differences in the ways that women used sex as a way of getting ahead. I had never thought of dating as a literal exchange of goods (paid dates for sex), and looking back on it, it very well could be taken that way, and I am surprised I had not heard of or read that view before now. Then the other methods (“picking up”, “occasional prostitution”, and “temporary alliance”) were of varying degrees of this idea. This article really makes it sound almost like a legitimate way to make a living. Perhaps it is because it presents with the idea that women were in control of their relations with these men, not sent out to do someone else’s bidding (introduce pimps and it is a totally different story). –jmarshal<br />
<br />
Today the women described in this article would be a combination of a prostitute and a “sugar-baby” to a “sugar-daddy”. Like others I found “dating,” “pick-ups,” “occasional prostitution,” and “temporary alliances” (329) as odd names to give to these casual sexual encounters, as if they were nothing at all. I doubt that these women thought anything of it and let it become a way of life though. Instead of going out and finding better jobs or more work, they fell back onto the notion of being a woman could get them what they wanted without the work. “If I did not have a man, I could not get along on my wages.” (330) -Morgan<br />
<br />
What's behind the three different versions of the sexual revolution? Flappers vs independent new women vs working-class rowdy girls. Is there one single interpretation that can explain the revolution or do all three have some merit? Also interesting, it seems as though some people now see prostitution as a good thing, if not a means to get by economically. I recall that most people were shocked and upset when reading about the Chinese prostitutes during the late nineteenth century...so what changed that makes people more comfortable with this idea? The seeming lack of organization insofar as the kind of bookkeeping that we saw with the bills of sales of Chinese prostitutes? Does the lack of that kind of documentation naturally imply that women were no longer coerced into prostitution, even if it was to just get by once in a while? Or were there pimps, perhaps some of the men living with them in these furnished districts that acted in such a capacity but without drawing up bills or contracts since prostitution was illegal now? And if this wasn't the case, which I suspect might have been in at least some shape or form, perhaps societal pressures from their peers coerced them into prostitution, since apparently if a good looking girl didn't sell herself she was considered a fool. What's worse? That kind of social coercion or the kind of legal coercion that we saw in California? -schang<br />
<br />
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley, "Generational Conflicts"==<br />
<br />
I imagine that the generation of women who fought for decades to get women the right to vote were crushed to discover that younger women quite casually dismissed many of the ideals they had fought for and even the label they had worn. I understand why the younger women of the 1920s may have felt that they had the world at their feet because they had more opportunities for independence than their mothers had had, but they must have still realized equality was not yet reality. Instead they had convinced themselves that because so many things were different they were inherently better. And it's interesting to note that the backlash against the word feminist started so long ago. The author's description of feminists as masculine, angry, and anti-men would easily fit with what many associate with the term feminist today. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I think that Bromley issues a lot of interesting points in this piece that seem to beg the question, what is the point of this feminist- new style? The part that interested me the most was the seventh tenet. This discussion on the "Keep your maiden name" slogan points to how ridiculous Bromley viewed some of the common feminist arguments of the 1920's. I think her piece is important because of the point Mary Ann stated with her description on women that could/and possibly did influence a lot anti-feminist thinkers today. My question is, these feminist- new style have a profound affect on the women's movement in the 1920's and did they handicap some of the progress made post 19th amendment? -abratchi<br />
<br />
Feminism.. "For the word suggests either the old school of fighting feminists who wore flat heels amd had very little feminine charm, or the current species who antagonize men with their constant clamor about maiden names, equal rights, woman's place in the world..." I enjoyed this line... that's how I viewed feminists coming into this class last semester! - christine l<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Mary Ann. I found it interesting how "Feminist-New Style" felt superior to the older women who had enabled them to lead the comfortable, sociable lifestyles they pursued. They felt no gratitude towards these former suffragettes, only contempt. Is this because they felt stronger than them because of their youth, felt more independent because of their economic independence, or just simply thought they were entitled to all of the rights they had? The answer baffles me. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
In response to Anna's question, I think it might have a been a combination of the three. Even today, it is obvious in some cases where youths are ungrateful for what they have been given or the privileges they have been born with. For instance, many Americans view the opportunity to vote as a right, not the privilege it is. The same can be said for the women of this particular era. Simultaneously, the economic independence that these women were able to benefit from would give them almost a false sense of self. They would not appreciate the labors their mothers had to endure. --MDvorak<br />
<br />
I absolutely loved this article because I think it actually represents alot of the ideals that modern women have today. I think it was really progressive for Bromley to talk about women being able to have both a career AND a family, giving equal attention to both. That is the sort of equality that women have been fighting for, the right to be happy. Bromley is saying that women the new woman, if she balances everything correctly, can be very happy. She has the ability to be a professional and still has the ability to be a mom. She doesn't need to constantly argue that she is as good as a man because she can just simply prove it in her actions. I think its really cool how she sort of brings all the different opinions of what women should be doing together and forms a type of super woman. -- Angie<br />
<br />
My favorite part of this article, other than the ambition of younger women to have a family and a career (as Angie points out) was the reference to war materials. “With a battle-cry still on their lips…still throwing hand grenades,” (128). This article was written in 1927 and “The Great War” had only ended ten years earlier. I believe that tensions in the Us may have still been raw and that may be the reason for such a reference. Bromley effectively suggests that the 1st and 2nd generation women as battle-hardened veterans. As veterans I would expect them to cold and judgmental toward those that they had fought against, men. -Morgan<br />
<br />
While I thought some of the points made by the New Style Feminists were good, I can't help but feel that their mothers and even grandmothers would be sad to see the flippant way they discussed their struggles and triumphs. They seem to have forgotten that these women fought hard so that they their daughters would not have to. While their argument about creating your own identity instead of fighting to keep your maiden name was valid these new style feminists seemed to have overlooked what was at the core of the feminist movement. It was interesting to see how this article shows the differences between generations. Although the New Style idea of the stereotype of feminism has a cause for angry and embittered women has definitely persevered.--Emma<br />
<br />
==Anxious Mothers Write the Children's Bureau==<br />
<br />
I found the third letter written by Mrs. A.E.,Minnesota (August 10, 1923) was the most influential in discussing issues of medicine and women's health. While all three letters are relevant to prenatal and child care and I believe writing them was an excellent way for women to share concerns, the third letter hit home to me. It made me wonder if her trouble with delivery was the start of malpractice in child birth. Along with that did doctors still think it was okay to treat women as subserviant, so if they had a rough delivery ooops...guess that is tough luck for you all (referencing the Bible, Adam and Eve). I also think it was wise to let other women know that doctors such as Dr. B should not be trusted with delivery and on the flip side her doctor in Saint Paul could benefit from these publications. Did these women influence how prenatal care is treated today? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I agree that the third letter was the most influential in this three letter piece, but it was the second letter; however that really captured my attention. This letter showed me just how little women knew about being pregnant and some of the concerns they had. It revealed the lack of knowledge on food cravings that women know today as a normal thing when dealing with pregnancy. Overall, I think all these letters showed women's desperation when it came to womanhood and the changing societal pressures facing women of that time (to have children and take on the sole responsibility for both the home and family). They revealed how women were craving more information about their bodies, more specifically, how to manage pregnancy in an age where doctors were inaccessible and/or were engaging in malpractice. -abratchi<br />
<br />
The anxious mothers were certainly anxious, but who could blame them with a high “maternal and infant” (130) mortality rate. Like the others who have posted I was quite intrigued by both mother number 2 and number 3. The second mother had, what seemed to me, laughable concerns. I have to remember that women were generally clueless about prenatal care at this point, so I could understand that if you crave something so intensely denying yourself would seem detrimental to the baby, but I was unclear as to why touching your face had anything to do with this. The third mother expressed the most valid concerns of the three. The shear idea of justice in a medical malpractice suit must have seemed so far-fetched at the time, considering that medical malpractices suits are hard to prove today! As the third mother recounted, many of the doctors who claimed to be experts, did not provide adequate care to these mothers in both the pre and post natal area. The third mothers call for government regulation of hospital practices must have been quite revolutionary at the time, given the fact that many professionals such as doctors were trusted almost blindly. –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
I thought the first letter was interesting because Mrs. W. M. wants pamphlets from the Childrens Bureau for her new pregnancy despite already having three boys. I was curious as to why such a woman would be interested in this information since she has already experienced pregnancy, birth and raising children. Her eagerness for new information makes it clear that despite any preexisting knowledge, there were women that were curious and very interested in the Bureau's pamphlets. Beforehand, pregnancy had either been a private topic or restricted to local women. This is evident in the second letter, where Mrs. A. E. is clearly experiencing cravings, but has no idea what is going on. Since she wants the Bureau to read and respond to her letter confidentially, I would assume she had not discussed her cravings with other women. Despite a majority of women experiencing pregnancy, I think that the letters show just how few women went around talking about and sharing their experiences like pregnant women do today. Thus, I believe that some women saw the Bureau as a place to publicly discuss and share their issues, such as the malpractice that the woman in the third letter experiences. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I thought that the first letter was interesting, although I understood how the woman would feel some sense of relief in having written information on hand during pregnancy and after. I had four kids in five years and I still referred to my “What to Expect When You’re Expecting” book with each one. I wasn’t aware that the federal government had provided this material to women back then; I think it was a fantastic program. It was also enlightening to read the second letter in which the woman was concerned that she was 'marking' the baby by her cravings. I wonder if this stems from the fact that birthmarks were often referred to as strawberry marks and that this is what the neighbor was referring to. In both of these letters, these women were seeking information about pregnancy and childbirth at a time when being seen by a physician was not a common occurrance and most of their knowledge was instead from other women in their social groups. EFritz<br />
<br />
I found this article shocking, even mildly sad. The desperation of these women to obtain information about their bodies and pregnancy is a stark contrast to today, when all you have to do is log onto the internet to answer any and every question. What is even worse is that I'm sure the postal system did not operate very quickly back then, leaving the women waiting weeks for an answer from the Children's Bureau. However, I liked that the government finally took an interest in women's concerns and created this branch. It clearly was of service to many women of very diverse backgrounds.--Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I thought this article was really interesting and it was nice to see that the government was giving attention to an area that was obviously in need of federal aid or even just attention. I think sometimes we take for granted how the improvements in modern medicine and healthcare overall have made childbirth significantly safer for women. I was sad to see that the program ended in 1929. Judging by these letters the Bureau was important and helpful to a lot of women. --Emma<br />
<br />
== Excerpt from "Passing" by Nella Larsen ==<br />
<br />
I remember reading this scene from "Passing" back when my high school class covered the novel, and I was very intrigued by the notion of passing and the possible reasons for it. The story Clare gives for her own experience in passing in this section seems to be one of convenience and opportunity (raised by white aunts that did not advertise her background), deception (she manipulates her husband to run away with her before her aunts could reveal she was black), and a lot of yearning (she seems to resent her aunt's treatment of her and other white people, which makes her passing as a white person ironic). --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
I agree with Sarah about how intriguing this passage was. After reading this excerpt, I think that Nella Larsen's topic was something that had crossed the minds of many African Americans at the time. The idea of "passing" into another life, just to experience the other side, was something that I'm sure, African American men and women all had imagined at some point. It was sad though, how Clare had to hide her race, at the request of her aunts. It was interesting to me that although she lived with her aunts, she was still expected to "doing all the housework, and most of the washing." (P. 140) In the story, Clare even says that she had "Negro blood" and apparently that is why she did all the housework, and it was almost expected of her because of her race. The Harlem Renaissance gave Nella Larsen a way to voice this imaginative idea, to maybe give the rest of the world the idea that African Americans merely wanted to be like everyone else, and she portrayed this by showing how important "passing" was for Clare. -- Alex M.</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_8_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 8 Questions/Comments2010-03-11T00:28:31Z<p>Ssellers: /* Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''MAKE SURE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS UNDER THE RELEVANT AUTHOR/TITLE HEADING (OR TO CREATE A NEW HEADING IF THERE ISN'T ONE YET)'''<br />
