Difference between revisions of "328 2010--Week 8 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
(→Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters) |
(→Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters) |
||
| Line 104: | Line 104: | ||
Today the women described in this article would be a combination of a prostitute and a “sugar-baby” to a “sugar-daddy”. Like others I found “dating,” “pick-ups,” “occasional prostitution,” and “temporary alliances” (329) as odd names to give to these casual sexual encounters, as if they were nothing at all. I doubt that these women thought anything of it and let it become a way of life though. Instead of going out and finding better jobs or more work, they fell back onto the notion of being a woman could get them what they wanted without the work. “If I did not have a man, I could not get along on my wages.” (330) -Morgan | Today the women described in this article would be a combination of a prostitute and a “sugar-baby” to a “sugar-daddy”. Like others I found “dating,” “pick-ups,” “occasional prostitution,” and “temporary alliances” (329) as odd names to give to these casual sexual encounters, as if they were nothing at all. I doubt that these women thought anything of it and let it become a way of life though. Instead of going out and finding better jobs or more work, they fell back onto the notion of being a woman could get them what they wanted without the work. “If I did not have a man, I could not get along on my wages.” (330) -Morgan | ||
| − | What's behind the three different versions of the sexual revolution? Flappers vs independent new women vs working-class rowdy girls. Is there one single interpretation that can explain the revolution or do all three have some merit? -schang | + | What's behind the three different versions of the sexual revolution? Flappers vs independent new women vs working-class rowdy girls. Is there one single interpretation that can explain the revolution or do all three have some merit? Also interesting, it seems as though some people now see prostitution as a good thing, if not a means to get by economically. I recall that most people were shocked and upset when reading about the Chinese prostitutes during the late nineteenth century...so what changed that makes people more comfortable with this idea? The seeming lack of organization insofar as the kind of bookkeeping that we saw with the bills of sales of Chinese prostitutes? Does the lack of that kind of documentation naturally imply that women were no longer coerced into prostitution, even if it was to just get by once in a while? Or were there pimps, perhaps some of the men living with them in these furnished districts that acted in such a capacity but without drawing up bills or contracts since prostitution was illegal now? And if this wasn't the case, which I suspect might have been in at least some shape or form, perhaps societal pressures from their peers coerced them into prostitution, since apparently if a good looking girl didn't sell herself she was considered a fool. What's worse? That kind of social coercion or the kind of legal coercion that we saw in California? -schang |
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley, "Generational Conflicts"== | ==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley, "Generational Conflicts"== | ||
