View source for 328 2010--Week 8 Questions/Comments

'''MAKE SURE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS UNDER THE RELEVANT AUTHOR/TITLE HEADING (OR TO CREATE A NEW HEADING IF THERE ISN'T ONE YET)'''

'''EXTRA CREDIT:  Focusing only on the primary source readings, discuss the context within which one or two of these documents were created: What were the goals of the people writing?  Who were they writing for?  Consider the circumstances of their creation.  How would people at the time have received those ideas or claims and why?   (Think broadly; some people would like some ideas that others would not.) ''' 

==Ma Rainey and Bessie Smith==
Since we didn't get a chance to spend time on them in class, you can listen to some of their music [http://kokoro.umwblogs.org/2010/03/13/ma-rainey-and-bessie-smith/ here]. -- Taylor Brann

Thanks Taylor! - christine

==Peiss, The Cosmetics Industry==

I’ll admit that I never gave cosmetics much thought or even believed that they deserved thought, for that matter. This article is just another reminder of how even seemingly insignificant objects have a lot of historical value because they reflect broader social patterns. Even makeup. In the case of the article, cosmetics reflect the rise of consumer culture and marketing, as well as class and race connotations. These connotations continue to exist today. I’m sure we’ve all looked at a woman wearing a generous amount of makeup and immediately had less than charitable thoughts about her sexual practices and/or economic position. “Slut” and “trailer park trash” may be words that come to mind. And I’m sure we’ve all seen advertisements about ways to use makeup to look more “exotic,” which is just a politically correct way of saying “ethnic.” I think perhaps nowadays “exotic” is often more about being less offensive. In the past, when people were more overtly racist, maybe labeling things “exotic” was a way to recognize some kind of racial envy and provide a means to achieve what was envied without admitting to it. But that’s kind of a psychological can of worms. -- Taylor Brann

I like the essay "Making Faces" by Kath Peiss. Comparing today's perceptions of cosmetics and beauty to that of the early 20th Century is very interesting. Most women today wear makeup and instead of refraining from using it to appear respectable it is more the norm to use it. Makeup has also been made available to women of almost any class thanks to stores such as Walmart and even dollar stores. The use of makeup is also not associated with prostitutes anymore because most women wear it. It is always interesting to see how beliefs and opinions change over time, compared to non marital sex which can still be debatable, most people agree that wearing makeup today is acceptable. -Amy Van Ness

It seems rather ironic that cosmetics, long associated with prostitution, would make their move to the mainstream at a time when society appeared so concerned about the moral well-being of women. At the same time though, this was the first era in which women could really claim income of their own; they represented a new market that cosmetics industries and the beauty culture took advantage of, marketing their products as necessities for women. And in a society that feared women may be loosing their femininity to traditionally male pursuits like wage work, voting, and casual relationships, make up became a way of showing that women were still neat and soft and fair, that they were still essentially women, despite the fact that they may have moved beyond the traditional domestic sphere. -Mary Ann 

Peiss provides a very different approach to the popularization of cosmetics throughout the 19th century. I never thought about it too much before, but it is apparent that the growth of the cosmetics industry is indicative of the growth of the market and society as a whole. Cosmetics not only became reflective of consumer culture (to include mass production and distribution) but aesthetics as well. People, women particularly, became much more concerned with their physical appearance, which led to the use of makeup. This is also reflected through society when women chose to participate in athletic events and sports. And also the use of women in advertising and other public forums. It is also important to recognize that some feelings about cosmetics have not changed. There are still two separate trains of thought: that cosmetics help enhance the femininity of women or that natural beauty is true beauty. These two opinions are still around and prevalent today Also, the forums in which makeup are sold have not changed. Cosmetics are still sold in drugstores, home-sellers like Mary Kay or Avon, and department stores, which tend to carry higher-end products. It took a decent amount of time for cosmetics to be accepted into the perception of being feminine, but since it has been accepted, opinions have not dramatically changed over the last century. --MDvorak


In the cosmetics article that we read, there is mention of a few “natural” ways to achieve better beauty or a higher level of attractiveness. These actions are “breathing, exercise, diet, and bathing “(345). I understand exercise, diet and bathing, what I do not get is how breathing makes a difference?  How were women breathing and were they breathing? I’m just confused and intrigued by that example. –jmarshal

I was particularly intrigued by the concept of skin bleaching.  I had heard before about African-American women bleaching their skin in an attempt to appear more white, but I had never heard of white women doing so.  I would be interested to know more about the change from pale skin to tanned skin being the ideal.  -Alice W

I thought the phrase “hope in a jar” (P.360) was interesting because it showed how women depended so much on make up to bring them more importance in the world. They also expected make-up to make life smoother for them, bringing them new opportunities. So many acts, like using make up that were previously looked down upon, were suddenly accepted when society saw that movie stars/high class people would use cosmetics. Society and culture was so easily influenced by outside factors such as movies. I think during this time, cosmetics created a false sense of “the self." “A woman’s personal success relied on her appearance.” (P.355) What about her abilities, her work ethic, etc? -- Alex M.

Wonder what the guys in the class think about makeup in this class. I personally don't like makeup, but that might be more of a personal opinion reflecting my upbringing and interpretations of media. I suppose the question is--if makeup is not linked to prostitution anymore, then what is, because for some reason I think that makeup still represents that oldest of professions to some degree. I have no idea how looking "exotic" is supposed to be less offensive...I don't really understand the WASP middle class fascination with all things different--is this a new development or something that arose around this time period? I like Mary Ann's interpretation of the rise of makeup, highlighting feminine features when increasing numbers of women were entering the public sphere. So my question is whether or not the rising popularity of makeup indicative of a new level of freedom experienced by women or something that more firmly entrenched and highlighted their separateness from men? I suppose this goes back to the arguments between the feminists and social feminists insofar as making a truly equal society or preserving protective legislation... -schang

==Mosher Survey, 1892-1913==

The Mosher survey was very fascinating. I found it interesting that one of the interviewees in her twenties in the 1890s seemed to have a more conservative view on sexual practices than the woman in her fifties in the 1890s. Number 1 felt there was danger in too much sex for a woman and that it was necessary to men but not women. Number 35 felt that both husbands and wives needed sex and that people became too nervous and twitchy without it. The survey didn’t note where the women were raised or various other features (though I assume they were middle-class at least if they were regular patients), which I think would have been a big influence on their answers. The survey also provided an interesting contrast to Dr. Frederick’s assumptions about women. Had he actually bothered to interview women about their feelings towards sex, which I’m sure he wouldn’t have dared do for sake of propriety, he would have discovered that women also had an interest in sex and could find it just as satisfying as men. Of course, he probably would have tried to explain it away. -- Taylor Brann

