Difference between revisions of "Week 6 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
In the reading by Eve Korkfield titled Judith Sargent Murray: The Story of Margaretta, I thought it was interesting, while tracing her education, that Mr. Vigillius's wife pronounced her to be "a perfect mistress; her knowledge of the English, and French tongues, was fully adequate to her years; and her manner of reading had peculiar charms; her handwriting was neat and easy; she was a good accomptant...and much more. Margaretta was quite the accomplisher! - Katie D. | In the reading by Eve Korkfield titled Judith Sargent Murray: The Story of Margaretta, I thought it was interesting, while tracing her education, that Mr. Vigillius's wife pronounced her to be "a perfect mistress; her knowledge of the English, and French tongues, was fully adequate to her years; and her manner of reading had peculiar charms; her handwriting was neat and easy; she was a good accomptant...and much more. Margaretta was quite the accomplisher! - Katie D. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Eve Korkfields Judith Sergeant Mary was very interesting in the fact that her parents’ idea of education sounded like a basic training for future sophisticated wives. I am sure young Mary would have no problem procuring a wealth husband with all of her learned refinements.--Cheryl | ||
| + | |||
| + | Going along with that same reading, I don't quite know what I think or how I feel about the following lines: | ||
| + | |||
| + | ~"I think the propriety of circumscribing the education of a female, within such narrow bounds as are frequently assigned, is at least problematical." | ||
| + | |||
| + | ~"The accomplished, the liberally accomplished female, if she is destined to move in the line of competency, will be regarded as a pleasing and instructive companion." | ||
| + | |||
| + | ~"We have been assiduously employed in cultivating the mind of Margaretta." | ||
| + | |||
| + | These lines just really caught my eye and wondered if they caught anyone else's eye. They all, to me, seem to run with the themes/ideas we've discussed in class. -- Vanessa Smiley | ||
| + | |||
| + | Vanessa, I agree with your comments that these few selections do somewhat contradict what we know about the role education played in the lives of pre-Revolutionary women. However when we fast forward to the post-war period, it seems like the idea of women receiving an education change with regards to "public virtue" and "republican motherhood". Women could receive an education if it a)made them a better companion to their husband or b)helped them to better teach their sons/the next generation of American citizens morals and genteel manners.- Lisa Wilkerson | ||
| + | |||
| + | The line "We have been assiduously employed in cultivating the mind of Margaretta" also caught my eye and it ties in perfectly with the one that really stuck out to me, "and when the mind is judiciously balanced, it renders the possessor not only more valuable but also more amiable, and more generally useful." I'm kind of amused that the education of women was merely to make them more useful, and better yet, more useful to men. Their job was, as we learned in the lecture on Tuesday, to be able to teach men how to properly run the country and teach girls how to assist those men in whatever way possible. I can't decipher, though, whether or not this story was meant to be somewhat satirical since it was written by a woman pretending to be a man. I kind of got the feeling she was criticizing the education system. Thoughts? -Kelly Wuyscik | ||
| + | |||
| + | In the Murray reading, I found the following sentence particularly interesting: "No, Mr. Pedant, she was not unfitted for her proper sphere; and your stomach, however critical it may be, never digested finer puddings than those which I, with an uncommon zest, have partook, as knowing they were the composition of her fair hand--- yes, in the receipts of cookery she is thoroughly versed; she is in every respect the complete housewife" (136). After listing all her accomplishments, Murray's narrator, Mr. Vigillius, seems to feel it is necessary to assure the reader that Margaretta possesses the necessary feminine skills as well. This passage almost reads like an advertisement of Margaretta's suitability for marriage. -Ashley H. | ||
| + | |||
| + | In regards to the Murray reading I would just like to say that I found it rather enjoyable and could imagine while reading it that people during the time in which it was written would also have derived some sort of entertainment from it. That said, I thought it was really interesting what Kelly mentioned, that it was written by a woman through the point of view of a man. Did people of the time know it was written by a woman or did she use a pseudonym? Also I was wondering if she was trying to be satirical as well. Another question, did this happen often, the taking in of orphans to educate them, was it like a trend or something, or was this rare and was it more common to do this with boys or with girls? There is just so much fictional literature about adopting children and educating them I wondered. --Mary P. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I agree with Mary. This was written by a woman , appearing as a man. I do believe that this was somewhat obviously sarcastic. But towards who? It could be the female author belittling her own sex to stand up, or it could be the female author belittling and poking fun at the arrogant male sex. I do not think people really knew that the author was a woman. If so, do you really think that this entertainment would be published? How could anyone believe it came from a woman!?- Talya Halpern . | ||
| + | |||
| + | I find Rowson's biography rather odd. For a woman known as an actress, how did she achieve the respectability to open a popular girls' school in a town as straitlaced as Boston? How did did she manage to publish under her own name and achieve such success? Does it seem to anyone else that she borrowed details from her own life to write with?--A. Meyer | ||
In the reading from Catherine Scholten, it was interesting to me how during the colonial period pregnant women were commonly thought of as "breeding" and "teeming", though theologians attributed dignity to carrying the "living soul" of a child. -Katie D. | In the reading from Catherine Scholten, it was interesting to me how during the colonial period pregnant women were commonly thought of as "breeding" and "teeming", though theologians attributed dignity to carrying the "living soul" of a child. -Katie D. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I agree with Katie D. the vocabulary used to explain a pregnant women is very interesting, as is the way theologians viewed women's pregnancies. I just wonder if this "living soul" ideology was prevelant through the colonies at this time or not because it seems to go against the theological ideas that women were suppose to suffer in childbirth because they were tainted with original sin. I just wonder if they believed women were the cause of sin and evil and therefore suffered in child birth, why would they choose to say then say women were the carriers of a "living soul" and were "blessed among women"? Doesn't this idea seem a little off and contradictory? --Katelynn V. | ||
