Difference between revisions of "328--Week 6 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
I enjoyed the personal writings by the various working women. All were so informative and individual tone helped to understand the kind of labor, their general treatment, and their personal feelings about the job: gratitude, vulnerability. All these jobs were considered women's work and all were poorly (payed even compared to cheap male labor), demeaning in some way, and offered either high health hazards or demanded long hours. I found Agnes Nestor particularly inspiring, that she worked from unskilled glove maker to union leader (being part of that small 2.2%) and lobbyist for women's work rights. ~Jackie R. | I enjoyed the personal writings by the various working women. All were so informative and individual tone helped to understand the kind of labor, their general treatment, and their personal feelings about the job: gratitude, vulnerability. All these jobs were considered women's work and all were poorly (payed even compared to cheap male labor), demeaning in some way, and offered either high health hazards or demanded long hours. I found Agnes Nestor particularly inspiring, that she worked from unskilled glove maker to union leader (being part of that small 2.2%) and lobbyist for women's work rights. ~Jackie R. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The speech delivered by Abigail Scott Duniway (printed in Modern American Women), I thought was very interesting. She brings up a very good question, if women were sincere in their belief that men considered women’s opinions and kept their promises to women, then why would men not also feel safe in allowing women the right to vote? Her speech continues, to discuss how men and women were created equally as halves and without the consideration of both, there can never be a whole. –Jessica Kilday | ||
| + | |||
| + | There were many arguments both for and against women’s suffrage. Many of these arguments are outlined, in a satirical manner, by Marie Jenny Howe in “An Anti-Suffrage Monologue.” Throughout the monologue, she compares two opposite and extreme arguments to point out how ridiculous an extreme belief can be. One of her arguments can almost be applied to Duniway’s argument. Howe states that, “If the women were enfranchised they would vote exactly as their husbands do and only double the existing vote. Do you like that argument? If not, take this one. If the Women were enfranchised they would vote against their own husbands, thus creating dissension, family quarrels, and divorce,” (102). If men and women truly are two halves of a whole, as Duniway suggests, then the first statement would most certainly be true. If the second statement is taken as true and the votes of men and women cancel each other out and create conflict, then wouldn’t the same be true if voting were left to only men as well? If conflicting votes led to quarrel and instability within a family, then wouldn’t conflicting votes among men result in quarrel and instability in society? Looking at both of these extremes as Howe does throughout the monologue, leads one to realize that a more moderate view would be more functional and practical. –Jessica Kilday | ||