<br />
<br />
==Peiss, The Cosmetics Industry==<br />
<br />
I’ll admit that I never gave cosmetics much thought or even believed that they deserved thought, for that matter. This article is just another reminder of how even seemingly insignificant objects have a lot of historical value because they reflect broader social patterns. Even makeup. In the case of the article, cosmetics reflect the rise of consumer culture and marketing, as well as class and race connotations. These connotations continue to exist today. I’m sure we’ve all looked at a woman wearing a generous amount of makeup and immediately had less than charitable thoughts about her sexual practices and/or economic position. “Slut” and “trailer park trash” may be words that come to mind. And I’m sure we’ve all seen advertisements about ways to use makeup to look more “exotic,” which is just a politically correct way of saying “ethnic.” I think perhaps nowadays “exotic” is often more about being less offensive. In the past, when people were more overtly racist, maybe labeling things “exotic” was a way to recognize some kind of racial envy and provide a means to achieve what was envied without admitting to it. But that’s kind of a psychological can of worms. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I like the essay "Making Faces" by Kath Peiss. Comparing today's perceptions of cosmetics and beauty to that of the early 20th Century is very interesting. Most women today wear makeup and instead of refraining from using it to appear respectable it is more the norm to use it. Makeup has also been made available to women of almost any class thanks to stores such as Walmart and even dollar stores. The use of makeup is also not associated with prostitutes anymore because most women wear it. It is always interesting to see how beliefs and opinions change over time, compared to non marital sex which can still be debatable, most people agree that wearing makeup today is acceptable. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
It seems rather ironic that cosmetics, long associated with prostitution, would make their move to the mainstream at a time when society appeared so concerned about the moral well-being of women. At the same time though, this was the first era in which women could really claim income of their own; they represented a new market that cosmetics industries and the beauty culture took advantage of, marketing their products as necessities for women. And in a society that feared women may be loosing their femininity to traditionally male pursuits like wage work, voting, and casual relationships, make up became a way of showing that women were still neat and soft and fair, that they were still essentially women, despite the fact that they may have moved beyond the traditional domestic sphere. -Mary Ann <br />
<br />
==Mosher Survey, 1892-1913==<br />
<br />
The Mosher survey was very fascinating. I found it interesting that one of the interviewees in her twenties in the 1890s seemed to have a more conservative view on sexual practices than the woman in her fifties in the 1890s. Number 1 felt there was danger in too much sex for a woman and that it was necessary to men but not women. Number 35 felt that both husbands and wives needed sex and that people became too nervous and twitchy without it. The survey didn’t note where the women were raised or various other features (though I assume they were middle-class at least if they were regular patients), which I think would have been a big influence on their answers. The survey also provided an interesting contrast to Dr. Frederick’s assumptions about women. Had he actually bothered to interview women about their feelings towards sex, which I’m sure he wouldn’t have dared do for sake of propriety, he would have discovered that women also had an interest in sex and could find it just as satisfying as men. Of course, he probably would have tried to explain it away. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
It was interesting that the study done on sexual habits of women was able to obtain opinions from women during that time. It seemed that sex was just not talked about. But after reading the excerpts from the online reading, it was visible in my mind that women were searching for answers to the inter workings of their marriages and needed help. That need to talk came out of the desperation they felt towards preventing their own marriages from falling apart and maintaining their own health and control over their own body. -MHimes<br />
<br />
== Manifestations of Nymphomania, 1907 ==<br />
<br />
I loved his assessment that, were women as sexually interested as men, the world would be "one vast brothel." The history of the sexual repression of women is long, and these beliefs, or ones like them, persist for long after this was written. It's amazing to consider that so many people still feel similarly towards homosexuality. Dr. Frederick likens lesbianism to some weird practice of child molestation, not unlike ways in which those opposed to same sex marriage offer the 'slippery slope' argument that allowing gay marriage will lead to marriages between adults and children, or adults and animals. -Erin B.<br />
<br />
== Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV ==<br />
<br />
Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV seems to be a call for women to keep fighting and to try to position themselves on the inside of politics as opposed to from the outside. She states that it has been a battle for 60 years to get the right to vote, and argues that it isnt the time to stop. She says on page 121, “Are we going to petition them [the political parties] as we have always done? Well, if so, what was the use of getting the vote?” and, “the only way to get things in this country is to find them on the inside of the political party.”<br />
I think Catt is pretty level headed, though she may be underestimating the difficulty women will have getting into positions of power. She seems to understand that just because women gained the right to vote does not mean that the country’s biases dissolved overnight. She believes that it will be a slow change, but women must work from the inside to make that change happen. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I disagree with the implication of Catt's undersestimation of the difficuluty of women to get into postiions of power; I think she knew full and well that the fight for Women was nowhere near over (it's still being fought today even). For example, on page 122 she states "Women must persuade men to respect and have conidence in the capacities of women just as we have been doing for 60 odd years; and on the other hand, they must stimulate other women to forward movement and encourage them to increased self respect. This is the same old struggle, but in a new field. Because women have the vote, it doesn't follow that every man... has suddenly become convinced that women can do things as well as men". I think she fully understood that men were, and always had been, afraid of powerful women and that the right to vote for women may have been an attempt to a means of appeasement for the women so that they would shut up and retain their place in society happy that they had the meaningless vote. -Ssellers.<br />
<br />
== Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment ==<br />
<br />
<br />
When reading each side of the Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment I tried to choose which side I found more convincing. I found that I took the side of the Doris Stevens of the National Women’s Party. The argument is quite simple, women and men don’t live under equal protection of the law, and the laws that exist still reflect old English Common Law. The Equal Rights Amendment would remove all legal discriminations against women on account of sex (Stevens goes on to list all the rights/protections women would gain). What I liked about Stevens argument is that she states that women should have the right to do what they want. Just because they have equal rights to inheritance does not mean that they can’t give it to their brother, or son, or whoever. Women don’t have to hold positions of power if they don’t want to. They should just have the ability to do so if they so choose. <br />
Alice Hamilton, on the other hand, seems to have tunnel vision. She is solely focused on working women. I agree that women should be protected, but she does not seem to understand the reasons why working women fail to unionize, nor does she look at the negative impacts of protective legislation on working women. She does not seem to focus on any of the other things women would gain out of the Equal Rights Amendment. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think that Alice Hamilton emphasizes protective legislation because she comes into the picture with the idea that women are naturally different than men though this does not take away from their abilities to perform work. She talked about how men have already achieved strong labor unions and women have not yet achieved theirs and need the chance to grow. She had already separated the male and female arenas. The expectations of society for a woman to fulfill those “ideal” roles (even though not realistic for the working class) makes it hard for women who have families that are working long hours with low wages. What time is left for children, husband, and home? It was interesting that the National Women’s Party wants to get rid of this legislation. I think that Doris Stevens makes a good point when she emphasizes choice. Women have worked hard and organized as “self-governing units of society” and by getting rid of protective legislation it omit’s that difference. It will govern laws that allow men and women to be able to make the choice based on decisiveness and preference as an entity not by gender. They both have their strong points but with different perspectives. -MHimes<br />
<br />
<br />
I am actually quite surprised that Alice Hamilton and so many others are against the Equal Rights Amendment considering how much they could potentially gain from it. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
== Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters ==<br />
<br />
I thought the essay by Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters about the furnished-room districts was very interesting. In particular, the different types of relationships women had including "dating," "pickups," "occasional prostitution", and "temporary alliances" stood out to me. I didn't know they actually labeled these kind of relationships, dating and sexual activities so specifically. Meyerowitz also explains on page 331 that there were mixed opinions of whether these kinds of practices or "non marital sexual expression" was acceptable. I think the idea of sex outside of marriage is still something people are in debate about today. So, many years later these opinions haven't really changed. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I think the notion that "employers paid self-supporting women wages intended for dependent daughters and wives" (pg. 329) is tremendously important in looking at the furnished-room districts. Those who were concerned about the morality of the women living in these districts seemed to largely overlook the fact that many of the women engaging in the relationships deemed scandalous were doing so at least in part out of economic necessity. Maybe they believed paying women a living wage would encourage more women to leave the home in favor of wage work and so further contribute to America's loss of morality, but in reality if women who could have afforded to support themselves things like "occasional prostitution" probably would not have become so rampant among women living on their own. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with Amy I found this whole essay interesting and the way Joanne Meyerowitz describes feminine culture back from the 1830s to the 1960s shows a dramatic shift in the roles women played. I liked how she described the role film played in the changing role of women and how Hollywood banked on the notion, sex sells. On page 334 she discusses the film, ''The ''Model:'' Or, Women and Wine'' and in it Marcelle admits she is a "gold digger" which I compare to Kayne West's song about a woman who is a gold digger. Showing Meyerowitz's theory that "the sexual behavior of women in turn-of-the-century furnished-room districts is not an isolated episode in women's history."(335). -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Reading "Sexual Geography and Gender Economy," I was struck by the part of the essay that discussed "going steady" as a supplemental wage. Mary Ann has already discussed occasional prostitution, but I wonder fact if vice investigators were more lenient and accepting of these women than the typical prostitute because they were also involved in "honest" work? I was also intrigued by the fact that the women were so candid about the fact that they were using their feminine wiles to go on these dates, to go to these places because they could not afford to. It seems like it was another job, albeit a more enjoyable, recreational one. -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
<br />
I loved this articles insinuation that dating was a supplement to poor wages because dates would pay for women to live the life of the rich and famous without actually having to be rich or famous. Basically, the man is at fault for what males complain about today (in paying for things out on dates, or drinks at a bar, or anything they have to spend money on) because he couldn't just pay the women a living wage so she went and used the weakness of the male sex to her new found sexuality to her advantage. -ssellers<br />
<br />
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley, "Generational Conflicts"==<br />
<br />
I imagine that the generation of women who fought for decades to get women the right to vote were crushed to discover that younger women quite casually dismissed many of the ideals they had fought for and even the label they had worn. I understand why the younger women of the 1920s may have felt that they had the world at their feet because they had more opportunities for independence than their mothers had had, but they must have still realized equality was not yet reality. Instead they had convinced themselves that because so many things were different they were inherently better. And it's interesting to note that the backlash against the word feminist started so long ago. The author's description of feminists as masculine, angry, and anti-men would easily fit with what many associate with the term feminist today. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that Bromley issues a lot of interesting points in this piece that seem to beg the question, what is the point of this feminist- new style? The part that interested me the most was the seventh tenet. This discussion on the "Keep your maiden name" slogan points to how ridiculous Bromley viewed some of the common feminist arguments of the 1920's. I think her piece is important because of the point Mary Ann stated with her description on women that could/and possibly did influence a lot anti-feminist thinkers today. My question is, these feminist- new style have a profound affect on the women's movement in the 1920's and did they handicap some of the progress made post 19th amendment? -abratchi<br />
<br />
==Anxious Mothers Write the Children's Bureau==<br />
<br />
