Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php on line 195
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 571
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 585
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 578
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 603
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 553
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 186
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 203
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 196
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 212
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 175
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php on line 135
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 234
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php on line 292
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php on line 755
Warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php on line 907
Deprecated: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Pager.php on line 908
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 627
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 629
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 630
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 631
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 633
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 634
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php on line 402
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: 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=StanfordMcClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T23:04:37ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_5_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 5 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-28T23:03:39Z<p>Stanford: /* Esther DeBerdt Reed, “Sentiments of an American Woman,” 1780 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Comparative questions or comments ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Thomas Paine Admits Women Have Some Rights, in 1775, from Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 288-289 ==<br />
<br />
Paine discusses the conflict within the lives of women. The conflict of being "adored and oppressed." He, also, states that men cannot control themselves as tyrants over women and slaves to them. Women's only protection froms, "They can then only hope for protection from the humiliating claims of pity, or the feeble voice of gratitude." Paine looks at other cultures and discovers that all over the world women are treated less than men. It is interesting that he states, "Our duties are different from yours, but they are not therefore less difficult to fulfil, or of less consequence to society." This statement is very interesting because in history it seems that men's achievements are almost always highlighted over women's. ---Michelle M.<br />
<br />
“When they are not beloved they are nothing; and, when they are, they are tormented.” You can see from Paine’s writing that he thinks that men have acted and behaved badly toward and in the presence of women for a very long time. Does he really think that women have some rights, or is he mocking how women are and how they react in defending their gender?--Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
We talked about the idea of women as "adored and oppressed" in my Women's Studies class last year - positive and negative sexism, I think we called it, and discussed how the two reinforced each other. But other than pointing out that women are in trouble whether married or not, he doesn't go actually talk very much about that problem; rather, he seems to see women's oppression as a result of their emotional fragility, and asks men to give them a bit more credit without suggesting that their roles need change at all. -- Katie C.<br />
<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 />
It was really clever of the author to bring God and religion into the argument to show how women and men are equal. Obviously, what she writes about "...our souls are equal to yours; the same breath of God animates, enlivens and invigorates us..." This is an undeniable fact that no one can really argue too much. -Aqsa Z.<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 />
Eliza Wilkinson is annoyed with the fact that all men see women as “dairy and household” workers. She also feels oppressed by the men in her life. It seems to me with the upcoming fight with the British, she is hoping that her thoughts and writings will actually become a beacon of freedom for her and other women. -- Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
== Mary Jemison Views the Revolution ==<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 />
One thing I found striking was Mary Jemison's preoccupation with food - she went from describing a grisly death of a prisoner of war to the state of the corn harvest in just a few sentences. Women don't seem to have participated in the fighting, but Mary Jemison describes experiencing the war through more traditionally feminine jobs like caring for her children and trying to feed her village. --Katie C.<br />
<br />
Mary Jemison being captured by the Indians was confusing to her. She goes back and forth from “our Indians and my Indian brother” to “the Indians”. She stayed loyal to the Indian tribe until they ran out of food. She took her kids and left to pursue other avenues to get food, and never returned. I will say this until the food shortage she does not appear to go along with the decision to do battle for the British, but she does recognize these Indians as her family even if she does not see eye to eye with their actions. -–Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
