Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php on line 195
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 571
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 585
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 578
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 603
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 553
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 186
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 203
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 196
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 212
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 175
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php on line 135
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 234
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php on line 292
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php on line 755
Warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php on line 907
Deprecated: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Pager.php on line 908
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 627
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 629
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 630
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 631
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 633
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 634
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php on line 402
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: 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=THalpernMcClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T23:06:37ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_14_Questions/CommentsWeek 14 Questions/Comments2007-11-29T05:24:49Z<p>THalpern: </p>
<hr />
<div>I enjoyed reading the account of Louisa May Alcott in Woloch when she was describing her period of nursing in the hospital. I knew that the conditions were bad but reading that account really made it clearer what they had to deal with, such as the lack of ventilation, which of course would not have helped the wounded and sick heal.- Elizabeth Lynn Frank<br />
<br />
I also found Alcott's journal interesting because she seems to be a woman looking for opportunity. She writes of "pent up energy" and a want of "new experiences." She seemed to have personal hopes the exceed what was allowed for women in the doctrine of separate spheres. Alcott took advantage of the war to gain new experiences.--Kelly Martin <br />
<br />
I'm a huge Alcott fan. Her novels are wonderful. Reading her journal brings to light her experiences during the war, showing the horrors of war and the trama and stress it placed not only on the soldiers but civilians as well. Her journals hightlights the humanitarian side of the war and the very real relationships and interactions which were established between the soliders and the nurses as seen in Alcott's reference to "my boys." -Katelynn Vance <br />
<br />
Alcott's journal seems to shed light on who these women nurses actually were. I typically find myself going along with the static ideas we may have about what they thought and felt, but this really shows their character behind the facade of who they are, as well as give insight as to what they were going through, why they were, and what kept them going. "Though often homesick, heartsick, and worn out, I like it, find real pleasure in comforting, tending, and cheering these poor souls who seem to love me..." and "Up at six, dress by gaslight, run through my ward and throw up windows... poke the fire, add blankets, joke, coax, and command." She also shows the affection nurses grew to have for their patients, at one point calling them her "big babies" and "my boys" which I thought was cute and funny. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
Alcott's piece also shows how a certain type of women were attracted to the nursing profession: young, single, and adventurous. -- F. Cobb<br />
<br />
Like most of us, I also really enjoyed Alcott's journal. It was nice to see her writing from her own experiences, versus one of her novels! I really found it interesting how she just kept going. Through her own illness contracted from the hospital, as well as the horrible sights- she felt compelled to keep going and move on. In the beginning of her journal...she wrote how she "...was a boy going off to war." She was doing all that she could for the fight. And that included traveling 500 miles away from home- leaving family and friends behind. - Talya.<br />
<br />
Having long been an admirer of Louisa May Alcott's writings I was thrilled and fascinated to read her journal about her time as a nurse. Her writing style was such that you can almost see what she was seeing and feel what she felt. It was also an example of what we talked about in class, women taking opportunities to go and do something that they otherwise would not have and that they were just as susceptible to illness as their patients. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
Alcott's journal was so interesting. What a great view into why a woman would become a nurse. Its so interesting that she saw this not only as a way to help her country, but also as a way to help her family (by giving them one less mouth to feed). It is also interesting that she sees becoming a nurse as "taking my life in my hand." Obviously the women saw themselves as making just as much of a sacrifice as male soldiers. -- Allison Johnson <br />
<br />
Since the men have left/ Women take over the farm/ We do what we must. (Inspired by "Northern Women on Farms"; he did say we could do haikus). I liked reading this account because to me it shows how much women were willing to change in some cases in order to adjust to the men leaving for war and in order to make the farm continue to succeed. These women were great motivators, or could have been if they had encouraged others to do the same.- Elizabeth Lynn Frank<br />
<br />
After reading Clarissa Burdett's affidavit, I was surprised that Burdett would run away and leave her children behind, potentially to suffer the same abuse she endured. Because Burdett's torture was the punishment for her husband and niece's running away, wouldn't Burdett's running away cause the master to be especially cruel to her children?-- Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
I can only imagine the pain and anguish that Clarissa Burdett experienced. That said, I would think that she had to make a descision at that moment, to run away to to be potentialy beaten to death. If her master beats her to death there is still no one there to protect her children. She knew that she could not take them with her, so she made the desicion to leave them and sought help from the Union army to help her remove her children from the situation. I wish that we could know from the readings what became of her and her children, but in my opinion she choose the only option that she thought was available to her that was in the potential best interest of her and her children. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
In Eva Jones' letters, there was one thing she said that seemed to emphasize what we discussed in class as to the shock of some southerns that their slaves were not in fact happy and left. "Adelline, Grace, and Polly have all departed in search of freedom, without bidding any of us an affectionate adieu." -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I found Eva Jones's letters interesting because they presented a perspective I had never considered before: that of the wealthy Southern white woman. I would not usually think of these women as victims, but, as was mentioned in class, they experienced dramatic changes after the end of the war. I even pitied Jones when she wrote, "I expect before long to become a very efficient chambermaid and seamstress, though the latter comes very hard to my poor unused fingers." It must have been a difficult transition for women used to commanding slaves rather than doing their own domestic labor. -- Ashley H. <br />
<br />
I found Eva Jones' entry quite insightful. She mentions some of her slaves voluntarily stayed after the War, which brings about a question I have always pondered and hope that perhaps someone can shed some light on, why did slaves remain on plantations with their masters and mistresses? How often did this occur? Is it mainly a phenomenon seen with elderly slaves who could not travel or start fresh?- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
I was surprised by the women who strongly criticized other women following the Civil War, did they do this only because they were unable to directly attack men? - F. Cobb<br />
<br />
In Mary Anderson's story, I'm surprised to hear of how many slaves actually returned to their former masters' homes. She said that once she and a large portion of her family moved back, she got married and had several kids, but she doesn't mention what life was like or how they lived. I assume that this was maybe a sharecropping arrangement? -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I know I've commented a lot already, but I was just so struck by Ada Bacot's comments that I had to comment at least one more time. She vehemently hates the two Yankee soldiers that were wounded and placed in her ward. "It will be hard to treat them as I do the other men but I know it is my duty." So despite her hatred, she does what she has to do as a nurse. But the last line emphasizes that hatred when she says, "I have never inquired there names nor do I intend to." Ouch. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I found Ada Bacot's Comments on Two Wounded Yankees interesting. She comments that it is her duty to care for the wounded Yankee soldiers though it troubles her to do so. This just reaffirms the concept that women came to the front during the war and embraced a sense of duty--for some this was caring for men despite their Yankee or Confederate affiliation. --E. Hufford<br />
<br />
I was surprised to read Sarah Morgan's account especially when she said, "But if I can't fight, being unfortunately a woman, which I now regret for the first time in my life...." I found this to be quite a radical statment considering the societal ideology of a woman's place. How many other women felt this way at the time of war? --E. Hufford<br />
<br />
I too found Sarah Morgan's statement, "But if I can't fight, being unfortunately a woman, which I now regret for the first time in my life....", a bit radical considering a woman's place in society at the time.-Katie D.<br />
<br />
I thought Cornelia Hancock's account in Major Problems was intersting. What I thought was particularly interesting was how Hancock could handle the sight of blood and watch amputations take place, but when she had to write home for a soldier, she couldn't do so without crying. I guess she had seen so many amputation take place that they no longer bothered her. I also want to know what kind of qualifications that a man needed to be a surgeon. To be a surgeon would a man have to already be a practicing doctor or could a surgeon be anyone willing to do the job? ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
I really liked the accounts written by the nurses during the Civil War, particularly the account written by Maria Daly who was a New Yorker. Her details of the Southern nurses really emphasizes how little they wanted to be there and how different cultures were between the north and the south. One thing that really stuck out to me was the line, "I lose all patience when I think of these demonic Southern women, whose pride and arrogance have had so much to do with this fearful state of things." It just makes it so much clearer the difference between northern women and southern women. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Sarah Morgan's declaration of being a rebel also intrigued me quite a bit. I remember during the lecture how women in the South practically (totally) forced their male relatives to fight in the war, and this declaration just seemed to be the epitome of that. She seems so enthusiastic to be a Southerner that I wouldn't be surprised if she ended up dressing like a man to go fight or threw her male relatives onto the fields. Although she mentions that she was hesitant about the war at first, he attitude seems completely changed and it makes me wonder if this was a result of propaganda and public opinion, or if she was trying to boost moral for other southerners? -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I enjoyed Lincoln's comments on the contributions of women: "I have never studied the art of paying compliments to women. But I must say that if all that has been said by orators and poets since the creation of the world in praise of women, was applied to the women of America, it would not do them justice for their conduct during this war. I will close by saying, God bless the women of America!" I'm not sure I have anything to say about it; I just thought it was a pretty fantastic quote. -Ashley H.<br />
<br />
Mary Livermore's writing in Major Problems was interesting because she believes that the heroism and unity of women during the Civil War was comparable to that of the men that were center stage doing the fighting. I think it was meant to be uplifting for women at the time. She wanted to show that women did play an important role as caretakers in the Civil War. -- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
Ada was not uncommon in her feelings towards the Yankee soldiers. Newspapers in the South tended to portray Yankees as “The Northern serpent, who has penetrated the Southern Eden… proposes to harm no one--to disturb nobody's private rights....” The newspapers insinuated how no one will forget “the cruelties practised [sic] upon our loyal and true citizens, the brutal treatment of women….” The quotes were taken from Virginia Center for Digital History, “Staunton Spectator,” The Valley of the Shadow, http://valley.vcdh.virginia.edu/newspapersp2.html. ---Cheryl<br />
<br />
There seems to be a sense of fear in Louticia Jackson's letter about her slave Willes continual disobedience. Her last line reads: "He does seem so wicked [that] if any one was to come upon him about his conduct I do not know what he would do afterwards." When I consider how black male slaves were viewed by people as ready to commit any terrible crime, such as raping a helpless white woman, her fear does really seem really deeply felt. There really doesn't seem like there is anything she can do...its not like she could easily go get her neighbors to come and help. In a way, power has shifted to the slaves in a sort of hidden way. -Christopher Plummer<br />
<br />
In "Teaching the Freedmen", Sarah Chase claims to have 140 pupils. This seems like an outrageously high number. Was such a large student:teacher ratio common in these post-war schools?- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
I wrote my paper on Louisa May Alcott so I was familiar with her diary describing her experience as an army nurse during the Civil War. Alcott fell very ill while working and it took her almost three months to recuperate after she returned home. Even though her work almost killed her Louisa continued to help in the war effort in any way that she could. For instance she rallied other women in Concord to sew for the soldiers. –Caitlin Quinn<br />
<br />
I found the division between the women of the North and the women of the South completely fascinating. When Sarah Morgan stated, “Yes! I am glad we are two distinct tribes,” in combination with the piece by Caroline Kirkland, made it clear how prideful each side was. I think when we talked in class about sectional pride and the role of women in recruiting and setting the standards of men being soldiers I did not truly grasp the almost competition-like atmosphere created. Are there other examples of women or groups taking such passionate sides of soldiers? Can anyone think of modern-day examples of women standing so passionately next to their men for a cause? -Mary Beth D.<br />
<br />
Hancock's letter to her mother surprised me because it was so different from the others to her cousin and sister. To her sister she wrote of all the suffering and terrible conditions the men faced. To her mother though she spoke of being "waited upon like a princess," that sleeps and eats well and that she loves what she is doing. Could it be that she didn't want to worry her mother? --Alex K.<br />
<br />
Alex, you bring up an interesting point. I wonder how many female nurses truly felt unsafe, like Alcott, and how many of them would have been able to communicate their fears to friends and family without fearing objections and restrictions from people who still controlled their lives.I've read elsewhere similar comments to Daly's attacks on Southern white women, and I'm frequently left wondering if Southern white women were truly that awful, or if it was a propaganda tool.--A. Meyer<br />
<br />
I found Ella Gertrude's comments to Sherman's wife really harsh. It reminded me of cady high school girls when she was purposely trying to make his wife feel bad by telling her of the Mulatto girl he had been seen with (insinuating an affair). --Alex K.</div>THalpernhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_8_Questions/CommentsWeek 8 Questions/Comments2007-10-18T04:06:08Z<p>THalpern: </p>
<hr />
<div>I found it interesting in ''Women Alone: Property and Personalism'' how women expressed their displeasure with family members openly in their wills by leaving them out or adding conditions to the inheritance. Meanwhile men, when writing their wills, adhered to a basic format. I liked how the author made clear that even though women were limited in their influence and power in legal and political rights, they asserted their power through their wills. - Elizabeth Frank <br />
<br />
I too though it was very interesting how women openly expressed their displeasure in their wills by leaving them out or adding conditions to the inheritance, and as for the men, they just followed a simple format. These women finally got the change to assert their power through their wills, something that they never got the chance to do before...as far as political and legal rights are concerned. -Katie D.<br />
<br />
The women of Petersburg seemed to be self-sufficient. I was surprised to hear women wrote a great many of the wills. When it was mentioned how they highly personalized their wills, it reminded me of how a grandmother of mine use to threaten her relations about leaving them out of her will. This same grandmother also had good control of the family finances. I think she was pretty unique. -Cheryl<br />
<br />
It is sort of understandable that a woman would choose favorites, since the patriarch of a family would probably be treated with respect by all members of the family, but a matriarch? I am sure that many family members treated her like she was incompetent and unsuited to lead the family. Would the son-in-law have left that same clause reprimanding Bolling's husband, had he been alive? I doubt it. I wouldn't leave them anything either! -- Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
In Woloch's book, Malefactors and Complainants, Women were very active participants in the New England county courts, where they appeared in several capacities. It was interesting to me that occasionally wives served as attorneys for their husbands;colonies that accepted this practice did so on the grounds that the wife was legally an extension of her husband. -Katie D.<br />
<br />
It doesn't really make sense to me why the wives were able to serve as attorneys for their husbands though if in other capacities women were not thought to be rational or logical or capable of higher thought. Why then would the men put their "fate" in their wives hands? Or did an attorney have a more limited role then, or have a different meaning? --Alex K.<br />
<br />
I gathered from the reading in Woloch that the fame sol traders were not major players but rather women for one reason or another needed to earn a living. The laws passed were to both protect the feme sol traders from being taken advantage of and keep them from taking advantage of others. -Cheryl<br />
<br />
In Woloch we are shown that in New England it was easier for women to receive a divorce from the courts than it was in the Chesapeake region. I actually found this surprising. Because New England was formed around strict religious ideals I expected that divorce would be harder to get approved of. I understand that divorce was given based on if a woman was abused, if adultery was committed or if a wife or husband was left for an extended period without contact from the other. HOWEVER, why was it less difficult to get a divorce in a region with such strong foundations in religion? I feel like I'm missing a connection someplace in there.- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Maybe this is due to the layout of towns in New England verses the Chesapeake. Towns are more prevelant in the north and, perhaps because of this, courts and town councils seem to be more prevelant as well. When you live in an isolated area, probably far removed from the courts and your neighbors, it would be harder to go to the court for anything at all so something like a domestic dispute would be hard to take to court. -- Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
In response to Elizabeth's comment, I was wondering how varying views of marriage may have affected divorce rates in New England and the Chesapeake region. I think we've read that the Puritans viewed marriage more as a civil union than a sacred bond, so it may not actually be contradictory for them to allow divorce. What type of religion, if any, flourished in the Chesapeake? -- Ashley H. <br />
<br />
Elizabeth I think it would be interesting to study how many cases were brought to court and how many divorces were actually approved. While we see New England as strange for allowing divorce in such a strict, Puritan society we are not fully aware of how common the practice was or how easy of a time an abused or neglected woman had winning her case. Another section in Woloch I found fascinating was this idea of Feme Sole Traders which allowed married women to engage in businesses. I thought it was interesting how South Carolina had more "liberal laws." What could be a motive for that? Did a particular trade lend itself to this idea of Feme Sole Traders? How common was the practice? Was it socially unacceptable to take economic matters into one's own hands and not leave it up to the man? --Mary Beth Dillane<br />
<br />
I also was amazed with the section on the Feme Sole Traders. I thought it was unacceptable for women to be able to take on such economic matters, especially after what happened in the Dutch Colonies when the English arrived. Was this practice of the woman being a major player economically really that common? - Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
