Difference between revisions of "328--Week 1 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
I was surprised to read in "Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women's History" that some Black Women scholars feel that even today the importance of black women and their roles in society are being overlooked in the fields of women's studies! I understood that it took a little while for scholars to realize that they had to look at the difference ethnicities differently as far as their experiences in society but I had no idea that there were aspects that were still being overlooked. I also liked the statement Leslie Alexander made in the first sentence of the last paragraph of the essay that in order to truly understand the experiences of women that scholars must become willing to explore the differences of the cultures instead of simply ignoring the fact that they are different. I thought that was a very good point. - Elizabeth L. Frank | I was surprised to read in "Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women's History" that some Black Women scholars feel that even today the importance of black women and their roles in society are being overlooked in the fields of women's studies! I understood that it took a little while for scholars to realize that they had to look at the difference ethnicities differently as far as their experiences in society but I had no idea that there were aspects that were still being overlooked. I also liked the statement Leslie Alexander made in the first sentence of the last paragraph of the essay that in order to truly understand the experiences of women that scholars must become willing to explore the differences of the cultures instead of simply ignoring the fact that they are different. I thought that was a very good point. - Elizabeth L. Frank | ||
| − | The theme of the four essays is to tackle the question, what is the meaning and importance in studying women’s history? In the first essay, Haulman points out that the study of women’s history has changed over time. It first focused on the measurable contributions of women to American society and then shifted to focus more on the private lives of women in their home life. -- Jessica Kilday | + | '''The theme of the four essays is to tackle the question, what is the meaning and importance in studying women’s history?''' In the first essay, Haulman points out that the study of women’s history has changed over time. It first focused on the measurable contributions of women to American society and then shifted to focus more on the private lives of women in their home life. -- Jessica Kilday |
It is interesting to note in the second essay that Bock brings up many different theories with which to compare the role of men and women in society. When examining the dichotomies suggested it is interesting to consider not only how women have affected society but also how the norms of society influenced the role of women. -- Jessica Kilday | It is interesting to note in the second essay that Bock brings up many different theories with which to compare the role of men and women in society. When examining the dichotomies suggested it is interesting to consider not only how women have affected society but also how the norms of society influenced the role of women. -- Jessica Kilday | ||
| − | More than one of the essays point out that many subjects in American women’s history has been concentrated on white middle class women. It is important to look at the role of culture and ethnicity in women’s studies because all of these factors affect the experiences and challenges of women in society. The study of women is not static; it is changing, and shaped by many different factors, and it is important to consider more than one. -- Jessica Kilday | + | More than one of the essays point out that many subjects in American women’s history has been concentrated on white middle class women. It is important to look at the role of culture and ethnicity in women’s studies because all of these factors affect the experiences and challenges of women in society. '''The study of women is not static; it is changing, and shaped by many different factors''', and it is important to consider more than one. -- Jessica Kilday |
| + | |||
| + | In the essay "Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History," '''I found it interesting that the women's liberation movement in the United States was mainly about gender oppression. The movements were middle class white women who wrote about the history of white women in the West.''' Though, women of color looked towards third-world liberation movements for support instead of women's liberation movements. Only if women of all different ethnicities joined together earlier would women's rights have developed earlier? Also women of color's gender oppression was different than white women's gender oppression in that colored women had to struggle with race and class unlike white women who mostly struggled with class. --Ashley Scutari | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''In the essay "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History," I found it interesting in the first point Nature vs. Culture that fatherhood was not seen as natural but social.''' Women scholars challenged this by stating that women are therefore seen as "nature always having a social meaning" and nature and culture mean different things in different times. Women are the ones that physically have the baby, but that does not mean they have to be subject to the male sexes. Men are also taught to grow up as a strong non-emotional person. This could also be why fatherhood is seen as social instead of natural. | ||
| + | --Ashley Scutari | ||
| + | |||
| + | In "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" Gisela Bock discusses how a woman's nature were child bearing, carring for the family, and taking care of things around the house originated from Europe; but what was once seen as nature is now seen as work. I I find this very true today, because a lot of stay home mothers consider their position as a mother and care taker of the home a job, however without pay as Bock mentions an "unpaid work." (pg 9) Also on the other hand there are many women that work and women for years have competed with the men in their wages but because of their sex and not who does the job best. Michelle Mardeusz | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Leslie M. Alexander's essay mostly discusses black women and how their history is different from that of white womens history, which it is, but in today's society of white and black women are they still that different? Is this generation of black women still largley influenced by past generations in how they view themselves as black women?''' She also goes on to say that in order to understand black women you have to understand the black community. (pg 21) I think understanding any comminity that in its self is a different culture you have to understand their culture and way of life before understanding that community of people. The United States is full of all kinds of culturally different people. Michelle Mardeusz | ||