== Sarah Osborn, Camp Follower, Recalls the Revolution, 1837 ==<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<br />
<br />
I actually found this reading quite confusing. Who's doing the writing? She's described as a Deponent, which Wikipedia describes as someone giving testimony outside of court in preparation for a trial. What was the trial? Also, I didn't understand what she meant by the quote Claire cited above, "the bullets would not cheat the gallows." I did find the exchange with the Quaker women who asked her to stay interesting. Would she be waiting for her husband to find her again after the war, on the off chance he survived? If that's what they were offering, I'm not surprised at all she choose to stay with the people she knew rather than waiting it out with strangers. --Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Phillis Wheatley, 1768, An address to George III ==<br />
<br />
Its interesting that The Revolutionary War is typically viewed as the colonists fight for independence but through the readings on Wheatley, Murray and Adams it proves that there was another war being fought within colonial life. It was extraordinary that Phillis was educated and treated to such a level that she was practically treated like a daughter by her masters allowing her to be able to cultivate these parallels between the struggles for freedom with Britain and slavery. Being a slave and woman what she wrote seems out of place in the subservient world women and especially slaves lived in at the time. Although, all but Adams wrote under false names they still carried a sense of entitlement to speak out against the lifestyle given to them. Which made me question whether the fight for freedom against Britain was seen as by women as their ticket to finally speak out or was it the male mindset that was being altered towards what role women were supposed to play?<br />
-Rachel T.<br />
<br />
== Grace Galloway’s diary, 1778-79, Philadelphia ==<br />
When it comes to discussing the American Revolution, it is rare to come across literature that discusses the point of view of the Tories and even less when it comes to the Tory-women. In reading this this diary snippet, I was not only intrigued by the different view of the revolution, but also at how Grace seemed more annoyed about the war in general and cared for neither side, despite her loyalist husband. I wonder how many women were just like Grace when it came to having an opinion (or lack thereof) about the war and how many of them were put out of their homes, despite the fact they did nothing personally to aide or hinder any side of the fight.--Heather T<br />
<br />
== Abigail Adams, Remember the Ladies, 1776 ==<br />
<br />
Abigail comes off as a very strong and motivated woman in these letters. With each response back from John Adams, she seems to become even more determined. I personally enjoy the exchange between him and her where they refer to each other as "saucy". - Matt<br />
<br />
== Benjamin Rush, “Thoughts upon female education,” 1787 (Philadelphia) ==<br />
<br />
Reading through the "Principals of the Academy" and the rules that women would have to follow for the branches of literature, my first question is were the men disciplined in all of these rules? Specifically section II where they had to write fair and legible and shape every letter properly and use the points and capitals as needed - were men expected to write that way as well? And in section VIII, they wanted to connect the education with regular instruction in the Christian religion, what would happen if they weren't as accepting of the religion aspect? - Matt<br />
<br />
== Taylor & Duffin Report Molly Brant's Opinions and Influence, 1778 Daniel Claus assesses Molly Brant's Influence, 1779 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Esther DeBerdt Reed, “Sentiments of an American Woman,” 1780 ==<br />
The Esther piece is special simply because it is written about women in the Revolution by a woman in the Revolution. <br />
Esther mentions that a woman’s patriotism is pure. As mothers and wives they surpass a man in their love for the public good. <br />
My favorite line in the piece is, “But it has been said, that they may apprehend, that, in the course of a long war, the view of their distresses may be lost, and their services be forgotten” (p. 116). With the minimal works we still have, how much have we lost?--Kris<br />
<br />
== Thomas Jefferson’s Slaves Join the British, 1781 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== An Anonymous Woman Claims Women's Rights in 1780, from Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 293-294 ==<br />
In my view this woman was saying that men have different roles from the women when it comes to feelings and emotions and she wanted to make sure that people knew there are great women out there. In her view men have fewer emotions than women (when they are at war is an example). ”Our ambition is kindled by the fame of those heroines of antiquity, who have rendered their sex illustrious, and have proved to the universe, that, if the weakness of our Constitution, if opinion and manners did not '''''forbid''''' us to march to glory by the same paths as the Men, we should at least equal, and sometimes surpass them in '''''our love''''' for the public good.” On the same token, she wanted the men to know that, anything a man can do a woman can do too, but women put more emotion and heart into it then a man ever could. That may be our downfall, but it may also be our strength over the male gender.--Pam Petzold</div>Stanfordhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_3_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 3 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-15T00:14:54Z<p>Stanford: /* Benjamin Wadsworth, 1712 – Well-Ordered Family */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching/comparative comments ==<br />