I found the third letter written by Mrs. A.E.,Minnesota (August 10, 1923) was the most influential in discussing issues of medicine and women's health. While all three letters are relevant to prenatal and child care and I believe writing them was an excellent way for women to share concerns, the third letter hit home to me. It made me wonder if her trouble with delivery was the start of malpractice in child birth. Along with that did doctors still think it was okay to treat women as subserviant, so if they had a rough delivery ooops...guess that is tough luck for you all (referencing the Bible, Adam and Eve). I also think it was wise to let other women know that doctors such as Dr. B should not be trusted with delivery and on the flip side her doctor in Saint Paul could benefit from these publications. Did these women influence how prenatal care is treated today? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I agree that the third letter was the most influential in this three letter piece, but it was the second letter; however that really captured my attention. This letter showed me just how little women knew about being pregnant and some of the concerns they had. It revealed the lack of knowledge on food cravings that women know today as a normal thing when dealing with pregnancy. Overall, I think all these letters showed women's desperation when it came to womanhood and the changing societal pressures facing women of that time (to have children and take on the sole responsibility for both the home and family). They revealed how women were craving more information about their bodies, more specifically, how to manage pregnancy in an age where doctors were inaccessible and/or were engaging in malpractice. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I thought the first letter was interesting because Mrs. W. M. wants pamphlets from the Childrens Bureau for her new pregnancy despite already having three boys. I was curious as to why such a woman would be interested in this information since she has already experienced pregnancy, birth and raising children. Her eagerness for new information makes it clear that despite any preexisting knowledge, there were women that were curious and very interested in the Bureau's pamphlets. Beforehand, pregnancy had either been a private topic or restricted to local women. This is evident in the second letter, where Mrs. A. E. is clearly experiencing cravings, but has no idea what is going on. Since she wants the Bureau to read and respond to her letter confidentially, I would assume she had not discussed her cravings with other women. Despite a majority of women experiencing pregnancy, I think that the letters show just how few women went around talking about and sharing their experiences like pregnant women do today. Thus, I believe that some women saw the Bureau as a place to publicly discuss and share their issues, such as the malpractice that the woman in the third letter experiences. -- CBrau</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_8_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 8 Questions/Comments2010-03-11T00:20:46Z<p>Ssellers: /* Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''MAKE SURE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS UNDER THE RELEVANT AUTHOR/TITLE HEADING (OR TO CREATE A NEW HEADING IF THERE ISN'T ONE YET)'''<br />
<br />
<br />
==Peiss, The Cosmetics Industry==<br />
<br />
I’ll admit that I never gave cosmetics much thought or even believed that they deserved thought, for that matter. This article is just another reminder of how even seemingly insignificant objects have a lot of historical value because they reflect broader social patterns. Even makeup. In the case of the article, cosmetics reflect the rise of consumer culture and marketing, as well as class and race connotations. These connotations continue to exist today. I’m sure we’ve all looked at a woman wearing a generous amount of makeup and immediately had less than charitable thoughts about her sexual practices and/or economic position. “Slut” and “trailer park trash” may be words that come to mind. And I’m sure we’ve all seen advertisements about ways to use makeup to look more “exotic,” which is just a politically correct way of saying “ethnic.” I think perhaps nowadays “exotic” is often more about being less offensive. In the past, when people were more overtly racist, maybe labeling things “exotic” was a way to recognize some kind of racial envy and provide a means to achieve what was envied without admitting to it. But that’s kind of a psychological can of worms. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I like the essay "Making Faces" by Kath Peiss. Comparing today's perceptions of cosmetics and beauty to that of the early 20th Century is very interesting. Most women today wear makeup and instead of refraining from using it to appear respectable it is more the norm to use it. Makeup has also been made available to women of almost any class thanks to stores such as Walmart and even dollar stores. The use of makeup is also not associated with prostitutes anymore because most women wear it. It is always interesting to see how beliefs and opinions change over time, compared to non marital sex which can still be debatable, most people agree that wearing makeup today is acceptable. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
It seems rather ironic that cosmetics, long associated with prostitution, would make their move to the mainstream at a time when society appeared so concerned about the moral well-being of women. At the same time though, this was the first era in which women could really claim income of their own; they represented a new market that cosmetics industries and the beauty culture took advantage of, marketing their products as necessities for women. And in a society that feared women may be loosing their femininity to traditionally male pursuits like wage work, voting, and casual relationships, make up became a way of showing that women were still neat and soft and fair, that they were still essentially women, despite the fact that they may have moved beyond the traditional domestic sphere. -Mary Ann <br />
<br />
==Mosher Survey, 1892-1913==<br />
<br />
The Mosher survey was very fascinating. I found it interesting that one of the interviewees in her twenties in the 1890s seemed to have a more conservative view on sexual practices than the woman in her fifties in the 1890s. Number 1 felt there was danger in too much sex for a woman and that it was necessary to men but not women. Number 35 felt that both husbands and wives needed sex and that people became too nervous and twitchy without it. The survey didn’t note where the women were raised or various other features (though I assume they were middle-class at least if they were regular patients), which I think would have been a big influence on their answers. The survey also provided an interesting contrast to Dr. Frederick’s assumptions about women. Had he actually bothered to interview women about their feelings towards sex, which I’m sure he wouldn’t have dared do for sake of propriety, he would have discovered that women also had an interest in sex and could find it just as satisfying as men. Of course, he probably would have tried to explain it away. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
It was interesting that the study done on sexual habits of women was able to obtain opinions from women during that time. It seemed that sex was just not talked about. But after reading the excerpts from the online reading, it was visible in my mind that women were searching for answers to the inter workings of their marriages and needed help. That need to talk came out of the desperation they felt towards preventing their own marriages from falling apart and maintaining their own health and control over their own body. -MHimes<br />
<br />
== Manifestations of Nymphomania, 1907 ==<br />
<br />
I loved his assessment that, were women as sexually interested as men, the world would be "one vast brothel." The history of the sexual repression of women is long, and these beliefs, or ones like them, persist for long after this was written. It's amazing to consider that so many people still feel similarly towards homosexuality. Dr. Frederick likens lesbianism to some weird practice of child molestation, not unlike ways in which those opposed to same sex marriage offer the 'slippery slope' argument that allowing gay marriage will lead to marriages between adults and children, or adults and animals. -Erin B.<br />
<br />
== Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV ==<br />
<br />
Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV seems to be a call for women to keep fighting and to try to position themselves on the inside of politics as opposed to from the outside. She states that it has been a battle for 60 years to get the right to vote, and argues that it isnt the time to stop. She says on page 121, “Are we going to petition them [the political parties] as we have always done? Well, if so, what was the use of getting the vote?” and, “the only way to get things in this country is to find them on the inside of the political party.”<br />
I think Catt is pretty level headed, though she may be underestimating the difficulty women will have getting into positions of power. She seems to understand that just because women gained the right to vote does not mean that the country’s biases dissolved overnight. She believes that it will be a slow change, but women must work from the inside to make that change happen. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I disagree with the implication of Catt's undersestimation of the difficuluty of women to get into postiions of power; I think she knew full and well that the fight for Women was nowhere near over (it's still being fought today even). For example, on page 122 she states "Women must persuade men to respect and have conidence in the capacities of women just as we have been doing for 60 odd years; and on the other hand, they must stimulate other women to forward movement and encourage them to increased self respect. This is the same old struggle, but in a new field. Because women have the vote, it doesn't follow that every man... has suddenly become convinced that women can do things as well as men". I think she fully understood that men were, and always had been, afraid of powerful women and that the right to vote for women may have been an attempt to a means of appeasement for the women so that they would shut up and retain their place in society happy that they had the meaningless vote. -Ssellers.<br />
<br />
== Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment ==<br />
<br />
<br />
When reading each side of the Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment I tried to choose which side I found more convincing. I found that I took the side of the Doris Stevens of the National Women’s Party. The argument is quite simple, women and men don’t live under equal protection of the law, and the laws that exist still reflect old English Common Law. The Equal Rights Amendment would remove all legal discriminations against women on account of sex (Stevens goes on to list all the rights/protections women would gain). What I liked about Stevens argument is that she states that women should have the right to do what they want. Just because they have equal rights to inheritance does not mean that they can’t give it to their brother, or son, or whoever. Women don’t have to hold positions of power if they don’t want to. They should just have the ability to do so if they so choose. <br />
Alice Hamilton, on the other hand, seems to have tunnel vision. She is solely focused on working women. I agree that women should be protected, but she does not seem to understand the reasons why working women fail to unionize, nor does she look at the negative impacts of protective legislation on working women. She does not seem to focus on any of the other things women would gain out of the Equal Rights Amendment. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think that Alice Hamilton emphasizes protective legislation because she comes into the picture with the idea that women are naturally different than men though this does not take away from their abilities to perform work. She talked about how men have already achieved strong labor unions and women have not yet achieved theirs and need the chance to grow. She had already separated the male and female arenas. The expectations of society for a woman to fulfill those “ideal” roles (even though not realistic for the working class) makes it hard for women who have families that are working long hours with low wages. What time is left for children, husband, and home? It was interesting that the National Women’s Party wants to get rid of this legislation. I think that Doris Stevens makes a good point when she emphasizes choice. Women have worked hard and organized as “self-governing units of society” and by getting rid of protective legislation it omit’s that difference. It will govern laws that allow men and women to be able to make the choice based on decisiveness and preference as an entity not by gender. They both have their strong points but with different perspectives. -MHimes<br />
<br />
<br />
I am actually quite surprised that Alice Hamilton and so many others are against the Equal Rights Amendment considering how much they could potentially gain from it. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
== Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters ==<br />
<br />
I thought the essay by Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters about the furnished-room districts was very interesting. In particular, the different types of relationships women had including "dating," "pickups," "occasional prostitution", and "temporary alliances" stood out to me. I didn't know they actually labeled these kind of relationships, dating and sexual activities so specifically. Meyerowitz also explains on page 331 that there were mixed opinions of whether these kinds of practices or "non marital sexual expression" was acceptable. I think the idea of sex outside of marriage is still something people are in debate about today. So, many years later these opinions haven't really changed. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I think the notion that "employers paid self-supporting women wages intended for dependent daughters and wives" (pg. 329) is tremendously important in looking at the furnished-room districts. Those who were concerned about the morality of the women living in these districts seemed to largely overlook the fact that many of the women engaging in the relationships deemed scandalous were doing so at least in part out of economic necessity. Maybe they believed paying women a living wage would encourage more women to leave the home in favor of wage work and so further contribute to America's loss of morality, but in reality if women who could have afforded to support themselves things like "occasional prostitution" probably would not have become so rampant among women living on their own. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with Amy I found this whole essay interesting and the way Joanne Meyerowitz describes feminine culture back from the 1830s to the 1960s shows a dramatic shift in the roles women played. I liked how she described the role film played in the changing role of women and how Hollywood banked on the notion, sex sells. On page 334 she discusses the film, ''The ''Model:'' Or, Women and Wine'' and in it Marcelle admits she is a "gold digger" which I compare to Kayne West's song about a woman who is a gold digger. Showing Meyerowitz's theory that "the sexual behavior of women in turn-of-the-century furnished-room districts is not an isolated episode in women's history."(335). -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Reading "Sexual Geography and Gender Economy," I was struck by the part of the essay that discussed "going steady" as a supplemental wage. Mary Ann has already discussed occasional prostitution, but I wonder fact if vice investigators were more lenient and accepting of these women than the typical prostitute because they were also involved in "honest" work? I was also intrigued by the fact that the women were so candid about the fact that they were using their feminine wiles to go on these dates, to go to these places because they could not afford to. It seems like it was another job, albeit a more enjoyable, recreational one. -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley, "Generational Conflicts"==<br />