| + | |||
| + | In "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" I found the second point, Work v. Family interesting because it looks at "women's work" and how it relates men as the "workers" and women as "non-workers". Women who are are non working mothers are still seen as "non-workers" today.''' I think that the stay at home mother profession should be given more respect in the professional world. Many stay at home mothers work just as hard if not harder than those in careers outside the home.''' --Kellye Sorber | ||
| + | |||
| + | In "Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History" Castaneda discusses the problems faced by scholers of color in their work to properly show the history of thier ancestors. It was interseting that these scholars struggle to accurately portray these women and not let assumptions get in the way thier research. -- Kellye Sorber | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''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 | ||
| + | |||
| + | I agree completely with Justin. The editor raises a very valid point in the beginning before we even approach the essays, and that is "how do you study women's history?" After reading all of the essays, it's clear that it is very difficult to lump all of women's history together to study. There are so many different aspects of women's history to take into account that it almost seems impossible to study it all at once without leaving something out. Then again, isn't that what happens with history in general? When we're taught history, ignoring that men are typically the central characters, think of how much is left out so that we can stay on task for a single semester on a topic that could seem quite specific in the first place. -Kelly Wuyscik | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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 | ||
| + | ''' | ||
| + | In Kate Haukman’s essay, she talks about the difficulty of studying women without examining gender history as well. If this is the case, which Bock also believed it is, then how can it be that the study of men’s history seems often less related to gender roles?''' - Cat Debelius | ||
| + | |||
| + | In Bock’s essay, I found particularly interesting her comment that '''in today’s world we still reserve the terms “working women” and “working mother” for employed women only, overlooking, even with our language, the fact that being a mother is work.''' I guess this just goes to show you how truly slanted society still in is valuing men’s work over women’s. - Cat Debelius | ||
| + | |||
| + | Castaneda discusses the challenges of studying women of color. When to place a person within historical perspective, is it more important to explore their race or gender first? - Cat Debelius | ||
| + | |||
| + | In her essay, "Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women's History," Leslie Alexander makes a statement near the end saying, '''"The challenge remains for us to analyze Black women through their own eyes rather than through the lens of whiteness and opression." (p.22). My question, is does anyone think that is truly possible? Most of what scholars have on Black women's history has been recorded by whites, and for a great deal of time, by white men. I believe that now we as historians should be able to look at this history through the eyes of those who experienced it, but a large chunk of this history has been warped and skewed in some way. Does anyone think it's possible to correct that? Or, regardless of the tools and resources we have today, are things always going to be interpreted in a more biased sense than they should be?''' -Kelly Wuyscik | ||
| + | |||
| + | I found it extremely interesting in "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" that motherhood was a natural phenomenon, however fatherhood was not seen as natural at all, it was seen as social. Yet for women being a mother was a "natural" phenomenon. I have always assumed that fatherhood was a natural phenomenon like motherhood despite their involvement in the social sphere. The child is just as much apart of him as it is the mother. My question is if this is because men were so involved in society there wasn't time? Or was it the fact that he could not show his nurturing/loving side? -- Amanda Taub | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | '''While reading the Dichotomies essay I found it amazing that fatherhood was seen as “social.” I always felt that motherhood and fatherhood were both ‘natural,’ but now I’m not sure. I have a feeling this was not worldwide though, since each culture is different. I’m curious how other cultures viewed mother- and fatherhood.''' –Ashley W. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''I did not realize until reading these essays just how many problems are in the field of women’s history. ''' From the sounds of the essays there have been problems getting the field established and then getting the field of women’s history to cover all women, regardless of race and class. It sounded like it was getting better, but still has lots of room for improvement. – Ashley W. | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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 | ||
| + | |||
| + | One question posed by Bock's essay that really stood out for me was the use of the words "equality" and "justice" when applied to separate genders. It was interesting that for men, these two words complement each other but for women, they are in opposition. The focus seems to be on their context in comparing history and then gender-focused history. In the traditional sense of history with a "male" focus, equality and justice are words with a positive focus, as words that have translated into positive action. When history is focused on women, equality and justice become negative, words that have been almost unachievable goals in that context. To me, it seems like it comes back to whether we are unwilling to look at history that shows us in an unfavorable light, just like the question with looking at racial minorities' history in America. --Kendall Haring | ||
| + | |||
