Difference between revisions of "Week 1 Questions/Comments-327 09"
From McClurken Wiki
Amankarios (Talk | contribs) (→Comments that compare or contrast readings) |
Amankarios (Talk | contribs) (→Kate Haulman, Defining "American Women's History") |
||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
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 | 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 | ||
| − | I liked in Haulman's essay on page 5 how she asks the question, "If a 'man' knits is he still a 'man'? And is knitting still a 'woman's' work?" The first thing I thought about when I read that was the modern stay-at-home dads who watch the kids while the woman is the bread winner of the family. Just because the man is the one doing the domestic chores, does that mean he is no longer a man? Perhaps, in societies eyes. Maybe not as much today, but likely in the earlier 20th century. I found it especially interesting that Bock mentions the fatherhood issue breifly in her essay, "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History." She writes, on page 9, that "Fatherhood, however, was usally seen not as natural but as 'social.'" Does this mean that fatherhood was optional? This seems to say that women HAD to be mothers, and men could do whatever they wanted. I find it interesting that the distinctions seem to be broader and that in the world today, it is not uncommon for a woman to be seen doing something that only a 'man' would only be allowed to do (and vice-versa) a hundred( and less) years ago. -Kristina | + | I liked in Haulman's essay on page 5 how she asks the question, "If a 'man' knits is he still a 'man'? And is knitting still a 'woman's' work?" The first thing I thought about when I read that was the modern stay-at-home dads who watch the kids while the woman is the bread winner of the family. Just because the man is the one doing the domestic chores, does that mean he is no longer a man? Perhaps, in societies eyes. Maybe not as much today, but likely in the earlier 20th century. I found it especially interesting that Bock mentions the fatherhood issue breifly in her essay, "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History." She writes, on page 9, that "Fatherhood, however, was usally seen not as natural but as 'social.'" Does this mean that fatherhood was optional? This seems to say that women HAD to be mothers, and men could do whatever they wanted. I find it interesting that the distinctions seem to be broader and that in the world today, it is not uncommon for a woman to be seen doing something that only a 'man' would only be allowed to do (and vice-versa) a hundred( and less) years ago. -Kristina |
| + | I found it interesting how Haulman believes that many of the challenges in Women's History come from the way women's history has been defined and presented to the world and not just the actual oppression women faced. She makes it seem like such a simple, yet complex issue. Simple in the fact that the problems women's history have faced are from the way historians portray women's struggles and lives. It is complex, though, in regards that Haulman believes there is an easy solution to the problem, which is to rewrite history and therefore "creating a more just society." (P.8) Haulman thought that if women's history could be rewritten, then maybe women's history could begin to overcome challenges, but in reality, I do not think it is that simple. Rewriting hundreds of years of women's history, history that has already been accepted by the world, would be quite a challenge to overcome, yet if it is possible, would be quite a feat. --- Alex Mankarios | ||
== 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” == | ||