<br />
I imagine that the generation of women who fought for decades to get women the right to vote were crushed to discover that younger women quite casually dismissed many of the ideals they had fought for and even the label they had worn. I understand why the younger women of the 1920s may have felt that they had the world at their feet because they had more opportunities for independence than their mothers had had, but they must have still realized equality was not yet reality. Instead they had convinced themselves that because so many things were different they were inherently better. And it's interesting to note that the backlash against the word feminist started so long ago. The author's description of feminists as masculine, angry, and anti-men would easily fit with what many associate with the term feminist today. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that Bromley issues a lot of interesting points in this piece that seem to beg the question, what is the point of this feminist- new style? The part that interested me the most was the seventh tenet. This discussion on the "Keep your maiden name" slogan points to how ridiculous Bromley viewed some of the common feminist arguments of the 1920's. I think her piece is important because of the point Mary Ann stated with her description on women that could/and possibly did influence a lot anti-feminist thinkers today. My question is, these feminist- new style have a profound affect on the women's movement in the 1920's and did they handicap some of the progress made post 19th amendment? -abratchi<br />
<br />
==Anxious Mothers Write the Children's Bureau==<br />
<br />
I found the third letter written by Mrs. A.E.,Minnesota (August 10, 1923) was the most influential in discussing issues of medicine and women's health. While all three letters are relevant to prenatal and child care and I believe writing them was an excellent way for women to share concerns, the third letter hit home to me. It made me wonder if her trouble with delivery was the start of malpractice in child birth. Along with that did doctors still think it was okay to treat women as subserviant, so if they had a rough delivery ooops...guess that is tough luck for you all (referencing the Bible, Adam and Eve). I also think it was wise to let other women know that doctors such as Dr. B should not be trusted with delivery and on the flip side her doctor in Saint Paul could benefit from these publications. Did these women influence how prenatal care is treated today? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I agree that the third letter was the most influential in this three letter piece, but it was the second letter; however that really captured my attention. This letter showed me just how little women knew about being pregnant and some of the concerns they had. It revealed the lack of knowledge on food cravings that women know today as a normal thing when dealing with pregnancy. Overall, I think all these letters showed women's desperation when it came to womanhood and the changing societal pressures facing women of that time (to have children and take on the sole responsibility for both the home and family). They revealed how women were craving more information about their bodies, more specifically, how to manage pregnancy in an age where doctors were inaccessible and/or were engaging in malpractice. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I thought the first letter was interesting because Mrs. W. M. wants pamphlets from the Childrens Bureau for her new pregnancy despite already having three boys. I was curious as to why such a woman would be interested in this information since she has already experienced pregnancy, birth and raising children. Her eagerness for new information makes it clear that despite any preexisting knowledge, there were women that were curious and very interested in the Bureau's pamphlets. Beforehand, pregnancy had either been a private topic or restricted to local women. This is evident in the second letter, where Mrs. A. E. is clearly experiencing cravings, but has no idea what is going on. Since she wants the Bureau to read and respond to her letter confidentially, I would assume she had not discussed her cravings with other women. Despite a majority of women experiencing pregnancy, I think that the letters show just how few women went around talking about and sharing their experiences like pregnant women do today. Thus, I believe that some women saw the Bureau as a place to publicly discuss and share their issues, such as the malpractice that the woman in the third letter experiences. -- CBrau</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments2010-02-12T01:47:45Z<p>Ssellers: /* The Vice Commission of Chicago reports on the Working Conditions in Department Stores that Lead Female Employees into Prostitution, 1911 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Fannie Barrier Williams Describes the "Problem of Employment for Negro Women," 1903 ==<br />
<br />
As so many black women worked in domestic service and were in contact with whites, Williams preferred to see the elevation of domestic service into respectable work and a recognized profession, believing that it would raise the race in general. But she suggests that there was a tendency to look down on domestic service within the black community, though I think it may not all have been a result of the demeaning nature of the work itself, but rather that the women who worked in domestic service were essentially working for the betterment of white people in a very direct way. Williams wrote, “If our girls work for wages in a nice home, rather than in a factory or over a counter, they are ruthlessly scorned by their friends and acquaintances” (263). For instance, factory work as compared to domestic service also required manual labor, but while it’s products were more to the benefit of whites, it was in a way less obviously so than domestic service. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I found Williams' views on domestic service to be quite interesting. For example, she thought that domestic service would eventually become a profession and there would training for it as if it were a normal job. Obviously domestic service never became a profession and looking back on that thought today, many of us would probably laugh at the idea. However, for that time period, I don't think her ideas were too out of place because of the incredibly limited employment opportunities for black women at this time. Domestic service was one of their few options, therefore I think Williams was almost forced into beleiving this because she didn't know anything else. Also, she thought that domestic servants should be looked upon in the same light as women in the working world. Again, it is tough to agree or disagree because domestic service is all black women really know and therefore they can almost only beleive that there work is equal to that of white women in society. -afrisk<br />
<br />
On page 264 it says that "the everyday man and woman who make society must change their foolish notions as to what is the polite thing for a young woman to do... my only plea is that we shall protect and respect our girls who honestly and intelligently enter this service, either from preference or necessity" and I find that quote to be loaded with so many things that she has to say. First, I applaud her for realizing that it is not always the role of the woman that needs to change, but societies perception of that role. Then, she also describes how sometimes good, smart people have terrible jobs (college kids waitress-ing???)because of their situation and realization that it would be the best opportunity they could have to get themselves the glory of never having to have to do that terrible work again. I enjoy this quote from the reading in particular because it applies to both races in the lower class and can even still be applied to a lot of things inherently wrong with society today (and she doesn't sound bitter, rude or condescending in this statement). It also helps her statement that by working these service jobs and highering the status of them, the black race as a whole could race their association with these jobs and in turn their status in life. -SSellers<br />
<br />
== Harriet Brunkhurst Laments the Home Problems of "Business Girls," 1910 ==<br />
<br />
"She could earn her own living, but she could not fight her own battles…" (p. 267). Many of the problems women faced going in to the workforce are quite obvious to us: low wages, harsh conditions, sexual harassment, etc… But Harriet Brunkhurst's article points out a less obvious problem that many girls faced in America - being treated as working women by their families. Even after working all day, they were still expected to keep up with their chores and responsibilities at home. Yet boys and men in the same situations were not expected to carry as much responsibility at home and were recognized for the hours they spent working outside the home. Yet again, there is this difficulty of separating women from the private sphere. And I think that even today some women are expected to carry more responsibilities within the home, even if they work outside of the home. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I agree here that a women in the working world can experience added stress when she is at home. A woman can go to work, but she is still expected to manage the 'domestic sphere' when she returns home and this can place a lot of stress on women. For example, in this excerpt, the girl is expected to work all day, then when she comes home, she gets grief for not helping out with the household chores. It can be very difficult to balance life in the working world with the home front, and women are often expected to do a lot in both fields. -afrisk<br />
<br />
== The Vice Commission of Chicago reports on the Working Conditions in Department Stores that Lead Female Employees into Prostitution, 1911 ==<br />
<br />
This one’s a doozey. What was the cause of prostitution? Apparently, there were a few causes. Poor sanitary conditions in the working world affected the nervous system causing women to be more susceptible to weakened morality, fast paced modern life lead to eroticism, and poor pay meant a working girl couldn’t afford life’s necessities. I’d say there’s a grain of truth to these claims, poor pay in particular being a problem. Also, young women who worked in department stores were regularly exposed to unsavory individuals who wanted to sully their purity. Again there’s a bit truth, but the most realistic argument here is the case of male employers sexually exploiting girls. However, most of the other examples described seem less like prostitution and more like a girl trying to have a good time. Perhaps the vice commission couldn’t handle the idea of a sexual liberated women. Finally, I have to ask, what was the point of this report? Was it a cry for better working conditions and for better wages? Or was it an argument to keep women out of the working world in order to protect their virtue? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
The first part of this one was just hilarious. The beginning two paragraphs were especially ridiculous--the idea that "highly speeded modern life must stimulate these organisms?" (271) is so stupid that I just have to laugh at it. It claims that being busy and having a fast-paced life arouses women sexually, and then makes the equally odd jump that sexual arousal leads directly to prostitution. Some of the other points of the article are closer to the truth; the various ways in which a girl could get involved in prostitution (as her own boss or under a pimp) probably actually happened. That this kind of income was usually a supplement to the wages that were too low to live on is not a surprise (minimum wage is still too low to cover the cost of living today, as well). The specific stories of the women that were interviewed for the article gives scads more credibility than the ludicrous blanket statements of the beginning (who was this written by, anyways?). --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
I agree with the absurdity of this article that Taylor and Sarah both did a good job at conveying and in order to not be redundant I'll bring up an issue I had with the section on Married Men in particular as "Married men are among the worst offenders against salesgirls (272)". SERIOUSLY?? I mean, I know that there are instances were one who is married, male or female, oversteps flirtation boundaries (although not always intentional)without desiring to have anything come by the banter but when the situation states that if these women do not reciprocate the married man's wishes they would complain and say their business was neglected? I thought men in this time were supposed to be arrogant, secure, strong and not easily offended by someone not returning their favor. If this accusation of the married men is true for the majority of married men at this time, maybe it was the male sex that was weak, insecure and irrational? -Ssellers<br />
<br />
== The Harsh Conditions of Domestic Service ==<br />
<br />
"…when I hear so much said about our unreliability, our untrustworthiness, and even our vices" (p. 54). I think it is pretty amazing that strongly held prejudices in the South guaranteed extremely low wages for domestic servants for so long. These jobs were probably difficult to obtain, since jobs were very limited for African Americans, so they would work hard to keep them. So for an employer to claim their domestic servant is unreliable or untrustworthy? Or to complain about stereotypes of the race? I don't blame the woman who wrote this article for being offended. I am sure she worked extremely hard, for barely any money and at the expense of never seeing her own children, and she could not believe the insensitivity of whites when it came to her job. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I, too, am offended, but not terribly surprised, at the prejudice that obviously existed in the South when the article was written. I am surprised at how much lower the black family's income was than the women department store workers we read about. They could stand to make $24 a month at their much easier jobs, which was the total amount for the entire black Southern family (7-15 people! on a salary too meager for one!). The math there is just astounding. But, as the author points out, there wasn't much she or the black community could do to fight this. If they protested at all, or even requested that their employers use more respectful titles, they were fired, blacklisted, and immediately replaced by another woman who would work for that wage or even less. I'm not sure if minimum wage existed at this time, but even if it was I doubt it would've been enforced for the benefit of these workers. --Sarah Smethurst</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments2010-02-12T01:40:06Z<p>Ssellers: /* Fannie Barrier Williams Describes the "Problem of Employment for Negro Women," 1903 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Fannie Barrier Williams Describes the "Problem of Employment for Negro Women," 1903 ==<br />
<br />