It was interesting that the study done on sexual habits of women was able to obtain opinions from women during that time.  It seemed that sex was just not talked about. But after reading the excerpts from the online reading, it was visible in my mind that women were searching for answers to the inter workings of their marriages and needed help. That need to talk came out of the desperation they felt towards preventing their own marriages from falling apart and maintaining their own health and control over their own body.   -MHimes

I found this so interesting! The varied answers of the women showed just how much discourse there was within women at this time.  The women definitely saw intercourse, orgasms, marriage, etc. as very different functions/facets of their lives. - christine l

I found the Mosher survey very interesting. I too agree that it was surprising that the younger women seemed more sexually conservative than the older women, especially the 53 year old. Through this survey you can see the shift from the traditional family to the Companionate marriage. Though respondent number 1 believed that sexual satisfaction was only necessary for the male, most of the other women believed that it was necessary for the female as well.  I wonder how shocking this survey was to these women who were interviewed because it deals with such salacious issues, and reveals that women do have sexual desires which were thought of as immoral in the past. –Caryn Levine

Why would Dr. Frederick "of course...tried to explain it away?" Didn't Jane Addams, Louise DeKoven Brown and other Chicago reformers blame overwork, commercialized recreation and alcohol for "bringing out natural yearnings and instincts that THEY preferred to see repressed"? Why would these women want to see these instincts repressed? Wouldn't a prominent woman such as Addams OF COURSE have approved of open sexual practices? And why would Dr. Frederick have bothered to interview women about their feelings towards sex? Mosher's study wasn't common nor was it published, so why are we assuming today that it was a common thing to ask women about their attitudes towards sex a century ago? And didn't the Mosher survey find that some women didn't have an interest in sex? I'm sure that women's history is a contentious topic but objectivity needs to be maintained and we need to make sure that we don't project our modern day assumptions into history.  -schang

Um, no one’s assuming that it was common practice for women to be interviewed about sex at that time, or really for anyone to be interviewed about it at that time. Nor do I see anyone projecting modern day assumptions. Frederick’s suggesting that “sexual desire is entirely absent in a much larger number of women than is generally supposed" (291) and that any woman who expresses real sexual desire is pretty much a nymphomaniac. I simply pointed out that, despite the impropriety of asking such questions at the time and in particular coming from a man, if he had done ''actual'' scientific research, such as the interviews conducted by Mosher (and from the samples we saw, all of the women often found sex agreeable), that he would have probably disregarded the answers and tried to explain them away because it didn’t jive with his and society’s beliefs about women. A lot of people probably would have done the same. Yet, clearly the Mosher survey shows that there were some women of the period who were more open to sex and recognized that they enjoyed it or even that it was necessary to their health. So, sure, maybe there were women like Jane Addams who preferred to see sex repressed, but there were also women who didn’t want to repress their sexual desires. -- Taylor Brann

I agree with Taylor here. The Mosher survey is an example of dialogue beginning to open, but certainly not the norm.  The doctor was not going door to door asking all women these questions; this was just a small sample group. That being said a survey such as this not only reveals that women at this time did harbor sexual desire, it also illustrates that types of marriages that they had. Though some of the women believed that sex was primarily for the purpose of procreation and male sexual satisfaction, others felt that it was a key component to the marriage. This was not a popular conversation at the time so I do not see how any of the former posts were projecting modern ideals onto the study.   –Caryn Levine

I think Mosher's goals were at first just to satisfy curiousity--not much research, if any at all, was done on how women themselves viewed sex, birth control, orgasms, etc., and as a female physician (in itself an oddity, considering the time), it makes sense for her to start these largely informal surveys (especially considering she never analyzed the results). The source doesn't say whether or not these interviews were published during Mosher's time, but I doubt these findings would be published or welcomed even in the scientific community, standards of propriety being different then than they are now. We can assume, then, that she's writing for herself, to answer her own questions about the experience of women. I'm inclined to believe that Frederick's article is more reflective of the scientific community at the time, although from Mosher's interviews it's clear that the general public did not feel the same (for example, none of these women express shame or guilt over enjoying sex, which one might assume they do just from Frederick's work).   --Sarah Smethurst

==Phyllis Blanchard and Carolyn Manasses Discuss the Ideals and Problems of Modern Marriage, 1930==

Phyllis Blanchard and Carolyn Manasses stressed the importance of the sexual relationship between the husband and wife, in order to obtain a fulfilled and happy marriage.  Their goals were to make sex education more available to the “average” person and not limited to only professional classes and to show the importance of women’s own active participation in the physical relationship of marriage.  They acknowledged that women had recognized themselves as sexual beings in this modern era and needed to be educated to fulfill those roles in a marriage of mutual companionship.  I think they were writing for those who restricted this information from getting out.  They are showing that by restricting this information that they are impairing (what they called handicapping) women from obtaining that fulfilled happy marriage and encouraging personality conflicts by allowing ignorance on the subject of sex.  In general, I don’t think people knew how to react to this information.  They probably felt it was needed and wanted but some were afraid to openly acknowledge this but secretly may have wanted to obtain it.  There were religious reasons that encouraged people to reject this in fear of being immoral and inappropriate.  Some women may have been comfortable with the rigidity of women’s role whereas others felt that it allowed women a  more equal partner in the marriage.  Blanchard and Manasses were saying that by educating women, they would meet the needs of their own sexual desires and expectations and being more apt to satisfying her partner.  These women are liberal in their thoughts on pre-marital sex and emphasized that one should try their partners out sexually before marriage to see if they would be compatible.  I don’t think that this was generally accepted though it wouldn’t necessarily mean that it wasn’t being practiced.  In the eyes of these two Psychologists, the modern marriage required a larger emphasis on the physical side and this made the importance of educating women about sex and contraceptives even more important.   -MHimes

== Manifestations of Nymphomania, 1907 ==

I loved his assessment that, were women as sexually interested as men, the world would be "one vast brothel."  The history of the sexual repression of women is long, and these beliefs, or ones like them, persist for long after this was written.  It's amazing to consider that so many people still feel similarly towards homosexuality.  Dr. Frederick likens lesbianism to some weird practice of child molestation, not unlike ways in which those opposed to same sex marriage offer the 'slippery slope' argument that allowing gay marriage will lead to marriages between adults and children, or adults and animals. -Erin B.