<br />
"To Use Her as His Wife" and the memoir of Abigail Bailey helped to define where women fell during this time in regards to the law. What I found interesting about both situations, even with their vast differences, they both were about women whose lives were left to be determined by the men that surrounded them. It is never clear what Martha Root wanted for her life as she was the one who in the end was responsible for raising the child. Root's opinion never appeared to come up for debate as it was overshadowed by the cultural and societal norms set by the male members of the community. The more drastic example of this legal inequality can be felt in Abigail Bailey's confession of her husband and daughters incest driven relationship. She is clearly broken that this immoral and sinful activity is taking place within her own home and she cannot even protect her own child. She continually comments that she "knew not that I could make legal proof" and even when she was able to bring her husband in front of the law it was by the help of her brothers and over a property settlement, not the rape of his daughter. It leaves the question if men were considered more morally upright than women as the choices they made guided the entire community? --Rachel T.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Katherine Kish Sklar article, “To Use her as His Wife” ==<br />
<br />
I found “To Use Her As His Wife” to be a very interesting read. I had no idea that a fundamental feature of an 18th century marriage was bridal pregnancy. Why don’t we hear stories about bridal pregnancy more often (Martha Root’s story)? It is also intriguing that these women were not chastised for their pregnancies out of wedlock, mainly because their children were not seen as bastards. How did these premarital pregnancies affect the family life after the couple was married? --Catherine K.<br />
<br />
<br />
This article also changed my view of women's place in colonial society. I had imagined a much more strict adherence to the taboo on premarital sex, and a much harsher criticism of women who engaged in it. Instead, the phenomenon of "bridal pregnancy" suggests to me that society had come up with a way to handle apparently inevitable cases, and both the man and woman could, through marriage, retain their place in society and their dignity. It was this fact, that pregnancy before marriage did not necessarily ruin the woman, which surprised me. --Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
== Benjamin Wadsworth, 1712 – Well-Ordered Family ==<br />
<br />
In Benjamin Wadsworth’s sermon discussing “A Well Ordered Family,” he describes that the ideal family is one in which the wife is submissive to the husband, but that they should be loving and affectionate to one another. He also describes a quarrel or disagreement as “the Devil’s work.” On one hand, he states that if a wife is not “so young, beautiful, healthy…” etc, God still requires the husband to love her and be not bitter. This sounds like a fairly positive position for women. However, Wadsworth goes on to say that if a husband is not “well-tempered,” the wife still is required to love and particularly obey him. In my view, this would allow husbands to be abusive or ill-tempered without repercussion because women must be submissive and obey them no matter what. This model ultimately failed and the stratification between men and women grew further. <br />
--Clare O.<br />
<br />
I found the way Wadsworth talks about love striking. It's a "duty" to be "performed," as is "plainly commanded by God." That's quite different from how we talk about love now, as an ethereal thing which people fall in or out of. It's discussed as less of an emotion and more of a character trait, to strive for despite the many potential flaws in one spouse that he lists. It's interesting how his list for women differs from his list for men - he tells them to love and obey their husbands even if he has less "abilities of mind" or is of a "more common birth" - I wonder if more-educated or wealthier women marrying lower-status men was common enough to merit such a comment?<br />
<br />
To use her as a Wife: Paternity Suit brought to life the shift in family structures. The change from pre-modern to modern family structures happened much earlier than I expected. The paternity suits in this period made progress towards answering religious and social questions that we have today including the issue of child support, whether or not a man should have to marry a woman bearing his child out of wedlock and what the issue is with marrying a different social class. --kris<br />
<br />
== Susanna Wesley, 1732, Evangelical Child-Rearing ==<br />
<br />
