Difference between revisions of "Week 4 Questions/Comments-327 09"
From McClurken Wiki
(→Bridget Bishop convicted of witchcraft 1692; “Casco Girls” accuse George Burroughs, 1692) |
(→Karin Wulf, “Women’s Work in Colonial Philadelphia,” 2000) |
||
| Line 88: | Line 88: | ||
Karin Wulf describes how women made money despite the fact that they were not really to work the men were. Retailing was huge for women in colonial times. Wulf says that women could have made up half of the retailing business and I find that interesting because there are still more women in retail then there are men. I like how she pointed out that even rich widows worked shopkeepers at high end stores. Women from all social classes made money. Most women needed income after they became widows because their husbands did not leave them their entire inheritance. Most of that would go to there sons. I like this article because we are not taught that much about how women made money in colonial times. -LeAnn Taggart | Karin Wulf describes how women made money despite the fact that they were not really to work the men were. Retailing was huge for women in colonial times. Wulf says that women could have made up half of the retailing business and I find that interesting because there are still more women in retail then there are men. I like how she pointed out that even rich widows worked shopkeepers at high end stores. Women from all social classes made money. Most women needed income after they became widows because their husbands did not leave them their entire inheritance. Most of that would go to there sons. I like this article because we are not taught that much about how women made money in colonial times. -LeAnn Taggart | ||
| + | |||
| + | I thought this article on Women’s work in Colonial Philadelphia was very interesting as we often do not think of the roles women played being connected to independently generating money during this colonial period. I think the key phrase from this section is on page 98 where the author states that a problem with assuming women’s sole source of income was that it “casts women as only passive recipients of wealth, rather than generators of wealth.” Indeed the author goes about disproving this idea showing how women were capable of generating their own income capable of sustaining them and their families upon the death of their husbands or if they chose never to marry. Work consisted of gender specific works, such as was connected with the family and home, and nongender specific works that could be picked up from the trade of husband or father. Whichever the case, this article shows women as being productive citizens, contributing to their own wealth as well as that of their community and doing so, it is an important contribution to the study of women in colonial America. -- Elyse Lawrence | ||