Carlton C. Fredericks, M.D.’s assessment of what he calls “Nymphomania” was absurd. He even goes as far to propose that women who view sex or masturbation as gratifying automatically classify them as perverts. It seems that any sexual expression that he deemed as improper was in some way perverse. It was such a contrast to the Mosher study because Fredericks views a women’s sexual appetite as “insane or mildly insane”(291) where Mosher is finding that many women feel it is necessary to carry on a healthy marriage. It is interesting as well because the Mosher's study took place at around the same time, the duality between these two school of thought are amazing! –Caryn Levine

I would be interested to see about how Dr. Frederick came to some of his conclusions in this piece.  As we have learned in class, in was much more lady-like for a woman to be less interested in sex at the time, so if Dr. Frederick came to these conclusions by talking to female patients, it could be the result of many of them trying to create an more wholesome image of themselves.  This of course would only reinforce the old idea that women did not enjoy sex as much.  -John Rowley


I love your comparison, Erin!  It seems that Dr. Frederick believes that women that have any sexual interests beyond procreating must be sexually perverted.  Developing and exploring such interests will only lead to an indifference towards men and the desire to molest children with other women.  I feel Frederick was trying to reinforce the idea of a "proper" lady that wasn't particularly interested in sex, as John mentioned, by making sexuality seem horrible.  And yet, Dr. Frederick's claims are lacking any kind of clear evidence.  I wonder if more readers believed or didn't believe what this man wrote.  I laughed at the last line, "the numbers and variations of practices are so various that it would take pages to mention them" (p. 4).  This is probably an exaggeration, yet I could see Dr. Frederick coming up with pages of exaggerated claims just to prove his point. -- CBrau

If there was one article I read out loud incredulously as I forced my roommate to listen, it was this one. Fredericks gets the Women's History prize for Official Idiot, and I hope he was recognized as such during his time, although I doubt it. His accusations are not only wildly speculative and libelous, but also unfounded and unsupported by neutral documentation. Even if you took out the ridiculous subject material, his disturbing lack of evidence and wild examples would make for an extremely weak argument.  --Sarah Smethurst

I wonder if I am finding this thread to be a bit ridiculous because I am a male or if there is just a little hint of a bias in peoples' interpretations of this primary source. First, unless I am mistaken and if I am, then someone please correct me, but I had thought that masturbation by anyone, males or females, was considered a perversion of sorts during this time period. Second, did Mosher find anything contrary to what Frederick did? I don't remember reading any of Mosher's own interpretations of the interview results, the reading is just the interview questions and answers--none of Mosher's own analysis there, unless I forgot something. Differences between results? Where was Frederick based out of? Were Californians more liberal back then as they are now? Even if they weren't, geographical considerations have to be taken into account before a comparison can be made. Why is Frederick's study less convincing? Does it not represent the popular AND professional understanding of femininity and sexuality at the time? And before we dismiss his claim that the numbers and variations of practices were too various to include and such, this was published in a journal, and therefore couldn't include whatever raw data he might or might not have collected. Again, why was Frederick an idiot--for publishing something that was in line with the prevalent medical opinion concerning this issue? Same argument for the other complaints about Frederick. I'm not defending Frederick as a person, I am only arguing for trying to retain some semblance of objectivity when reading primary documents and trying to put them in the context of their time period rather than impose our own conceptions onto history. -schang

It seems to me that the people finding Frederick’s report ridiculous do recognize that it would have been in line with traditional medical assumptions of the day. You’re right that the survey has none of Mosher’s own analysis, but I think the answers (at least the ones we were able to read and that’s key for anything we say regarding it) speak for themselves. All of the women found sex agreeable, except for one woman who found it agreeable “usually.” All of them said there were times when they desired sex, and some of them said the ideal would be to have sex when both the husband and wife wanted it. The idea of a woman actually ''wanting'' sex, and not being a nympho, is the complete opposite of Frederick’s report. So, to answer your question, yes, the survey contradicts Frederick, and that’s putting it lightly. Reading the Mosher survey right before Frederick’s report really highlights his lack of evidence for his claims, and maybe that’s why people were reacting so harshly towards him in their comments. Wanting scientific evidence isn’t even out of line with the time period either. Frankly, for all of your talk about looking at primary sources within their context, I think you’re ignoring the Mosher survey within its context. To me, the survey (in the parts we read) suggests that perhaps Frederick’s assumptions about women and their sexual desire, or lack thereof, weren’t as prevalent in actual society as believed. Perhaps public assumptions about sex didn’t completely match up with personal assumptions about sex, if that makes any sense. Unfortunately, we don’t have many surveys like Mosher’s. -- Taylor Brann

Again, Taylor I agree. The Fredericks report seems quite frankly, his opinion of women. I understand that this was a popular notion held by many medical professionals at the time, but he shows no objectivity, nor does he express any scientific evidence to back up his claim. The Mosher study, though it does not provide and analysis of the subject matter at the end, still demonstrates how WOMEN viewed sex and sexual satisfaction at the time. The Mosher survey is a sociological study where as the Fredericks Report is an editorialized account. I think when comparing these two primary sources, we have to remember that fact. –Caryn Levine

== Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV ==
This was a speech given by Carrie Chapman Catt, to the League of Women's Voters right after the ninteenth amendment was passed and women were given the right to vote.  Now that they have this right, they need to excercise it and become involved in politics and this speech is intended to do just that.  The context for this speech is very important because if it was made before women had the right to vote, it would not carry as much weight.  However, now that they have this right, they can take immediate action and get involved politically.  I think in this slight time of confusion of what exactly to do with this huge, new important right, this speech can help give women much needed direction.  -afrisk

Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV seems to be a call for women to keep fighting and to try to position themselves on the inside of politics as opposed to from the outside. She states that it has been a battle for 60 years to get the right to vote, and argues that it isnt the time to stop. She says on page 121, “Are we going to petition them [the political parties] as we have always done? Well, if so, what was the use of getting the vote?” and, “the only way to get things in this country is to find them on the inside of the political party.”
I think Catt is pretty level headed, though she may be underestimating the difficulty women will have getting into positions of power. She seems to understand that just because women gained the right to vote does not mean that the country’s biases dissolved overnight. She believes that it will be a slow change, but women must work from the inside to make that change happen. – Erin Sanderson

I disagree with the implication of Catt's undersestimation of the difficuluty of women to get into postiions of power; I think she knew full and well that the fight for Women was nowhere near over (it's still being fought today even). For example, on page 122 she states "Women must persuade men to respect and have conidence in the capacities of women just as we have been doing for 60 odd years; and on the other hand, they must stimulate other women to forward movement and encourage them to increased self respect. This is the same old struggle, but in a new field. Because women have the vote, it doesn't follow that every man... has suddenly become convinced that women can do things as well as men". I think she fully understood that men were, and always had been, afraid of powerful women and that the right to vote for women may have been an attempt to a means of appeasement for the women so that they would shut up and retain their place in society happy that they had the meaningless vote. -Ssellers.