I'm finding it difficult to work out what we can understand from this about "typical" child-rearing. She discusses her children going into less-strict homes than hers and learning songs and playing and such awful things, so presumably other households weren't this strict. She also talks about how her girls didn't learn to sew until they could read well, and comments that few women read well because they learned to sew first - so did most families not let their girls study reading so much? Or is she talking about her own generation, and now girls are getting more education? Is her desire for her girls to know how to read and speak well religiously motivated like the rest of her theory of child-rearing seems to be, in which case it might be more common, or is it a personal thing? - Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Eliza Pinckney, 1750s, To Improve in Every Virtue ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== New Spain’s (New Mexico’s) moral code as dictated by the Spanish Crown in 1752 ==<br />
<br />
I'm surprised there was such concern about class in New Spain, since it doesn't seem to have existed in quite the same way in the English colonies. I'd also love to read a more precise definition of seduction. The most interesting part of this law is that NOT marrying a woman is a serious offense - if someone has seduced someone and then doesn't marry her, then that apparently does her serious injury, though not him. (I guess he's the one not embarrassed by being turned down, just as her lineage or reputation won't be hurt by marrying someone above her?) I wonder, did lower-class women ever seduce Dukes and Counts? It certainly doesn't seem to have happened enough to be mentioned here, but I guess those native girls were just all over the nobility. - Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Laws on Slave Descent in VA and MD, 1662, 1664, 1691, 1692 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Skilled slaves in Maryland, 1748-1763, Maryland Gazette ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Complaint of Elizabeth Sprigs, indentured servant, 1756 ==<br />
<br />
I was shocked when I read that letter from the girl to her father. I know that not all people came over to the New World willingly but I thought that most of them enjoyed being here once they got here. I would have never guessed that this girl was treated like, if not worse, than a slave and then started to beg her father who threw her out, for more. It makes me wonder what rights indentured servants had since they were not technically property, or were they? – Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Apprenticeship in PA, 1771-1773, Record of Indentures ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Advertisements, Gazettes of VA, PA, SC, NY – 1751-1776 ==<br />
<br />
While reading through the various gazettes, I noticed in the 1750's, girls were more or less being offered lessons in needle work and other types of crafts, where as the boys were being taught the reading, writing and arithmetic. They appeared to have been kept the sexes separate as well. Fast forward twenty years and it seems the girls are being offered the same craft work, but they are also able to learn the reading, writing and arithmetic, plus various other areas of interest (music being a common theme). - Matt<br />
<br />
== AN ABOMINABLE WICKEDNESS ''Abigail Bailey, 1815'' ==<br />
<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 />
In Abigail Bailey’s memoirs, “An Abominable Wickedness,” she describes how her husband had begun an incestuous relationship with one of their daughters. This particular account illuminates the lack of power of women during this time period in two distinct ways. First, Abigail Bailey was only able to have her husband arrested with the help of her brothers. It is astounding that women lacked rights to the extent that the law would ignore the fact that her husband was abusing their daughter, simply because a woman reported it. Secondly, the daughter who was being abused denied the opportunity to testify against her father. While her reasoning for this is unclear, it is possible that she was so afraid of the power the male authority of the household had over her that she refused to testify. <br />
--Clare O. <br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== TIED HAND AND FOOT -- ''Esther Burr, 1756-1757'' ==<br />
<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<br />
<br />
What I found interesting in the Esther Burr letters:<br />
-The push for women to be married came from women just as much as it did from male ministers (excusing the fact that she was married to a minister).<br />
-Not marrying was considered a "murder of self." (Page 39, Woloch)<br />
-Did women in this era always refer to their husbands as "Mr Burr?"<br />
--Mary Beth M<br />
<br />
What I found interesting was that she was able to keep a diary. Most of the time we are taught that women are not suppose to be taught to write and you even see that in some of the later readings that young girls had been taught to read the bible and nothing else. And in reference to what Mary Beth said, I don’t think that it is only their husbands they refer too. I think that that she refers to everyone with a title. –Kayle P</div>Stanfordhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_2_Questions/Comments-327_11Week 2 Questions/Comments-327 112011-09-08T02:18:42Z<p>Stanford: /* Sarah Ahhaton’s trial, 1668 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching questions ==<br />
<br />
What do these primary sources reveal about the nature of women's experiences in colonial-era interactions?<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 />
<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 />
<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 />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
