Difference between revisions of "328--Week 1 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
| Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
It seems clear from these essays that the individual experiences of women are not only shaped by their historical context, but also the intersections between race, class, and cultural identities. These socially constructed categories necessarily complicate the field of women’s history by denying a shared experience of womanhood. When Kate Haulman describes the traditional emphasis on the “normative” experiences of white, middle and upper class women she recognizes that this approach is exclusionary, problematic, and limiting. In order to avoid typifying woman as a singular, unified concept, women’s historians must examine the interplay of race, class, and cultural identities within the category of gender. -- Paul | It seems clear from these essays that the individual experiences of women are not only shaped by their historical context, but also the intersections between race, class, and cultural identities. These socially constructed categories necessarily complicate the field of women’s history by denying a shared experience of womanhood. When Kate Haulman describes the traditional emphasis on the “normative” experiences of white, middle and upper class women she recognizes that this approach is exclusionary, problematic, and limiting. In order to avoid typifying woman as a singular, unified concept, women’s historians must examine the interplay of race, class, and cultural identities within the category of gender. -- Paul | ||
| + | |||
| + | The need to address women's history is obviously complicated. You cannot address it merely by placing all women in one category; each race, class and culture dictates a different history. If we address only those women, who are "notable women" or "women worthies" as Haulman mentions, we alienate a large majority of women in the world's population.--LisaM | ||
| + | |||
| + | The actual language used to depict women vary. The debate between historians on choice of approach and language is interesting. In Bock's essay historian Joan Scott is quoted as asking the question, "Why is it, for instance, that 'equality' and 'justice' seem to complement each other in the case of men, but be opposed to each other in the case of women?" Is this being hypersensitive? Have we, namely women, grown so complacent with our language that we have a tendancy to ignore or dismiss such interpretations of language?--LisaM | ||
