View source for Week 1 Questions/Comments-327 11


== Header ==

== Overarching questions ==
What really struck me about these readings is the conflict between gender history, women's history, and their subdivisions. It seems that none of these disciplines can never satisfy the historical audience because of the attention, or lack of attention, given to a specific person or groups of persons. I was also struck by how women's history had to work to stand alone from general history, but then lacked the consideration of women of different races and cultures. Is this issue still prevalent today? Or has the topic of women's history evolved beyond this issue?--Heather Thompson

Being the second time I have been required to read this section (which is why I was so quick about posting) I have to comment on the fact that the concept of social history and its restraints have a larger meaning to me now, further in my education, than they did the first time I read this.  Being primarily a Religion major, it is easy to see how different perspectives and different outlooks on gender, race, socioeconomic class, culture and community play a huge role in the shape of the story of history. --Sara S.

All the texts within the reading seem to have this common bond of striving to rise from oppression in order to reach this goal of acceptance within a scholarly world dominated by white males.  Interestingly enough, once white women find this acceptance they are reluctant to fully encompass all women through race and culture.  It seems to me that the once oppressed (white women) have now become the oppressor in an attempt to maintain their position of power with their male counterparts.  By the end of it all where do black women fit in? For the are treated like second class citizens by their fellow females as well as in their culture define by a  public "world" and domestic "sphere" that is exclusively male dominated. --Rachel T.

In the intro the editor asks the question: “is it possible to take the same approach to writing a comprehensive history of all of America’s women, or must historians employ different categories of analysis for different groups while simultaneously avoiding dichotomous thinking?” After reading the four articles, I believe the field is still not sure how to answer the question. In the first essay Haulman explains the history of women’s history, and how the study of women opened more research on other subjects. While creating a new way to look at the past, women’s history also invited other areas to be explored, like, race and class. While race and class contribute to the study, they also complicate women’s history. It is interesting to look at women’s history is at the same time unifying and dividing. --Michelle M.

One of the most interesting points in the Kate Haulman’s essay is her idea of gender roles and how certain activities are deemed to be fit for one gender and not the other. She asks “If a man knits, is he still a “man”? And is knitting still “woman’s” work?” It would be interesting to see how the field of gender studies addresses the blurring of gender roles that has become more and more prevalent in recent years. For example, would a stay at home dad be considered a man since he is taking on a domestic job traditionally viewed as feminine? Or would a breadwinning woman be viewed in masculine terms?  -- Clare O.

When reading through these articles, I noticed a distinct parallel between the Haulman and Bock essays, and another between the Castaneda and Alexander essays.  Although all four essays focused on the oppression of women and the need to focus on American Women’s History, Haulman and Bock’s essays focused on American Women’s History in general, whereas Castaneda and Alexander’s essays seemed more racially motivated rather than gender oriented.  I found the approaches that all 4 women took interesting, especially Haulman’s approach by actually breaking down the meaning of each word in “American Women’s History”.  It really made me think how the simple breakdown of each word categorizes American women’s history as a whole.  Which women were considered American? Were African-American women considered American? Or Mexican-American women?  What is the definition of American? Does it mean to be born a citizen of the nation, or maybe minority women weren’t considered American at all because they had no rights under the constitution.  In all essence, even white middle class women lacked specific rights under the Constitution, because the document was geared mainly for male dominance.  I commend Castaneda and Alexander for their drives to seek equality for minority women in history, however I feel as if to be seeking equality, the terms must be equal as well. For example, Alexander states that “feminism is a useful paradigm for White women, the attempt to force Black women into the same interpretive model is not applicable….” I understand the racial differences between the two groups, but when speaking out about feminism as a whole, I believe it is important for women to maintain together as one large group, not broken down into varying divisions.  By maintaining one single large group, I feel as though more of an impact can be made. -- Lindsey S.

I think that the women of this period had to form some kind of group, not only for gathering information from each other, but also because their roles in the home life made it impossible for these women to express how or what they were feeling to their husbands.  They just didn't do that, but now we don't hesitate to tell our husbands how or what we are feeling.--- Pam P.