In another class I have taken it was mentioned that while married women in New England had few legal rights they were more able to divorce because of the Puritan idea of what a home and familiy and patriarchal household. If a marriage was not the ideal marriage or if a man was not upholding his patriarchal responsibilities a woman was within her rights to divorce him. However, who knows what other motives New England law makers might have had. Also on the Feme Sole Traders, the question on a particular trade is a good one. If I had to take a guess I would say whatever trade she might want to get involved in, but also maybe not a trade that was of a masculine sort, like selling men's clothes or something like that. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I'm curious about how sentencing for crimes may have been affected by gender.For example, the reading mentions that Mary Chelson was whipped and had to pay a fee for "committing of fornication.... and having a bastard childe." In the trial Chelson named the father of her child, what would his punishment have been?-- Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
I was also interested in the sentencing for crimes and its relationship to gender. I found it interesting that on one occassion, the "Backway Sentenced", the man got whipped five more times for the woman for committing fornication before marriage. Why did the amount of whipping for fornication change? It seems like for the most part the charge was 15 slashes (even if a bastard child is involved). However, it fluctuates based on the case, sometimes 10 and a small monetary payment, sometimes 20. Why is this? Were some charged less because they were deemed "better" citizens? Fornication is fornication. How can you say one case is worse than another?- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
I found the excert about the sentencing of crimes very interesting. I was amazed at some of the things that people were charged for. For example the people who were fined for fornication before thier marriage. SInce there were a lot of fornication cases in this piece I probably shouldnt have been surprised, but they were MARRIED. Who should care that they had "fornicated" before marriage. And why did they tell people anyway, that seemed silly. Also what was up with that one lady, Margaret Brewster, who disguised herself and came to meeting? --Mary P.<br />
<br />
Maybe it wasn't that they told people about the fornication but that they were caught fornicating when, or where, they shouldn't have been. This is the best explaination I can come up with because you're right that it would be silly for them to admit to committing fornication before marriage. -- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with the comments about the fornication before marriage and the punishments of such, but when taking a look at their society that they lived in, it certainly correlates. I studied in another class that these activities and others that demonstrated individualistic tendencies or independence or even anything that was outside the community norm were severely "frowned upon" and punishment was necessary. Anything to keep the community cohesive and respected. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
I believe that, in this deeply religious society, confessing to fornication was essentially confessing to a sin, with the thought process being to repent and accept the punishment. Perhaps reasoning for this was to ensure a Christian afterlife or to prevent a "bastard child" from being ostracized by the surrounding community.- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
I thought that there wasn't a problem with premarital sex. There would only be a problem if it resulted in a child and the two - didn't marry. Maybe I am wrong? - Fiona C.<br />
<br />
I was just amazed, in general, that women were allowed to leave wills and have some say in what happened with property after someone's death. I didn't realize that women were allowed to have this much power in the relationship, was this a new ideology? Or had this always been common? - Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I was also intrigued by the section on wills. In particular, the law that required a man to leave his wife at least a life interest in one third of his real estate. Were these women then given control over the money? To me this contradicts the view of women as completely financially dependent upon men. - Fiona C. <br />
<br />
I too was surprised that women were able to have a say in what happened to their property after their death. I also found it interesting that through antenuptial contracts, women could retain come control over their property. I thought that when a woman married, she became the property of her husband.-- E. Hufford<br />
<br />
Right, when a woman married she did become the property of her husband, but if the husband died first, I believe she was entitled to 1/3 of the assests. I also noticed that much of the stuff women left to people in their wills was movable property so it wasn't like the women were dealing with the larger issues, like property. --Alex K. <br />
<br />
I looked at the wills in a different way. Everyone is talking about how surprised they were with how much a woman was left after her husband died. Well to be frank, I am not surprised; I would be surprised if it was not the case. Even though women were considered "property" of the husband's "government," we cannot forget that they were spouses, there was a connection, and I am sure more often than not there was dedication and devotion. I don't mean to sound juvinile, it is just that isn't it the norm for a wife to be in the will somewhere? -- Talya Halpern<br />
<br />
I was surprised at the Tennison Decision portion of "A Separation Decision" in Wolock. Many of the other divorces or separations seemed to be granted for desertion, and in these cases it makes economic sense to allow a woman to remarry so she does not become a drain on the community. However, in this case John Tennisson was willing to support his wife under his own roof, but she was granted a legal separation because "he could never entertain that love and respect for his said wife . . . as is properly due" (75). Loveless marriages couldn't have been that uncommon; I have to wonder what was going on behind the scenes that made this relationship worse than others. ---Ashley H.<br />
<br />
When reading Suzanne Lebsock's article, I was interested in the fact that white women sometimes left money and other provisions to their slaves when writing their wills. More women than men gave slaves their freedom through their wills. One woman's provisions for her slaves were written with more love and detail than were her provisions for her son and grandchildren according to Lebsock. I think this empahsizes the importance and effect of individual relationships that some white women had with their slaves.--E. Hufford<br />
<br />
I was fascinated reading the Lebsock's article. I did a research paper several years ago about the subject of women and the wills they left behind and it was really common to see where one child would get either everything or most everything. Then when the census records were looked at as well you could see where the woman had several children but some got nothing. That to me was really interesting to see how women divided up their property.~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
Question in response to Mary Beth's comment: Why is that so? Were women leaving their property to the one child that was the favorite? Or just the oldest child? And why exclude some of them from getting anything at all? Men seemed to have certain guidelines that dictated who got what (i.e. oldest son got most or all of the inheritance) but women did not necessarily have those guidelines. So is this an example of a freedom they had, giving their property to whomever they choose? -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
It says on page 79 in Woloch that Goodwife Amee was "presented by the grandjury for absenting her selfe from the publique worship of God." Does this mean that she was brought to court because she left a public display of worship on the Sabbath (Sunday?)? I'm confused about the antenuptial contracts, didn't the wife loose her legal standing when she became married, or was this more of a colonial-time period thing? If it was, how did it change and why? It seems like such a beneficial thing to men, and giving women's limited legal standing anyways, I'm at a loss to explain the change. The end of the blackboard article notes that women were more sensitive to people in precarious economic positions, or their tendency to reward their 'favorite' people, which I found interesting in how that is such a contrast to the tendencies of men. An obvious explanation might be that women could easily sympathize with a slave since, perhaps, they saw their own position in a similar light? -Christopher Plummer<br />
<br />
In the Wolock reading, under the Divorce in New England section, the most common reason for granting a divorce was abandonment by the husband. I'm sure there are varied reasons why these men left their wives but none of the court records state why any of them left. It's probably hard to tell, but did the courts know why these men were leaving? Did the wives? What was the most common reason for abandonment?-- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
I also wondered why abandonment was the most common reason for divorce in New England because I assumed it would be abuse. Were all these men running off and starting other families or did they leave their wives because they felt they could set up a better life for themselves somewhere else?<br />
In the Woloch piece on “Divorce in New England” it was interesting to read that of the thirteen colonies only Massachusetts and Connecticut offered absolute divorce. Even though absolute divorce existed in the 17th century a women could only petition the court for divorce in cases of adultery, desertion, or an absence of seven years. I wonder what the court’s reasoning was behind making a women wait seven years before petitioning the court for a divorce. Seven years seems like a very long time for a woman to have to live by herself and care for her family without her husband’s support. <br />
When Elizabeth Griswould petitioned the court to have sole custody of her children it was interesting to see the court ordering the children’s father to pay child support payments. I was not aware that courts ordered parents to pay child support as early as the seventeenth century.--Caitlin Quinn<br />
<br />
As I was reading the document “Divorce in New England” in Woloch, I was wondering if you were looked down upon by the other members of the community if you got a divorce. Did you become the subject of town gossip and become sort of ostracized from everyone else? I also want to know how common it was for someone to get divorced, I expect that it would not be as common as it is today, but I think it was fairly common because there are a lot of court documents pertaining to the subject. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
I am sure that those who went through a divorce were gossiped about often. But that is all that women had- the control to talk about eachother. I would not know how often, however I am sure it was a complete and utter last resort. For most of the divorces, it is sad to see it is due to disertion. The women need to be able to be divorced in an attempt to find a new husband to gain economic stature. -- Talya Halpern.<br />
<br />
<br />
South Carolina's acts on Feme Sole Traders were quite interesting. It is astonishing women were allowed such rights during this period, but also surprising that it took 32 years between the passing of the two acts. The first act allowed the debts to be brought upon the trader herself, but until the second act she was not able to pursue justice in her own name. I wonder if this meant that before the second act it was her husband who must bring suit for her, or if she was simply unable to seek retribution. Regardless of the limitations, being able to engage in open trade offered a vastly increased source of income to the women of the colonies. I also wonder who's hands the money they earned often ended up in, their's or their husband's. --Robert Kopp</div>THalpernhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_7_Questions/CommentsWeek 7 Questions/Comments2007-10-11T07:08:19Z<p>THalpern: </p>
<hr />
<div>In the reading from Woloch's book, part of Martha Ballard's diary, I thought it was great how Martha didn't even begin her career until age 42,had six kids,and had several careers such as a housewife, slaughtered livestock, spun flax, produced candles and soap, knitted cloathing, pieced quilts, raised chickens, milked cows, fed pigs, and grew vegetables. Martha also ran a buisy local practice as a healer and midwife, and did much more! This was a remarkable women in my eyes.-Katie D.<br />
<br />
If she didn't start her career as a midwife till she was 42 what was she doing in the mean time? Do we have any records of her earlier years? And i wonder what shaped her choice to become a midwife? --Katelynn V.<br />
<br />
In the reading from Woloch's book, part of Martha Ballard's diary, I liked how her diary was at once a professional log, a family record, and a community record, because of her continual involvement with clients, neighbors, and local happenings.- Katie D.<br />
<br />
I also liked how her diary was a log not only for herself and her family but also for her community. While reading the entries it was clear that she was writing it not only for herself because of how she records the details, like who is sick, who gave birth etc. I found it interesting that it was a midwife who seemed to be keeping logs of the town and not a man in some other professional field within the town.- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Along those lines, I was wondering why she didn't begin keeping a diary until she was 50 years old. Was it because she thought of her diary as more of a log for the community (as Elizabeth put it) and this was the time she was doing the most communal work (after her kids were not so young)? --Alex K.<br />
<br />
Is it possible that she did keep another diary and we just don't have it? Is a pervious journal ever alluded to within the text of her diary? --Katelynn V.<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting too how her diary did cover all points of her life, not just about her being a good wife or a good mother or a good midwife or what have you. That was one aspect of her diary that stood out from the diaries we have looked at previously. The diaries from the other periods seemed more concerned with making the writer look like a good Christian or the proper woman of the time, like she wrote it because she knew that it would be read some day and that she wanted to make sure her decendants knew what a wonderful person she was. While Martha Ballard may have had the same intention it also seems as though she wanted to keep the record more for herself and her children then to show how good she was. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I think it's remarkable about how detailed her journal is, and how it really does capture most of her daily activities. I particularly like the very last sentence of the Wolch reading which states "I have been called to the birth of this year past, 28 --seventeen of them were daughters. I have lost 42 nights' sleep this year past." Can you imagine, having the discipline to record you daily activites, or realizing that you had not slept for 42 nights during the year? Although, i wonder how the births of so many baby girls would effect a small community both immediately following thier birth and in the future. Could it lead to skewed gender ratios or later effect marriage possibilities for the young ladies? ---Katelynn V.<br />
<br />
Pardon me if this is common knowledge and I am just out the loop, but who was looking after Margaret's children while her and her husband were away on business? Were they all grown up and out of the house? Were they looking after themselves? I would assume because there is hardly any mention of them, and the fact that Margaret was middle-aged, that they were already grown. Also, it probably would've been a little too risky to go out to care for the sick and come back to children, whose immune systems were already vulnerable. Hmm...I guess I kind of answered my own question...but feel free to sound off if you agree or disagree.- Lisa W.<br />
<br />
In her diary, Martha Ballard mentions a man by the name of Mr. Ballard a couple of times, which I’m assuming is her husband. I was curious as to how much control he actually had over her life. I got the impression that midwives were usually widows or were unattached to a man. Does that make her case unusual? She is very independent and very busy, and she seems to do a lot of her healing and midwife duties on her own. -- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
--Yes, it was common 18th century practice for a husband and wife to address each other as "Mr. Smith" and "Mrs. Smith" even when writing to each other. Although, the emergence of companionate marriage in some relationships did change that. A more interesting question to me is, in what ways did the Ballards' marriage show signs of the emergence of companionate marriage?.--A. Meyer<br />
<br />
I believe the Ballard's marriage did show characteristics of a companionate marriage. I think the fact that she mentioned her anniversary among her work notes could show that it is something that she is proud of. Also, Martha was a very active midwife and I do not she could have been without support from her husband. - Fiona C.<br />
<br />
In response to Jennifer about Mr. Ballard, who I too assume is her husband, I suppose that he had as much control over some aspects of her life as most men did over their wives. But I also got the impression that he is not always/not often at home. Frequently she wrote about him being off surveying somewhere. But also Martha was an older woman, who had already given birth to children, who did have a vocation and so she did have probably slightly more control then most. At the same time however, she is still known as Mrs. Martha Ballard and her role as a housewife and mother and grandmother takes presidence over her role as a midwife. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I think Martha uses the name Mr. Ballard, who I am sure is her husband, out of respect and love for her husband as the provider and business man that he is. I know when I was young it was not uncommon for couple who were elderly at that time to refer to themselves as Mr. Smith and Mrs. Smith. Also couples who were business people tended to call each other by their formal names. I am a big fan of the old T.V. series The Walton’s. The Godseys were characters in the show that called each other Mr. Godsey and Mrs. Godsey. They didn’t often use their first name when they where addressing each other. ---Cheryl<br />
<br />
I agree somewhat with Cheryl on why Martha refers to her husband as Mr. Ballard, but maybe this use of full names could give us some idea of why she kept the diary. It was obviously not solely for personal pleasure. Maybe she was keeping it so that later on others could understand it if necessary and she wanted to be clear about who she was referring to. She often references how much she paid for certain services or how much she was paid so I can't help but wonder what exactly this diary was kept for. For her own personal recollection? As some sort of family banking account? As proof of particular jobs and payments? -- Allison J<br />
<br />
While reading over Martha's diary online, I was surprised to read the section about Martha's son and eventual daughter-in-law. The couple had a child out of wedlock but the courts were less concerned with their immoral behavior but rather identifying the father so that the community would not be responsible for supporting the mother and child. Is this evidence of the ongoing shift from a religious to a secular society ? --E. Hufford<br />
<br />
I think it was less that there was a shift to secularism but more that the state did not want to be economically responsible for the mother and child. The less women in the poor house, the less money the government has to fork over. I'm not sure that it dealt with the church. -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Religion still seems to be a very large factor in her life since she notes who in her family went to church on Sunday and she usually gives a clear reason if she doesn't go. She also talks about town meetings during which they decide to hire on preachers, etc. Possibly this concern over the father of the illegitimate child really is just a concern about money. At this time there would obviously be no government programs for single mothers or illegitimate children so something had to be done. Maybe this situation just shows that premarital sex did happen and it happened frequently enough that the community knew that it was important to take action before they were saddled with a child to care for. -- Allison J <br />
<br />
When reading Martha's diary dated the 9th of July 1806, I was appalled when reading of the Purrinton murders. I was shocked in the sense that one does not usually attribute such horrific behavior to that time. Many people today blame suicide-homicides on the society in which we live. I found it intersting and horrifying that such atrocities did happen even two hundred years ago.--E. Hufford<br />
<br />
I have been reading a lot of medical history lately and I found Martha’s diary passages in the winter very interesting in the fact that she gives good details on her ailments. The details are so good it makes me wonder if the fact there are many times during the winter when they are feeling fatigued and colicky that maybe it might be due to lack of a completely balanced diet. Often in the 1700s and 1800s fruits and vegetables are not very abundant. This food items are very high in various vitamins and minerals our body needs. Some of the symptoms Martha wrote about fit some of the vitamin deficiency diseases I am studying. ---Cheryl<br />
<br />
What I would like to know is how Martha Ballard had the time to run her own household and take care of her own family as well as be a busy midwife. She seemed to be on call all the time and at the end of the diary entry in the Woloch book, she said she lost 42 nights of sleep that year! ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
In response to Katherine's comment I think Martha had more time to focus on being a midwife because her children were all grown up by this time so she did not have to spend anytime on child rearing. I researched her a bit more and found out that she wrote at night while her family slept so she was not spending time during the day on these entries. <br />
Martha Ballard is a wonderful example of an 18th century woman who was not only a dutiful wife and mother but also had a professional role in her community as midwife and healer for thirty years. I found it remarkable that she kept her diary for such a long period of time and made daily entries. Martha also seemed to be very sick throughout some of these years but that did not stop her from performing all her household and professional duties. –Caitlin Quinn<br />
<br />
