Difference between revisions of "328 2010--Week 1 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
All women aren’t united under the cause of women’s rights because they have had different experiences that have resulted from race, class, socio-economic status, and more, which according to Leslie Alexander also extends into the study and interpretation of women’s history by historians. She focuses on the particular issues of race and argues that the feminist movement is only useful as a lens for studying the experiences of white women, not the experiences of black women. While her view certainly has merit, by dismissing feminism’s use to black women in the manner she does it almost seems like she’s suggesting that the feminist movement is useful for considering all white women in general, while I would argue that it is most useful in regards to only a certain group of white women, particularly of the middle-class. Similarly, there is no simple lens to study the experiences of black women, as they are also influenced by a variety of factors beyond that of race alone. -- Taylor Brann | All women aren’t united under the cause of women’s rights because they have had different experiences that have resulted from race, class, socio-economic status, and more, which according to Leslie Alexander also extends into the study and interpretation of women’s history by historians. She focuses on the particular issues of race and argues that the feminist movement is only useful as a lens for studying the experiences of white women, not the experiences of black women. While her view certainly has merit, by dismissing feminism’s use to black women in the manner she does it almost seems like she’s suggesting that the feminist movement is useful for considering all white women in general, while I would argue that it is most useful in regards to only a certain group of white women, particularly of the middle-class. Similarly, there is no simple lens to study the experiences of black women, as they are also influenced by a variety of factors beyond that of race alone. -- Taylor Brann | ||
| + | I agree completely with Taylor's above comments. It is easy to see where Alexander comes from in contrasting Black women's history against those of what is generally thought of as Women's history. However, black women do fall under the umbrella of women's history, just as african-americans and women fall under the umbrella of history. There can always be subdivisions/classifications within different fields of study. There's always going to be at least one (but probably more) group or culture that is overlooked and one that is the focus. While women's history is focused on generally the upper-middle class of white women, thats primarily because those were the people leaving primary sources behind. We can't go back and teach slaves and later generations to write in diaries or send letters, so it is increasingly difficult to find sources from the time documenting their experiences. - Christine Leckner | ||
I found Gisela Bock's essay on dichotomies the most intriguing of all. By using these comparisons, I found that she fantastically described many of the social and political struggles that women face while describing different categories that scholars study women under. My favorite was the dichotomy of Integration vs. Autonomy because I had no idea that there was such argument going on about where Women's History should be included in a course of study as well as what it should include in itself. This argument of whether Women's History should be autonomous or integrated with such things as Gender History seemed like a parallel to feminist controversies in modern day social and work settings. I have often heard the argument that if women want to be integrated with men, then they should be treated the same, no special exceptions. But, if they want to keep things like maternity leave and not getting drafted, then they should remain autonomous with perhaps less benefits than men receive. I think that Bock definitely provided some interesting parallels between womens history controversies and modern social controversies. -- Angie W. | I found Gisela Bock's essay on dichotomies the most intriguing of all. By using these comparisons, I found that she fantastically described many of the social and political struggles that women face while describing different categories that scholars study women under. My favorite was the dichotomy of Integration vs. Autonomy because I had no idea that there was such argument going on about where Women's History should be included in a course of study as well as what it should include in itself. This argument of whether Women's History should be autonomous or integrated with such things as Gender History seemed like a parallel to feminist controversies in modern day social and work settings. I have often heard the argument that if women want to be integrated with men, then they should be treated the same, no special exceptions. But, if they want to keep things like maternity leave and not getting drafted, then they should remain autonomous with perhaps less benefits than men receive. I think that Bock definitely provided some interesting parallels between womens history controversies and modern social controversies. -- Angie W. | ||
Leslie Alexander puts forth an interesting idea when she says that "the recognition that Black and White women are culturally different opens a Pandora's box..." (p. 20) because it is something that many young feminists never consider, but when they do, they realize that is so very true. If historians and feminists were to recognize this, then their theory of one, strong womanhood would be attacked. Like Alexander said, Black women often name their race as their main identifying factor while most white women, especially feminists, put woman. If women's history scholars were to recognize this, then they would have to take another look at women's history and perhaps separate not just separate women from men, but also from each other based on their class, race, and even sexual orientation. This would put a whole new spin on feminism and women's studies. -- Angie W. | Leslie Alexander puts forth an interesting idea when she says that "the recognition that Black and White women are culturally different opens a Pandora's box..." (p. 20) because it is something that many young feminists never consider, but when they do, they realize that is so very true. If historians and feminists were to recognize this, then their theory of one, strong womanhood would be attacked. Like Alexander said, Black women often name their race as their main identifying factor while most white women, especially feminists, put woman. If women's history scholars were to recognize this, then they would have to take another look at women's history and perhaps separate not just separate women from men, but also from each other based on their class, race, and even sexual orientation. This would put a whole new spin on feminism and women's studies. -- Angie W. | ||