Difference between revisions of "Week 1 Questions/Comments-327 09"
From McClurken Wiki
(→Comments that compare or contrast readings) |
|||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
As LeAnn and Erin noted, it is interesting how Haulman breaks down "American Women's History" into three separate ideas. Each person has a different connotation about each and when you place all three together, different people can assume different ideas about the subject. - Christine Leckner | As LeAnn and Erin noted, it is interesting how Haulman breaks down "American Women's History" into three separate ideas. Each person has a different connotation about each and when you place all three together, different people can assume different ideas about the subject. - Christine Leckner | ||
| + | |||
| + | The historiography by Haulman gives a nice overview of the field of American women’s history studies. It’s somewhat incredible, though not necessarily shocking, that studying women’s history is a rather recent development. Historians have been recounting history for thousands of years, but women’s contributions have been nothing more than a footnote, if even that, for most of that time. Particularly interesting to me was one of the dichotomies the Bock essay mentioned regarding nature vs culture. Women being perceived as “natural” and unchanging labeled them as uninteresting, which vindicated the lack of studying women, while men being perceived as products of culture apparently made them great subjects for study. --Taylor Brann | ||
== Leslie Alexander, “Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women’s History” == | == Leslie Alexander, “Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women’s History” == | ||