== Kate Haulman ==

I found many things in the first essay, by Kate Haulman, to be very interesting. I had never before questioned or even considered the definition of “woman” or “female”. On page four when she comments on Lerner’s suggestion of assessing male and female cultures at the intersection of said cultures. She says the approach of “add women and stir” would keep women marginalized from history rather than part of the whole. Haulman also touches upon the fact that one woman does not represent the whole. When including women in the study of history we must take into account factors such as race, religion, income, etc. On page five, Haulman makes a very interesting reference to an essay by Joan Wallach Scott in which she calls for “…the consideration of “woman”, “female”, and “feminine” as concepts shaped by the societies in which they existed, rather than static realities.” I found this reference to be very interesting as well as completely true. --Emma C.

The essay by Haulman struck me as a timeline of sorts, wherein she details the progression of approaches towards women’s history in America. She lays out an evolution from a focus on “noteworthy women” to the lives of the supposedly average woman and finally to “Gender Studies” where the specification is that it is no longer a women’s only area of study. I may be oversimplifying, but this progression sounds a great deal like the evolution of the study of human history in general. Some of the earliest works of history where on notable figures, such as saints and rulers, and then ventured into the study of individuals and further into a study of how “humanity” is even defined. Like I said, that is a simplified example, but as I was reading the comparison kept reoccurring to me and seemed worthy of a public comment. -- Cammy C.

The dichotomy of sex vs. gender is one that fascinates me, because--like many of the dichotomies/questions Haulman mentions--it applies equally to men and to women. Women's or domestic spheres have increasingly been addressed, if not taught, in history classes in middle and high school. However, the way in which gender roles affected not only women but men ("If a 'man' knits is he still a 'man'? And is knitting still 'woman's' work?"[p.5]), and the way in which women's history has, historically, been almost entirely the history of upper-class white women, are both significant issues that I have never before considered. I'm embarrassed for an American Women's History class I took in high school, which focused on middle- to upper-class white women in the United States of America, with no mention of precolonial women at all. At the time, that seemed logical to me; however, seeing how many preconceptions and assumptions went into that, (all women represented by white upper-class women; America as synonymous with the US; gender and sex as equivalent in terms of social roles, etc.) it occurs to me that in fact that class covered the much narrower scope of "Great actions of a few white, biologically female, Anglophone United States citizens/residents." And that sounds like a significantly less interesting class. --Nicole Steck

"Add women and stir". This is probably one of the most interesting lines in all of Haulman's essay. It sums up her idea that when scholars first began to pay more attention to women's contributions and achievements in history, they only focused on noteworthy women who had done something outside of the norm and in the realm of the male word.  The accomplishments of a few, exceptional, white, middle/upper-class, women were the only representation of women we saw in history.  There was little to no significance given to the everyday lives of women at all.  However now, with the idea of gender studies scholar have begun "to consider 'man' or 'male' as a topic of inquiry, not the assumed and moral standard against which all other form of identity were measured"(p.5) To me, this is an idea that is not really ever addressed. We can easily say that there are many women of the past who we now hold is high esteem, but Haulman is quite right to point out that most of the notable women of the past are notable because they were either connected to a powerful man (like Abigail Adams), they did something during a significant time period (Clara Barton and the Civil War), or because they accomplished something in an area usually reserved for men ( Nobel Prize winner Marie Curie for physics). This idea of placing women in a "separate sphere" will, I think, do much for the study of women's history because it will allow more for the appreciation of the average women in her everyday life.  -- Grace Christenson