I agree with this statement. I also believe that Catt knew what was in front of her as well as why women were given the right to vote in the first place. She mentioned that it was a tactical reason that persuaded men to give women the vote (121) and that many would need to be convinced that women were capable of performing the same tasks as men (122). The way she choses her words makes it seem that she knew that men were only consenting to allow the suffrage amendment to pass so that women would quiet down, which is why she pushes women to want to get involved in politics in order to bring about more change. –jmarshal 

I agree with SSellers here. I think Catt (at least in reference to this speech) seems like she was full aware of the hardships involved for the new generation of women.  "You won't be so welcome there, but that is the place to be," (page 122), she says in regards to women being on the inside.  I do like that she called to the younger women to come forth to wage this battle, seeing as how she was a leader in the suffrage movement and 60 years old at this point. She probably felt she had done her part in the fighting for the right to vote, and now it was the next generations turn to put that vote to good use. - Christine Leckner

I agree with the previous comments and I also think its important to note that Catt is proud of their accomplishments, but also makes it clear that not much has really changed. On page 122 she says "this is the same old struggle but in a new field." She new that just because women had the right to vote didn't mean that things were going to necessarily change. She knew that men could make it very hard for women to have political power unless they were persuaded that women could handle it. Essentially, Catt is saying that the right to vote is really just a chance for women to prove that they can handle the same responsibility as men and that she hopes all of those women who fought so hard to vote are still up to the challenge because its not even close to being over. -Angie

I think that Catt was fully aware of the struggles facing future generations in the fight for equal rights.  The passage of the 19th Amendment, according to Catt’s reasoning, was just the first step in a long process.  Further, she thought that to succeed women would have to approach change from the inside and the right to vote was just a foot in the door, so to speak.  EFritz

I concur (big word) with EFritz with the acknowledgement that Catt was fully aware of the impending struggles of women. She recognizes the difficulties women will now face as voters. Though they have the right to vote, it does not inherently mean that everything else they desired, namely equality with men, will be achieved. Though suffrage was obtained it does not bring about total reconstruction in societal norms, which have been in place for centuries. --MDvorak

I believe that at the bottom of this article there is a very simple goal for Carrie Chapman Catt, to get recognition from the world of the actual substantiality of women. Since that is a rather large, ambiguous, and (considering it still has not been a completed goal)impossible goal she had to first start aiming that goal toward the women she expected to lead the fight to accomplish it. Although it almost seems as though Catt is talking to women she had already convinced to join her in the fight towards suffrage, I personally believe she is attempting to persuade women who may not understand that they are being oppressed by the lack of societal recognition for their greatness. She is trying to inform them that they were born great women and should fight to be recognized for that, even if that fight means going against the crowd that would rather the women would just shut up and deal with their place in life. I think the people who she wasn't trying to persuade with this message would take it the same way that people in today's society react when they're reminded with the continued inequality of Women in places like the workforce; They'd either not care, not understand why anyone would bother to care, care a lot, or justify the reasoning for the inequalities on arbitrary facts (like women being capable of getting pregnant meaning that they will use that capability to miss out on working and lose the company money, which is why they aren't paid as much). On the other side, people hearing this argument from the other side might find an invigoration for the cause so great that they dedicate their life to changing and fighting for the rights of women. Men might read this article and realize that they have no justification within society for the woman to still be dealing with the same fight she'd been dealing with throughout the entirety of the existence of the United States. That reaction, however, I feel is entirely unlikely and considering the lack of women's equality still existing today to a great extent, it probably was unlikely. Carrie Chapman Catt, however, probably felt that she had to write this article because she had to express to her followers, potential followers and dissenters that she wasn't done fighting just because women finally got the right to vote. To her, that was just the first step. -Ssellers.

I think Carrie Chapman Catt gave this cautionary speech to women as a way to remind them that they should not forget what they fought so hard for. She wants women to use their heads and think for themselves. She doesn't want them to vote how their husbands vote just because. She doesn't want them to only discuss politics within their homes and only influence their husbands. She wants women to realize that just voting is not enough, but they have to step into the political arena and voice their opinions. I think this probably did not go over well with many people at the time, especially conservative men. Just like in the first western states that gave women suffrage, men were probably expecting women to just follow their lead in political opinion. I'm sure they were surprised and a bit distraught to learn that Carrie Chapman Catt was directing women to learn about politics themselves, formulate their own opinions, and then fight to get their ideas and views out there. --Angie

All speeches have a purpose. In her speech, Catt is trying to convince the women in the audience to position themselves on the inside of politics. In this case, the audience is the League of Women Voters, whose stated goal was to prove that women could be effective, involved voters. Therefore, this audience would likely to agree with Catt’s opinion that the fight for suffrage was hard, but the potential revolutionary impact of women having the right to vote hadn’t yet been realized. Had Catt given this same speech to a different audience I doubt she would have had the excited reaction and applause as she did when speaking to the League of Women Voters. Some women were happy merely having the right to vote, and probably would have seen Catt’s opinions about women being in the most public of positions wrong because they were against the perceived gender roles of the time. It is important to keep in mind that the majority of women who supported women’s suffrage did so in order to support issues that they found important, for most of these women, women’s rights was not at the forefront of their priorities. --Erin Sanderson

== Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment ==

I can understand both perspectives in this debate, but can only beleive the perspective of the women who were in favor of an equal rights amendment.  Women just obtained the right to vote but, are not complete as a gender, until they are viewed as equal to men in society.  To me, the right to vote cannot truly come into effect until women are viewed equally as men.  Men still do not take their political views very seriously and simply giving women the right to vote will not change this opinion.  Hamilton says that the goal for all feminists is the same, and based on what we have learned so far, this is obviously not true.  She is referring to traditional feminism, which has its roots with white middle class women.  She claims an equal rights amendment will make things more complicated, but in my opinion, things will be much easier and obviously women would be able to accomplish more.-afrisk

When reading each side of the Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment I tried to choose which side I found more convincing. I found that I took the side of the Doris Stevens of the National Women’s Party. The argument is quite simple, women and men don’t live under equal protection of the law, and the laws that exist still reflect old English Common Law. The Equal Rights Amendment would remove all legal discriminations against women on account of sex (Stevens goes on to list all the rights/protections women would gain). What I liked about Stevens argument is that she states that women should have the right to do what they want. Just because they have equal rights to inheritance does not mean that they can’t give it to their brother, or son, or whoever. Women don’t have to hold positions of power if they don’t want to. They should just have the ability to do so if they so choose. 
Alice Hamilton, on the other hand, seems to have tunnel vision. She is solely focused on working women. I agree that women should be protected, but she does not seem to understand the reasons why working women fail to unionize, nor does she look at the negative impacts of protective legislation on working women. She does not seem to focus on any of the other things women would gain out of the Equal Rights Amendment. – Erin Sanderson