As so many black women worked in domestic service and were in contact with whites, Williams preferred to see the elevation of domestic service into respectable work and a recognized profession, believing that it would raise the race in general. But she suggests that there was a tendency to look down on domestic service within the black community, though I think it may not all have been a result of the demeaning nature of the work itself, but rather that the women who worked in domestic service were essentially working for the betterment of white people in a very direct way. Williams wrote, “If our girls work for wages in a nice home, rather than in a factory or over a counter, they are ruthlessly scorned by their friends and acquaintances” (263). For instance, factory work as compared to domestic service also required manual labor, but while it’s products were more to the benefit of whites, it was in a way less obviously so than domestic service. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I found Williams' views on domestic service to be quite interesting. For example, she thought that domestic service would eventually become a profession and there would training for it as if it were a normal job. Obviously domestic service never became a profession and looking back on that thought today, many of us would probably laugh at the idea. However, for that time period, I don't think her ideas were too out of place because of the incredibly limited employment opportunities for black women at this time. Domestic service was one of their few options, therefore I think Williams was almost forced into beleiving this because she didn't know anything else. Also, she thought that domestic servants should be looked upon in the same light as women in the working world. Again, it is tough to agree or disagree because domestic service is all black women really know and therefore they can almost only beleive that there work is equal to that of white women in society. -afrisk<br />
<br />
On page 264 it says that "the everyday man and woman who make society must change their foolish notions as to what is the polite thing for a young woman to do... my only plea is that we shall protect and respect our girls who honestly and intelligently enter this service, either from preference or necessity" and I find that quote to be loaded with so many things that she has to say. First, I applaud her for realizing that it is not always the role of the woman that needs to change, but societies perception of that role. Then, she also describes how sometimes good, smart people have terrible jobs (college kids waitress-ing???)because of their situation and realization that it would be the best opportunity they could have to get themselves the glory of never having to have to do that terrible work again. I enjoy this quote from the reading in particular because it applies to both races in the lower class and can even still be applied to a lot of things inherently wrong with society today (and she doesn't sound bitter, rude or condescending in this statement). It also helps her statement that by working these service jobs and highering the status of them, the black race as a whole could race their association with these jobs and in turn their status in life. -SSellers<br />
<br />
== Harriet Brunkhurst Laments the Home Problems of "Business Girls," 1910 ==<br />
<br />
"She could earn her own living, but she could not fight her own battles…" (p. 267). Many of the problems women faced going in to the workforce are quite obvious to us: low wages, harsh conditions, sexual harassment, etc… But Harriet Brunkhurst's article points out a less obvious problem that many girls faced in America - being treated as working women by their families. Even after working all day, they were still expected to keep up with their chores and responsibilities at home. Yet boys and men in the same situations were not expected to carry as much responsibility at home and were recognized for the hours they spent working outside the home. Yet again, there is this difficulty of separating women from the private sphere. And I think that even today some women are expected to carry more responsibilities within the home, even if they work outside of the home. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I agree here that a women in the working world can experience added stress when she is at home. A woman can go to work, but she is still expected to manage the 'domestic sphere' when she returns home and this can place a lot of stress on women. For example, in this excerpt, the girl is expected to work all day, then when she comes home, she gets grief for not helping out with the household chores. It can be very difficult to balance life in the working world with the home front, and women are often expected to do a lot in both fields. -afrisk<br />
<br />
== The Vice Commission of Chicago reports on the Working Conditions in Department Stores that Lead Female Employees into Prostitution, 1911 ==<br />
<br />
This one’s a doozey. What was the cause of prostitution? Apparently, there were a few causes. Poor sanitary conditions in the working world affected the nervous system causing women to be more susceptible to weakened morality, fast paced modern life lead to eroticism, and poor pay meant a working girl couldn’t afford life’s necessities. I’d say there’s a grain of truth to these claims, poor pay in particular being a problem. Also, young women who worked in department stores were regularly exposed to unsavory individuals who wanted to sully their purity. Again there’s a bit truth, but the most realistic argument here is the case of male employers sexually exploiting girls. However, most of the other examples described seem less like prostitution and more like a girl trying to have a good time. Perhaps the vice commission couldn’t handle the idea of a sexual liberated women. Finally, I have to ask, what was the point of this report? Was it a cry for better working conditions and for better wages? Or was it an argument to keep women out of the working world in order to protect their virtue? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
The first part of this one was just hilarious. The beginning two paragraphs were especially ridiculous--the idea that "highly speeded modern life must stimulate these organisms?" (271) is so stupid that I just have to laugh at it. It claims that being busy and having a fast-paced life arouses women sexually, and then makes the equally odd jump that sexual arousal leads directly to prostitution. Some of the other points of the article are closer to the truth; the various ways in which a girl could get involved in prostitution (as her own boss or under a pimp) probably actually happened. That this kind of income was usually a supplement to the wages that were too low to live on is not a surprise (minimum wage is still too low to cover the cost of living today, as well). The specific stories of the women that were interviewed for the article gives scads more credibility than the ludicrous blanket statements of the beginning (who was this written by, anyways?). --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
== The Harsh Conditions of Domestic Service ==<br />
<br />
"…when I hear so much said about our unreliability, our untrustworthiness, and even our vices" (p. 54). I think it is pretty amazing that strongly held prejudices in the South guaranteed extremely low wages for domestic servants for so long. These jobs were probably difficult to obtain, since jobs were very limited for African Americans, so they would work hard to keep them. So for an employer to claim their domestic servant is unreliable or untrustworthy? Or to complain about stereotypes of the race? I don't blame the woman who wrote this article for being offended. I am sure she worked extremely hard, for barely any money and at the expense of never seeing her own children, and she could not believe the insensitivity of whites when it came to her job. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I, too, am offended, but not terribly surprised, at the prejudice that obviously existed in the South when the article was written. I am surprised at how much lower the black family's income was than the women department store workers we read about. They could stand to make $24 a month at their much easier jobs, which was the total amount for the entire black Southern family (7-15 people! on a salary too meager for one!). The math there is just astounding. But, as the author points out, there wasn't much she or the black community could do to fight this. If they protested at all, or even requested that their employers use more respectful titles, they were fired, blacklisted, and immediately replaced by another woman who would work for that wage or even less. I'm not sure if minimum wage existed at this time, but even if it was I doubt it would've been enforced for the benefit of these workers. --Sarah Smethurst</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_4_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 4 Questions/Comments2010-02-03T02:23:56Z<p>Ssellers: /* Chapter 1 – Visions of the New Woman */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Linda Gordon, “Black and White Visions of Welfare: Women’s Welfare Activism, 1890-1945,” ==<br />
<br />
<br />
On page 23 Linda Gordon states that "Black welfare reformers were more concerned to combine the development of protective institutions for women with an antirape discourse. Among whites, rape was not an important topic of discussion during this period, and in protective work for women and girls, male sexuality was treated as natural and irrepressible" and I understand that the times were completely different but how did society of the time use this to justify rape? Infidelity and Adultery I could possibly understand this being used, but not rape. She even uses the word "girls" which to me suggests children. Was it still okay then? From the rest of the document by Linda Gordon I also take it that everything that is wrong with the welfare reform system today was put in place by the white reformers--Maybe they should have left the social work up to the Black reformers? -Ssellers<br />
<br />
== Judy Yung, The Social Awakening of Chinese American Women as Reported in ''Chung Sai Yat Po'', 1900-1911 ==<br />
<br />
== Chapter 1 – Visions of the New Woman ==<br />
'''Nellie Bly, Why go around the world, 1890'''<br />
<br />
It is unfortunate that in order to prove that she was capable of doing something that was believed to only have been able to be done by a man she had to wear the same outfit for close to 3 months straight. That's not masculine, it's disgusting. This definitely was one of the most interesting documents that we had to read and I love that at the end she talked about how she packed too much, versus too little. It was like, in trying to prove that as a female she could do something she became an inspiration. It even still is pretty inspirational to me at least. -Ssellers<br />
<br />
'''Bertha Palmer: The Fair Women, Chicago, 1893'''<br />
<br />
'''Anna Cooper: Black Women Plan to Lead Their Race, 1892'''<br />
<br />
In the reading by Anna J. Cooper, “Black Women Plan to Lead Their Race,” I was surprised to find that African American women were a part of the club movement as much as white women. Though the clubs were separate, they paralleled each other. I think it is interesting that the reform movement was so big among black women because they were breaking out of their presumed role more so than white women because of their race. Not only did they have to worry about being women, but they also had to worry because they were black. During this time racism was an issue, and some would argue that these women should be worried about the advancement of their race rather than being part of the reform movement. However, Anna J. Cooper argues that (page 13) “To be a woman in such an age carries with it a privilege and an opportunity never implied before. But to be a woman of the Negro race in America, and to be able to grasp the deep significance of the possibilities of the crisis, is to have a heritage, it seems to me, unique in the ages.” In my opinion, Cooper believes that it is BECAUSE these women are black that they have the opportunity to make big changes. Being part of the reform movement seems to be a way for black women to seek opportunities that they may not have otherwise had. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Ida B. Wells''' – <br />
<br />
'''Frances Willard'''–<br />
<br />
'''Anzia Yezierska''' – Immigrant Daughter and the Possibilities of the New World<br />
<br />
'''Edith Eudora Ammons''' – A Woman Homesteader<br />
<br />
== Chapter 2 – Expanding Horizons for Educated Women ==<br />
<br />
'''Molly Dewson writes home from Wellesley (1894-96)'''<br />
<br />
'''Jane Addams discusses the early days of Hull House (1910)'''<br />
<br />
'''Alice Hamilton explores the dangerous trades (1943)'''<br />
<br />
'''Mamie Garvin Fields –Af-Am Women enter the Teaching profession (1983) '''<br />
<br />
'''Mary Ritter Beard – Women and progressive politics. (1915)'''<br />
<br />
<br />
== Chapter 4—Feminists, Anarchists, and Other Rebel Girls ==<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Mother Jones and striking Colorado Mine workers (about 1903 strike)'''<br />
<br />
'''Charlotte Perkins Gilman – a Feminist challenge to the privatized home'''<br />
<br />
After reading “A Feminist Challenge to the Privatized Home” I am fairly certain that Charlotte Perkins Gilman hated to cook. Perhaps it is because of some culinary incident that happened to her during her first marriage where she ended up going crazy and leaving her husband and child and eventually marrying her cousin. Regardless of what happened, she is obviously traumatized. She believes that people should live in their private homes or apartments, but should also have communal areas (such as a kitchen) as well, and this will pretty much solve all problems of the world. Gilman’s ideas are actually quite smart when you put aside some of her obvious biases. The separation of labor when it comes to housework is really smart and efficient. If women were able to choose what task they wanted to perform (cook, clean, etc.) and they just focused on that task, things would get done much faster and much better. According to Gilman, this would lead to a more productive society overall because women would have the time to use their minds. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
'''Josephine Conger-Koneko – Wages for housework – 1913'''<br />
<br />
I thought that it was interesting how Josephine Conger-Koneko believed so strongly that women should be payed for housework. I especially thought that it was interesting how she expected a woman's husband's boss to pay her for her house labor, as it was the woman who made it possible for the man to work. However, she brings about a point she never truly expands upon; although it was unusual, not every working man did marry eventually. What about these men? They still managed to attend work without a wife taking care of their home. And if Conger-Koneko received her wish and women were paid for their labor at home, should these men be paid double for attending work and for taking care of their home?<br />
-Anna K Holman<br />
<br />
'''Margaret Sanger’s epiphany over birth control – 1936'''<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this particular article. I like how Sanger used a personal story to make birth control, which was typically thought of as a female issue, a family and medical issue. By bringing in the husband and children of Sadie Sachs, Sanger made it obvious that the situation didn't just affect the mother, but her family as well. She also reflected what a desperate situation it truly was to have another mouth to feed in a poor, working class family. I also liked how she illustrated the point that many men were irresponsible about birth control, so it should be up to the responsible woman to decide whether or not she should have a child. -Anna K Holman<br />
<br />
'''Emma Goldman – A Radical view of women’s emancipation – 1911'''</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_4_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 4 Questions/Comments2010-02-03T02:14:31Z<p>Ssellers: /* Linda Gordon, “Black and White Visions of Welfare: Women’s Welfare Activism, 1890-1945,” */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Linda Gordon, “Black and White Visions of Welfare: Women’s Welfare Activism, 1890-1945,” ==<br />