In Woloch's excerpt, I noticed that though the year she delivered 28 babies and 17 of them were "daughters" that is a lot of female babies. Was there something in this town's water that made them all girls? I also would have liked to read about how many of these babies survived the year, and how their mothers were doing. Why did she tell us the number of daughters? Does that show us that she values girl babies over boy babies? Could it be that she was just using short hand and telling us how many of one sex is easier than how many of both? -- Julie Castanien<br />
<br />
I also would like to comment on how cool that website was that had her entire diary. It provided an excellent way of seeing the source first hand while still making it understandable. -- Julie Castanien<br />
<br />
I agree with Julie, I liked how the site explained her dating system and the way she spelled her words. It made it much easier to understand what she was writing. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I'm curious about the qualifications for being a midwife. I assume training was fairly informal and reputation seemed to be the only resume. The Woloch reading refers to another, less trustworthy midwife "Mrs. Smith." Why was Smith not trusted? What was the difference between Smith and Ballard?-- Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
After reading Kelly's question, I wondered under what conditions midwives were held responsible for the death of an infant or mother in labor. With limited medical knowledge, how was it determined whether a death (or near-death, as in the case of Mrs. Babcock) was the fault of the midwife or a natural event beyond human aid?-- Ashley H.<br />
<br />
I don't understand how Mrs. Smith still remained a midwife. After many botched medical performances, how come her reputation never got smeared? How was she still being called for medical assistance? Since Mrs. Ballard did note some of Mrs. Smith's faulty doings, was there ever anyone that she could consult in order to get her to stop practicing? It seems like Mrs. Smith being in the picture just made for more "clean-up work" for Mrs. Ballard and more trecherous ailments for her patients.- Lisa W.<br />
<br />
<br />
Becoming a midwife seemed to be one of the few ways women could achieve status in the eighteenth century community. I wonder if this contributed to Ballard's desire to seek the role later in life. --Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
<br />
There seemed to be little mention of her husband, I wonder why that it is. Maybe he was busy or nothing worth noting happened? I guess since Martha already had six kids, she knew pretty much all one could know about having children, so midwifery seemed like a logical thing for her do. It certainly kept her busy, since she delivers a couple kids every month. The editor characterizes other midwives as 'competitors,' which I found interesting. The thought of midwifery usually doesn't bring competition and economics to my mind. -Christopher Plummer<br />
<br />
Chris raises an interesting question, did many areas have multiple midwives? The Ballards' Augusta-area home seemed to be more on the frontier...--A. Meyer<br />
<br />
Did anyone else find the practice of making women swear the identity of their child's father in the height of labor--so it would be the truth--absolutely absurd? What besides fear of death and pain would make the women be truthful?--A. Meyer<br />
<br />
In response to Andrea's question, I agree that it seems like a ridiculous notion to us. With the very real possibility of death in labor, however, perhaps it was believed that a Christian woman wouldn't risk damnation by lying with death possibly moments away.-- Ashley H.<br />
<br />
I also thought it was interesting how much time and effort Ballard put into her work. She often spent a whole day with her patients and sometimes had to travel long distances or in bad weather. In one year she had lost 42 nights of sleep! - Fiona C.<br />
<br />
The one thing that really stuck out to me, was the comment made before the excerpts from Ballad's diary in the Woloch book, was why Martha would be called in for her job as a midwife. When I read, "or took charge after a delivery by a less trustworthy practitioner, like Mrs. Smith, who may have botched the job." This kind of terrifies me. How many women were allowing practitioners to deliver their children at this point? Were there a lot of them? Or were midwives still the common practice? -- Kelly Wuyscik <br />
<br />
Another common theme I found throughout Ballard's diary was disease and death. Not only did three of her own children die in 1769, but her diary is dotted with funerals and deaths. There were seven or eight deaths in the excerpt from the book alone. --Alex K.<br />
<br />
Since Martha Ballard does make mention of her Puritan faith I was wondering what the Church’s view of midwives would be? Would they fall along the lines that birth is a woman’s “curse” and therefore men should have nothing to do with it? Would they uplift the idea of reproduction and life in the form of childbirth? What would be a secular view? Did urban or rural women prefer one practice over the other? Are there any records of how many women relied on their immediate kin for deliveries and not midwives (or doctors later on)? Some of this information was touched upon with last week’s readings, but I wanted to throw these questions out there and see if the answers are similar or different based upon Ballard’s diary and experiences. –Mary Beth D.<br />
<br />
Martha Ballard appears to have become a pillar of her community through her overwhelming work. I noted that the article mentioned a competitor, making me wonder if pay was a factor of her choice to enter midwifery, or if it was due to other factors such as social status. She seemed to not be spared from any of her normal tasks, even with her incredible commitment to her midwifery. I doubt this would be the same case for a man of a similar work load. --Robert Kopp<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought that the diary of Martha Ballard was extremely interesting. I felt rather sorry for her. Her life, from the diary, seemed so repetitive. Constantly visiting the same people and going to the same events. It is clear from her diary entries that she had no time in the day for herself. She was constantly doing chores or running to people’s houses to help them. She did not fill in her journal everyday and each entry was so small that it appeared she had no time for herself. The diary really helps historians see the daily lives of midwives and nurses. What other female occupations can be tracked with such diaries? -- Talya Halpern</div>THalpernhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_6_Questions/CommentsWeek 6 Questions/Comments2007-10-04T06:28:52Z<p>THalpern: </p>
<hr />
<div>In the reading by Eve Korkfield titled Judith Sargent Murray: The Story of Margaretta, I thought it was interesting, while tracing her education, that Mr. Vigillius's wife pronounced her to be "a perfect mistress; her knowledge of the English, and French tongues, was fully adequate to her years; and her manner of reading had peculiar charms; her handwriting was neat and easy; she was a good accomptant...and much more. Margaretta was quite the accomplisher! - Katie D.<br />
<br />
Eve Korkfields Judith Sergeant Mary was very interesting in the fact that her parents’ idea of education sounded like a basic training for future sophisticated wives. I am sure young Mary would have no problem procuring a wealth husband with all of her learned refinements.--Cheryl<br />
<br />
Going along with that same reading, I don't quite know what I think or how I feel about the following lines:<br />
<br />
~"I think the propriety of circumscribing the education of a female, within such narrow bounds as are frequently assigned, is at least problematical."<br />
<br />
~"The accomplished, the liberally accomplished female, if she is destined to move in the line of competency, will be regarded as a pleasing and instructive companion." <br />
<br />
~"We have been assiduously employed in cultivating the mind of Margaretta."<br />
<br />
These lines just really caught my eye and wondered if they caught anyone else's eye. They all, to me, seem to run with the themes/ideas we've discussed in class. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
Vanessa, I agree with your comments that these few selections do somewhat contradict what we know about the role education played in the lives of pre-Revolutionary women. However when we fast forward to the post-war period, it seems like the idea of women receiving an education change with regards to "public virtue" and "republican motherhood". Women could receive an education if it a)made them a better companion to their husband or b)helped them to better teach their sons/the next generation of American citizens morals and genteel manners.- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
The line "We have been assiduously employed in cultivating the mind of Margaretta" also caught my eye and it ties in perfectly with the one that really stuck out to me, "and when the mind is judiciously balanced, it renders the possessor not only more valuable but also more amiable, and more generally useful." I'm kind of amused that the education of women was merely to make them more useful, and better yet, more useful to men. Their job was, as we learned in the lecture on Tuesday, to be able to teach men how to properly run the country and teach girls how to assist those men in whatever way possible. I can't decipher, though, whether or not this story was meant to be somewhat satirical since it was written by a woman pretending to be a man. I kind of got the feeling she was criticizing the education system. Thoughts? -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
In the Murray reading, I found the following sentence particularly interesting: "No, Mr. Pedant, she was not unfitted for her proper sphere; and your stomach, however critical it may be, never digested finer puddings than those which I, with an uncommon zest, have partook, as knowing they were the composition of her fair hand--- yes, in the receipts of cookery she is thoroughly versed; she is in every respect the complete housewife" (136). After listing all her accomplishments, Murray's narrator, Mr. Vigillius, seems to feel it is necessary to assure the reader that Margaretta possesses the necessary feminine skills as well. This passage almost reads like an advertisement of Margaretta's suitability for marriage. -Ashley H. <br />
<br />
In regards to the Murray reading I would just like to say that I found it rather enjoyable and could imagine while reading it that people during the time in which it was written would also have derived some sort of entertainment from it. That said, I thought it was really interesting what Kelly mentioned, that it was written by a woman through the point of view of a man. Did people of the time know it was written by a woman or did she use a pseudonym? Also I was wondering if she was trying to be satirical as well. Another question, did this happen often, the taking in of orphans to educate them, was it like a trend or something, or was this rare and was it more common to do this with boys or with girls? There is just so much fictional literature about adopting children and educating them I wondered. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary. This was written by a woman , appearing as a man. I do believe that this was somewhat obviously sarcastic. But towards who? It could be the female author belittling her own sex to stand up, or it could be the female author belittling and poking fun at the arrogant male sex. I do not think people really knew that the author was a woman. If so, do you really think that this entertainment would be published? How could anyone believe it came from a woman!?- Talya Halpern . <br />
<br />
I find Rowson's biography rather odd. For a woman known as an actress, how did she achieve the respectability to open a popular girls' school in a town as straitlaced as Boston? How did did she manage to publish under her own name and achieve such success? Does it seem to anyone else that she borrowed details from her own life to write with?--A. Meyer<br />
<br />
In the reading from Catherine Scholten, it was interesting to me how during the colonial period pregnant women were commonly thought of as "breeding" and "teeming", though theologians attributed dignity to carrying the "living soul" of a child. -Katie D.<br />
<br />
I agree with Katie D. the vocabulary used to explain a pregnant women is very interesting, as is the way theologians viewed women's pregnancies. I just wonder if this "living soul" ideology was prevelant through the colonies at this time or not because it seems to go against the theological ideas that women were suppose to suffer in childbirth because they were tainted with original sin. I just wonder if they believed women were the cause of sin and evil and therefore suffered in child birth, why would they choose to say then say women were the carriers of a "living soul" and were "blessed among women"? Doesn't this idea seem a little off and contradictory? --Katelynn V. <br />
<br />
In Catherine Scholten's account of the change that took place in childbirth procedures I had a question occur to me. While obviously the new medical science allowed doctors to help reduce the pain and risk of childbirth, why did they not let women train in this new medically accepted field? I understand that men thought that women wouldn't be able to understand all the technical terms and the sciences that the training would occur, but at the same time, women had been delivering the children through midwifery long before men came into the field. Wouldn't it have made more sense to simply train the women who already knew a great deal about birthing in the new sciences so that the woman giving birth would still be comfortable and the death rates in birth would go down?- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I agree with Elizabeth, while I understand that men thought women perhaps were not as capable to understand the science of it, I found it crazy that they had to do almost everything blindly because women were nervous about the male doctors seeing their privates. Another thing that struck me was that while this showed the intrusion of men in the womens sphere (I believe it proves the mens of that time superiority complex) it also showed some progress. Men saw it as their duty to protect women through child brith and "... women could now reasonably look to men for safety in the "perilous conditions" of childbirth." -- Emily Miller<br />
<br />
<br />
I still find it very odd that women were able to be convinced that men--who had no experience with women's bodies or the childbearing process--were their superiors when it came to childbirth. Furthermore, because midwives first started calling doctors for difficult births, I wonder how that changed doctors' perceptions of childbirth. Did it cause male doctors to think childbirth was more dangerous than it really was, leading to some of the 19th century emphasis on not wearing out a woman's body? Why did the change to male doctors seem to coincide with an increased emphasis on smaller families and reserving energy and resources? I find Scholten's report on NY laws requiring midwives not to discuss their business and women's bodies in front of men (except in emergencies) very interesting. It makes me wonder how much male doctors lost out on, because midwives wouldn't discuss it in front of them. It also makes me wonder how female midwives became desperate and concerned enough about science that they were willing to bring in male doctors, when the feelings against talking about childbearing in front of men were so strong--A. Meyer<br />
<br />
I agree, Andrea. I found myself getting annoyed that women seemed to be so easily convinced that men had such a better knowledge of childbearing and child birth than midwives. It seems to me that women would have placed more trust into the hands of someone who had actually gone through the experience. I think the questions you raise are definitely valid, and I found myself thinking about some of the same things as I was reading.--Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
I agree with both Andrea and Kaitlyn. However, I wonder how this change came about. How did the doctors convince women that they were better, or more skilled in the ways of childbirth than a midwife who'd been helping deliver children her whole life? Where their pamphlets and articles that were circulated to help make this switch? How was is that these elite women placed so much faith in these doctors who couldn't even look and see what they were doing. By not seeing what they were doing couldn't they do more harm than good? ---Katelynn V. <br />
<br />
I think that what might have aided womens acceptance of the shift to men physicians instead of midwifes may have just been as simple as they were the ones with medical training. Plus they were men and supposedly had more reason than women. Also it wasn't an immediate switch to men, it was more gradual. At first, the men worked with the midwives or were only called in emergencies. Then it was because they were able to ease the pain and had the tools to help pull out the child. The fact that many medical schools devoted at least one professor to solely focus on midwifery speaks to societies view of the necessity of proper training and the male focus of all things medical. --Alex K. <br />
<br />
While I understand that it can be seen that men usurped women's place in the birthing room, I agree with Alex. These men were trained. At this time women doctors were virtually unheard of, as far as I know anyway, but these men had the tools and the training necessary to potentially save both the mother and her child. They were called in cases of emergency, when whatever it was that the midwife was doing just wasnt working. I have never given birth but I would like to think that in that situation I would call whoever I could think of, do anything, that could by some miracle help save my life or the life of my child.--Mary P. <br />
<br />
Two things really stuck out to me when I was reading about the childbirth differences in the post Revolution era. Since the birthing process itself changed did the after birth process change? Did women have as much time, more, or less time to recooperate? As soon as the baby was born did women take on the role of caring for the woman, nursing, etc. or did the care of the baby continue with the doctor? Another question I had was regard to the change from birth being a pain women had to endure thanks to Eve to something to be uplifted, how did this happen? Was there a shift in religious beliefs or new interpretations of Eve and childbirth that emerged at the time that would lend itself to explaining this shift? I'm not sure of the religious and social context but maybe someone could lend some light on the idea. -- Mary Beth D. <br />
<br />
In the excerpt from Susanna Rowson’s: “Charlotte. A Tale of Truth” she writes about the tragic story of a young girl who leaves her family and friends behind for an Army Lieutenant she falls in love with. In the preface Rowson explains that she wrote the novel to warn parents about what could happen to their daughters as well as for young women who could find themselves in a situation similar to Charlottes. I really enjoyed reading this piece because even though Rowson wrote it in 1794 I found it easy to relate to the dilemma Charlotte was having over wanting to please her parents but at the same time trying to follow her heart. It is interesting to see that women today still feel many of the same pressures Charlotte felt in the 1790s. For instance many women are still concerned about choosing a husband who is accepted by their friends and family and it can split families apart when a woman defies her parents and marries someone who they find unsuitable. Many men today are also careful about respecting the wishes of their future in-laws by asking her father for permission to marry.--Caitlin Quinn<br />
<br />
<br />
In regards to "Charlotte. A Tale of Truth", the preface says it's somewhat based on a true story. Despite its romanticized points, it makes me wonder if it was a common occurrence for men to take women to the colonies against their will. Also, if they did come here and were unhappy, why couldn't they write back to their fathers and tell them they were virtually kidnapped? I know my daddy would fork up any amount to get me back home. Seeing Charlotte's father's undying love for her, I'm sure he would have done the same.- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
Maybe Charlotte was ashamed of abandoning and having disappointed her family and felt she could not reach out for their help. Or maybe she felt it was her duty to her now husband to obey him or at least stay with him. Also, Rowson writes, "Sometimes, indeed, he (Charlottes husband) would steal out at the close of evening, and pass a few hours with her; and then so much was she attached to him, that all her sorrows were forgotten while blest with his society." So even though was usually miserable, her intense love for him kept pulling her back to him. --Alex<br />
<br />
I also found "Charlotte. A Tale of Truth" interesting but what I found most interesting was the image that was shown of the Army Lieutenant. Susanna Rowson writes his character as a less than wonderful man, after all Charlotte told him she wouldn't go with him because of her duty to her parents but he picked her up and took her anyway, at this point it seemed to be against her will. And once in America he left her alone the majority of the time and in the end instead of dying in the arms of her "love" she died in the arms of her dad (which was still very touching). Was Susanna warning girls against dishonoring her parents or keeping an eye out for men who would tell them what they wanted to hear in order to achieve their goals? - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
In my history of the book seminar, we were required to read Charlotte Temple in its entirety. I really enjoyed reading the book then, and i liked rereading a couple of chapters for this weeks reading. The story itself, as other have suggested revolves around Charolette who is torn between love and duty to both her parents and her supposed lover. What is really interesting about the novel is that there are places where the author, a female author at that, speaks directly to the reader and either explains or apologizes for the actions of the characters or warns the reader away from what she sees as dangerous to young women. What is also very interesting is that this book was the first "bestseller" in the unites states. What does the books subject and popularity tell us about the readers and society during the late 18th century? ---Katelynn V. <br />
<br />
"Charlotte. A Tale of Truth" was a very touching piece. I found it interesting that the idea of not wanting to disappoint her father mattered greatly to Charlotte. As she was dying, all Charlotte wanted was to see her father one last time and receive his blessing. It almost seems to reemphasize the beloved American concept of "Daddy's little girl." --E.Hufford<br />
<br />