I think that Alice Hamilton emphasizes protective legislation because she comes into the picture with the idea that women are naturally different than men though this does not take away from their abilities to perform work.  She talked about how men have already achieved strong labor unions and women have not yet achieved theirs and need the chance to grow.  She had already separated the male and female arenas.  The expectations of society for a woman to fulfill those “ideal” roles (even though not realistic for the working class) makes it hard for women who have families that are working long hours with low wages.  What time is left for children, husband, and home?  It was interesting that the National Women’s Party wants to get rid of this legislation.  I think that Doris Stevens makes a good point when she emphasizes choice.  Women have worked hard and organized as “self-governing units of society” and by getting rid of protective legislation it omit’s that difference.  It will govern laws that allow men and women to be able to make the choice based on decisiveness and preference as an entity not by gender.  They both have their strong points but with different perspectives. -MHimes

I am actually quite surprised that Alice Hamilton and so many others are against the Equal Rights Amendment considering how much they could potentially gain from it.  –Erin Sanderson

I do see both sides. While some women are all WOOHOO WE CAN VOTE WE'RE EQUAL!! Others didn't quite that stance. It's important to remember that many women approved of women's suffrage soley on the basis they wanted to fix things within the domestic realm, i.e. they wanted women to still be outside the public arena because men and women were NOT equal. Those were the women pushing for protective legislation, they believed women still needed protection under the law. However, I think those women pushing for the equal rights amendment had the right idea. - Christine Leckner

I found it interesting that Alice Paul stated that “the goal of all feminists is the same” (125), and I assume she meant only white, middle class women when she said “all”, because as we have read, not all women had necessarily the same goals when pushing for suffrage. There were different motivations behind each demographics’s desire for women suffrage; not only where the motivations different, but the means of communicating these desires were also vastly different.  She then introduces the idea of following in Holland’s footsteps for equality among the sexes, and I would like to know where she got that information? Had she traveled to Holland and seen it first hand? It’s not central to the article, however it would be more compelling if she had seen this practice in action and was not repeating something that was not verified.  ---jmarshal

Of the two arguments that Alice Hamilton and Doris Stevens gave I found Steven’s debate to be more influential than Hamilton’s. Steven’s was very straight forward about what she wanted, especially in listing what the Equal Rights Amendment would achieve for women. The list itself is eye-catching because it isn’t part of a paragraph, a radical move by a radical woman I suppose. I think that Doris is the epitome of what younger women didn’t want to be like, as Bromley further suggestes in her article. -Morgan

Obviously the debate that appeared in The Forum in 1924 would have been written for people who were able to obtain copies-mostly white, middle class, men and some women. Both sides were defending their positions of whether to have an Equal Rights Amendment or not. Doris Stevens basically believed that suffrage alone did not give women full rights as humans and needed more protection of the law and equality. She clearly defined the rights she thought women were due including "Equal Citizenship rights" and "Equal pay for equal rights" (125). Like Morgan, I don't find Hamilton's argument nearly as convincing. I may also be biased, however, because I still find it very unusual for women to not desire the same amount of rights that men had or think that having more rights might even be harmful for women or cause more problems. -Amy Van Ness


The goals of both authors, Doris Stevens and Alice Hamilton, were to appeal to their affiliations and to persuade readers that their certain cause was more just than the others.  Whether this was accomplished is debatable however. I can see why some women, either part of the National Women’s Party or the League of Women’s Voters, may have read this debate and changed side based upon it. Not being part of either I can see both side’s points and the validity behind them. The circumstances under which the debate was written was at a time of the 1920’s when women had achieved suffrage and were looking for something else that they could fight for, as well as bond together over. Most women after being given the right to vote, as well as Congress, didn’t see anything else that women needed. There was so much that could be gained by an Equal Rights Amendment, but the younger generation seemed unwilling to fight for it. Even the white, middle class women who had always had issues with something political or male oriented. I think that the arguments presented between both women were viewed as a good show, but nothing of great importance. -Morgan

== Joanne Meyerowitz, "Sexual Geography & Gender Economy" in Unequal Sisters ==

This essay discusses the growing sexual and emotional freedom that women were obtaining in the eartly 20th century.  They were able to choose how they wanted to carry themselves sexually in society.  However, to me, this essay was also a great paradox.  Although these women expressed themselves more feely than in the past, they were also severley tied down to men still.  Even in these so-called "furnished-room" districts, there was still sexual oppression and these women were subject to rape, poor conditions and economic dependence.  Although they could conceibably choose their different sex partners, they were also very dependent on these men for their business.  They need to break away from these districts in order to be truly sexually liberated.  Many downplayed these factors, but in order for women to liberated, these constraints must be lifted.-afrisk

I thought the essay by Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters about the furnished-room districts was very interesting. In particular, the different types of relationships women had including "dating," "pickups," "occasional prostitution", and "temporary alliances" stood out to me. I didn't know they actually labeled these kind of relationships, dating and sexual activities so specifically. Meyerowitz also explains on page 331 that there were mixed opinions of whether these kinds of practices or "non marital sexual expression" was acceptable. I think the idea of sex outside of marriage is still something people are in debate about today. So, many years later these opinions haven't really changed.  -Amy Van Ness

I think the notion that "employers paid self-supporting women wages intended for dependent daughters and wives" (pg. 329) is tremendously important in looking at the furnished-room districts. Those who were concerned about the morality of the women living in these districts seemed to largely overlook the fact that many of the women engaging in the relationships deemed scandalous were doing so at least in part out of economic necessity. Maybe they believed paying women a living wage would encourage more women to leave the home in favor of wage work and so further contribute to America's loss of morality, but in reality if women who could have afforded to support themselves things like "occasional prostitution" probably would not have become so rampant among women living on their own. -Mary Ann

I agree with Amy I found this whole essay interesting and the way Joanne Meyerowitz describes feminine culture back from the 1830s to the 1960s shows a dramatic shift in the roles women played. I liked how she described the role film played in the changing role of women and how Hollywood banked on the notion, sex sells. On page 334 she discusses the film, ''The ''Model:'' Or, Women and Wine'' and in it Marcelle admits she is a "gold digger" which I compare to Kayne West's song about a woman who is a gold digger. Showing Meyerowitz's theory that "the sexual behavior of women in turn-of-the-century furnished-room districts is not an isolated episode in women's history."(335). -Megan W.