<br />
<br />
On page 23 Linda Gordon states that "Black welfare reformers were more concerned to combine the development of protective institutions for women with an antirape discourse. Among whites, rape was not an important topic of discussion during this period, and in protective work for women and girls, male sexuality was treated as natural and irrepressible" and I understand that the times were completely different but how did society of the time use this to justify rape? Infidelity and Adultery I could possibly understand this being used, but not rape. She even uses the word "girls" which to me suggests children. Was it still okay then? From the rest of the document by Linda Gordon I also take it that everything that is wrong with the welfare reform system today was put in place by the white reformers--Maybe they should have left the social work up to the Black reformers? -Ssellers<br />
<br />
== Judy Yung, The Social Awakening of Chinese American Women as Reported in ''Chung Sai Yat Po'', 1900-1911 ==<br />
<br />
== Chapter 1 – Visions of the New Woman ==<br />
'''Nellie Bly, Why go around the world, 1890'''<br />
<br />
'''Bertha Palmer: The Fair Women, Chicago, 1893'''<br />
<br />
'''Anna Cooper: Black Women Plan to Lead Their Race, 1892'''<br />
<br />
In the reading by Anna J. Cooper, “Black Women Plan to Lead Their Race,” I was surprised to find that African American women were a part of the club movement as much as white women. Though the clubs were separate, they paralleled each other. I think it is interesting that the reform movement was so big among black women because they were breaking out of their presumed role more so than white women because of their race. Not only did they have to worry about being women, but they also had to worry because they were black. During this time racism was an issue, and some would argue that these women should be worried about the advancement of their race rather than being part of the reform movement. However, Anna J. Cooper argues that (page 13) “To be a woman in such an age carries with it a privilege and an opportunity never implied before. But to be a woman of the Negro race in America, and to be able to grasp the deep significance of the possibilities of the crisis, is to have a heritage, it seems to me, unique in the ages.” In my opinion, Cooper believes that it is BECAUSE these women are black that they have the opportunity to make big changes. Being part of the reform movement seems to be a way for black women to seek opportunities that they may not have otherwise had. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Ida B. Wells''' – <br />
<br />
'''Frances Willard'''–<br />
<br />
'''Anzia Yezierska''' – Immigrant Daughter and the Possibilities of the New World<br />
<br />
'''Edith Eudora Ammons''' – A Woman Homesteader<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Chapter 2 – Expanding Horizons for Educated Women ==<br />
<br />
'''Molly Dewson writes home from Wellesley (1894-96)'''<br />
<br />
'''Jane Addams discusses the early days of Hull House (1910)'''<br />
<br />
'''Alice Hamilton explores the dangerous trades (1943)'''<br />
<br />
'''Mamie Garvin Fields –Af-Am Women enter the Teaching profession (1983) '''<br />
<br />
'''Mary Ritter Beard – Women and progressive politics. (1915)'''<br />
<br />
<br />
== Chapter 4—Feminists, Anarchists, and Other Rebel Girls ==<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Mother Jones and striking Colorado Mine workers (about 1903 strike)'''<br />
<br />
'''Charlotte Perkins Gilman – a Feminist challenge to the privatized home'''<br />
<br />
After reading “A Feminist Challenge to the Privatized Home” I am fairly certain that Charlotte Perkins Gilman hated to cook. Perhaps it is because of some culinary incident that happened to her during her first marriage where she ended up going crazy and leaving her husband and child and eventually marrying her cousin. Regardless of what happened, she is obviously traumatized. She believes that people should live in their private homes or apartments, but should also have communal areas (such as a kitchen) as well, and this will pretty much solve all problems of the world. Gilman’s ideas are actually quite smart when you put aside some of her obvious biases. The separation of labor when it comes to housework is really smart and efficient. If women were able to choose what task they wanted to perform (cook, clean, etc.) and they just focused on that task, things would get done much faster and much better. According to Gilman, this would lead to a more productive society overall because women would have the time to use their minds. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
'''Josephine Conger-Koneko – Wages for housework – 1913'''<br />
<br />
I thought that it was interesting how Josephine Conger-Koneko believed so strongly that women should be payed for housework. I especially thought that it was interesting how she expected a woman's husband's boss to pay her for her house labor, as it was the woman who made it possible for the man to work. However, she brings about a point she never truly expands upon; although it was unusual, not every working man did marry eventually. What about these men? They still managed to attend work without a wife taking care of their home. And if Conger-Koneko received her wish and women were paid for their labor at home, should these men be paid double for attending work and for taking care of their home?<br />
-Anna K Holman<br />
<br />
'''Margaret Sanger’s epiphany over birth control – 1936'''<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this particular article. I like how Sanger used a personal story to make birth control, which was typically thought of as a female issue, a family and medical issue. By bringing in the husband and children of Sadie Sachs, Sanger made it obvious that the situation didn't just affect the mother, but her family as well. She also reflected what a desperate situation it truly was to have another mouth to feed in a poor, working class family. I also liked how she illustrated the point that many men were irresponsible about birth control, so it should be up to the responsible woman to decide whether or not she should have a child. -Anna K Holman<br />
<br />
'''Emma Goldman – A Radical view of women’s emancipation – 1911'''</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_3_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 3 Questions/Comments2010-01-27T16:03:40Z<p>Ssellers: /* Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-1876 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== US, 178-193, Devon Mihesuah, “’Too Dark to Be Angels’: The Class System among the Cherokees at the Female Seminary” ==<br />
<br />
I was struck by the difference between the attitude towards Native American ancestry of the girls at the Cherokee Female Seminary (and for that matter, of the Cherokee nation as a whole during the 1800s) and modern Americans. In the nineteenth century, it was a desirable thing to have white blood, as it indicated that one was more civilized, and whiter Cherokees held a higher status than more full-blooded ones. Education at the seminary served to help the girls, even those who were full-blooded, become “whiter.” Now, white Americans, when discussing their ancestry, are extremely proud of even the tiniest bit of Native American blood they might contain. I can think of very few people with whom I’ve discussed ancestry with that don’t claim to have at least one Native American in the family, myself included. I think that perhaps it has something to do with our romantic view of Native Americans and a desire to show that we don’t feel animosity towards them any longer. - Alice W<br />
<br />
I agree with Alice on her analysis in regards to pride about having Native American ancestry. There are also a number of other things that surprised me while reading this. I was surprised that the "mixed-blood" families were more accepted in society and received better. Though I understand their skin was lighter, in many cases even today, biracial or people with a variety of ethnic backgrounds are ostracized from both groups. I was also slightly surprised by the division among the Cherokee. Whether mixed-blood or not, I was expecting some sense of unity that did not occur. Looking back into history, many people remember their roots or where they came from, this is not the case in this situation. This alone could have proved detrimental to the efforts of Native Americans at this time.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
On page 190 of “Too Dark to be Angles,” I found these two sentences to be contradictory to the rest of the article. First, “The girls’ seminary experiences helped to strengthen their identities as Cherokees…” Second, “Both the progressive and the traditional tribal members considered themselves to be more Cherokee than the other group.” I think the reason that these sentences threw me off is because throughout the reading I the author gave numerous examples of how full-blooded Cherokees were discriminated against within the seminary. Those Cherokees that were mixed blooded were considered more intelligent because they were whiter. So, it just seems a little contradictory to argue that the seminary schools (that didn’t teach anything of the Cherokee language or culture) brought about a strong Cherokee identity to its students. -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think that the school did work to develop a Cherokee identity in its students, just not a traditional identity and not one that we would imagine as Cherokee today. Yes, some of the girls only had trace amounts of Cherokee ancestry, but they still identified strongly as Cherokee. It's just that they identified with an assimilated form of Cherokee identity, one that emulated white society. They ridiculed the darker, less assimilated girls not for being Cherokee per se, but for not embracing their version of what it meant to be Cherokee. As for the girls being bullied for their skin tone and traditions, they may have come to identify more strongly with their traditional Cherokee roots in the face of opposition. So both groups did maintain a connection to a Cherokee identity, it's just that, as the article states, "there were differences in opinion as to what a Cherokee really was." -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
While reading the article “Too Dark to Be Angels” I found that it parallels to the story of “Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884”. Both speak about the Indian women’s seminaries, it isn’t our-right spoken in Zitkala-Sa’s article, but it’s implied in her wanting to go East “crossed the Missouri in the evening…we stopped before a massive brick building,” (pg.241). I also found a parallel that men have taken advantage of women as objects here as well. “The Cherokee National Council was controlled by progressive, educated, mixed-blood tribesmen,” (pg. 178). Once again dictating what women learn about or shall act while in such seminary; to mold and bend them into what they see fit. ---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
Another point I did not understand at first was why the darker girls, who had more Cherokee blood were being made fun of because of it. “Mixed-blood students frequently scorned those girls who had less white blood and darker skin,” (pg.180). Is this not a school for assimilation for the Cherokee girls? Reading further in I found that the women and girls of this school strive to be “equal” to white women, as “anything ‘white’ was ideal” stated Kate O’Donald Ringland, (pg.181). For this fact, to be as white as possible, the seminary’s repressed all Cherokee values and “offered no courses focusing on Cherokee culture,” (pg.178). ---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I think Erin brings up a great point that I did not catch myself. Although the schools did seem to instill a sense of Cherokee within in the women, I think the schools main accomplishment was the desire to be more "white", as Morgan points out. I think this was really emphasized through the perceptions of intelligence among the girls at the seminary and the teaching that was going on. As quoted on page 181, Albert Sydney Wyly "expressed his impatience with the full-blood girls by referring to the mixed-bloods as "whiter" and therefore "more intellectual". I think these schools were set up to Americanize the Native American population, rather than instill Cherokee ideals. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I found it truly disturbing that female teachers exemplified multiple cases of insensitivity throughout this reading. The teachers, though white, should have recognized the similarities between themselves and the Cherokee girls they were responsible for. At this point in time, women had few rights, neither did the Cherokee. It would have been more productive to encourage the young girls, in turn making it easier for them to assimilate, if that was in fact their main goal.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
What I thought was interesting about the Cherokee Indian Seminary for girls was that there was class difference within that Cherokee society. Those that looked more white versus those that did not basing emphasis on what amount of Cherokee the girls had in them. The more white blood in them, the better status they had at the seminary. Some of the girls did not even know their native language and others did might help explain some of the division. I don’t think the teachers helped with that either. These girls had pressures from what was expected of them in “white” roles and at the same time trying to maintain their traditional roles in Native American society. These girls being defined as either “full blooded“ and “mixed blood” became intermingled with the pressures to fit in. --Mhimes<br />
<br />
== US, 194-220, Paige Raibmon, “The Practice of Everyday Colonialism: Indigenous Women at Work in the Hop Fields and Tourist Industry of Puget Sound” ==<br />
<br />
Like Alice, I was struck at how the view of Native Americans has changed. Paige Raibmon mentions in her article how Native American women in the 19th century were seen a subhuman because they could "endure childbirth painlessly" (199). This excuse was used to justify using them for hard manual labor. I was also shocked to discover that the Native Americans picking hops were not seen as laborers, but instead were objects for tourists to gawk at. Finally, Mihesuah mentions in her article several times that the Native Americans saw themselves as being less intelligent and less culturally valuable than whites. As Alice mentions, now many Americans glorify their Native American heritage. It seems that now we are still influenced by the same views as the white 19th century tourists were. Many Americans see their Native American ancestry as a sense of freedom and a reminder of simpler times and simply ignore the hardships their ancestors went through.--Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I found the act that a pregnancy didn’t slow down Indigenous women from working and that the managers would pay their workers for giving birth for working. “Ezra Meeker, who paid a dollar to employees who gave birth while working on his farm, new mothers where back in the fields within two days, babies at their sides,” (pg.199). I cannot believe that this really happened!---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I found that the Indigenous women were also seen as a tourist attraction too, “the spectacle of authentic Indians,” (pg.201) as if people had never seen such a thing. These people, who use to dominate the population of their American homeland were now the minority and seen as passive tourist luxuries. The “curios” that the Indigenous women created were now being bought by white women and seen as a foreign object to add to the look of their homes, “no home is complete now-a-days without a neat and artistically arranged Indian basket corner,” (pg.203). These women really seen as a sideshow in that “viewing and assessing migrant Indian women’s labor and lives became one of the pleasurable acts of public consumption through with women constituted themselves as modern,” (pg.203).---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