| + | I never stopped to consider how feminism and women's history seems so focused on white middle-class women until I read Castaneda and Alexander's essays. There seems to be little representation of minority women when talking about American women's history. It seems like a race issue but is it more the case of white American women keeping minorities and race issues away from feminism or is it, as Alexander claims, that women, especially black women, are less concerned with their gender and more with race issues in history? --Kendall Haring | ||
| + | |||
| + | I agree with many others who have mentioned that parenthood always seemed as if it should be natural for both parties, however it is seen as natural only for women. '''How much does this have to do with the unique experience of women in pregnancy? Pregnancy is a natural experience reserved only for women, which might be why women see parenthood as natural. However, for men, they do not get to experience pregnancy, and only bond with the child once it is born.''' This may help to create the sensation that parenthood is natural for women but not for me. --Angela Scott | ||
| + | |||
| + | I found the essay "Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women's History" by Leslie M. Alexander to be both interesting and thought provoking. At one point Alexander points out that it is important to understand the Black community in order to understand the Black woman. I think that this denotes an importance of understanding culture that can be applied to studying all women. '''Isn't it important to understand the culture that a person comes from in order to understand the individual itself? All individuals exist within a given culture and are influenced by cultural norms and roles.''' --Katie Nelson | ||
| + | |||
| + | In Bock's essay "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History," I found the discussion of equality v. difference very interesting. How do you decide which is more important equality or difference between the sexes? It seems as though we need to find a happy medium where we can recognize that men and women are different but equal. --Katie Nelson | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | I agree with Karly's comment about how our study of women's history might affect the present. In studying women's history, I wonder how prior assumptions and ideas might change in knowing the true facts behind various women's movements. --Angela Scott | ||
| + | |||
| + | After reading all the essays, I have found that the field of women's history is not nearly as simplistic as I had thought. I never realized all the issues that could arise in the field of women's history, it is so much more than simply the study of women. --Angela Scott | ||
| + | |||
| + | I thought Alexander's essay concerning race offered an interesting viewpoint. '''I agree that it is essential to consider race and culture first in order to understand how the concept of gender applies to the lives of African American women. I think this is an important point to keep in mind when evaluating women and the men they interact with throughout this course. Shouldn't the study of women take a multidimensional approach because of the labels other than "woman" that shape what direction their lives will take?''' -- Meredith Bojarski | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | I agree with Kate Haulman in the point that studying women gave a new perspective on history. it's history through the eyes of a new group, a group that makes up half (arguably even more) of society. Women have always been there, at home, supproting their husbands and silently witnessing their activities. There is a lot that they have to say that gives us an even greater insight in events that we alread knew about. -Emely Amaya | ||
| + | |||
| + | I agree with Emely. Women's history is important, because life is not just about the big events, but about about the small, everyday moments that shape a person's life - and so is the way of history. If the study of history was only limited to major military or political victories or losses - and the men that had a part in them - a whole, deeper understanding of a culture would just be lost. Sometimes a look into the basic, ordinary events of life can be the most telling of a civilization, and women have always played a major part in that. ~Juliann | ||
| + | |||
| + | I found several very interesting points in Haulman's essay. '''The most interesting and thought provoking for me was when she was discussing the definition of the word woman and female. What I gleaned from her discussion on this topic is that the word woman is constantly changing in meaning, as women socially evolve. For instance she gave the example of a man knitting. She said if a man knits is he really a man, for he has taken on "woman's work"'''. I have always thought of man and woman in a strictly biological sense, so this really made me think.- Landon Davis | ||
| + | |||
| + | In Bock's essay I thought her section about intergration vs. autonomy was a little off base. '''If she is using the word autonomous to signify independence, I think that she would seriously be short changing the study of women's history. How could one completely divest women's history from that of mens'? Or mens' history from that of womens? It seems to me that you would need to be familiar with one to fully understand the other.''' -- Landon Davis | ||
| + | |||
| + | Kate Haulman's essay argues that the term "woman" is a fluid concept, based on gender, who has defined it as a category, and who has claimed it as an identiy. If that is so, then should transsexuals who believe they are and/or identify themselves as "women" be included in studies of "women's history", even if biologically they have a Y chromosome and not two X chromosomes? Gisela Bock addressed this subject at a glance during her discussion of sex versus gender, but did not really illuminate it. - Sarah H. | ||
| + | |||
| + | In reference to Antonia I Castaneda writing, Women of Color and the rewriting of Western History, she states two facts that I found interesting. First of all, she states that most feminist scholars write on the history of white women in the west and secondly, that women scholars of color focus on women of third world countries.(p.15) The history of white and colored women has been told by primarily white men, I thought, because there may have not been enough primary sources from women of any color. There was a time when women were not educated and many could not read nor write, therefore not keeping memoirs or journals to tell their stories. For example, the history of women during the Colonial or Antebellum period was most likely taken from the journals of men about what they wrote in regards to women at that time. '''What, if any, impact did the lack of women’s skills have on the writing of women’s history?''' Secondly, wouldn’t it be more difficult to find primary sources on women of a third world country rather that women in America. –Nikole Wellman | ||