Reading "Sexual Geography and Gender Economy," I was struck by the part of the essay that discussed "going steady" as a supplemental wage. Mary Ann has already discussed occasional prostitution, but I wonder fact if vice investigators were more lenient and accepting of these women than the typical prostitute because they were also involved in "honest" work? I was also intrigued by the fact that the women were so candid about the fact that they were using their feminine wiles to go on these dates, to go to these places because they could not afford to. It seems like it was another job, albeit a more enjoyable, recreational one. -- kokeefe

I loved this articles insinuation that dating was a supplement to poor wages because dates would pay for women to live the life of the rich and famous without actually having to be rich or famous. Basically, the man is at fault for what males complain about today (in paying for things out on dates, or drinks at a bar, or anything they have to spend money on) because he couldn't just pay the women a living wage so she went and used the weakness of the male sex to her new found sexuality to her advantage. -ssellers

This sexual revolution was definitely a big change for women. I think Joanne Meyerowitz's article does a good job of explaining how the migration to cities created this new type of women. Because women were in these cities working, it created a new atmosphere, one Meyerowitz describes as, "opening possibilities for both sexual experimentation and sexual coercion" (US, 335). This "freedom of urban life" gave women the opportunity to use their bodies for both economic and personal gains. -- David Fitch

I really enjoyed reading Joanne Meyerowitz’s article, especially about the differences in the ways that women used sex as a way of getting ahead. I had never thought of dating as a literal exchange of goods (paid dates for sex), and looking back on it, it very well could be taken that way, and I am surprised I had not heard of or read that view before now. Then the other methods (“picking up”, “occasional prostitution”, and “temporary alliance”) were of varying degrees of this idea. This article really makes it sound almost like a legitimate way to make a living. Perhaps it is because it presents with the idea that women were in control of their relations with these men, not sent out to do someone else’s bidding (introduce pimps and it is a totally different story). –jmarshal

Today the women described in this article would be a combination of a prostitute and a “sugar-baby” to a “sugar-daddy”.  Like others I found “dating,” “pick-ups,” “occasional prostitution,” and “temporary alliances” (329) as odd names to give to these casual sexual encounters, as if they were nothing at all. I doubt that these women thought anything of it and let it become a way of life though. Instead of going out and finding better jobs or more work, they fell back onto the notion of being a woman could get them what they wanted without the work. “If I did not have a man, I could not get along on my wages.” (330) -Morgan

What's behind the three different versions of the sexual revolution? Flappers vs independent new women vs working-class rowdy girls. Is there one single interpretation that can explain the revolution or do all three have some merit? Also interesting, it seems as though some people now see prostitution as a good thing, if not a means to get by economically. I recall that most people were shocked and upset when reading about the Chinese prostitutes during the late nineteenth century...so what changed that makes people more comfortable with this idea? The seeming lack of organization insofar as the kind of bookkeeping that we saw with the bills of sales of Chinese prostitutes? Does the lack of that kind of documentation naturally imply that women were no longer coerced into prostitution, even if it was to just get by once in a while? Or were there pimps, perhaps some of the men living with them in these furnished districts that acted in such a capacity but without drawing up bills or contracts since prostitution was illegal now? And if this wasn't the case, which I suspect might have been in at least some shape or form, perhaps societal pressures from their peers coerced them into prostitution, since apparently if a good looking girl didn't sell herself she was considered a fool. What's worse? That kind of social coercion or the kind of legal coercion that we saw in California? -schang

Schang makes a good point above, prostitutes had been around a long time before the sexual revolution. They main difference that happened in the sexual revolution was that women chose it as an option, compared to the 19th century Chinese prostitutes, who were forced into long term sexual servitude often drugged. This reading suggested prostitution was like a new fad for women, one many were doing, and seemed common enough that many were comfortable with it. My guess behind the lack of documentation is that these types of prostitution during their time were seen as causal part-time labor and were not necessarily important enough to keep records of. -David Fitch

==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley, "Generational Conflicts"==

I imagine that the generation of women who fought for decades to get women the right to vote were crushed to discover that younger women quite casually dismissed many of the ideals they had fought for and even the label they had worn. I understand why the younger women of the 1920s may have felt that they had the world at their feet because they had more opportunities for independence than their mothers had had, but they must have still realized equality was not yet reality. Instead they had convinced themselves that because so many things were different they were inherently better. And it's interesting to note that the backlash against the word feminist started so long ago. The author's description of feminists as masculine, angry, and anti-men would easily fit with what many associate with the term feminist today. -Mary Ann

I think that Bromley issues a lot of interesting points in this piece that seem to beg the question, what is the point of this feminist- new style?  The part that interested me the most was the seventh tenet.  This discussion on the "Keep your maiden name" slogan points to how ridiculous Bromley viewed some of the common feminist arguments of the 1920's.  I think her piece is important because of the point Mary Ann stated with her description on women that could/and possibly did influence a lot anti-feminist thinkers today. My question is, these feminist- new style have a profound affect on the women's movement in the 1920's and did they handicap some of the progress made post 19th amendment? -abratchi

Feminism.. "For the word suggests either the old school of fighting feminists who wore flat heels amd had very little feminine charm, or the current species who antagonize men with their constant clamor about maiden names, equal rights, woman's place in the world..." I enjoyed this line... that's how I viewed feminists coming into this class last semester! - christine l

I completely agree with Mary Ann. I found it interesting how "Feminist-New Style" felt superior to the older women who had enabled them to lead the comfortable, sociable lifestyles they pursued. They felt no gratitude towards these former suffragettes, only contempt. Is this because they felt stronger than them because of their youth, felt more independent because of their economic independence, or just simply thought they were entitled to all of the rights they had? The answer baffles me. --Anna Holman

In response to Anna's question, I think it might have a been a combination of the three. Even today, it is obvious in some cases where youths are ungrateful for what they have been given or the privileges they have been born with. For instance, many Americans view the opportunity to vote as a right, not the privilege it is. The same can be said for the women of this particular era. Simultaneously,  the economic independence that these women were able to benefit from would give them almost a false sense of self. They would not appreciate the labors their mothers had to endure. --MDvorak

I absolutely loved this article because I think it actually represents alot of the ideals that modern women have today. I think it was really progressive for Bromley to talk about women being able to have both a career AND a family, giving equal attention to both. That is the sort of equality that women have been fighting for, the right to be happy. Bromley is saying that women the new woman, if she balances everything correctly, can be very happy. She has the ability to be a professional and still has the ability to be a mom. She doesn't need to constantly argue that she is as good as a man because she can just simply prove it in her actions. I think its really cool how she sort of brings all the different opinions of what women should be doing together and forms a type of super woman. -- Angie

My favorite part of this article, other than the ambition of younger women to have a family and a career (as Angie points out) was the reference to war materials. “With a battle-cry still on their lips…still throwing hand grenades,” (128).  This article was written in 1927 and “The Great War” had only ended ten years earlier. I believe that tensions in the Us may have still been raw and that may be the reason for such a reference. Bromley effectively suggests that the 1st and 2nd generation women as battle-hardened veterans. As veterans I would expect them to cold and judgmental toward those that they had fought against, men. -Morgan

While I thought some of the points made by the New Style Feminists were good, I can't help but feel that their mothers and even grandmothers would be sad to see the flippant way they discussed their struggles and triumphs. They seem to have forgotten that these women fought hard so that they their daughters would not have to. While their argument about creating your own identity instead of fighting to keep your maiden name was valid these new style feminists seemed to have overlooked what was at the core of the feminist movement. It was interesting to see how this article shows the differences between generations. Although the New Style idea of the stereotype of feminism has a cause for angry and embittered women has definitely persevered.--Emma