It is extremely important to remember that the majority of resources available concerning the lives of Native American women are written by European men. The reason is that the Native American tribes did not have their own written language which I found extremely surprising. Some of the sources written by the Europeans are better than others. For example, it is interesting how Samuel de Champlain describes the Huron women as doing most of the work and serving as "mules" for their husbands, while their husbands simply hunt and go to war. However, John Heckewelder observed Delaware Indian families and came to a different conclusion, that women were in fact "cheerfully" accepting their fair share of labor and were not in a manner being treated as slaves. It is interesting to note that Champlain wrote his account in 1616 while Heckewelder wrote his in the mid eighteenth century. I wonder if this passage of time had an effect on the perceptions of the English, or if the two simply had different points of view. --Clare O.<br />
<br />
In the introduction to "First Encounters" in Woloch's book, she mentions that "During the era of colonization, Europeans at home and abroad had an insatiable curiosity about the New World." Perhaps it is possible that the sources we do have on Native American women are exaggerated in order to appeal to this rabid public. For example, John Smith's third account in which Pocahontas saves him from being killed is much more interesting to readers than his first account describing diplomacy. Another example would be Mary Rowlandson, who completely demonized the Native Americans and disregards any act of kindness. She describes them as a "scourge" and as having "inhumane, and many times devilish cruelty to the English." These incredibly harsh words would surely pique the interest of the European public as well. -- Clare O.<br />
<br />
After Dr. McClurken’s lecture on Tuesday, the readings for this week were much easier to understand and conceptualize. I think it is interesting that there is no first-hand evidence of written records by Native American women or Native Americans in general. I also thought it was interesting that in the Woloch text, European settlement in the Indian societies negatively affected Native American women’s roles during the time period. The documents in this piece of literature were very insightful because they showed how the Native Americans were viewed by different people such as Roger Williams (a separatist minister), and Mary Jemison, who had a favorable view of the Native Americans who were keeping her held captive. --Catherine K. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Mary Rowlandson’s account (1681) and Mary Jemison’s account (1824) ==<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 />
I would say we are probably getting a very biased account of the lives of Native American women, when our impression is filtered through the culture of white Americans. In the case of these two readings, I think we can try to determine how strong the bias was, and what kind of bias the authors held, by looking at their individual circumstances. These two writers had very different experiences, which shaped their view of the Native Americans with whom they lived. I think, in general, Mary Jemison's account is probably more historically reliable because she was taken captive at a younger age, when her impressions of the world were still being formed and maybe still malleable. She also learned the local language and came to respect the people with whom she lived. Mary Rowlandson did not assimilate this way, or make the same connections with her captors. -- Rebecca W.<br />
<br />
I found Mary Rowlandson account to be very interesting because most of the accounts about Native American captures have the captives not wanting to return to white society like Mary Jemison’s account. Most people never wanted to leave the community that they became a part of but Mary Rowlandson had the opposite experience. It’s interesting to see both sides. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
I found the two views of Rowlandson and Jemison very interesting because both seemed so different. I believe these differences come from the unique experiences of the women and their individual backgrounds. Rowlandson used her faith in Christianity to deal with her capture. She used religion because she is a wife of a preacher, and therefore religious. Jemison does not talk about faith the same way as Rowlandson. Jemison does talk about her captors as family and friends. I believe she does this because she has lost all her living relatives. She has to turn to the Native Americans and join their culture. Rowlandson still has family alive, therefore she does not accept living with the Native Americans. -- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
I also found it very interesting that Jemison blames Europeans for the Native Americans for acting violent. She blames the European education of Native Americans as robbing "them of many of their virtues, and will ultimately produce their extermination." (pg30) -- Michelle M.<br />
<br />
While Rowlandson's and Jemison's accounts are interesting, it is important to keep in mind their respective motives, Rowlandson's essay in particular. Captivity narratives were very trendy, and the more salacious a story, the better it sold in publication. I do not mean to say that Rowlandson's story should be discounted, nor that it is without value. Bearing in mind John Smith's portrayal of himself as a swashbuckling playboy (or his colleagues' 1612 tall tale), we would do well to remember that certain elements of the story may be exaggerated for the benefit of the intended audience. Viewed in this light, Jemison's story is more credible, because she did not seek fame through sensationalism. --Stefanie L.<br />