| + | |||
| + | In Bock's essay, I found it interesting where the issue of equality vs difference was discussed. The argument that equality and justice go hand in hand for men but not women is really strange to me. I have always thought that women were equal but different so why is it so hard for equality to mean justice for women as well as for men. [[User:MaryBeth|MaryBeth]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | '''I thought it was interesting that in the essay by Alexander that she describes how the study of Black women has to include the study of the whole Black community in order to fully understand the role of Black women. Wouldn't that be true for all groups of women though?''' I think every woman is shaped by the community that they are a part of and in order to fully understand anyone you would need to be able to put them into context, and that includes understanding their roles in their community. | ||
| + | [[User:MaryBeth|MaryBeth]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | I agree with Mary Beth. Women of all races in the study of history have been underrepresented. But a woman is not just defined exclusively by her gender, but also her race and region. Just because a person is a female, does not mean that she has had the same experiences as all the other women of her time period. Race plays a major role in defining a woman's role in her community. ~Juliann | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | I agree with what both MaryBeth and Juliann say about women of all races having been underrepresented in history, particularly American history. But can't this observation also apply to men of every race? Most U.S. history books are overwhelmingly concerned with telling the stories of white men. So, which is the bigger problem - the fact that women as a group are being underrepresented or that men and women of so many different races are underrepresented? -Marilyn | ||
| + | |||
| + | When Bock discusses the topic of work vs. family, this statement struck me: "Obviously, men's work is valued more highly than women's work." I think this is sad. In today's world, women who have both a job and children are expected to be everything to everyone 24 hours a day. In addition to her responsibilities in the workplace, at home, a woman is the cook, maid, nurse, chauffeur, accountant, etc., and she is always on duty. Yes, the man may have a demanding job outside of the home for which he is paid, but the job of wife and mother is just as difficult (if not more) and should be respected no less. Many women do not have to choose between work and family because they are successful at both. -Marilyn | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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 | ||
| + | |||
| + | In "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History," the discussion of equality v.difference I found to be very interesting. '''How do you figure you what is more important difference or equality between the sexes? This has been a question between historians and everyone else how do you decide what is more important without forgetting the other half? Is it possible to have both or can we only have one?''' --Amanda Taub | ||
| + | |||
| + | I was surprised to see that Elizabeth's entry had exactly what i was thinking about "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History". I found it incredibly ironic that motherhood is considered something innate for women and expected, "natural" as she said, however men do not have the same connection with fatherhood. This is something that i still think is evident today which leads me to my next point.... -Julie R | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Marylin makes an incredibly good point about Bock's Statement, "men's work is valued more highly than woman's". This again shows how women, even today are expected to still take care of the home, tend to the children and also work full time while all of this STILL being valued less than a man simply going to work. Women have a huge amount of responsibility at home that is usually overlooked simply becuase she is a woman.''' -Julie R | ||
| + | |||
| + | In adition to women of color in general just simply being overlooked as stated by Castaneda, I feel like it can also be said that the history of all women around the world is different. For lots of women around the world the "natural" part of the nature vs. social argument still applies very much. As touched upon by Haulman under her defenition of "women", you can't just take all women and have just ONE big women's history because their histories and levels of experiences are all different.- Emely Amaya | ||
| + | |||
| + | I think Julie and Amanda both make great points about "women's work". While reading, I couldn't help but sing the '''"Can a woman fly an airplane? Yes she can, yes she can!"''' song to myself. The whole song is meant to inspire and encourage young girls to do whatever work they want to do when they grow up regardless of whether that work has been seen primarily as "man's work" in the past or present. The song fails to promote work that is seen as primarily "women's work" as an equally empowering, or acceptable, or noble job. The song should say, "Can a woman be a mother, yes she can", or "Can a woman be a teacher, yes she can." And that brings up another point as far as equality goes. Today, because women do fly planes, are doctors, and even do run nations (still not ours as much): what about the prejudice against men who take on roles that have traditionally been roles held by been? There should be a new song that says, '''"Can a man stay home with children? Yes he can, yes he can! | ||
| + | Can a man become a nurse? Yes he can, yes he can! | ||
| + | Can a man dance in ballet, can he iron shirts, or play | ||
| + | in his sister's bright pink skirts? Oh yes he can, yes he can!"'''-Jackie R. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I know this is a women's history class but what about the men who become stay at home dads as more mothers enter the work force? -- Christine W. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I also found it interesting that women's history is multifaceted and can be studied in many different ways. -- Christine W. | ||