That was also how I felt with this piece. But let's not get caught up with this story that I feel has been extremely romanticized to make a point to the people reading it. This was for young women not to go astray, and to obvioulsy make it clear that a father's decision and opinion was extremely important and crucial. - Talya Halpern. <br />
<br />
I was very taken with the story about Charlotte. I feel pretty certain that Rowson wrote this story to discourage young women to give into passions of love. I thought the way she depicted Montraville, fit the descriptions of a seducer to a tee. Charlotte’s act of giving her baby to her father and then dying in his arms was a dramatic way to drive home the message that young women should listen to their parents’ advice. ---Cheryl<br />
<br />
I think another aspect of "Charlotte A Tale of Truth" is that it was probably a response to the fact that girls could now make decisions about who they chose to marry. Their marriages were no longer arranged or forced to as great of an extent as they used to be so I'm led to believe that this piece was possibly a response to the idea that children, especially daughters, should still take their parents' advice when it comes to matters of the heart. Marriage is a big decision and parents only want the best for their children, be that economic gain or just to make sure they're with someone that will truly love them. - Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I thought Rowson's piece reflected the different stereotypes attributed to women during this time. There was Charlotte, the helpless rich girl who is indecisive and weak; the promiscuous Mademoiselle, and the wise Madame Du Pont trying to steer Charlotte in the right direction. Furthermore, Rowson didn't believe these characters could change. Mademoiselle was bad in the beginning and bad in the end, Charlotte was always helpless. -F. Cobb<br />
<br />
So while reading Scholten's piece, I decided that had I lived during that time, I strongly doubt I would have had children. Childbirth is hard enough today with the pain and anxiety surrounding it. Add the thought of dying and the need to be spiritually prepared as John Oliver so kindly pointed out in his "A Present for Teeming Women," and there is no doubt many women today would probably have been scared out of childbearing (myself included). -- E. Hufford<br />
<br />
I totally agree. The examples and excerpts from literature given to pregnant women of the day were a bit much. Especially those from A Present for Teeming American Women, like you said. The comparison of a warm chamber to a grave was a little too freaky, but I suppose that was sort of the point.--Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
In response to E. Hufford, I was thinking that childbirth would be difficult, but the only certain way to avoid pregancy would be to remain unmarried. With the limited opportunities available to women, I think many women would rather risk childbirth than a poor spinsterhood. What kind of social stigma was attached to women who chose to remain unmarried or those who were unable to have children?-- Ashley H. <br />
<br />
I was a little confused by Murray's piece, "The Story of Margaretta." Apparently Murray wrote the series under the name of Mr. Vigillius. Therefore, she is pretending to be a man writing about the education of a woman, though she really is a woman. Why would she use the pen name? What it because she wanted to be taken seriously? - F. Cobb<br />
<br />
The question I had in my head while reading Scholten's article was, "why didn't women want men in there?" The article mentions prejudice as the cause, which seems ridiculously simple but obvious. Its interesting for me to see how the interpretation of the Bible seemed to follow the presence of male midwifery. Maybe its just the organization of the article, but does suggest that in America, social change precedes and causes a change in religion? Is this a common trend? The very fact that men are actually entering the profession of midwifery seems to be the flat reason for it being accepted. The need for professionals in times of emergencies ultimately gave way to just a general need when people realized that these people knew what they were doing (relatively) and that their tools wouldn't actually harm the child. On a different topic, I found this quote from Murray really interesting: "Her person, the symmetry of her features, the rose and lily of her complexion....these are the endowments of nature --while the artificial accomplishments with which she is invested...confer upon her no real or intrinsic merit." pg 137. Maybe I'm misreading that, but is that say her looks are more 'valuable' than the 'artificial' accomplishments of character? <br />
-Christopher Plummer<br />
<br />
I also really enjoyed reading Rowson's story about Charlotte. I think it is interesting how things that were written about back then can still be things we are dealing with today. Like when she talked about how women liked a man in uniform : "A man of an indifferent appearance, will, when arrayed in a military habit, shew to advantage..."(194) and the fact that even though Charlotte wanted to do the right thing she let her "boyfriend" talk her into something she did not want to. That is something that young women today still deal with. ~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
I agree with the opinions posted before on Scholten's article. From our lectures in class, I find it odd that men would want to exert dominance over birth. With the establishment of the concept of motherhood, this reversal seems odd. Perhaps in concerns of medical science, though, a woman could not be allowed to have that knowledge. This idea makes me wonder at what point does one gender role win out above others; what is the most important gendered difference of the period. --Robert Kopp<br />
<br />
In response to F. Cobb's comment about Murray using a man's name in her writings, she probably did that so that her writings would actually get published. Also, at that time, if people saw that something was written by a woman, people, specifically men, would probably not take her or her writings seriously. ~Katherine Stinson~</div>THalpernhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_5_Questions/CommentsWeek 5 Questions/Comments2007-09-26T23:41:23Z<p>THalpern: </p>
<hr />
<div>"Thomas Paine Admits Women Have Some Rights" left me wondering if his comments would have helped or hindered women in the eighteenth century. Paine states grievances against women while projecting them to be weak and fragile. He praises their contributions and advocates for recognition of female accomplishment, while belittling women with allusions to their inability to care for themselves. Paine's claims seem to be overwhelmingly contradictory. So, my question is-- Could Paine be considered an early feminist? -Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
When reading "Thomas Paine Admits Women Have Some Rights", I also was a bit confused to where Paine was coming from. His claim's were infact very contradictory with one another. After reading Kelly's question,this leads me to believe that he could be a considered an early feminist in some ways. -Katie D.<br />
<br />
I also found "Thomas Paine Admits Women Have some Rights" very interesting in that he contradicts himself in saying women are weak but have a great deal of courage for putting up with oppression throughout time and the world. Though this article did make me wonder what men's reaction to his article would have been. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Well, I too was a little confused. But looking at it in context- this is all propoganda. Is this not to just gather more patriots for the "cause"? His soft side of defending women could gather more support from the women, yet his ideas of the mascline chivalry could win the support of men. - Talya Halpern. <br />
<br />
When reading the essay "A Carolina Patriot" in Woloch's book, there was an excerpt found from Eliza Wilkerson's wartime letters to an unspecified friend. I found it intersting that she said "For my part, "I would rather explore unknown regions, blessed with liberty, than remain in my native country if to be cursed with slavery"(p.123). Throughout this excerpt Eliza seems to be "inventing" herself - adopting the pose appropriate to a "female patriot". -Katie D.<br />
<br />
I found the letter that Katie D. mentioned to be very interesting and I would agree with the statement that she seems to be "inventing" herself. Everything that she wrote is apparently saturated with patriotic thoughts and feelings. I am curious however just how common an attitude towards politics at the time was Eliza Wilkerson's or were more women inclined to have more of the feelings of Grace Galloway (starting on page 124). Grace Galloway's diary entries are such a total opposite to the letter of ELiza Wilkerson that a reader is battered with very strong opposing views. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
In regards to Katie and Mary's comments, I am also curious about how a different audience would have altered Eliza Wilkerson's statements. How might her opinions or framing of opinions have been altered if voiced to a man? Would Eliza have the same feeling of invention? -Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
While reading Benjamin Rush's "Thoughts Upon Female Education" I was struck by the change in the views concerning female education that we have come upon in just this short span that we have discussed. Where as before women were taught to read mostly so that they could read the Bible, now men are encouraged to promote the education of their daughters for the sake of their property, for women were often left as stewards of property and business during a husbands absence, but also, and from Rush's continuing mention of it importantly, the fact that these daughters will be growing up and getting married and having children, particularly sons, and they will have the task of educating these sons in a manner befitting their status and learning. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I though that it was interesting how in Esther DeBerdt's "Sentiments of an American Woman", she freely admits that women have "...feeble hands..." (115). I would have thought that a comment like that would be more likely to come from a man of that time and not a woman. ~Katherine S.~<br />
<br />
I felt that the way Mary Jemison described the Native Americans in the article "The War for Independence...", made them seem very materialistic. It seemed that all the Native Americans cared about were the goods they were going to receive from the British and nothing else. ~Katherine S.~<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading "An American Woman Asserts Women's Rights." I found it interesting that this woman flat out said that many women would do whatever they could to help the revolution during this time when many men felt like women wouldn't want to give up their luxuries to help the cause. I also enjoyed how she compared american women to the women of antiquity who helped save their nations. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I also enjoyed reading Esther DeBerdt Reed's piece. By showing examples of past women who struggled on behalf of their own nations, Esther bolsters her argument. I like the fact that she did not try to argue in passive manner. She asserts herself and her fellow women who want to do more to serve their nation. Her sentiments are much more convincing and empowering due to the manner in which she presented herself. --E. Hufford<br />
<br />
When reading Abigail Adams' correspondence with her husband John and friend Mercy, I found myself sympathizing with Abigail. Her frustration with John when he wrote. "As to your extraordinary Code of Laws, I cannot but laugh" must have been great. Reading her letter to Mercy about John's repsonse seems as though it could have been written by a woman today to a friend complaining about her husband's actions.-- E. Hufford<br />
<br />
I felt that Phillis Wheatley's address to George III was an amazing piece of literature. I think it was so clever to include the words free and equal into her poem. Wheatley was treated a lot differently from most slaves . She was educated among white children, and was even sent to Europe to progress is studies and writing. Did her owners really read her poem? I am sure they were delighted for her--and them because they own her. But did they hear it? Did anyone else see those underlying messages for freedom from slavery? Did anyone agree with her underlying tones of the poem? - Talya Halpern</div>THalpernhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_5_Questions/CommentsWeek 5 Questions/Comments2007-09-26T23:32:00Z<p>THalpern: </p>
<hr />
<div>"Thomas Paine Admits Women Have Some Rights" left me wondering if his comments would have helped or hindered women in the eighteenth century. Paine states grievances against women while projecting them to be weak and fragile. He praises their contributions and advocates for recognition of female accomplishment, while belittling women with allusions to their inability to care for themselves. Paine's claims seem to be overwhelmingly contradictory. So, my question is-- Could Paine be considered an early feminist? -Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
When reading "Thomas Paine Admits Women Have Some Rights", I also was a bit confused to where Paine was coming from. His claim's were infact very contradictory with one another. After reading Kelly's question,this leads me to believe that he could be a considered an early feminist in some ways. -Katie D.<br />
<br />
I also found "Thomas Paine Admits Women Have some Rights" very interesting in that he contradicts himself in saying women are weak but have a great deal of courage for putting up with oppression throughout time and the world. Though this article did make me wonder what men's reaction to his article would have been. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
When reading the essay "A Carolina Patriot" in Woloch's book, there was an excerpt found from Eliza Wilkerson's wartime letters to an unspecified friend. I found it intersting that she said "For my part, "I would rather explore unknown regions, blessed with liberty, than remain in my native country if to be cursed with slavery"(p.123). Throughout this excerpt Eliza seems to be "inventing" herself - adopting the pose appropriate to a "female patriot". -Katie D.<br />
<br />
I found the letter that Katie D. mentioned to be very interesting and I would agree with the statement that she seems to be "inventing" herself. Everything that she wrote is apparently saturated with patriotic thoughts and feelings. I am curious however just how common an attitude towards politics at the time was Eliza Wilkerson's or were more women inclined to have more of the feelings of Grace Galloway (starting on page 124). Grace Galloway's diary entries are such a total opposite to the letter of ELiza Wilkerson that a reader is battered with very strong opposing views. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
In regards to Katie and Mary's comments, I am also curious about how a different audience would have altered Eliza Wilkerson's statements. How might her opinions or framing of opinions have been altered if voiced to a man? Would Eliza have the same feeling of invention? -Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
While reading Benjamin Rush's "Thoughts Upon Female Education" I was struck by the change in the views concerning female education that we have come upon in just this short span that we have discussed. Where as before women were taught to read mostly so that they could read the Bible, now men are encouraged to promote the education of their daughters for the sake of their property, for women were often left as stewards of property and business during a husbands absence, but also, and from Rush's continuing mention of it importantly, the fact that these daughters will be growing up and getting married and having children, particularly sons, and they will have the task of educating these sons in a manner befitting their status and learning. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I though that it was interesting how in Esther DeBerdt's "Sentiments of an American Woman", she freely admits that women have "...feeble hands..." (115). I would have thought that a comment like that would be more likely to come from a man of that time and not a woman. ~Katherine S.~<br />
<br />
I felt that the way Mary Jemison described the Native Americans in the article "The War for Independence...", made them seem very materialistic. It seemed that all the Native Americans cared about were the goods they were going to receive from the British and nothing else. ~Katherine S.~<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading "An American Woman Asserts Women's Rights." I found it interesting that this woman flat out said that many women would do whatever they could to help the revolution during this time when many men felt like women wouldn't want to give up their luxuries to help the cause. I also enjoyed how she compared american women to the women of antiquity who helped save their nations. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I also enjoyed reading Esther DeBerdt Reed's piece. By showing examples of past women who struggled on behalf of their own nations, Esther bolsters her argument. I like the fact that she did not try to argue in passive manner. She asserts herself and her fellow women who want to do more to serve their nation. Her sentiments are much more convincing and empowering due to the manner in which she presented herself. --E. Hufford<br />
<br />
When reading Abigail Adams' correspondence with her husband John and friend Mercy, I found myself sympathizing with Abigail. Her frustration with John when he wrote. "As to your extraordinary Code of Laws, I cannot but laugh" must have been great. Reading her letter to Mercy about John's repsonse seems as though it could have been written by a woman today to a friend complaining about her husband's actions.-- E. Hufford<br />
<br />
I felt that Phillis Wheatley's address to George III was an amazing piece of literature. I think it was so clever to include the words free and equal into her poem. Wheatley was treated a lot differently from most slaves . She was educated among white children, and was even sent to Europe to progress is studies and writing. Did her owners really read her poem? I am sure they were delighted for her--and them because they own her. But did they hear it? Did anyone else see those underlying messages for freedom from slavery? Did anyone agree with her underlying tones of the poem? - Talya Halpern</div>THalpernhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_3_Questions/CommentsWeek 3 Questions/Comments2007-09-13T04:22:53Z<p>THalpern: </p>
<hr />
<div>In Early American Women, the essay by Susanna Wesely made me feel thankful I was brought up the way I was. I disagree with her methods of controling children. I don't believe in programing children to be the way a parent wishes. I do agree with some of her her principles however. I think children should be praised everytime they behave correctly or are obediant. I believe children should be taught to be respectful to other's property. I don't think children need to be preforming the same routine every day regardless if it is in eating, sleeping ect. In Wesely's essay, she herself noted that when the children had to be at seperate houses when their home was destroyed by fire, that when they were reunited under one roof again, they aquired some bad behaviors. Perhaps if Wesely weren't so strict with her routines and ridgid discipline, her children may have come back with fewer negative influences.--Cheryl<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with Cheryl I was very glad my parents were not that strict. I think what got me the most was how the essay described how the mother would break the free will of the kids. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Wesley is certainly strict, and I would not always agree with her methods of punishment. However, she has the children's best interests at heart. She insisted that her children be well-mannered, honest, and educated, qualities which most would agree are necessary (or at least extremely helpful) if one wishes to be a productive, well-respected member of society. I also appreciated her emphasis on girls learning to read. Even if the intent was only to make sure women read the Bible, it's still a step in the right direction. - Ashley Hamilton<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with Ashley on some points. Wesley comes across as being unreasonably strict when it comes to her children's upbringing. However, from her writing we get a sense that she was very proud of her children because they were well behaved, versed in their catechism and prayers. Yet, there are two very imporant ideas which help place Wesley's letter in the context of the period. First and foremost, children and childhood was not viewed in the same light as it is today. Children of the colonial period were still thought of as being 'little adults' and were therefore held to similar standards of behavior as adults. Therefore, Wesley mentions with almost a sense of pride that "the family usually lived in as much quietness as if there had not been a child among them," which correlates with that old, overused belief, 'children should be seen and not heard.' Also, we need to keep in mind that domestic work and the bearing/raising of children was a woman's world during the colonial era. I wonder therefore, if Wesley's actions were dictated by the idea that her children were a reflection of her competency as a mother and wife. Perhaps, the better the more well behaved the children were, the better mother people would presume her to be, what do you think? ---Katelynn V. <br />
<br />
While the essay of Susanna Wesely is very scary thinking about how those children were raised, I have to remember that that way of thinking was probably normal for the time and an acceptable way of thought. But to our modern minds it does seem very barbaric. I did like Eliza Pinckney's letter to herself however and thought that it gave a good insight into the minds of women at the time, especially married women in her social position. Reading what she wrote, some of it women try and apply in their lives today and it does seem to speak through the years. It is that part about making all her actions "Corrispond with that sincere love and Duty I bear him" that we tend to baulk at today. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I also think it is important to remember when this document was written. Granted, I would never raise my children this way- and I was not raised this way, obviously! But, this was written in a time when structure and control was normal. Control and structure of social institutions was through the church and the government. All children were representatives of their parents- as we are today- and what would the "gossiping women" say if your children were acting up in the slightest way? We must remember how much pressure there was on women to raise their children. Anything the children did wrong was the mother's fault and she would be socially battered for it. - Talya R. Halpern <br />
