Difference between revisions of "Week 1 Questions/Comments-327 11"

When reading through these articles, I noticed a distinct parallel between the Haulman and Bock essays, and another between the Castaneda and Alexander essays.  Although all four essays focused on the oppression of women and the need to focus on American Women’s History, Haulman and Bock’s essays focused on American Women’s History in general, whereas Castaneda and Alexander’s essays seemed more racially motivated rather than gender oriented.  I found the approaches that all 4 women took interesting, especially Haulman’s approach by actually breaking down the meaning of each word in “American Women’s History”.  It really made me think how the simple breakdown of each word categorizes American women’s history as a whole.  Which women were considered American? Were African-American women considered American? Or Mexican-American women?  What is the definition of American? Does it mean to be born a citizen of the nation, or maybe minority women weren’t considered American at all because they had no rights under the constitution.  In all essence, even white middle class women lacked specific rights under the Constitution, because the document was geared mainly for male dominance.  I commend Castaneda and Alexander for their drives to seek equality for minority women in history, however I feel as if to be seeking equality, the terms must be equal as well. For example, Alexander states that “feminism is a useful paradigm for White women, the attempt to force Black women into the same interpretive model is not applicable….” I understand the racial differences between the two groups, but when speaking out about feminism as a whole, I believe it is important for women to maintain together as one large group, not broken down into varying divisions.  By maintaining one single large group, I feel as though more of an impact can be made. -- Lindsey S.

When reading through these articles, I noticed a distinct parallel between the Haulman and Bock essays, and another between the Castaneda and Alexander essays.  Although all four essays focused on the oppression of women and the need to focus on American Women’s History, Haulman and Bock’s essays focused on American Women’s History in general, whereas Castaneda and Alexander’s essays seemed more racially motivated rather than gender oriented.  I found the approaches that all 4 women took interesting, especially Haulman’s approach by actually breaking down the meaning of each word in “American Women’s History”.  It really made me think how the simple breakdown of each word categorizes American women’s history as a whole.  Which women were considered American? Were African-American women considered American? Or Mexican-American women?  What is the definition of American? Does it mean to be born a citizen of the nation, or maybe minority women weren’t considered American at all because they had no rights under the constitution.  In all essence, even white middle class women lacked specific rights under the Constitution, because the document was geared mainly for male dominance.  I commend Castaneda and Alexander for their drives to seek equality for minority women in history, however I feel as if to be seeking equality, the terms must be equal as well. For example, Alexander states that “feminism is a useful paradigm for White women, the attempt to force Black women into the same interpretive model is not applicable….” I understand the racial differences between the two groups, but when speaking out about feminism as a whole, I believe it is important for women to maintain together as one large group, not broken down into varying divisions.  By maintaining one single large group, I feel as though more of an impact can be made. -- Lindsey S.

== Kate Haulman ==

== Kate Haulman ==