To me, this article highlighted a change in the way that Americans viewed Native Americans. In the span of a few decades, white Americans went from fearing the 'savages' to planning vacations around watching the newly docile Native Americans working on the hops farms. And the perception of Native American women played a large role in that shift. Women were often the ones in the fields working, picking hops with babies and children nearby and so providing a domestic front that replaced the old warrior image. Women also made many of the crafts that became popular with the white tourists. Their work became the must have pieces in white middle class homes, and suddenly Native Americans were seen as the producers of mildly exotic talking pieces rather than a threat to family and farm. -Mary Ann <br />
<br />
== MP, 252-258-- Deena Gonzalez, “Life and Legend of Gertrudis Barcelo in 19th C. Sante Fe” (2005) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that Gertrudis Barceló was a really cool woman for her time! She was a smart businesswoman who made a lot of money and owned a lot of property. One of her more profitable endeavors was opening a saloon (p255), “she made the saloon the hub of the town’s social and economic life and at the hall she kept abreast of the latest political developments.” Her success gave her independence, but also violated female codes of behavior of the time. However, the author gives Gertrudis Barceló a lot of credit that the saloon was an establishment where men who spoke different languages could come together and gamble and drink, and as they did this stereotypes were broken and fears and prejudices eroded. I am curious as to how intentional this was on the part of Gertrudis Barceló. Was she truly trying to break barriers, or was she looking to capitalize on the situation and make money? Does it really matter? – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I just wanted to throw in that I googled Gertrudis Barceló after doing the reading, and I found it interesting that she sided with the Americans during the war. She gave the Americans valuable information and even loaned them money. I think it is pretty clear that she was incredibly intelligent. (source: http://www.britannica.com/hispanic_heritage/article-9124916) -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed the story of Doña Gertrudis Barceló in that she was a woman who took charge and made something of herself unlike the white women who were quick to subdue themselves to men. “her success as a business women and gambler gave her unique independence ordinarily denied women,” (pg.254). Even as a women she was seen as so successful and powerful that “politicians and military officers alike went seeking her opinion or involved her in their discussions about trade or the army,” (pg.255). Never before have I heard of a women being consulted by military men and political men! Barceló also helped in integrating people among different cultures, “she set the stage as well for the second, when women began marrying the newcomers,” (pg.257). I really see Barceló as a role model type no matter if she was into gambling and possibly running a brothel, she was able to make a name for herself even as a woman.---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I found this reading on Gertrudis Barcelo very, very interesting! Her story seemed very inspiring and I thought her impact on the Euro-American settlers was quite profound. I think an important point that was made in the piece is how quick American settlers were to judge peoples they had never met. I liked how Barcelo was a woman who was able to help these new protestant men adapt, for lack of a better term to a new society, "They could judge the locals firsthand and could observe a community's values and habits through a single activity, After they had a few drinks, their initial fears and prejudices gradually yielded to the relaxed, sociable atmosphere of the gambling hall..."(257) Although, I do think it is important to realize that this is just one snapshot of a woman going above and beyond what was typically expected of a woman. I agree with Morgan, she was definitely able to make a name for herself, especially in the presence of white men who probably viewed themselves as racially and culturally superior. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I thought Gertrudis Barceló was very interesting because she was innovative and smart. She was Spanish and stood out from those traditional female American roles. I don’t think she bought into that same notion that some women did of what was expected of them. Her business was a lucrative one and she seized opportunities to make money. If she had been a man we would have never heard about her. --MHimes<br />
<br />
I thought that the thing that stood out from this article the most wasn't just her personal account of what had happened to her, but rather the statement on page 256 "To the protestant mind, nothing short of the complete elimination of gambling would lift New Mexicans out of their servility and make them worthy of United States citizenship. The Jacksonian Americans wanted to replace gambling with industry and enterprise" because this statement can be tweaked in so many different ways throughout American history so that the "(White) Protestants" can use their alleged superiority to promote morals within a different racial or ethnic group. Yet, I'd be willing to believe that white protestants could be found partaking in said gambling. --Ssellers<br />
<br />
== Susan Shelby Magoffin’s diary about her first days in Santa Fe, 1846 ==<br />
<br />
== Rape of Indian women in CA, 1862 ==<br />
<br />
== Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-1876 ==<br />
<br />
Through the whole of the Sale of Chinese Prostitutes documents the women were used as objects of prostitution to their owners to which they owed money to. What I do not understand is why did these women so easily give over the use of their body for such little owed money for such a long period of time? And I highly doubt any of the three women actually fulfilled their time of four years thus adding more years onto the sentence. And why would they let themselves be prostituted for borrowing such a little amount of money? $630, $470, $503, all under a thousand and yet they had to serve for 4 years in each instance. Shouldn’t they stick up for themselves and get an actual job to pay back the loan? That brings me to another idea, why did these loaners want prostitution for re-payment and not let them get a job to pay it back, possibly quicker?---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with what Morgan said for the most part, but I wonder if the women weren't giving themselves up so easily, but rather they were ignorant to the fact that the sum of money they were receiving was so little. I also found it very offensive that the bills mentioned that if a woman got pregnant while she was serving as a prostitute she would have a lengthened period when 1- she didn't get pregnant by herself (meaning that the future child could be of benefit to the father in some way, or is at least still his responsibility) and 2- you can still have sex and be a prostitute while you are pregnant.... -Ssellers<br />
<br />
== Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884 ==<br />
<br />
It was interesting to read this account after reading "Too Dark to be Angels." To me it is sad that this little girl was so eager to go, but kids I guess are naturally curious, and on top of that she had probably already subconsciously absorbed much of the pressure to assimilate. It's telling that the little girl compares herself to the "young of a wild creature" (241) while on the train to school. The mother decides to send her daughter to the school because she knows there will one day soon be "fewer real Dakotas" and "more palefaces" (240), an environment that would force her daughter to assimilate. Perhaps she thought sending her to school at such a young age would save her the pain of having to give up her traditions later in life. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== Mrs. A. M. Green’s account of Frontier Life, 1887 ==<br />
<br />
== Violet Cragg, Ex-Slave and Former Army Nurse, requests an Army Pension, 1908 ==<br />
<br />
In Violet’s article I saw her being an object of politics, such as her being sold and moved so many times. I also suspect that she was raped especially because of the tone around the situation of her daughter’s birth that she describes: “the father of my daughter, Mrs. Ella Taylor, was Howard Whitney, a white man. I was never supported by him and was never know as his wife and never lived with him as his wife,” (pg.243). In her appeal for a pension I didn't quite understand why she decided to write so much about her life, is this because she wanted to Pension Office as much information as possible? I found that she's also quite demeaning of herself, such as stating plainly “I cannot write,” (pg. 245). She seems to think very little of herself, when she should think highly of herself having been dealt with so many trial and tribulations in her life.---Morgan M.</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_3_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 3 Questions/Comments2010-01-27T16:00:41Z<p>Ssellers: /* MP, 252-258-- Deena Gonzalez, “Life and Legend of Gertrudis Barcelo in 19th C. Sante Fe” (2005) */</p>
<hr />
<div>== US, 178-193, Devon Mihesuah, “’Too Dark to Be Angels’: The Class System among the Cherokees at the Female Seminary” ==<br />
<br />
I was struck by the difference between the attitude towards Native American ancestry of the girls at the Cherokee Female Seminary (and for that matter, of the Cherokee nation as a whole during the 1800s) and modern Americans. In the nineteenth century, it was a desirable thing to have white blood, as it indicated that one was more civilized, and whiter Cherokees held a higher status than more full-blooded ones. Education at the seminary served to help the girls, even those who were full-blooded, become “whiter.” Now, white Americans, when discussing their ancestry, are extremely proud of even the tiniest bit of Native American blood they might contain. I can think of very few people with whom I’ve discussed ancestry with that don’t claim to have at least one Native American in the family, myself included. I think that perhaps it has something to do with our romantic view of Native Americans and a desire to show that we don’t feel animosity towards them any longer. - Alice W<br />
<br />
I agree with Alice on her analysis in regards to pride about having Native American ancestry. There are also a number of other things that surprised me while reading this. I was surprised that the "mixed-blood" families were more accepted in society and received better. Though I understand their skin was lighter, in many cases even today, biracial or people with a variety of ethnic backgrounds are ostracized from both groups. I was also slightly surprised by the division among the Cherokee. Whether mixed-blood or not, I was expecting some sense of unity that did not occur. Looking back into history, many people remember their roots or where they came from, this is not the case in this situation. This alone could have proved detrimental to the efforts of Native Americans at this time.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
On page 190 of “Too Dark to be Angles,” I found these two sentences to be contradictory to the rest of the article. First, “The girls’ seminary experiences helped to strengthen their identities as Cherokees…” Second, “Both the progressive and the traditional tribal members considered themselves to be more Cherokee than the other group.” I think the reason that these sentences threw me off is because throughout the reading I the author gave numerous examples of how full-blooded Cherokees were discriminated against within the seminary. Those Cherokees that were mixed blooded were considered more intelligent because they were whiter. So, it just seems a little contradictory to argue that the seminary schools (that didn’t teach anything of the Cherokee language or culture) brought about a strong Cherokee identity to its students. -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think that the school did work to develop a Cherokee identity in its students, just not a traditional identity and not one that we would imagine as Cherokee today. Yes, some of the girls only had trace amounts of Cherokee ancestry, but they still identified strongly as Cherokee. It's just that they identified with an assimilated form of Cherokee identity, one that emulated white society. They ridiculed the darker, less assimilated girls not for being Cherokee per se, but for not embracing their version of what it meant to be Cherokee. As for the girls being bullied for their skin tone and traditions, they may have come to identify more strongly with their traditional Cherokee roots in the face of opposition. So both groups did maintain a connection to a Cherokee identity, it's just that, as the article states, "there were differences in opinion as to what a Cherokee really was." -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
While reading the article “Too Dark to Be Angels” I found that it parallels to the story of “Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884”. Both speak about the Indian women’s seminaries, it isn’t our-right spoken in Zitkala-Sa’s article, but it’s implied in her wanting to go East “crossed the Missouri in the evening…we stopped before a massive brick building,” (pg.241). I also found a parallel that men have taken advantage of women as objects here as well. “The Cherokee National Council was controlled by progressive, educated, mixed-blood tribesmen,” (pg. 178). Once again dictating what women learn about or shall act while in such seminary; to mold and bend them into what they see fit. ---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
Another point I did not understand at first was why the darker girls, who had more Cherokee blood were being made fun of because of it. “Mixed-blood students frequently scorned those girls who had less white blood and darker skin,” (pg.180). Is this not a school for assimilation for the Cherokee girls? Reading further in I found that the women and girls of this school strive to be “equal” to white women, as “anything ‘white’ was ideal” stated Kate O’Donald Ringland, (pg.181). For this fact, to be as white as possible, the seminary’s repressed all Cherokee values and “offered no courses focusing on Cherokee culture,” (pg.178). ---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I think Erin brings up a great point that I did not catch myself. Although the schools did seem to instill a sense of Cherokee within in the women, I think the schools main accomplishment was the desire to be more "white", as Morgan points out. I think this was really emphasized through the perceptions of intelligence among the girls at the seminary and the teaching that was going on. As quoted on page 181, Albert Sydney Wyly "expressed his impatience with the full-blood girls by referring to the mixed-bloods as "whiter" and therefore "more intellectual". I think these schools were set up to Americanize the Native American population, rather than instill Cherokee ideals. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I found it truly disturbing that female teachers exemplified multiple cases of insensitivity throughout this reading. The teachers, though white, should have recognized the similarities between themselves and the Cherokee girls they were responsible for. At this point in time, women had few rights, neither did the Cherokee. It would have been more productive to encourage the young girls, in turn making it easier for them to assimilate, if that was in fact their main goal.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