<br />
I was also shocked about the strictness of Wesley's account of how she raised her children. Breaking the free will of the kids got me too. But in response Mary's comment that that was the way of thinking then and it was normal I'm not so sure. I'm sure some were that way but could this be an extreme case? Because for example, when she mentioned they acquired bad habits and behaviors when they lived with neighbors for a time. So therefore, not even some others in her own community were as harsh as her. --Alex K.<br />
<br />
I also was very shocked when I read the account of Abigail Bailey and 1) she had 17 kids and 2) her husband tried having a relationship beyond a fatherly one. The account definitely showed how helpless a woman was when discovering her husband doing something wrong. In the intro to the account it says that she got her husband arrested but with the help of her brothers. But would she have been able to have him arrested without her brothers assistance?- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I, too, was shocked while reading Abigail Bailey's "An Abominable Wickedness" and I agree with Elizabeth that the narrative did show how helpless a woman was under the rule of her husband. Yet, there are two sides to this wifely obedience. A “proper” woman saw it her solemn duty to uphold the marriage covenant and be a kind, faithful, and subservient wife to her husband. However, when the husband has violated the marriage covenant and has behaved immorally, exceptions ensue. All of a sudden, a woman with no rights now has all legal authority in the marriage. She knew divorce and breaking up her family was a sin (imagine how tough this must have been for her to deal with) but once she realized it was not her fault, she placed all guilt and blame on Mr. Bailey. Where was the point when Abigail realized enough was enough and she had to say something? Despite the fact she confronted him long after the first signs of his wrongdoing; many women could have assumed their position and not have said a word. I found it quite empowering to see docile and obedient Abigail become an enlivened woman and mother whose priorities changed; her duty was no longer to her husband but to her children.- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
While a huge part of Abigail Bailey's remaining silent for so long was due to the time period and the fact that she had very little or no legal power, I think we must also recognize that this story could probably be told by someone today. Many women and children are still abused and still feel as though any legal action they took would simply be one person's word against another. Also I think that the footnote is very interesting. Why is it that the editor feels that it is necessary to excuse Abigail's actions. As an abused woman I feel that it is amazing that she spoke up at all, while the editor seems to think that readers might not understand her hesitance. -- Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
I agree. I am an intern at both RCDV (domestic violence place) and RCASA (a sexual assault place) and this kind of story is very common even today. It is very hard for someone to speak up in this situation. I just watched a video on incest actually and the effects are lifechanging. Many child abuse survivors were extremely hurt that there mothers didn't speak up and help them. I think it is amazing she said anything at all, especially for that time. --Alex K.<br />
<br />
I believe Abigail had a good reason to be hesitant. Know one wants to believe they married such a monster that could rape repeatedly is own daughter. I do not blame her for wanting more proof. Women in her day and age were brought up with the notion to love, honor and obey their husbands. It went against everything she believed in to just come forward when she did for the sake of her child.--Cheryl<br />
<br />
I also found it interesting that while Abigail seemed certain of her husband's wrongdoing, she resented her daughter for not coming forward and exposing what he was doing (Woloch 45). Yes, Abigail had a lot at stake for exposing the husband, but ultimately, didn’t the daughter as well? I suppose she didn't have a husband to lose, but couldn't she could be seen as reponsible for breaking up her family as well?--Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
I think Kaitlyn makes a really good point. Since divorce was not a common practice Abilgail would have probably worried about the social implications and/or stigma that might be attached to the family if she were to leave her husband. I wonder if the daughter saw that she had more to lose by coming forward because it would label her as being seduced by her father, and there for tainted her in someway. She does not have a husband to lose but coming forward might not encourage other men to think about asking for her hand in marriage. This might happen for a number of reasons, including the unusual relationship she had with her father, or perhaps the idea that she is too outspoken and not obedient. I think the realization of serious social implications shaped the decisions of both Abigal and her daughter. ---Katelynn V. <br />
<br />
<br />
I want to second the things that several people have already said about how rare it still is for people to speak out and take action against incest or any kind of domestic/familial abuse. I also think Abigail deserves exceptional credit for all she worked through and spoke out against. I also think Kaitlyn raises a good point, but I'm not sure what--short of being accused of encouraging her father's advances or lacking in morals--the daughter would have been blamed for.--A. Meyer<br />
<br />
I found Martha Ballard’s entry “A Maine Midwife” to be quite insightful. Just by her keeping a very brief journal we are able to calculate birth rates, see some folk remedies, find out when and how people died, and keep up on town news and events. On a sidenote: what’s the deal with all the burnt feet during those first few days in August?- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
I personally was amused at the first reading in Woloch on "The Duties of Husbands and Wives." While Woloch acknowledges that this is not necessarily how people acted, I couldn't help imagining what it would be like if someone two hundred years from now used one of our articles on relationships to judge the relationships of people at large. The Bullet's Sexclamations article perhaps? It is interesting to keep in mind that the primary sources that we have are just as small portion of what would have existed at this time. -- Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
I believe Abigail had a good reason to be hesitant. Know one wants to believe they married such a monster that could rape repeatedly is own daughter. I do not blame her for wanting more proof. Women in her day and age were brought up with the notion to love, honor and obey their husbands. It went against everything she believed in to just come forward when she did for the sake of her child.--Cheryl<br />
<br />
While reading the article, "To Use Her As His Wife" by Sklar, I noticed a few of the things we discussed in class on Tuesday in practice. The main thing that stuck out for me was how there was never a real record of Martha Root and her story during her court case; everything we know about this case was on account of the male lawyers or the father of Martha's children. This point, in my opinion, really emphasized that most of what we know about colonial women during this time period was somehow influenced by men. -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I totally agree with Kelly about "To Use Her As His WIfe." It touched on what we went over in class and really seemed to personify the idea that women in general are second class citizens as this point. I also found it really interesting, though I was not surprised, was the complete double standard that seemed to be held towards Martha. I mean it took two people to create those children and yet she is the one whose reputation was forever tarnished and her eventual marriage at age 34 was a "last chance" scenario that enabled her to finally get out of town. I also had a question about the idea that a younger sibling doesnt marry before the oldest so there are no two marrigable people of the same sex in the same family. But what happens if one sibling is a perpetual spinster or what if, like in the case of Martha's children, there happened to be twins? --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I found it interesting how fully Sklar researched the lives of Jonathan Edwards and Joseph Hawley. At first I thought it was a bit extreme when she was writing about their grandparents, but then I saw how much of their past and family life shaped their actions and motivations. I think it shows that as historians we need to delve below the surface in order to contrusct a representation that is as accurate as can be. - Fiona C. <br />
<br />
In Sklar's essay I was surprised to read that Edwards, as a minister, argued against the "double standard" and said that Elisha should have to marry Martha regardless of the claims that she was not a virgin and that she seduced him. To me it seems that Edwards and Hawley seized upon the case because they saw it as an opportunity to promote their beliefs (kind of like today). Their insistence might also explain why Martha pushed her claim despite the risk to her reputation and future ability to marry. - Fiona C. <br />
<br />
I really loved the letters between Esther Burr and Sally Prince. The letters were a great way to see the relationships that women of the time could have with each other while at the same time relaying an idea of what daily life was like for these women. I just thought that they were really interesting. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary about the insight the letters exchanged between Esther Burr and Sally Prince give us. By reading the journals that the two women kept, we historians can catch a glimpse of what life was like (vaguely) from a female's perspective for once and not via a man's perspective. It also emphasizes the point we discussed in class how social life amongst women was very important and how women were at the base of kinship networks. -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary and Kelly. I found the letters between Ester Burr and Sally Prince to be fascinating. I particularly enjoyed the last letter (No. 22), in which Ester discusses having an argument with Mr. Ewing. She says, “(My Tongue, you know, hangs pretty loose, my thoughts Crouded in—so I sputtered away for dear life.) You may Guss what a large field this speech opened for me—I retorted several severe things upon him before he had time to speak again” (Woloch 41). This passage, while it made me laugh, also made me wonder, how typical was it for women to openly argue with men and was it widely accepted?--Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
After reading Susanna Wesley’s letter to her son about how to raise children by conquering their will, enforcing strict rules, and teaching them the importance of religion and daily prayer I was surprised to read the 8th rule she had for her household: “that no girl be taught to work till she can read very well; and that she be kept to her work with the same application and for the same time that she was held to reading.” This stood out to me as being a radical idea for the early 1700s and in sharp contrast to the entire message of the piece. I wonder if women saw their daughters not being able to read well and decided to fix the problem by enforcing these types of rules or if Wesley was simply more educated and represented the beginning of social changes that colonial women made in their households. --Caitlin Quinn<br />
<br />
Like Caitlin, I was surprised by rule 8. Maybe because Wesley could obviously write well for her time, she saw education become an advantage in her own life and wished to pass it on. Also, Wesley was obviously a very spiritual person, maybe she wanted young women to read so they could read The Bible? -Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
While reading the letters of Esther Burr and Sally Prince, I found myself amused by Esther's Letter No. 22. She related her conversation with Mr. Ewing about women. He beleived that women should only converse on subjects they "understood." I loved Esther's thought, "My tongue, you know, hangs pretty loose, thoughts Crouded in-so I sputtered away for dear life." -- E. Hufford<br />
<br />
When reading "To Use Her As His Wife," I was quite impressed with Jonathan Edwards' support for Martha. How many other men at that time would have reacted the same way? I was saddened to learn that his support for Martha did have something to do with his dismissal from the pulpit in 1750. -- E. Hufford <br />
<br />
I was struck by the last paragraph in the sermon "About the Duties of Husbands and Wives." At the very end, after stating how marriages should involve love and tenderness, Wadsworth as if on a side note, mentions that parents should wisely match their children with someone who is "proper." This point seems to have little emphasis in his sermon which mainly seems about loving someone you potentially might not even like. If all of this love and tenderness Wadsworth speaks of should occur shouldn't selecting a spouse with whom you are compatible be a higher priority? --Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
In "About the Duties of Husbands and Wives," Wadsworth advises wives, "Yea, though possibly you have greater abilities of mind than he has, was of some high birth, and he of a more common birth, or did bring more estate, yet since he is your husband, God has made him your head, and set him above you, and made it your duty to love and revere him." I find it interesting that Wadsworth acknowledges the possibility of women being smarter than their husbands. They realized the superiority of some women, yet they used religion as a tool to keep women under control. - Ashley Hamilton <br />
<br />
I found the Wadsworth's article extremely frustrating! It annoyed me that he made the word "government" the husband's possesion. Even though we say that women did not mind per se because that was what they were used to, this does not make sense. How is a woman supposed to comepletely "love, honor , and obey" if she walks into her home and feel like she is walking into a "government." How is this a home? The husband in the governor and what ever he says goes. I know i'm looking at this through our time- but did these women not long for something else. Respect, appreciation, true tender love? A husband being "gentle and easy" does not make it okay. Also the discussion of arguing being the devil's work is a prime example of how religion and soceity had control of women or men speaking their mind. If this was the case today, boy I would be in big trouble! This idea of arguing being the devil's work was away to keep wives from speaking up and telling their husbands how they really felt.- Talya R. Halpern <br />
<br />
I think the role of women and the economy or more accurately the role of women as a labor force brings up some interesting points that ties to some larger themes we have discussed so far. With regards to slavery the role of the mother and inheritance is once again an issue. While we saw that some Native American cultures used the mother as a line of inheritance, when it came to slavery a child’s status as free or slave was determined by the mother. Another idea we have begun to touch upon is the hierarchy of society and women. For instance indentured servants, apprentices, or slaves occupied the same area as their mistresses but the mistress was in charge, in control due to her elevated status. In the introduction paragraph of this chapter Woloch asks questions about women’s work in the pre-industrial economy. One idea that really stuck out to me was this idea of all-women work groups. Could groups of women who worked in the field, who had things in common such as motherhood or the same master constitute the continuation of the theme of kinship we have already established in both Native American culture and Colonial culture? -- Mary Beth Dillane<br />
<br />
<br />
The first thing that struck me from Woloch was in the very beginning when she talks about the duties of husbands and wives. While in class we discuss how the woman have no power and really don't exsist as themselves the way the Wadsworth describes it, it sounds touching almost. The quote that stuck out the most to me was, " Yet his government should not be with rigor, haughtiness, harshness, severity, but with the greatest love, gentleness, kindness, tenderness that may be. Though he governs her, he must not treat her as a servant, but as his own flesh; he must love her as himself." (28-29) Now whether or not this truely happened I do not know, however, if women were treated like this I'm not entirely sure they would ever be truely unhappy. Then in Susan Wesley's letter, where she describes her by-laws, the last one being "that no girl be taught to work till she can read very well..." shocked me also. (33) For some reason I was under the impression that a young girls education was never a high priority. Those were just two of things that really stood out to me but the book was full of information that really opened my eyes to what the people were like at that time. -- Emily Miller<br />
<br />
I liked Eliza Pinckney’s list titled “To Improve in Every Virtue” because it gives historians a good idea of what women in Pinckney’s social class were concerned with during the 1750s. She mentions God first, assuring us that religion is a top priority in her life. She also talks about making others happy and striving to be a good wife, mother, and daughter. Many of women’s priorities have shifted in society since the 1750s, while others have stayed the same. I wonder how this list would change if Pinckney had lived in our generation. -- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
I also was impressed by how evolved Eliza Pinckney was in “To Improve in Every Virtue” and particularly by the fact that as a teenager she ran her father’s three Carolina plantations. I’m sure she had lots of help but it still seems like such a large responsibility for a young woman. -Caitlin Quinn <br />
<br />
<br />
The story about Abigail was most interesting, for a number of reasons. She definitely had alot of children, even by early American standards, but her husband engaged in an incestuous relationship with one of his daughters. I wonder what the punishment for such a thing was? Abigail's statement about the law seemed very revealing about a sense of inadequacy: "It may appear surprising that such wickednes was not checked by legal restraints." Its interesting to see that put in the same chapter with "About The Duties of Husbands and Wives," considering how obviously contradictory Abigail's reality was from the idea of Wadsworth. In the primary source reading, there was a statement about how alot of people do marry the one's they love, and live happily ever after. Of course, happy stories don't seem to be the one's most written about, and not really the most historically useful. The position of women seemed somewhat contradictory, they could divorce in New England, but then they had nothing. Did people realize this as a problem? It would seem they didn't. <br />
-Christopher Plummer<br />
<br />
I was most struck by the Spanish government's guidelines regarding honor, a woman's virginity, and marriage. I found the idea that it could be more disgraceful for someone to be married to another person so clearly beyond their social status fascinating. It was interesting to me that class issues outranked the honor/virtue issues related to illegitimate children and premarital sex. Was it really more of an embarrassment to be married to someone not of your caste than be pregnant and unmarried, or is this an example of source bias?--Andrea Meyer<br />
<br />
Woloch's book page 42-46. I can’t even imagine what Abigail must have been going through as she notes the psychological changes in her daughter. She must have felt powerless. What was her perception of justice during this period in history? I can’t even begin to fathom that. At first, she tried to reject this horrible act, but couldn’t. I interpret her account as foreboding fears of reprisals from her husband or the patriarchal institutions. I have great admiration for Abigail, for the anxiety she must have been going through was incredibly overwhelming. But through this terror, she gives us a glimpse of the past in a concise manner to address the ills—the mental and physical abuse that was bestowed upon them by this nasty man. I think Abigail’s detailed account of the behavioral problems she encountered would give insighte in today’s fields such as Sociology, Psychology, and Criminal Science in evaluating domestic and non-domestic abuse in today’s society.—John Furner<br />
<br />
Based upon what Fiona said about Sklar's article, I too wonder how much the possibilities for political and religious advancement played into the importance of the case. It seems that Martha Root was only the required reasoning to set argue a precedent. As is pertinent today, the issues being argued in a case can become far more important than the case itself. It was more of an issue of the cultural changes being on trial, rather than the actual parties. --Robert Kopp<br />
<br />
As I was reading Abigail Bailey's document, I noticed that it said she kicked her husband out after she found out what he was doing to one of their daughters. Was it common back in the 1800s for women to kick their husbands out of the house for doing things like her husband was doing? ~Katherine S.~</div>THalpernhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_2_Questions/CommentsWeek 2 Questions/Comments2007-09-06T01:43:38Z<p>THalpern: </p>
<hr />
<div>I found it interesting in the passage by John Heckewelder( page 30- 33) in Modern Problems where he says that the women's work load was so much lighter than that of the mens. I found this particularly interesting because in one of my classes last semester we read some articles about Europeans reactions to Native American society in Virginia and it said how lazy the European men felt that the Indian men were because it appeared that the women did the majority of the work within the village. I thought it was interesting seeing the different views that this reading exposed. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Continuing from what Elizabeth wrote, It is infact very intersting to see how different groups of people play differnt roles, and how each group views those roles played by each gender.--Katie D.<br />
<br />
I too was interested by the passage about women’s work written by John Heckewelder. I actually found myself getting a little miffed at him for saying such a thing. However, Mary Jemison somewhat backs up what he says in the account of her captivity. She hints that the work was different from the work that white women had to face, but in the end, it all equaled out. “Our labor was not severe; and that of one year was exactly similar in almost every respect to that of the others, with out that endless variety that is to be observed in the common labor of white people…their task is probably not harder than that of white women…” (Woloch 21). Of course, Jemison doesn’t really mention men’s work in her passage, so it’s hard to tell if Seneca men compare to the “macho men” that Heckewelder describes. --Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