<br />
== John Heckewelder’s 1819, Women’s Lives among the Delaware ==<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 />
<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 />
What first sparked my interest in "Women's Lives Among the Delaware" is when Heckewelder was describing marriage and how it doesn't have to be forever. He stated that if the marriage no longer "suited their pleasure" or wasn't convenient any more, they could voluntarily leave. I found this to be a bit shocking. I thought female American Indians were forced into marriages, but I was wrong, they didn't even have a ceremony. It was also interesting to read about how women did hard labor (tilling the land, getting firewood, accompanying men while hunting and holding the heavy bags and equipment, etc.). I was happy to read that they didn't complain about it and was glad to do the work. One thing I didn't agree with was how he made it sound like the men were better than the women because they brought home the food and put themselves in danger. -- Ashley V.<br />
<br />
== Samuel de Champlain, 1616 ==<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 thought that their marriage traditions were very complex. They have all of the traditions that go along with marriage and I think that they are very remarkable that all of their traditions were upheld. These traditions are more intricate than the English and it is quite remarkable. –Kayle P<br />
<br />
== Pierre de Charlevoix, 1721, “Iroquois Women in Government” ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Roger Williams Remarks on Narragansett women – 1643 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mary Musgrove assists the Georgians in Dealing with the Choctaws, 1734 & Mary Musgrove Seeks aid for past service from GA, 1747 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Captive John Tanner in 1830 ==<br />
<br />
I found it interesting (and a little humorous) that John Tanner was purchased for whiskey, blankets, tobacco and "other articles of great value". It seems to have been customary during this time, for a mother that had lost a child, to go out and be able to trade items for "new" children. Times have definitely changed.. -- Matt<br />
<br />
== Father Le Jeune on necessity of teaching native women, 1633 ==<br />
<br />
I wonder how the Native American men reacted to being told that they were the master and their wives shouldn't rule over them. Father Le Jeune obviously assumes that the women in this particular culture have a lot of power, particularly over their husbands, but I can't imagine that Native American men, accustomed to such a situation, would necessarily think of their relationships with their wives in terms of power or mastery over someone else. And if they did start to think in those terms, the women were probably faced with a really sudden change in their relationship with their husbands! I'd be interested in seeing more about how things like what Father Le Jeune was saying influenced existing relationships between men and women. - Katie C.<br />
<br />
== Native women resist Jesuits, 1640 ==<br />
<br />
The Native American men wanted the women to become baptized. From what we've read, the women for the most part, seemed to have a good bit of power and did almost everything to keep everything running and well kept, yet the men are blaming the women for all of their misfortunes? - Matt<br />
<br />
In the beginning of the passage “Native Women Resist the Jesuits, 1640,” it begins by saying that “They [Native American men] resolved to call together the women, to urge them to be instructed and to receive holy Baptism.” One of my questions is: Why was it that the men were more receptive to the Jesuit’s Christianity than women? And more importantly, did that have anything to do with the difference in gender expectations of Christian and Native American culture? --Mary Beth M.<br />
<br />
What I found interesting about "Native Women Resist the Jesuits, 1640," was the woman at the end of the passage who leaves the tribe to protest against conversion. I also found it interesting how the English went after her and after they could not find her allowed her to punish herself by going four days without food because some of my readings for my Early Colonial History course suggest that Native Americans were perfectly fine without food for a few days. Also, knowing how the men of the tribe respected their women and treated them about equally, I wonder why these men would still insist upon conversion to Christianity if the women were so against it?--Heather Thompson<br />
<br />
== Wamponoag women of Martha’s Vineyard, 1727 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sarah Ahhaton’s trial, 1668 ==<br />
The Sarah Ahhaton trial was very extravagant for the time period. This changed the Indian social world, primarily in the realm of marriage. Indian women had the ability to “do what they please,” including marriage, divorce and trading, before the ideas of Christianity confronted their ways. A trial dedicated to the admitted adultery of an Indian woman, with a required punishment, accomplished through interpreter, forced European values onto the native women by combining the political and personal spheres. The ideas of love, sex and marriage all became political, with political regulations.--Kris<br />
<br />
== Ann Marie Plane's essay ==</div>Stanford 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