Difference between revisions of "328--Week 1 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
What I found interesting after reading all of the essays is that I still had no idea how historians should study women's history. From what I read I got the feeling that the study of women's history had the same problem as other thematic studies of history: how do you study the history of a single facet of society without studying the history of all of the other facets? --Justin Mattos | What I found interesting after reading all of the essays is that I still had no idea how historians should study women's history. From what I read I got the feeling that the study of women's history had the same problem as other thematic studies of history: how do you study the history of a single facet of society without studying the history of all of the other facets? --Justin Mattos | ||
| − | An unfortunate conclusion from "Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women's History" was the need for the undermining of an important aspect of the Women's Movement in order for Women's History in order to be properly studied.--Justin Mattos | + | An unfortunate conclusion from "Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women's History" was the need for the undermining of an important aspect of the Women's Movement in order for Women's History in order to be properly studied. --Justin Mattos |
| + | |||
| + | After reading "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" by Gisela Bock, I realized how much of a connection our society's conception of women has with the writing of its history: how can women's history be properly studied without first changing our perceptions of women? If the study of women's history is part of the changing of our perception of women then should we expect its study to be apolitical? --Justin Mattos | ||