I was also a bit baffled at Heckewelder's discription and thought it contrasted so some of the ideas that I interpreted from our lecture on Tuesday. I got from the lecture that women not only pulled their weight, but really did more than that. Granted the region really determined the labor of both genders, but I got that women worked a lot harder than Heckewelder was describing. Maybe I'm just being a "feminist"- but I do not think that Hechewelder was giving women enough credit- but who is surprised about that? -- Talya Halpern<br />
<br />
In Woloch's book, having to do with marriage and treatment of their wives,(p.9-11), I found it intersting how he says that there are many persons who believe, from the labour that they see the Indian women perform, that they are in a manner treated as slaves. These labours, indeed, are hard, compared with the tasks that are imposed upon females in civilized society, but they are no more than their fair share of the hardships attendant on savage life. So they are not only voluntarily, but cheerfully submitted to the work. <br />
--Katie D.<br />
<br />
Heckewelder's discription also described the women as being "...cheerful." Maybe it was a European interpretation that smiling and cheerfulness was through the fear of the great stong Native American men. Now in the prespective of a historian who knows a bit more about the Native American culture it can be frustrating to read some accounts of Europeans and their interactions with the Natives. Women as we learned are cheerful not out of fear- maybe they were cheerful because they did have some power and influence over the tribes. If Heckewelder observed the strange freedoms that men and women had with marriage, could the connection not be made that these women have lots of liberties in other aspects of their societies and culture? - Talya Halpern<br />
<br />
Katie, I was also interested in the idea that somehow fieldwork alone made slaves, but housework did not...Is there any explanation for that, Dr. McClurken? Or someone else who saw something I missed?--A. Meyer<br />
<br />
This is a total shot in the dark, but from a European perspective, I think that they would be used to women doing domestic work as opposed to working in the fields. Taking care of the home was a woman's place in European society and when seeing a Native woman doing those tasks, that was a normal thing to them. However, when women were working in the fields, a red flag must have gone up and they were like "Whoa, must be a slave." I don't know, just a kind of [bad] a guess.--Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
Throughout the personal narratives we have read, it has become obvious that Europeans thought their way of life to be far more superior to the way of life of the Natives they encountered. Due to the fact that they had never seen a society perform this way, Europeans defined this foreign culture as erroneous and thought it their divine right to intervene. Are there any current examples of this “responsibility” to intrude on foreign societies and make them like ours? Without trying to make this a political argument, one may argue the situation in Iraq. For instance, an attempt was made by the U.S. to spread democracy to this dictatorship. - Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
Lisa, I would have to agree with you. The term manifest destiny comes to mind. Though the term may not be as common anymore, the ideology certainly still exists. It was this idea that enabled the Europeans to justify their dealings with the Native Americans and any others who came accross the European's path. -- Elizabeth H.<br />
<br />
Though Native Americans were not nearly as interfering in the lives of European settlers as the settlers were to them I think it is safe to say that the Native Americans would have viewed the European way of life as erroneous and as something that needed to be corrected as well. In fact, with what we know of Native Americans sharing their ways of farming it is possible that Native Americans felt and acted in the same way, seeing Europeans as ignorant and behind the times, only we do not have any primary sources to back up their of the story. Anyway all I am trying to say is that the Europeans most likely were not the only ones looking down on another group of people. Just interesting to remember that we only have one side of the story. --Allison J. <br />
<br />
To what extent were European prejudices against natives based on differences about gender roles? To what extent were they more based on standards of living and tools? If native peoples had similar gender roles to Europeans, would the Europeans have had better gender relations, or would they still be doomed due to European prejudices about tools or desires for land?--Andrea Meyer<br />
<br />
We have several accounts of Native men being introduced to European ideas about gender and the absolute rights European men had in the 17th century. How frequently and quickly did Natives apply these ideas, and how did the application process disrupt Native family dynamics? Because all our accounts are from Europeans, we really don't have any sense of how things were within the Native families when European ideas were experimented with. Did Native women resist European ideals or did some accept these "new" roles?--Andrea Meyer<br />
<br />
It’s amazing that over 300 years later we are running into the same storylines. The story of Sarah Ahhaton committing adultery sounds as if it could’ve been taken right off the front pages of People Magazine. It’s surprising to see the parallels between our two time periods. Sarah accused her husband, William, of philandering long before he became suspicious and jealous of her relationship with Joseph. Yet, William was not put on trial and was not questioned about his unfaithfulness. It was Sarah who was wrongfully accused, pleaded innocent, and was ridiculed before she had even committed the sin (granted William did have a right to speculate- but that’s not the point). Why wasn’t William ever questioned about his running around? And what about Joseph- he gets off scot-free! What we see here is something that has continually found its way into society: the double standard.- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
In Woloch page 21, the recollections of Mary Jemison, I was really struck by her point of view on the work and labor of Indian women. "Our labor was not severe... Notwithstanding the Indian women have all the fuel and bread to procure, and the cooking to perform, their task is probably not harder that that of white women, who have those articles provided for them; and their cares certainly are not half as numerous, nor half as great." As a European woman now being held in captivity, I think it's a more trustworthy look at the work of Indian women versus the work of white women. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
One of the things I personally liked about the Woloch reading was that she, right from the get go, reminded us that most women in the early period were not literate -- they could not read or write and therefore most of what we know about them comes from men or writings of elite, white women. I think that we, as historians need to keep that in mind when analyzing and studying these sorts of materials because more often than not, these stories and facts are altered or skewed in some way. -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
In the reading posted on Black Board it talks about how Christianity changed the gender roles and how women were treated. It shocked me that the women were summoned to a council and told that their influence basically had caused demons to come into the village (at least thats the impression I got). Also in that reading I saw how native american society ended up being very similar to the European society in which women were expected to be pure and loyal only to her husband and if she wasn't she was punished where as well men were SUPPOSED to be they often weren't and weren't punished for their adultery. I also am wondering why women let themselves be pushed into a role where they had less influence, if I had been in that position I'm positive I would have fought back. Does anyone else have thoughts on the black board reading?- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
One of the contributing reasons for some native women losing power and not "fighting back" might have been the fact that European's justified their lifestyle and gender roles with lessons from Christianity. Wrestling with a new notion of God must have been unbelievably overwhelming and with the threat of hell looming perhaps women surrendered power, in part, because of fear of the consequences of acting against Christianity or European morals. - Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
I found it pretty interesting in the Woloch reading the complete opposite views of the two women captives. Mary Rowlandson seems to really hate being with the Indians even while she was trying to figure out why God had allowed this to happen to her. She also seemed to contridict herself as far as her treatment..sometimes harshly and sometimes with mercy. The other captive Mary Jemison chose to stay with her captives even though they killed all of her relatives. She even says her situation was easy (pg 20). She even describes her Indian "sisters" as "peaceable and mild in their dispositions; temperment and decent in their habits, and very tender and gentle" towards her (pg21). I wonder if the difference is just how each individual tribe responded to the settlers or if was because of the time periods they lived in? Did the Indians attitude towards the settlers change that dramatically? ~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
I think it is really important to remember, as we are reading Mary Rowlandson's narrative, that she had just lost a child. A lot of her animosity and unhappiness could be attributed to the sadness of losing a child rather than the harsh and savage treatment of the Native Americans. Maybe this is why there are some inconsistencies in here account. Such as describing Native Americans as cruel but one paragraph later mentioning how one family took her in and fed her. -- Allison J. <br />
<br />
I agree with Alison about Rowlandson's account of captivity might have been influenced by her sadness. Also, Rowlandson was described as a "middle-aged minister's wife," while at the time of her initial capture, Jemison was a teenager. I wonder how much Rowlandson's previous life experiences and beliefs influenced her views on the natives. Rowlandson's account of the natives seems inconsistent. One could speculate that Rowlandson's opinions about the Native Americans were formed prior to her capture and this might contribute to her negative view of them. -Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Lisa on the Sarah Ahhaton reading. I wonder, though, why was Joseph's mother who seemed to be setting the whole affair up never confronted? She seems like she was intentionally trying to get things started between Sarah and Joseph, and Sarah ends up taking all the blame and punishment. I think at the very least Joseph should have been held accountable for his part but maybe that is just putting my values on them. I wonder why when it was so easy for Indian women or men to divorce, why was Sarah made into such an example? ~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
I found it rather interesting when reading Woloch's passage (on page 4) that a few Indian women actually benefited from European arrival. Those women in hunting tribes benefited through expanded fur trade. While I realize that the majority of women suffered an extremely negative impact from the Europeans, I found this example somewhat unusual. -- Elizabeth H.<br />
<br />
Replying to Andrea Meyers question up above, I too thought about that at first. It's not like European men just expected their wives to just lull about and look pretty. However, I don't think Europeans didn't think women should not do any work I think it was just based on the kind of work they did. Women should not to do work in the fields, however they should do work in the house. It's also a lot less rigourous. Men should be in the fields. -- Emily Miller</div>THalpernhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_2_Questions/CommentsWeek 2 Questions/Comments2007-09-06T01:31:48Z<p>THalpern: </p>
<hr />
<div>I found it interesting in the passage by John Heckewelder( page 30- 33) in Modern Problems where he says that the women's work load was so much lighter than that of the mens. I found this particularly interesting because in one of my classes last semester we read some articles about Europeans reactions to Native American society in Virginia and it said how lazy the European men felt that the Indian men were because it appeared that the women did the majority of the work within the village. I thought it was interesting seeing the different views that this reading exposed. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Continuing from what Elizabeth wrote, It is infact very intersting to see how different groups of people play differnt roles, and how each group views those roles played by each gender.--Katie D.<br />
<br />
I too was interested by the passage about women’s work written by John Heckewelder. I actually found myself getting a little miffed at him for saying such a thing. However, Mary Jemison somewhat backs up what he says in the account of her captivity. She hints that the work was different from the work that white women had to face, but in the end, it all equaled out. “Our labor was not severe; and that of one year was exactly similar in almost every respect to that of the others, with out that endless variety that is to be observed in the common labor of white people…their task is probably not harder than that of white women…” (Woloch 21). Of course, Jemison doesn’t really mention men’s work in her passage, so it’s hard to tell if Seneca men compare to the “macho men” that Heckewelder describes. --Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
I was also a bit baffled at Heckewelder's discription and thought it contrasted so some of the ideas that I interpreted from our lecture on Tuesday. I got from the lecture that women not only pulled their weight, but really did more than that. Granted the region really determined the labor of both genders, but I got that women worked a lot harder than Heckewelder was describing. Maybe I'm just being a "feminist"- but I do not think that Hechewelder was giving women enough credit- but who is surprised about that? -- Talya Halpern<br />
<br />
In Woloch's book, having to do with marriage and treatment of their wives,(p.9-11), I found it intersting how he says that there are many persons who believe, from the labour that they see the Indian women perform, that they are in a manner treated as slaves. These labours, indeed, are hard, compared with the tasks that are imposed upon females in civilized society, but they are no more than their fair share of the hardships attendant on savage life. So they are not only voluntarily, but cheerfully submitted to the work. <br />
--Katie D.<br />
<br />
Katie, I was also interested in the idea that somehow fieldwork alone made slaves, but housework did not...Is there any explanation for that, Dr. McClurken? Or someone else who saw something I missed?--A. Meyer<br />
<br />
This is a total shot in the dark, but from a European perspective, I think that they would be used to women doing domestic work as opposed to working in the fields. Taking care of the home was a woman's place in European society and when seeing a Native woman doing those tasks, that was a normal thing to them. However, when women were working in the fields, a red flag must have gone up and they were like "Whoa, must be a slave." I don't know, just a kind of [bad] a guess.--Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
Throughout the personal narratives we have read, it has become obvious that Europeans thought their way of life to be far more superior to the way of life of the Natives they encountered. Due to the fact that they had never seen a society perform this way, Europeans defined this foreign culture as erroneous and thought it their divine right to intervene. Are there any current examples of this “responsibility” to intrude on foreign societies and make them like ours? Without trying to make this a political argument, one may argue the situation in Iraq. For instance, an attempt was made by the U.S. to spread democracy to this dictatorship. - Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
Lisa, I would have to agree with you. The term manifest destiny comes to mind. Though the term may not be as common anymore, the ideology certainly still exists. It was this idea that enabled the Europeans to justify their dealings with the Native Americans and any others who came accross the European's path. -- Elizabeth H.<br />
<br />
Though Native Americans were not nearly as interfering in the lives of European settlers as the settlers were to them I think it is safe to say that the Native Americans would have viewed the European way of life as erroneous and as something that needed to be corrected as well. In fact, with what we know of Native Americans sharing their ways of farming it is possible that Native Americans felt and acted in the same way, seeing Europeans as ignorant and behind the times, only we do not have any primary sources to back up their of the story. Anyway all I am trying to say is that the Europeans most likely were not the only ones looking down on another group of people. Just interesting to remember that we only have one side of the story. --Allison J. <br />
<br />
To what extent were European prejudices against natives based on differences about gender roles? To what extent were they more based on standards of living and tools? If native peoples had similar gender roles to Europeans, would the Europeans have had better gender relations, or would they still be doomed due to European prejudices about tools or desires for land?--Andrea Meyer<br />
<br />
We have several accounts of Native men being introduced to European ideas about gender and the absolute rights European men had in the 17th century. How frequently and quickly did Natives apply these ideas, and how did the application process disrupt Native family dynamics? Because all our accounts are from Europeans, we really don't have any sense of how things were within the Native families when European ideas were experimented with. Did Native women resist European ideals or did some accept these "new" roles?--Andrea Meyer<br />
<br />
It’s amazing that over 300 years later we are running into the same storylines. The story of Sarah Ahhaton committing adultery sounds as if it could’ve been taken right off the front pages of People Magazine. It’s surprising to see the parallels between our two time periods. Sarah accused her husband, William, of philandering long before he became suspicious and jealous of her relationship with Joseph. Yet, William was not put on trial and was not questioned about his unfaithfulness. It was Sarah who was wrongfully accused, pleaded innocent, and was ridiculed before she had even committed the sin (granted William did have a right to speculate- but that’s not the point). Why wasn’t William ever questioned about his running around? And what about Joseph- he gets off scot-free! What we see here is something that has continually found its way into society: the double standard.- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
In Woloch page 21, the recollections of Mary Jemison, I was really struck by her point of view on the work and labor of Indian women. "Our labor was not severe... Notwithstanding the Indian women have all the fuel and bread to procure, and the cooking to perform, their task is probably not harder that that of white women, who have those articles provided for them; and their cares certainly are not half as numerous, nor half as great." As a European woman now being held in captivity, I think it's a more trustworthy look at the work of Indian women versus the work of white women. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
One of the things I personally liked about the Woloch reading was that she, right from the get go, reminded us that most women in the early period were not literate -- they could not read or write and therefore most of what we know about them comes from men or writings of elite, white women. I think that we, as historians need to keep that in mind when analyzing and studying these sorts of materials because more often than not, these stories and facts are altered or skewed in some way. -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
In the reading posted on Black Board it talks about how Christianity changed the gender roles and how women were treated. It shocked me that the women were summoned to a council and told that their influence basically had caused demons to come into the village (at least thats the impression I got). Also in that reading I saw how native american society ended up being very similar to the European society in which women were expected to be pure and loyal only to her husband and if she wasn't she was punished where as well men were SUPPOSED to be they often weren't and weren't punished for their adultery. I also am wondering why women let themselves be pushed into a role where they had less influence, if I had been in that position I'm positive I would have fought back. Does anyone else have thoughts on the black board reading?- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
One of the contributing reasons for some native women losing power and not "fighting back" might have been the fact that European's justified their lifestyle and gender roles with lessons from Christianity. Wrestling with a new notion of God must have been unbelievably overwhelming and with the threat of hell looming perhaps women surrendered power, in part, because of fear of the consequences of acting against Christianity or European morals. - Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
I found it pretty interesting in the Woloch reading the complete opposite views of the two women captives. Mary Rowlandson seems to really hate being with the Indians even while she was trying to figure out why God had allowed this to happen to her. She also seemed to contridict herself as far as her treatment..sometimes harshly and sometimes with mercy. The other captive Mary Jemison chose to stay with her captives even though they killed all of her relatives. She even says her situation was easy (pg 20). She even describes her Indian "sisters" as "peaceable and mild in their dispositions; temperment and decent in their habits, and very tender and gentle" towards her (pg21). I wonder if the difference is just how each individual tribe responded to the settlers or if was because of the time periods they lived in? Did the Indians attitude towards the settlers change that dramatically? ~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
