Difference between revisions of "328--Week 1 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
I found Bock's view of the sex and gender dichotomy to be particularly interesting. I never considered that the distincion of sex from gender would restate the nature versus nurture issue. I considered this distinction to be helpful to show that many feminine characteristics should not be considered inherent nor subordinate. Bock argues that these simple definitions only hurt by reinforcing the differences between the sexes and therefore polarizing the study of women. Like other studies of history, the study of women should be a continuous effort without the pause to separate a women's world into what is physiological from what is cultural. -- Meredith Bojarski | I found Bock's view of the sex and gender dichotomy to be particularly interesting. I never considered that the distincion of sex from gender would restate the nature versus nurture issue. I considered this distinction to be helpful to show that many feminine characteristics should not be considered inherent nor subordinate. Bock argues that these simple definitions only hurt by reinforcing the differences between the sexes and therefore polarizing the study of women. Like other studies of history, the study of women should be a continuous effort without the pause to separate a women's world into what is physiological from what is cultural. -- Meredith Bojarski | ||
| + | |||
| + | What I am already finding interesting with the study of women’s history versus other studies of history that I have made is its social and active participation in the present. I feel like the goal in my other history classes has been to recreate a time or event in the past, examine cause and effect, draw similarities, etc. but of things that happened in the past and stay in the past. Whereas so far I feel like women’s study is looking into the past as well but in the attempt to create “a change towards more freedom and justice” (Bock) in the present. -karly kovalcik | ||
| + | |||
| + | I found Bock’s discussion of equality vs. difference really interesting. She wonders why it is that “difference” is attributed to women and “equality” to men. Which makes me wonder if establishing equality in history is the main goal of women’s history, does making it a “different” field facilitate this or just reinforce dichotomies? When the women suffragists were fighting for the right to vote they weren’t voting for a “woman’s” vote they were just looking for the right to vote. I think there are the same inherent problems that we found with segregation and the “separate but equal” philosophy. -karly kovalcik | ||