What I thought was interesting about the Cherokee Indian Seminary for girls was that there was class difference within that Cherokee society. Those that looked more white versus those that did not basing emphasis on what amount of Cherokee the girls had in them. The more white blood in them, the better status they had at the seminary. Some of the girls did not even know their native language and others did might help explain some of the division. I don’t think the teachers helped with that either. These girls had pressures from what was expected of them in “white” roles and at the same time trying to maintain their traditional roles in Native American society. These girls being defined as either “full blooded“ and “mixed blood” became intermingled with the pressures to fit in. --Mhimes<br />
<br />
== US, 194-220, Paige Raibmon, “The Practice of Everyday Colonialism: Indigenous Women at Work in the Hop Fields and Tourist Industry of Puget Sound” ==<br />
<br />
Like Alice, I was struck at how the view of Native Americans has changed. Paige Raibmon mentions in her article how Native American women in the 19th century were seen a subhuman because they could "endure childbirth painlessly" (199). This excuse was used to justify using them for hard manual labor. I was also shocked to discover that the Native Americans picking hops were not seen as laborers, but instead were objects for tourists to gawk at. Finally, Mihesuah mentions in her article several times that the Native Americans saw themselves as being less intelligent and less culturally valuable than whites. As Alice mentions, now many Americans glorify their Native American heritage. It seems that now we are still influenced by the same views as the white 19th century tourists were. Many Americans see their Native American ancestry as a sense of freedom and a reminder of simpler times and simply ignore the hardships their ancestors went through.--Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I found the act that a pregnancy didn’t slow down Indigenous women from working and that the managers would pay their workers for giving birth for working. “Ezra Meeker, who paid a dollar to employees who gave birth while working on his farm, new mothers where back in the fields within two days, babies at their sides,” (pg.199). I cannot believe that this really happened!---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I found that the Indigenous women were also seen as a tourist attraction too, “the spectacle of authentic Indians,” (pg.201) as if people had never seen such a thing. These people, who use to dominate the population of their American homeland were now the minority and seen as passive tourist luxuries. The “curios” that the Indigenous women created were now being bought by white women and seen as a foreign object to add to the look of their homes, “no home is complete now-a-days without a neat and artistically arranged Indian basket corner,” (pg.203). These women really seen as a sideshow in that “viewing and assessing migrant Indian women’s labor and lives became one of the pleasurable acts of public consumption through with women constituted themselves as modern,” (pg.203).---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
To me, this article highlighted a change in the way that Americans viewed Native Americans. In the span of a few decades, white Americans went from fearing the 'savages' to planning vacations around watching the newly docile Native Americans working on the hops farms. And the perception of Native American women played a large role in that shift. Women were often the ones in the fields working, picking hops with babies and children nearby and so providing a domestic front that replaced the old warrior image. Women also made many of the crafts that became popular with the white tourists. Their work became the must have pieces in white middle class homes, and suddenly Native Americans were seen as the producers of mildly exotic talking pieces rather than a threat to family and farm. -Mary Ann <br />
<br />
== MP, 252-258-- Deena Gonzalez, “Life and Legend of Gertrudis Barcelo in 19th C. Sante Fe” (2005) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that Gertrudis Barceló was a really cool woman for her time! She was a smart businesswoman who made a lot of money and owned a lot of property. One of her more profitable endeavors was opening a saloon (p255), “she made the saloon the hub of the town’s social and economic life and at the hall she kept abreast of the latest political developments.” Her success gave her independence, but also violated female codes of behavior of the time. However, the author gives Gertrudis Barceló a lot of credit that the saloon was an establishment where men who spoke different languages could come together and gamble and drink, and as they did this stereotypes were broken and fears and prejudices eroded. I am curious as to how intentional this was on the part of Gertrudis Barceló. Was she truly trying to break barriers, or was she looking to capitalize on the situation and make money? Does it really matter? – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I just wanted to throw in that I googled Gertrudis Barceló after doing the reading, and I found it interesting that she sided with the Americans during the war. She gave the Americans valuable information and even loaned them money. I think it is pretty clear that she was incredibly intelligent. (source: http://www.britannica.com/hispanic_heritage/article-9124916) -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed the story of Doña Gertrudis Barceló in that she was a woman who took charge and made something of herself unlike the white women who were quick to subdue themselves to men. “her success as a business women and gambler gave her unique independence ordinarily denied women,” (pg.254). Even as a women she was seen as so successful and powerful that “politicians and military officers alike went seeking her opinion or involved her in their discussions about trade or the army,” (pg.255). Never before have I heard of a women being consulted by military men and political men! Barceló also helped in integrating people among different cultures, “she set the stage as well for the second, when women began marrying the newcomers,” (pg.257). I really see Barceló as a role model type no matter if she was into gambling and possibly running a brothel, she was able to make a name for herself even as a woman.---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I found this reading on Gertrudis Barcelo very, very interesting! Her story seemed very inspiring and I thought her impact on the Euro-American settlers was quite profound. I think an important point that was made in the piece is how quick American settlers were to judge peoples they had never met. I liked how Barcelo was a woman who was able to help these new protestant men adapt, for lack of a better term to a new society, "They could judge the locals firsthand and could observe a community's values and habits through a single activity, After they had a few drinks, their initial fears and prejudices gradually yielded to the relaxed, sociable atmosphere of the gambling hall..."(257) Although, I do think it is important to realize that this is just one snapshot of a woman going above and beyond what was typically expected of a woman. I agree with Morgan, she was definitely able to make a name for herself, especially in the presence of white men who probably viewed themselves as racially and culturally superior. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I thought Gertrudis Barceló was very interesting because she was innovative and smart. She was Spanish and stood out from those traditional female American roles. I don’t think she bought into that same notion that some women did of what was expected of them. Her business was a lucrative one and she seized opportunities to make money. If she had been a man we would have never heard about her. --MHimes<br />
<br />
I thought that the thing that stood out from this article the most wasn't just her personal account of what had happened to her, but rather the statement on page 256 "To the protestant mind, nothing short of the complete elimination of gambling would lift New Mexicans out of their servility and make them worthy of United States citizenship. The Jacksonian Americans wanted to replace gambling with industry and enterprise" because this statement can be tweaked in so many different ways throughout American history so that the "(White) Protestants" can use their alleged superiority to promote morals within a different racial or ethnic group. Yet, I'd be willing to believe that white protestants could be found partaking in said gambling. --Ssellers<br />
<br />
== Susan Shelby Magoffin’s diary about her first days in Santa Fe, 1846 ==<br />
<br />
== Rape of Indian women in CA, 1862 ==<br />
<br />
== Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-1876 ==<br />
<br />
Through the whole of the Sale of Chinese Prostitutes documents the women were used as objects of prostitution to their owners to which they owed money to. What I do not understand is why did these women so easily give over the use of their body for such little owed money for such a long period of time? And I highly doubt any of the three women actually fulfilled their time of four years thus adding more years onto the sentence. And why would they let themselves be prostituted for borrowing such a little amount of money? $630, $470, $503, all under a thousand and yet they had to serve for 4 years in each instance. Shouldn’t they stick up for themselves and get an actual job to pay back the loan? That brings me to another idea, why did these loaners want prostitution for re-payment and not let them get a job to pay it back, possibly quicker?---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
== Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884 ==<br />
<br />
It was interesting to read this account after reading "Too Dark to be Angels." To me it is sad that this little girl was so eager to go, but kids I guess are naturally curious, and on top of that she had probably already subconsciously absorbed much of the pressure to assimilate. It's telling that the little girl compares herself to the "young of a wild creature" (241) while on the train to school. The mother decides to send her daughter to the school because she knows there will one day soon be "fewer real Dakotas" and "more palefaces" (240), an environment that would force her daughter to assimilate. Perhaps she thought sending her to school at such a young age would save her the pain of having to give up her traditions later in life. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== Mrs. A. M. Green’s account of Frontier Life, 1887 ==<br />
<br />
== Violet Cragg, Ex-Slave and Former Army Nurse, requests an Army Pension, 1908 ==<br />
<br />
In Violet’s article I saw her being an object of politics, such as her being sold and moved so many times. I also suspect that she was raped especially because of the tone around the situation of her daughter’s birth that she describes: “the father of my daughter, Mrs. Ella Taylor, was Howard Whitney, a white man. I was never supported by him and was never know as his wife and never lived with him as his wife,” (pg.243). In her appeal for a pension I didn't quite understand why she decided to write so much about her life, is this because she wanted to Pension Office as much information as possible? I found that she's also quite demeaning of herself, such as stating plainly “I cannot write,” (pg. 245). She seems to think very little of herself, when she should think highly of herself having been dealt with so many trial and tribulations in her life.---Morgan M.</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_2_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 2 Questions/Comments2010-01-19T18:58:17Z<p>Ssellers: </p>
<hr />
<div>Based on a paper I wrote on the United States Sanitary Commission last semester, this was a very interesting essay to read. Fahs mentions that the war still follows the "masculanized culture" that was in place at the time and through my research I discovered the same things. Much of the standard literature was centered around the fighting and the man's roles on the battlefield, yet women's roles on and off the battlefield cannot be forgotten. It is interesting how literature giving credit to women must be labeled as "feminist" literature, when in reality, they should be given the same treatment as men.<br />
<br />
I also found it very interesting how she discusses the different type of surrering that women endured. Men endured the horrors of war and their suffering was very physical and visual. Women, however, also suffered but they experienced strictly emotional suffering. They were cut deeply by these emotional wounds of not knowing weather their loved-ones were safe on the battlefield and some argued that these wounds cut deeper than those of men. Where men simply died on the battlefield, women had to endure the death of a loved one, while still remaining strong, and now being forced to provide for themselves.<br />
<br />
I beleive this is the most important question asked in this essay: After the war, should the enfranchisement of black women, or of all women take place? This question is central to many of the political struggles in the late 19th century. Black women almost seperated themselves into a community to bond, which made overall suffrage more difficult.<br />
-Afrisk<br />
<br />
going with the question of the enfranchisement of women... I really was encouraged by the fact that although the book explicitly states that Black men also felt that women were inferior to men in their social positions it was later stated that "serious discussion" regarding the suffrage of women was reliant upon the presence of black delegates in support of the woman's suffrage movement. -SSellers<br />
<br />
It's interesting how Civil War literature shifted from a focus on the tribulations of northern women to those of southern women. And despite a strong emphasis on realistic literature, southern women and antebellum plantation life was highly romanticized. This probably came in part from a desire to both remember a time when the nation was united (which can also be seen in the popularity of stories centered around the Revolution)and to try to create a new identity centered around northern and southern reconciliation and "white" ideals.<br />
<br />
I can't help but think about "Gone With the Wind" whenever they mentioned southern woman's literature after the war (which they eventually did mention in the reading)<br />
I know that the depiction found within that novel is unrealistic, but the romanticizing of the civil war and the southern woman's role in it IS interesting to read and find relations to even in today's non-antebellum southern world..... -Ssellers</div>Ssellershttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_1_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 1 Questions/Comments2010-01-13T01:43:11Z<p>Ssellers: </p>
<hr />
<div>I think the reading was great! -- mdvorak<br />
<br />
<br />
Yeah, me too!<br />
<br />
So apparently I'm the first to comment, yay. In "Defining "American Women's History" I really liked the concept on page 6 that "if gender is created rather than assumed... then so too is race, ethinicity, health, age, work, social status, sexuality, and so on." I found it interesting to think about Women's history in that sense especially when correlated with the later readings on black women in the United States and their association with both (what is considered to be) an "inferior" race AND gender and how that affects them. --SSellers<br />
<br />
It also seems like a Catch-22 to be in this course now. Learning about Women's history separate from "men's" history empowers the women by allowing them to be a distinct categorization, but also segregates Women's history and makes it seemingly inferior to Men's history. I have no idea where to stand on the separation... --SSellers</div>Ssellers 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