I think it is really important to remember, as we are reading Mary Rowlandson's narrative, that she had just lost a child. A lot of her animosity and unhappiness could be attributed to the sadness of losing a child rather than the harsh and savage treatment of the Native Americans. Maybe this is why there are some inconsistencies in here account. Such as describing Native Americans as cruel but one paragraph later mentioning how one family took her in and fed her. -- Allison J. <br />
<br />
I completely agree with Lisa on the Sarah Ahhaton reading. I wonder, though, why was Joseph's mother who seemed to be setting the whole affair up never confronted? She seems like she was intentionally trying to get things started between Sarah and Joseph, and Sarah ends up taking all the blame and punishment. I think at the very least Joseph should have been held accountable for his part but maybe that is just putting my values on them. I wonder why when it was so easy for Indian women or men to divorce, why was Sarah made into such an example? ~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
I found it rather interesting when reading Woloch's passage (on page 4) that a few Indian women actually benefited from European arrival. Those women in hunting tribes benefited through expanded fur trade. While I realize that the majority of women suffered an extremely negative impact from the Europeans, I found this example somewhat unusual. -- Elizabeth H.<br />
<br />
Replying to Andrea Meyers question up above, I too thought about that at first. It's not like European men just expected their wives to just lull about and look pretty. However, I don't think Europeans didn't think women should not do any work I think it was just based on the kind of work they did. Women should not to do work in the fields, however they should do work in the house. It's also a lot less rigourous. Men should be in the fields. -- Emily Miller</div>THalpernhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_1_Questions/CommentsWeek 1 Questions/Comments2007-08-30T03:47:20Z<p>THalpern: </p>
<hr />
<div> -- Major Problems, 1-23<br />
<br />
The first essay mentions how women were once only seen as important to history because of their relation to important men. A prime example of this is our University. Mary Washington is recognized solely as the mother of George Washington. She is seen as important because of her son not because of any of her own actions. -- Allison<br />
<br />
I think Allison makes an excellent point. I'm reminded of a quote from the movie History Boys. The quote is from the woman history teacher who says, "History is a commentary on the various and continuing incapabilities of men. What is history? History is women following behind with the bucket." She may have some feminist tendencies when saying this, but I think it can be a relevant quote for what Kate Haulman is saying in her essay and the point Allison made. -- Vanessa<br />
<br />
One of my other professors mentioned that history is constantly being reinterpreted and rewritten, so can any of the questions represented by this book ever actually be answered to everyone's satisfaction? -- Allison<br />
<br />
In response to Allison's question: I think that you have a good point. I seriously doubt that any of these questions will ever be answered to everyone's satisfaction. Like in all things there will always be someone who is not satisfied, someone who continues to look for another way to answer the question. Its human nature. You can see that just looking at the essays, even though the historians writing this are all involved in women's history they all have different ideas of how you should go about it and what you should focus on. --Mary<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary and Allison also. It is human nature to not be satisfied- and it is in our nature to complain and always want to adapt in ideologies. None of the questions asked in Chapter 1 can ever be answered coherently because the answers can be interepreted in so many different ways. I mean the book has four essays on the topic so far, all of which are different.- Talya <br />
<br />
There was one section while reading that stood out for me and that was the part on page twelve about equality and difference. I found it interesting that she should mention the idea that so often in the search for women's "equality" women want to be treated as if they were men and often over look the differences between men and women because they have often been used as a basis for discimination. While this section was very confusing, in my opinion at least, just because of the strong and opposing opinions about the subject, personally I think that just because a woman wants to be seen as an equal to a man in the eyes of society and in the eyes of the law that is no reason to set aside her femininity. --Mary<br />
<br />
In regards to Mary's comment, I agree that equality should never be awarded based on one's femininity. The dichotomy was a contrast between feminists who deny difference between males and females and those who use their differences as a strength or access to power. I think it is vital to realize that "femininity" is a construct that has been forced upon women. "Femininity" and "Masculinity" have regulated gender politics and certainly there is nothing wrong with expressing either- but they are just labels that have been oppressive to those who wish to transcend their designated gender roles. I think that there would be value in discussing from where "femininity" stems and how free thought is and has been affected by this construct. --Kelly<br />
<br />
I'd like to pose a question of opinion, if permitted, in response to Mary's and Kelly's comments. It's a situation that I know many instances of and wonder about what everyone else thinks of it. Woman A wants to go to college, get a degree, and continue her education (perhaps to get a masters or doctorate). She hopes to achieve a full and lengthy career while maintaining a family life. Woman B wants to finish college but her main goal is to start a family and stay at home to take care of her children and the household. She has no desire for a career and is more than satisfied with her life as a stay-at-home mom/homemaker. I don't really have a follow-up question other than to open the floor to opinion, but is there anything wrong with either woman's goals and should either be seen as less-equal or more equal than the other? -- Vanessa<br />
<br />
In response to Vanessa's comment, I don't believe the issue should be whether or not one woman's goals are more or less equal to those of the other woman. The important issue is that women have the choice to pursue an education and career and/or they have the choice to become mothers and care for their households. We have come a long way in history considering the choice was not always there. -- Elizabeth<br />
<br />
One, I think that either choice contains a life time of dedication and hard work. Vanessa's question for Woman B was if the woman went to school and then just stayed home. What if woman B never went to school at all? What if she simply became a house wife? What does everyone think about a housewife with no education? What if school was not even an option because it was not important? It is so interesting that school has now become the factor of success. A while ago, college was not for everyone- especially not for women at one point. What does everyone think about how an uneducated housewife would be viewed upon today versus a century ago?- Talya. <br />
<br />
I agree with Elizabeth. In the 1950s the typical family dynamic was a stay at home mom (homemaker) and a father who worked (the breadwinner). "The Problem That Has No Name" written by Betty Friedan speaks to women who had no other options than to raise the children and be the homemaker. That is what society told them they had to/should do at that time. "The Problem" was that many women became depressed and wanted more from their life. I don't mean to down homemakers at all. Rather, I say this because women did not have a real choice then. Like Elizabeth said though, now women have more choices. Both homemakers and career women should be valued for their work. --Alex<br />
<br />
I agree with Elizabeth but also think that looking at what influences a woman's life goal could potentially be telling. I would be curious about how the goals of Woman A and B have been supported by their peers, the media, and other outside forces. --Kelly <br />
<br />
I have been a stay at home mom but I also held a part-time job if hours that were different from my husbands. This was a way I could balanace a career and be a mother at the same time. It was difficult but I had plenty of support from my family, peers and others. The only thing I put on hold was my education. Hopefully this coming spring I will graduate.--Cheryl<br />
<br />
Women's history has come a long way. I agree with Gerda Lerner when she says "the striking fact about the historiography of women is the general neglect of the subject by historians." (p.8). There is something about the neglect of women's studies that makes us want to focus even more on their history. --Katie<br />
<br />
Speaking of Gerda Lerner, she was a speaker during last years women's history month here on campus. I went to hear her speak and she was a really strong, intelligent and persistent women. She spoke of the Seneca Falls Convention and the Declaration of Sentiments written there advocating for the women's rights. In addition, she also addressed the women's movement stereotype that it only involved white middle class women. She mentioned that the working class, blacks and some men were also involved. Lerner also noted that although the Equal Rights Amendment has yet to be passed, she does not feel that it would be the magic ticket to solve all women’s issues. She stressed that legal reforms/changes are not enough. Social support and cultural transformation is needed. The attitudes of men and women alike need to change in support of these issues. Knowing women’s history is a major step in the right direction. Lerner basically founded women’s history programs, stressing that we have a right to know our own history. --Alex<br />
<br />
Knowing that it is gender that defines "man" and "woman", or "male" and "female", what exactly truely defines the category "women"? --Katie<br />
<br />
I believe that when studying women's history it is easy to get caught up in the oppression of women. It's important to remember that not all cultures were as oppressive over women as were European societies. We know that many Native American women had a stronger role in soceity than most European women. This is not to say that women were never oppressed, rather that depending on the soceity of study, women's roles were different.-- Elizabeth<br />
<br />
In response to Elizabeth's comment: I definitely agree. In fact, while I was reading the essays, I kept reminding myself about the different situations of women throughout history, like Native Americans as you mentioned. However, not focusing on oppression is sometimes hard to do as Leslie Alexander points out, some scholars seek to incoroporate race into their studies and end up "focusing exclusively on oppression" (20).--Kaitlyn<br />
<br />
I agree, there has been so many positive parts in Women's history. Yet, we cannot forget some of the good parts were incorporated hand in hand with the status of the particular female individual. Abigail Adams for example- I'm sure she would not have been popular or involved in the Revolutionary War as much as she was if she was not married to her famous husband.- Talya. <br />
<br />
In her essay Alexander argued that historians are "reluctant to explore how the reality of race influences Black women's lives." What is the cause of this reluctance? Can this statement also be applied to all minority women? - Fiona<br />
<br />
The authors argue that women's history needs to be examined from multiple angles: class, race, culture, ethnicity, sexuality, age, work, etc. Is this possible? Would it still be women's history or would it become something like African American women's history or Latino women's history? - Fiona<br />
<br />
Elaborating on Fiona's questions, how do we define any group for the purpose of studying its history? How does one draw important distinctions (class, race, age, etc.) while not creating a focus so narrow or specific as to be impractical for study as a group? Also, Gisela Bock refers to the emergence of "men's history" and "men's studies." Has anyone actually witnesses any examples of this? -Ashley<br />
<br />
I don't think the reading covered this so i was curious if anyone else knew- How did the study of women specifically in history begin? did it begin with the feminist movements?- Elizabeth<br />
<br />
As Cheryl states below, the preface states the basic reasons that this topic came into play. 1) the feminist movement in the 1960s and 2) women began to enter into the field of history and historical study as a result of employment opportunities that they had not previously been given. And one reason seems to be the result of the other. - Kelly W.<br />
<br />
In the preface of the book, more details are given about the study of women's histroy.--Cheryl<br />
<br />
I was actually curious about the same thing. I believe one of the authors mentioned that the field of study stretched all the way back to the 1950s (I could be wrong). That being said, with the ever-changing role of women in society, how do you think the study of women's history has changed since its beginning and how do you think it will change in the future?--Kaitlyn<br />
<br />
Why would the feminist movement be thought of as damaging to Women's Studies? I would think that it would be a positive thing so that women can see where they've been and how they could advance. - Elizabeth<br />
<br />
To comment on Allison’s Mary Washington statement that opened this discussion, Bock’s essay makes a great point in her public v. private dichotomy. She says, “male workers, male politicians and male scholars perform their tasks only because they are born, reared, and cared for by the women’s labor”(10). Thus, George is a public reflection of Mary’s private raising. We are able to see the woman Mary was through the man George became.--Lisa<br />
<br />
How does one determine what is gender neutral? Especially when it comes to applying gender neutrallity to laws that invovled violence like rape and battery?--Cheryl<br />
<br />
There is a comment somewhere amongst these essays that states that women’s history is a compilation of only the exceptional women from history, thus creating a history that is unrepresentative of every woman. Isn’t most history (not just women’s history) we read that of the extraordinary and not the commonplace?--Lisa<br />
<br />
In response to your question, Lisa, I'd have to agree with you on that one. Most history we study from grade school through our current education focuses primarily on major events, not only of women, but of men as well. Discussions are always based on the extraordinary and the only way we tap into the lives of the commonplace is by digging for primary sources and analyzing what we can. I feel however, that the field is slowly beginning to expand and bring the commonplace closer to the center. (I think that made sense). - Kelly W <br />
<br />
In her essay "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History," Gisela Bock states that women appeared front and center in the historian's eye because of their subjectivity and that "women are not only victims but also actively shape their own lives, society and history." How does everyone feel about this statement? Do you agree that it was also partly at the fault of women that the gender was not previously studied? - Kelly W<br />
<br />
It was actually a surprise to me how indepth the discussion of "women's history" really is. I had always been under the simple assumption that women's history was just precisely that: history of women. The reality that such a two word phrase would contain so many issues regarding gender, race, class... appears very important, despite my previous assumptions. The idea that women's history was actually 'white women's history' was an observation that jumped out at me. It seems so easy to fight for a perspective/focus in history with the goal of some type of equality while at the same time ignoring a whole type of inequality in your focus. The sections dealing with the multiple dichotomies was very interesting, considering how even today such phrases are used. In the case of "work and family," its interesting to see how a practical consideration of "paid and unpaid work" was given a more ethical/moral (perhaps even a religious/theological one?) with the phrase "work and family" -it makes me wonder what other dichotomies in society that seem to be ethical or social values are at base purely practical ones. --Chris Plummer<br />
<br />
I would first like to start by commenting to Allison’s opening statement about women’s history in relation to men and would like to throw out another question. Considering the time period we are focusing on in this class and the mostly male-dominated/patriarchal society of the time is it contextually appropriate to only focus on women without considering important men both publicly and privately in women’s lives? I think Haulman brings up an extremely important part of understanding women’s historiography and that was the need and desire to have a history of all types, classes, races, etc. of women but can we do that without some comparison to men? (particularly in this half of the course). I also think Haulman, Castaneda, and Alexander brought up an important point about titles and incorporating women of color. In my research for my 299 paper I came across research and studies about minority groups in the 1960s women’s movement, how they viewed the women’s movement, how they participated, and how they viewed the predominantly white, middle class woman’s struggle compared to theirs. It made me think of other titles such as the “History of African Americans” and what that title would mean broken down. ----Mary Beth Dillane<br />
<br />
I thought that it was interesting in Antonia Castaneda's essay how she mentions that the women, who wrote the history of women in the West, only wrote about white women. I think that it is difficult to write a through history of women in the West without highlighting the accomplishments of Native American, Hispanic and Asian women. ~Katherine~<br />
<br />
Going along with Katherine's comment, think of how little we know about the American (and when I say American I mean US) southeast and the Native American tribes. Most of what we are taught is that they were fighting a battle they were ultimately going to lose -- isn't most history biased in that sort of way and not just women's history? - Kelly W<br />
<br />
I also thought that it was interesting how Leslie Alexander mentions that the feminist movement was not very successful with African American women. It was not successful because African American families were very close knit and the movement required women to distance themselves a little bit from their families. ~Katherine~<br />
<br />
One of the things that struck me the most in the reading was the section about equality versus difference. As I was reading it I kept thinking Why is it so difficult for women to be equal. I believe that we (as women) should not be treated exactly like men because we are different and have different issues that cannot be addressed that way, such as what was mentioned in the text of rape, abortion, and spousal abuse (pg12). I think Bock's question of "why is it, for instance, that "equality" and "justice" seem to complement each other in the case of men, but be opposed to each other in the case of women." (pg12) is a very important question and sums up the women's struggle to be visible. ~Mary Beth C~<br />
<br />
I found the various references to the complications of writing to represent a whole sex interesting. The progression from the inclusion of "important and influential" figures in women's history, to a history that strives to incorporate the vast meanings of what it means to be a woman in all respects in all periods is daunting, if not hopeless. But, striving for such complete understanding seems to be a crucial goal of the modern historian. Diversity of study is finding an important prominence, but in such the danger of dilution of the subject field becomes apparent. -- Robert Kopp<br />
<br />
Vanessa's question hit on an issue that we're starting to see the pendulum sort of swing in the opposite direction on, but for so long we have only wanted to talk about and recognize the active and "exciting" action taking parts of history. No one wants to talk about keeping a family on the homefront or making the parts for the planes that dropped the bombs, they want to talk about flying in to drop the bombs. At the same time, as we try to recognize the importance of raising families, and women like Abigail Adams who were intellectually advanced and deserve credit for being recognized as leaders within their own time, we neglect to give attention to women who assumed active roles equal or comparable to male roles--why do we know Jack Jouett and Paul Revere, but we don't know Sybil Luddington and Dicey Langston? Women's history seems to have gone to extremes, resulting in attention being devoted most unequally. --Andrea<br />
<br />
Bock and Haulman seemed to do an excellent job of articulating key themes in gender and women's studies, themes I have not seen articulated as succintly and clearly elsewhere. Bock's numbered themes simply identify issues my women's studies class spent weeks discussing, issues that I believe we will find continually reappear and connect in subtle ways we would never anticipate...These are issues that apply to other minorities on some level in many situations--like the integration discussion. Are any neglected/minority accounts of history better taught on their own independently or better off integrated into mainstream history? African American, Latino or even Irish History/Studies could easily be substituted for Women's Studies/History in many of these essays. Haulman's explanation of the sexuality nature vs. nurture debate is significantly clearer than the essays used in the same series' book on Sexual History by Weeks and Rictor Norton, which fail to address many examples like mannerisms, which Haulman uses well. Leslie Alexander's discussion of historians' use of the contributionist model with African American history also seemed to apply to women's history in general, or really any history that's been neglected from the "Dead White Men" version of history. It made me realize that women's history really is discussed in terms of contributions or assistance or help, never in terms of achievements or actions, contrary to the "he did" history of DWM. That thought left me frustrated and asking "What would Gerda say?" (besides to keep insisting on the recognition of obscure minority examples of women which derail Dr. McClurken's classes). --Andrea<br />