"Defining 'American Women's History'" was my favorite section to read in this week's assigned pages. The first thing that stuck out to me is on page 2, "Scholars initially sought out 'notable women,' or 'women worthies,' to study, exceptional individuals who nonetheless remained largely invisible within traditional histories." It is very true that women were given attention only if they were wealthy, married or related to a notable man, or made a remarkable accomplishment. A passage that also stuck out to me was when Haulman admitted that early women's history focused on white upperclass women who were from good areas. These women were supposed to be your ideal, everyday, normal female. You don't have to be a genius to know that wasn't the way life really was. My favorite part of the passage was on page six. Haulman attempted to define the term "American." She stated that many people have a different meaning of the word. Some consider it to only mean people from the United States, while others may include Mexicans or Native Americans. She made it very evident of how important it is for someone to define the term so the reader knows who exactly you are talking about. -- Ashley Valentine

“In order to write ‘American’ women’s history, scholars must ask what meaning and uses the term had for women in the past and why.” This struck me when I was reading simply because it would have never occurred to me to define women, in the past or in the present. “Woman” is just a word that is part of most people’s vocabulary and with a commonly accepted definition so having to define it would be difficult. However to study it, it would be the first step. – Kayle P

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

On page 11 in "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" by Gisela Bock the author mentions "The concept 'gender' has been introduced into women's history and women's studies in the 1970s as a social, cultural, political and historical category, in order to express the insight that women's subordination, inferiroity and powerlessness are not dictated by nature, but are social cultural, politcal and historical constructions."  To me, this can be expanded to inlcude all other categories of identities (i.e. race, sexuality, culture, etc.) and is behind the complexity found in historical study.  --Sara S.

The first thing that really jumped out at me in reading was on page 10 under Public versus private.  "Male workers, male politicians and male scholars perform their tasks only because they are born, reared and cared for my women's labour". This is entirely true, even in most cases today.  Personally speaking as one of the few males in this class, I know that the person I've become, is almost entirely because of my mother and her availability to me growing up. -- Matt

Gisela Bock's article made some of my favorite points from this reading. I agree with the assertion she seems to be making that dichotomies are not sufficient, and that in order to truly understand the history of any group, the subjects of study need to be given credit for greater subtlety in their lives than any dichotomy allows. The idea of "public vs. private" for example; Bock points out that women's work in the "private sphere" shaped the public sphere, because it was women whose parenting had the greatest effect on the men who occupied the "public" sphere. So, women were working in the public sphere as well, but simply in a different way then were the men they influenced. --Rebecca W.

The term gender as being more than just a way to distinguish between male and female. The article discusses the affect that is had on the social history of women’s study, relating back to Haulman’s essay and back to the nature and culture dichotomies. It makes me wonder why it becomes understood outside of the field of women’s studies that sex now meant “‘biological’ and ‘gender’ as ‘social’ or cultural…” –Kayle P

Bock's essay brought to light the fact that men were the economic provider, where women were working in the household and did not contribute to the economic factor of the household. In reality if the women didn't take care of these things (child rearing, housework, etc.) then it would become difficult to have a functioning household, or would it? It is also interesting that she says that the woman's role is nature and the man's role is social.  Is it natural for a female to nurture their children while the male is only there for social purposes? I think that each parent has something to contribute to the rearing of the children and that society took it for granted that because women were not making an economic contribution to society, the men handled all the socializing because they earned it.  Now because of the status of our economy both men and women have to work not only outside of the house to support their families, but also have to work inside the house to help with the day-to-day activities. They had to learn to combine the nature and the social parts of their lives, which is the evolution of the family.--Pam P.

== Castaneda ==

A repeated theme in these essays was the need to move beyond a dichotomous framework for understanding women's history (women are more than just non-males, whiteness and maleness should not be considered the norm). The Castaneda essay was a little thorny for me because, while encouraging historians to seek cultural roots in precolonial norms, she refers several times to "third-world nations." Isn't this phrase in itself reinforcing a dichotomy? --Stefanie L.

Castenada showed me an angle to women’s history that I doubt would ever have crossed my mind otherwise. Unlike Alexander’s later essay on the similar topic of the relationship between race and gender studies, Castenada seemed to put more emphasis than I would have thought of on colonialism and the origin of races to explain why typical women’s studies was not adequate to describe the history of women of color. I understand that grasping the struggles of third worlds can help women with a related ancestry identify with their roots more than woman’s studies and its habit of being more focused on white women. However, that separation of studies reminded me of dichotomies shown in Bock’s essay that she said needed to be challenged into reconciliation of the sides, rather than allow separation. -- Cammy C.


