View source for Week 1 Questions/Comments-327 09

Enter your questions & comments on the readings below.


== Comments that compare or contrast readings ==

When reading “Definining ‘American Women’s History'” by Kate Haulman, I was fascinated by how complex American Women’s History is just by looking at the separate words: “American” “Women’s” and “History.” Focusing on the “Women” aspect, Kate Haulman mainly looks at the word “women” in opposition to men and a lump category that all individuals who identify themselves as women fit into. Gisela Bock in “Challenging Dichotomies in Women’s History” looks at the word “women” in terms of the dichotomy of sex versus gender and how people identify themselves (“sex” being biological, “gender” being social). As I read Antonia Castañeda’s essay, “Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History” the definition of “women” became even more complex in very important ways because she argues that you can’t look at women as one lump category, you have to reject the idea of a common sisterhood, because such a thing does not exist. Castañeda states, “Women’s gender experiences and definitions were as divers as the cultures from which they came”. Based off of these readings it is clear that no two scholars have the same definitions, so it is important to realize that categories and definitions are dynamic, changing with time and interpretation. –Erin Sanderson

== Kate Haulman, Defining "American Women's History" ==

I found Kate Haulman's essay Defining "American Women's History" to be interesting because it is a history of how historians thought about women in history. I never thought about the connotations of this phrase until she pointed it out. Being "American" is an identity that people have. She uses examples such as a textile worker, a Cherokee woman and an African American all of who defined being American differently. The word "women" brings up gender issues. She asks, " What are the consequences of identifying, or being positioned as a woman..." History in this phrase is a study of the past. Haulman thinks that studying woman's history can frame current debates about justice and human rights and I completely agree with that statement. The more we study women and their issues the more information we will have to help make an informed decision about issues that affect us today. - LeAnn Taggart

== Leslie Alexander, “Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women’s History” ==


Leslie Alexander’s essay “Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women’s History” does a great job explaining where Black women fit into Women’s Studies and feminism as a whole. What I found out was that Black women don’t fit in at all. When I think of the feminist movement I think of white, upper middle class women. And after reading Alexander’s essay, this is not surprising. Women’s studies have historically been modeled based on white women and have largely left out other categories such as race and class. This model does not work for Black women. Alexander argues that it is impossible to analyze Black women based solely on their gender, and any model that tries to do so will fail. This is because Black women have a culture in which they identify themselves with their community. Alexander goes on to argue the importance of grappling with issues such as race, culture, community, and class to further understand the lives of women. While discussing this flaw in Women's Studies, Alexander pushes for scholars to analyze Black women “through their own eyes rather than through the lens of whiteness and oppression." –Erin Sanderson

I agree that Black women do not fit into Women's Studies. When I think of the feminist movement or even of the idea of women's history, I also picture white upper middle class women. I always remember learning about women's history, and then learning about African-American history, but the two never seemed to cross paths in lessons. I liked what Kate Haulman said in her essay, "A woman who self-identified as Chinese American...was not Chinese American four days out of the week and a woman the other three- she was always both." I think that idea could be used in the case of Black women, and for women of all other races. -Katelyn Lease

If the reading is on a women in American History then I think it does fit in this article.  Black women are a part of American history no matter through a white person's point of of view or what class status they had. I do agree that the feminist movement would have mostly been white upper middle class but I also think that black women and white women each had their own social classes.  I agree with Alexander that we should have scholars analyze the history of a black woman through their own eyes even though we know in the past that was not so easy. -Marsha Himes

== Antonia Castañeda’s“Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History” ==

== Gisela Bock's "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" ==


I found many interesting ideas in Gisela Bock's "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History". When she discussed the work versus family dichotomy, she mentioned that women have always worked. For many women, their family was their work. However, since they were not employed outside the home, or even compensated for their hard work, these women were not considered to be "workers". I like the term "paid versus unpaid work" better. -Katelyn Lease

The piece on "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History," I found most interesting.  There are obvious gender difference such as women can have babies and men cannot.  But it is interesting because the roles of women and men have changed.  I think that each individual is different and their expectations change for themselves and how they are viewed by those around them like family and society as a whole.  -Marsha Himes