The goal of Dorothy Bromley’s “Feminist-New Style” article, of 1927, was to differentiate between the three generations of women that were part of the 1920’s era and to emphasize the younger generation. Obviously Bromley was a strong supporter, defender, of the younger generation and was writing to enhance her reasons for disliking the older generations of women. The young women would have received this article whole heartily as a defense against the older generations, as a response to the criticism they had already received.  The older generations probably saw this article as an attack against them and what they had stood for. Possibly an attack on what they had already accomplished insofar as the younger generation not being appreciative of what they had done for them and the freedoms they had created for them.  Bromley’s article was written at the end of the 1920’s and the beginning of the sexual revolution of the 1930’s just around the corner, the young generation of women were already showing rebellion towards the traditional behavior of women that was expected. This article may have helped instill in the younger generation that what they were doing was ok and more “modern” women, such as Bromley, understood and accepted them, even if the older generations did not. -Morgan

Firstly, I agree with Morgan that perhaps Dorothy Bromley was trying to encourage younger women. I also think that this was a sort of defensive piece as well, though. At the time, men probably were not 100% comfortable with women having their own professional lives and this can be seen as her letting everyone know that the new feminist can balance a family as well as a career. She says things like "she will not, however, live for her job alone" (p. 128) and "nor has she become hostile to the other sex" (p. 129). These statements are comforting to those people that have some crazy idea of a cold-hearted feminist. Perhaps there were a few of them during the suffrage days, but Bromley is trying to convince women AND men that that really is not the case. -- Angie

==Anxious Mothers Write the Children's Bureau==

I found the third letter written by Mrs. A.E.,Minnesota (August 10, 1923) was the most influential in discussing issues of medicine and women's health. While all three letters are relevant to prenatal and child care and I believe writing them was an excellent way for women to share concerns, the third letter hit home to me. It made me wonder if her trouble with delivery was the start of malpractice in child birth. Along with that did doctors still think it was okay to treat women as subserviant, so if they had a rough delivery ooops...guess that is tough luck for you all (referencing the Bible, Adam and Eve). I also think it was wise to let other women know that doctors such as Dr. B should not be trusted with delivery and on the flip side her doctor in Saint Paul could benefit from these publications. Did these women influence how prenatal care is treated today? -Megan W.

I agree that the third letter was the most influential in this three letter piece, but it was the second letter; however that really captured my attention.  This letter showed me just how little women knew about being pregnant and some of the concerns they had.  It revealed the lack of knowledge on food cravings that women know today as a normal thing when dealing with pregnancy.  Overall, I think all these letters showed women's desperation when it came to womanhood and the changing societal pressures facing women of that time (to have children and take on the sole responsibility for both the home and family).  They revealed how women were craving more information about their bodies, more specifically, how to manage pregnancy in an age where doctors were inaccessible and/or were engaging in malpractice.  -abratchi

The anxious mothers were certainly anxious, but who could blame them with a high “maternal and infant” (130) mortality rate.  Like the others who have posted I was quite intrigued by both mother number 2 and number 3. The second mother had, what seemed to me, laughable concerns. I have to remember that women were generally clueless about prenatal care at this point, so I could understand that if you crave something so intensely denying yourself would seem detrimental to the baby, but I was unclear as to why touching your face had anything to do with this. The third mother expressed the most valid concerns of the three. The shear idea of justice in a medical malpractice suit must have seemed so far-fetched at the time, considering that medical malpractices suits are hard to prove today! As the third mother recounted, many of the doctors who claimed to be experts, did not provide adequate care to these mothers in both the pre and post natal area.  The third mothers call for government regulation of hospital practices must have been quite revolutionary at the time, given the fact that many professionals such as doctors were trusted almost blindly. –Caryn Levine

I thought the first letter was interesting because Mrs. W. M. wants pamphlets from the Childrens Bureau for her new pregnancy despite already having three boys.  I was curious as to why such a woman would be interested in this information since she has already experienced pregnancy, birth and raising children.  Her eagerness for new information makes it clear that despite any preexisting knowledge, there were women that were curious and very interested in the Bureau's pamphlets.  Beforehand, pregnancy had either been a private topic or restricted to local women.  This is evident in the second letter, where Mrs. A. E.  is clearly experiencing cravings, but has no idea what is going on.  Since she wants the Bureau to read and respond to her letter confidentially, I would assume she had not discussed her cravings with other women.  Despite a majority of women experiencing pregnancy, I think that the letters show just how few women went around talking about and sharing their experiences like pregnant women do today.  Thus, I believe that some women saw the Bureau as a place to publicly discuss and share their issues, such as the malpractice that the woman in the third letter experiences. -- CBrau

I thought that the first letter was interesting, although I understood how the woman would feel some sense of relief in having written information on hand during pregnancy and after.  I had four kids in five years and I still referred to my “What to Expect When You’re Expecting” book with each one.  I wasn’t aware that the federal government had provided this material to women back then; I think it was a fantastic program.  It was also enlightening to read the second letter in which the woman was concerned that she was 'marking' the baby by her cravings.  I wonder if this stems from the fact that birthmarks were often referred to as strawberry marks and that this is what the neighbor was referring to.  In both of these letters, these women were seeking information about pregnancy and childbirth at a time when being seen by a physician was not a common occurrance and most of their knowledge was instead from other women in their social groups. EFritz

I found this article shocking, even mildly sad. The desperation of these women to obtain information about their bodies and pregnancy is a stark contrast to today, when all you have to do is log onto the internet to answer any and every question. What is even worse is that I'm sure the postal system did not operate very quickly back then, leaving the women waiting weeks for an answer from the Children's Bureau. However, I liked that the government finally took an interest in women's concerns and created this branch. It clearly was of service to many women of very diverse backgrounds.--Anna Holman

I thought this article was really interesting and it was nice to see that the government was giving attention to an area that was obviously in need of federal aid or even just attention. I think sometimes we take for granted how the improvements in modern medicine and healthcare overall have made childbirth significantly safer for women. I was sad to see that the program ended in 1929. Judging by these letters the Bureau was important and helpful to a lot of women. --Emma

These letters remind us both that women in the 1920s faced very real threats to their lives during pregnancy and childbirth and that the lives of many women throughout the country continued to revolve around their children and families and not political issues like the debate over the Equal Rights Amendment. The authors of the letters want to do everything they can to be good mothers and protect the health of their children and themselves. But it sounds as though discussion of the matters relating to childbearing, despite the Children's Bureau publications, were largely absent from public discourse and women found themselves very isolated. Perhaps, like birth control, pregnancy and childbirth was seen as too crude to be discussed openly or even among friends, as the author of the second letter indicates no one in her immediate circle cares about her questions. And women's issues remained low on the list of priorities of doctors, causing many women to suffer health consequences. One would think that in an age that valued motherhood, especially white middle class motherhood, so extensively, that women like those who wrote the letters would have had more options to keep themselves and their children healthy. -Mary Ann