== Alexander ==

In Alexander’s article she states, “Early studies of race and gender failed to recognize that race does not only operate as an additional oppressive force but it also forms the foundation of how Black women live their daily lives, and what kinds of liberation strategies they embrace (pg.20)” This quote stands out because it emphasizes that race is not an oppressive force but an identity. The strong ties Black women have to their race affect them just as much as being women. Their race sets their experiences apart from other women. --Michelle M.


I found the differences between the early written records (pre 1975) of white and black woman's histories fascinating. By comparing the different articles it can be ascertained that historically histories written about white women focus on child rearing, giving birth and homemaking; whereas histories written about black woman focus on sexuality and their "role" as whores and vehicles for sex. Interestingly, although different, both histories focus on woman's relationship with and influence on white men proving that woman’s significance and history was synonymous with the history of white men. -- Hannah W.

I found the second article in our reading very interesting. What does it really mean to be a "working mother"? When I was younger, I had a friend who had a "stay at home mom." I am still close to this friend and I can see how close she is with her mom and I am almost envious of their relationship (my mom works outside the home). I also saw how much her mom did around the house (chores, tutored one of her children, nannied other children, cooked,etc.) all without getting paid. 

I also liked the "Women of Color" article by Antonia I. Castaneda. In a sociology class I had, I learned that white men often carry the stereotype that Black women are exotic/forbidden/loose. I find this ironic because White slaveholders had relationships with their Black women slaves. 

Finally, I was interested to read about gender equality vs physiological difference and how gender roles are socially constructed throughout history. What/who determine's men's and women's roles? 

--Catherine Kennedy


Alexander writes that "you cannot divorce the Black woman from the community; if you do not understand the black community you will not understand the Black woman." This statement reminds me of a previous class in which we discussed the Second Sex by Simone de Beauvior. She wrote that men are viewed as the "one" while women are viewed as the "other," however women cannot "organize themselves as a unit" because there is nothing concrete binding them, and they often relate more to the men of their race/religion/ethnicity/etc. than other women that are different. Alexander mentions this idea by stating that it has been argued that "race and class created a chasm that made a singular, unified womanhood impossible." -- Clare O'Brien

Alexander's article built on those prior--particularly Castaneda's--by further noting the "conflation of 'woman' with 'white woman.'[p.19] Alexander points out, quite correctly, that the conflation she refers to frustrated black women scholars seeking a more balanced history of women. In fact, by allowing "woman" to be synonymous with "white woman," historians further marginalized black women, essentially stripping them of the right to call themselves "women" (that term referring, of course, to upper-class white female US citizens). In choosing to so narrow the scope of what constituted womanhood, early feminist historians disenfranchised whole groups of the populace of the very basic right of sex (and gender?) identity. -- Nicole Steck

I found it very interesting that Alexander felt that most women would put race before gender, in how they identify themselves. As she said in her essay "..although Black women's experiences may be gender, they are shaped most compellingly by their role as members of the Black community." This also fed into her discussion of the importance of looking at the history of Black women separately from that of white women's. She made it clear that it is impossible for gender to "privilege" over race. It is interesting that in Haulman's essay, she mentions so often the "bonds of womanhood" and how women are brought together by the experiences they share, but in Alexanders essay, she seems to reject the idea that ALL women can be linked together, but that only certain groups of women can be bonded.  --Grace Christenson

Like Grace pointed out, I also was struck by Alexander challenging the idea of homogeneity within the scope of women's studies. The identification that the term "woman" inherently refers to a "white woman" was a significant point made in the essay that makes it necessary to be "truly willing to explore difference" between white women and black women (pg. 23). But when scholars choose to study black women exclusively through the lens of race, the voices of these women are slowly being silenced because only one aspect of their identity is being acknowledged. --Ellen Smethurst