<br />
In response to Mary Beth’s question about how important it is to incorporate men into our study of women, I think it is important to include them because they did play an important role in influencing women’s lives and choices. While the degree is debatable, the fact remains that Women were influenced by the male dominated society in which they lived. We wouldn’t be getting the full picture if we failed to incorporate men into that history.<br />
For me, the equality v. difference argument in the Gisella Bock essay was very interesting. Though I am all for female independence, equal education and job opportunities, etc. I’m not convinced that women and men should be treated as gender neutral. Biologically we are different and face different issues in society. –- Jennifer Feldhaus<br />
<br />
Jennifer- I completely agree. Men and Women should not be treated as gender neutral. The difference between us- not just physically- but mentally, emotionally, and physcologically, are to extreme to be considered equal. That is not to say that we should not have equal rights- but not only do we face different issues in society differenty, we react differently to those issues. - Talya.</div>THalpernhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_1_Questions/CommentsWeek 1 Questions/Comments2007-08-30T03:42:12Z<p>THalpern: </p>
<hr />
<div> -- Major Problems, 1-23<br />
<br />
The first essay mentions how women were once only seen as important to history because of their relation to important men. A prime example of this is our University. Mary Washington is recognized solely as the mother of George Washington. She is seen as important because of her son not because of any of her own actions. -- Allison<br />
<br />
I think Allison makes an excellent point. I'm reminded of a quote from the movie History Boys. The quote is from the woman history teacher who says, "History is a commentary on the various and continuing incapabilities of men. What is history? History is women following behind with the bucket." She may have some feminist tendencies when saying this, but I think it can be a relevant quote for what Kate Haulman is saying in her essay and the point Allison made. -- Vanessa<br />
<br />
One of my other professors mentioned that history is constantly being reinterpreted and rewritten, so can any of the questions represented by this book ever actually be answered to everyone's satisfaction? -- Allison<br />
<br />
In response to Allison's question: I think that you have a good point. I seriously doubt that any of these questions will ever be answered to everyone's satisfaction. Like in all things there will always be someone who is not satisfied, someone who continues to look for another way to answer the question. Its human nature. You can see that just looking at the essays, even though the historians writing this are all involved in women's history they all have different ideas of how you should go about it and what you should focus on. --Mary<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary and Allison also. It is human nature to not be satisfied- and it is in our nature to complain and always want to adapt in ideologies. None of the questions asked in Chapter 1 can ever be answered coherently because the answers can be interepreted in so many different ways. I mean the book has four essays on the topic so far, all of which are different.- Talya <br />
<br />
There was one section while reading that stood out for me and that was the part on page twelve about equality and difference. I found it interesting that she should mention the idea that so often in the search for women's "equality" women want to be treated as if they were men and often over look the differences between men and women because they have often been used as a basis for discimination. While this section was very confusing, in my opinion at least, just because of the strong and opposing opinions about the subject, personally I think that just because a woman wants to be seen as an equal to a man in the eyes of society and in the eyes of the law that is no reason to set aside her femininity. --Mary<br />
<br />
In regards to Mary's comment, I agree that equality should never be awarded based on one's femininity. The dichotomy was a contrast between feminists who deny difference between males and females and those who use their differences as a strength or access to power. I think it is vital to realize that "femininity" is a construct that has been forced upon women. "Femininity" and "Masculinity" have regulated gender politics and certainly there is nothing wrong with expressing either- but they are just labels that have been oppressive to those who wish to transcend their designated gender roles. I think that there would be value in discussing from where "femininity" stems and how free thought is and has been affected by this construct. --Kelly<br />
<br />
I'd like to pose a question of opinion, if permitted, in response to Mary's and Kelly's comments. It's a situation that I know many instances of and wonder about what everyone else thinks of it. Woman A wants to go to college, get a degree, and continue her education (perhaps to get a masters or doctorate). She hopes to achieve a full and lengthy career while maintaining a family life. Woman B wants to finish college but her main goal is to start a family and stay at home to take care of her children and the household. She has no desire for a career and is more than satisfied with her life as a stay-at-home mom/homemaker. I don't really have a follow-up question other than to open the floor to opinion, but is there anything wrong with either woman's goals and should either be seen as less-equal or more equal than the other? -- Vanessa<br />
<br />
In response to Vanessa's comment, I don't believe the issue should be whether or not one woman's goals are more or less equal to those of the other woman. The important issue is that women have the choice to pursue an education and career and/or they have the choice to become mothers and care for their households. We have come a long way in history considering the choice was not always there. -- Elizabeth<br />
<br />
One, I think that either choice contains a life time of dedication and hard work. Vanessa's question for Woman B was if the woman went to school and then just stayed home. What if woman B never went to school at all? What if she simply became a house wife? What does everyone think about a housewife with no education? What if school was not even an option because it was not important? It is so interesting that school has now become the factor of success. A while ago, college was not for everyone- especially not for women at one point. What does everyone think about how an uneducated housewife would be viewed upon today versus a century ago?- Talya. <br />
<br />
I agree with Elizabeth. In the 1950s the typical family dynamic was a stay at home mom (homemaker) and a father who worked (the breadwinner). "The Problem That Has No Name" written by Betty Friedan speaks to women who had no other options than to raise the children and be the homemaker. That is what society told them they had to/should do at that time. "The Problem" was that many women became depressed and wanted more from their life. I don't mean to down homemakers at all. Rather, I say this because women did not have a real choice then. Like Elizabeth said though, now women have more choices. Both homemakers and career women should be valued for their work. --Alex<br />
<br />
I agree with Elizabeth but also think that looking at what influences a woman's life goal could potentially be telling. I would be curious about how the goals of Woman A and B have been supported by their peers, the media, and other outside forces. --Kelly <br />
<br />
I have been a stay at home mom but I also held a part-time job if hours that were different from my husbands. This was a way I could balanace a career and be a mother at the same time. It was difficult but I had plenty of support from my family, peers and others. The only thing I put on hold was my education. Hopefully this coming spring I will graduate.--Cheryl<br />
<br />
Women's history has come a long way. I agree with Gerda Lerner when she says "the striking fact about the historiography of women is the general neglect of the subject by historians." (p.8). There is something about the neglect of women's studies that makes us want to focus even more on their history. --Katie<br />
<br />
Speaking of Gerda Lerner, she was a speaker during last years women's history month here on campus. I went to hear her speak and she was a really strong, intelligent and persistent women. She spoke of the Seneca Falls Convention and the Declaration of Sentiments written there advocating for the women's rights. In addition, she also addressed the women's movement stereotype that it only involved white middle class women. She mentioned that the working class, blacks and some men were also involved. Lerner also noted that although the Equal Rights Amendment has yet to be passed, she does not feel that it would be the magic ticket to solve all women’s issues. She stressed that legal reforms/changes are not enough. Social support and cultural transformation is needed. The attitudes of men and women alike need to change in support of these issues. Knowing women’s history is a major step in the right direction. Lerner basically founded women’s history programs, stressing that we have a right to know our own history. --Alex<br />
<br />
Knowing that it is gender that defines "man" and "woman", or "male" and "female", what exactly truely defines the category "women"? --Katie<br />
<br />
I believe that when studying women's history it is easy to get caught up in the oppression of women. It's important to remember that not all cultures were as oppressive over women as were European societies. We know that many Native American women had a stronger role in soceity than most European women. This is not to say that women were never oppressed, rather that depending on the soceity of study, women's roles were different.-- Elizabeth<br />
<br />
In response to Elizabeth's comment: I definitely agree. In fact, while I was reading the essays, I kept reminding myself about the different situations of women throughout history, like Native Americans as you mentioned. However, not focusing on oppression is sometimes hard to do as Leslie Alexander points out, some scholars seek to incoroporate race into their studies and end up "focusing exclusively on oppression" (20).--Kaitlyn<br />
<br />
I agree, there has been so many positive parts in Women's history. Yet, we cannot forget some of the good parts were incorporated hand in hand with the status of the particular female individual. Abigail Adams for example- I'm sure she would not have been popular or involved in the Revolutionary War as much as she was if she was not married to her famous husband.- Talya. <br />
<br />
In her essay Alexander argued that historians are "reluctant to explore how the reality of race influences Black women's lives." What is the cause of this reluctance? Can this statement also be applied to all minority women? - Fiona<br />
<br />
The authors argue that women's history needs to be examined from multiple angles: class, race, culture, ethnicity, sexuality, age, work, etc. Is this possible? Would it still be women's history or would it become something like African American women's history or Latino women's history? - Fiona<br />
<br />
Elaborating on Fiona's questions, how do we define any group for the purpose of studying its history? How does one draw important distinctions (class, race, age, etc.) while not creating a focus so narrow or specific as to be impractical for study as a group? Also, Gisela Bock refers to the emergence of "men's history" and "men's studies." Has anyone actually witnesses any examples of this? -Ashley<br />
<br />
I don't think the reading covered this so i was curious if anyone else knew- How did the study of women specifically in history begin? did it begin with the feminist movements?- Elizabeth<br />
<br />
As Cheryl states below, the preface states the basic reasons that this topic came into play. 1) the feminist movement in the 1960s and 2) women began to enter into the field of history and historical study as a result of employment opportunities that they had not previously been given. And one reason seems to be the result of the other. - Kelly W.<br />
<br />
In the preface of the book, more details are given about the study of women's histroy.--Cheryl<br />
<br />
I was actually curious about the same thing. I believe one of the authors mentioned that the field of study stretched all the way back to the 1950s (I could be wrong). That being said, with the ever-changing role of women in society, how do you think the study of women's history has changed since its beginning and how do you think it will change in the future?--Kaitlyn<br />
<br />
Why would the feminist movement be thought of as damaging to Women's Studies? I would think that it would be a positive thing so that women can see where they've been and how they could advance. - Elizabeth<br />
<br />
To comment on Allison’s Mary Washington statement that opened this discussion, Bock’s essay makes a great point in her public v. private dichotomy. She says, “male workers, male politicians and male scholars perform their tasks only because they are born, reared, and cared for by the women’s labor”(10). Thus, George is a public reflection of Mary’s private raising. We are able to see the woman Mary was through the man George became.--Lisa<br />
<br />
How does one determine what is gender neutral? Especially when it comes to applying gender neutrallity to laws that invovled violence like rape and battery?--Cheryl<br />
<br />
There is a comment somewhere amongst these essays that states that women’s history is a compilation of only the exceptional women from history, thus creating a history that is unrepresentative of every woman. Isn’t most history (not just women’s history) we read that of the extraordinary and not the commonplace?--Lisa<br />
<br />
In response to your question, Lisa, I'd have to agree with you on that one. Most history we study from grade school through our current education focuses primarily on major events, not only of women, but of men as well. Discussions are always based on the extraordinary and the only way we tap into the lives of the commonplace is by digging for primary sources and analyzing what we can. I feel however, that the field is slowly beginning to expand and bring the commonplace closer to the center. (I think that made sense). - Kelly W <br />
<br />
In her essay "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History," Gisela Bock states that women appeared front and center in the historian's eye because of their subjectivity and that "women are not only victims but also actively shape their own lives, society and history." How does everyone feel about this statement? Do you agree that it was also partly at the fault of women that the gender was not previously studied? - Kelly W<br />
<br />
It was actually a surprise to me how indepth the discussion of "women's history" really is. I had always been under the simple assumption that women's history was just precisely that: history of women. The reality that such a two word phrase would contain so many issues regarding gender, race, class... appears very important, despite my previous assumptions. The idea that women's history was actually 'white women's history' was an observation that jumped out at me. It seems so easy to fight for a perspective/focus in history with the goal of some type of equality while at the same time ignoring a whole type of inequality in your focus. The sections dealing with the multiple dichotomies was very interesting, considering how even today such phrases are used. In the case of "work and family," its interesting to see how a practical consideration of "paid and unpaid work" was given a more ethical/moral (perhaps even a religious/theological one?) with the phrase "work and family" -it makes me wonder what other dichotomies in society that seem to be ethical or social values are at base purely practical ones. --Chris Plummer<br />
<br />
I would first like to start by commenting to Allison’s opening statement about women’s history in relation to men and would like to throw out another question. Considering the time period we are focusing on in this class and the mostly male-dominated/patriarchal society of the time is it contextually appropriate to only focus on women without considering important men both publicly and privately in women’s lives? I think Haulman brings up an extremely important part of understanding women’s historiography and that was the need and desire to have a history of all types, classes, races, etc. of women but can we do that without some comparison to men? (particularly in this half of the course). I also think Haulman, Castaneda, and Alexander brought up an important point about titles and incorporating women of color. In my research for my 299 paper I came across research and studies about minority groups in the 1960s women’s movement, how they viewed the women’s movement, how they participated, and how they viewed the predominantly white, middle class woman’s struggle compared to theirs. It made me think of other titles such as the “History of African Americans” and what that title would mean broken down. ----Mary Beth Dillane<br />
<br />
I thought that it was interesting in Antonia Castaneda's essay how she mentions that the women, who wrote the history of women in the West, only wrote about white women. I think that it is difficult to write a through history of women in the West without highlighting the accomplishments of Native American, Hispanic and Asian women. ~Katherine~<br />
<br />
Going along with Katherine's comment, think of how little we know about the American (and when I say American I mean US) southeast and the Native American tribes. Most of what we are taught is that they were fighting a battle they were ultimately going to lose -- isn't most history biased in that sort of way and not just women's history? - Kelly W<br />
<br />
I also thought that it was interesting how Leslie Alexander mentions that the feminist movement was not very successful with African American women. It was not successful because African American families were very close knit and the movement required women to distance themselves a little bit from their families. ~Katherine~<br />
<br />
One of the things that struck me the most in the reading was the section about equality versus difference. As I was reading it I kept thinking Why is it so difficult for women to be equal. I believe that we (as women) should not be treated exactly like men because we are different and have different issues that cannot be addressed that way, such as what was mentioned in the text of rape, abortion, and spousal abuse (pg12). I think Bock's question of "why is it, for instance, that "equality" and "justice" seem to complement each other in the case of men, but be opposed to each other in the case of women." (pg12) is a very important question and sums up the women's struggle to be visible. ~Mary Beth C~<br />
<br />
I found the various references to the complications of writing to represent a whole sex interesting. The progression from the inclusion of "important and influential" figures in women's history, to a history that strives to incorporate the vast meanings of what it means to be a woman in all respects in all periods is daunting, if not hopeless. But, striving for such complete understanding seems to be a crucial goal of the modern historian. Diversity of study is finding an important prominence, but in such the danger of dilution of the subject field becomes apparent. -- Robert Kopp<br />
<br />
Vanessa's question hit on an issue that we're starting to see the pendulum sort of swing in the opposite direction on, but for so long we have only wanted to talk about and recognize the active and "exciting" action taking parts of history. No one wants to talk about keeping a family on the homefront or making the parts for the planes that dropped the bombs, they want to talk about flying in to drop the bombs. At the same time, as we try to recognize the importance of raising families, and women like Abigail Adams who were intellectually advanced and deserve credit for being recognized as leaders within their own time, we neglect to give attention to women who assumed active roles equal or comparable to male roles--why do we know Jack Jouett and Paul Revere, but we don't know Sybil Luddington and Dicey Langston? Women's history seems to have gone to extremes, resulting in attention being devoted most unequally. --Andrea<br />
<br />
Bock and Haulman seemed to do an excellent job of articulating key themes in gender and women's studies, themes I have not seen articulated as succintly and clearly elsewhere. Bock's numbered themes simply identify issues my women's studies class spent weeks discussing, issues that I believe we will find continually reappear and connect in subtle ways we would never anticipate...These are issues that apply to other minorities on some level in many situations--like the integration discussion. Are any neglected/minority accounts of history better taught on their own independently or better off integrated into mainstream history? African American, Latino or even Irish History/Studies could easily be substituted for Women's Studies/History in many of these essays. Haulman's explanation of the sexuality nature vs. nurture debate is significantly clearer than the essays used in the same series' book on Sexual History by Weeks and Rictor Norton, which fail to address many examples like mannerisms, which Haulman uses well. Leslie Alexander's discussion of historians' use of the contributionist model with African American history also seemed to apply to women's history in general, or really any history that's been neglected from the "Dead White Men" version of history. It made me realize that women's history really is discussed in terms of contributions or assistance or help, never in terms of achievements or actions, contrary to the "he did" history of DWM. That thought left me frustrated and asking "What would Gerda say?" (besides to keep insisting on the recognition of obscure minority examples of women which derail Dr. McClurken's classes). --Andrea<br />
<br />
In response to Mary Beth’s question about how important it is to incorporate men into our study of women, I think it is important to include them because they did play an important role in influencing women’s lives and choices. While the degree is debatable, the fact remains that Women were influenced by the male dominated society in which they lived. We wouldn’t be getting the full picture if we failed to incorporate men into that history.<br />
For me, the equality v. difference argument in the Gisella Bock essay was very interesting. Though I am all for female independence, equal education and job opportunities, etc. I’m not convinced that women and men should be treated as gender neutral. Biologically we are different and face different issues in society. –- Jennifer Feldhaus</div>THalpern 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