I think that Mary Ann is right on point.  Women during this time had little access to health care, especially poor and working class women.  I think it is good to keep in mind that it was usually only the mid to upper class who had access to health care and doctors because they could afford for it.  Also, since this was the period of Comstock Laws, women were unable to access information about birth control which made pregnancy a very real, yet fearful thing because of the risks that were involved.  I believe that these women were writing simply out of need for information they could not access elsewhere.  These women display just a snapshot of the reality of pregnancy during this period, while also echoing the concerns of women who were now expected to be completely responsible for both the home and the children.  -abratchi


I agree with Mary Ann as well. We do have also remove ourselves from the modern notions of child birth and child rearing and remember that it was quite life threatening.  It was not uncommon for women to have one child after another as well because of the lack of birth control. It must have been very comforting to these women to have a Federal agency such as the Children’s Bureau   to guide them.  In the aftermath of the Great War, I gather that many women turned to Children’s Bureau for help. I looked up some more information on the Bureau on our favorite Wikipedia and found out that it was created by President Taft In 1912 and that Julia Lathrop was the first head of the Bureau. I wonder if Taft appointed her because he thought that as a woman she was more qualified to run the Bureau or if she was simply THE person for the job.  –Caryn Levine

== Excerpt from "Passing" by Nella Larsen ==

I remember reading this scene from "Passing" back when my high school class covered the novel, and I was very intrigued by the notion of passing and the possible reasons for it. The story Clare gives for her own experience in passing in this section seems to be one of convenience and opportunity (raised by white aunts that did not advertise her background), deception (she manipulates her husband to run away with her before her aunts could reveal she was black), and a lot of yearning (she seems to resent her aunt's treatment of her and other white people, which makes her passing as a white person ironic).     --Sarah Smethurst

I agree with Sarah about how intriguing this passage was. After reading this excerpt, I think that Nella Larsen's topic was something that had crossed the minds of many African Americans at the time. The idea of "passing" into another life, just to experience the other side, was something that I'm sure, African American men and women all had imagined at some point.  It was sad though, how Clare had to hide her race, at the request of her aunts. It was interesting to me that although she lived with her aunts, she was still expected to "doing all the housework, and most of the washing." (P. 140) In the story, Clare even says that she had "Negro blood" and apparently that is why she did all the housework, and it was almost expected of her because of her race. The Harlem Renaissance gave Nella Larsen a way to voice this imaginative idea, to maybe give the rest of the world the idea that African Americans merely wanted to be like everyone else, and she portrayed this by showing how important "passing" was for Clare. -- Alex M.

The negative stereotypes associated with African Americans really stands out in this passage and I think they are important to emphasizing why an African American would consider "passing."  They include African Americans being poor, domestic servants, charity cases, promiscuous, and inferior to whites.  Even if they were hard-working or good people, African Americans had to overcome some rather harsh stereotypes.  I can definitely see trying to "pass" as a white and living with less trials as tempting.  On another note, Clare having to hide her race, and being able to, made me think of the light skinned black models on the magazine covers we looked at in class.  While they were clearly appealing to African American audiences, I feel like the magazines were putting out a message that said "being white is where it is at!"  So, perhaps light skinned black women did try "passing" as whites by downplaying their color and race?  I am sure make-up made that feat much easier.  --  CBrau

I agree with what CBrau said above, that African Americans had to deal with many stereotypes, and whites had no idea what that was like. For African Americans, the idea of them "passing" as whites was a way to gain acceptance in society, a way for them to finally fit in. If they were lucky enough to pass as white, they had so many more opportunities. I'm sure many Black men/women desired to "pass" so they could live their life to the fullest extent without hindrance based on the color of their skin. Nella Larsen was appealing to the African American community, but I am not sure whether she was encouraging the idea of "passing" or not. Part of me feels as though she encouraged it by writing about it, only because she showed how happy Clare was after "passing," and all the opportunities and fun she'd had because of it. -- Alex M.

==Women of the Ku Klux Klan==

I do not think that these women necessarily hated the races that the KKK targeted or necessarily wished them harm, but they probably felt threatened by the large waves of immigrants coming in to America in the early twentieth century.  These immigrants were coming in to America in large numbers and practically taking over the job market.  And like we learned in class, these women were most likely afraid of both their shrinking family size and the white race.  Of course, the race was not dying out, but it certainly seemed like it with all of the other races that either continued to have many children and or just seemed to be everywhere.  In reality, I believe that the KKK offered white women a place to come together and feel like a unified race in an America that was suddenly becoming filled with so many different races.  --  CBrau


The women of the Ku Klux Klan article, containing the original “kreed” revised and the constitution and laws of the women of the Ku Klux Klan (incorporated) was written for a fairly targeted group of individuals. They sought to influence the opinion of persons of white, gentile (Protestants) and native (to the US) born heritage. The goal was to create a unified agenda, or at least a common set of goals and laws, that all members adhered to upon joining. Most likely the women who would read this pamphlet would be wives or sisters of members of the male branch of the Ku Klux Klan, mainly because they were already indoctrinated into that manner of thinking (that white native born individuals held a higher weight in society and had more of a right to be part of American society than others.) This came at a time when immigration was high, and many of the immigrants were second wave immigrants meaning that they consisted of eastern Europeans, (such as Italians and Jews) who would look differently than the previously white, Anglican looking influx of Irish, Germans and Scandinavian people. For people who harbor racist or nativist feelings, this was a time period that would cause a lot of resentment and frustration to occur making clubs like the WKKK more “popular” than it perhaps would have been at any other time in American History. --jmarshal

To go along with what Jmarshal said, I agree that white women of the KKK were those who saw themselves as better than the immigrants who were coming to America. I understand that the women began to feel inferior because they would lose their place to the immigrants, but I feel like  women, of all people, would understand the predicament these immigrants were in. I find it ironic that the women were treating the immigrants in the same way that society had treated women before they received their rights. I don't quite understand how the KKK would help women take a stand, besides unifying them under one common cause, just as Jmarshal said. Even if most of the women were wives/sisters of male KKK members, I feel like these women would just be proving society right in the fact that society claimed women voted the same way as their husbands/brothers/fathers. If they were only attracted to the KKK because of their male family members, they completely proved society correct. I do, however, think that women of the KKK maybe did join because it was a group mentality and it was nice to be at the top of society in relation to the immigrants. --- Alex M.