| + | |||
| + | In Catherine Scholten's account of the change that took place in childbirth procedures I had a question occur to me. While obviously the new medical science allowed doctors to help reduce the pain and risk of childbirth, why did they not let women train in this new medically accepted field? I understand that men thought that women wouldn't be able to understand all the technical terms and the sciences that the training would occur, but at the same time, women had been delivering the children through midwifery long before men came into the field. Wouldn't it have made more sense to simply train the women who already knew a great deal about birthing in the new sciences so that the woman giving birth would still be comfortable and the death rates in birth would go down?- Elizabeth Frank | ||
| + | |||
| + | I agree with Elizabeth, while I understand that men thought women perhaps were not as capable to understand the science of it, I found it crazy that they had to do almost everything blindly because women were nervous about the male doctors seeing their privates. Another thing that struck me was that while this showed the intrusion of men in the womens sphere (I believe it proves the mens of that time superiority complex) it also showed some progress. Men saw it as their duty to protect women through child brith and "... women could now reasonably look to men for safety in the "perilous conditions" of childbirth." -- Emily Miller | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | I still find it very odd that women were able to be convinced that men--who had no experience with women's bodies or the childbearing process--were their superiors when it came to childbirth. Furthermore, because midwives first started calling doctors for difficult births, I wonder how that changed doctors' perceptions of childbirth. Did it cause male doctors to think childbirth was more dangerous than it really was, leading to some of the 19th century emphasis on not wearing out a woman's body? Why did the change to male doctors seem to coincide with an increased emphasis on smaller families and reserving energy and resources? I find Scholten's report on NY laws requiring midwives not to discuss their business and women's bodies in front of men (except in emergencies) very interesting. It makes me wonder how much male doctors lost out on, because midwives wouldn't discuss it in front of them. It also makes me wonder how female midwives became desperate and concerned enough about science that they were willing to bring in male doctors, when the feelings against talking about childbearing in front of men were so strong--A. Meyer | ||
| + | |||
| + | Andrea's comments are really thought provoking. I wonder if even though men pushed women out of midwifery perhaps some women benefited by having men more involved in childbirth. The men would see how painful and dangerous it was first hand and maybe encourage birth control to help women. As midwives' voices were not heard as much as medical doctors. However, there are also obvious issues with women's loss of knowledge about their own bodies and how to deal with pregnancy. -Julie Castanien | ||
| + | |||
| + | I agree, Andrea. I found myself getting annoyed that women seemed to be so easily convinced that men had such a better knowledge of childbearing and child birth than midwives. It seems to me that women would have placed more trust into the hands of someone who had actually gone through the experience. I think the questions you raise are definitely valid, and I found myself thinking about some of the same things as I was reading.--Kaitlyn G. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I agree with both Andrea and Kaitlyn. However, I wonder how this change came about. How did the doctors convince women that they were better, or more skilled in the ways of childbirth than a midwife who'd been helping deliver children her whole life? Where their pamphlets and articles that were circulated to help make this switch? How was is that these elite women placed so much faith in these doctors who couldn't even look and see what they were doing. By not seeing what they were doing couldn't they do more harm than good? ---Katelynn V. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I think that what might have aided womens acceptance of the shift to men physicians instead of midwifes may have just been as simple as they were the ones with medical training. Plus they were men and supposedly had more reason than women. Also it wasn't an immediate switch to men, it was more gradual. At first, the men worked with the midwives or were only called in emergencies. Then it was because they were able to ease the pain and had the tools to help pull out the child. The fact that many medical schools devoted at least one professor to solely focus on midwifery speaks to societies view of the necessity of proper training and the male focus of all things medical. --Alex K. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Remember that what is going on here is the professionalizing of medicine. Doctors were also waging an active propaganda campaign about how their training made them better than untrained women and men. [Also remember the limitation of Scholten's study. It's focused on the urban areas, especially in the Northeast. Midwives continue to be very important through the early 20th Century.--JM''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | While I understand that it can be seen that men usurped women's place in the birthing room, I agree with Alex. These men were trained. At this time women doctors were virtually unheard of, as far as I know anyway, but these men had the tools and the training necessary to potentially save both the mother and her child. They were called in cases of emergency, when whatever it was that the midwife was doing just wasnt working. I have never given birth but I would like to think that in that situation I would call whoever I could think of, do anything, that could by some miracle help save my life or the life of my child.--Mary P. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I think that there was so much guessing and mysticism in the practices of giving birth in both efforts of doctors and midwifes. I would imagine that their training for these professions highlighted different things, which would create a totally different experience for women giving birth. | ||
| + | --Kelly Martin | ||
| + | |||
| + | Two things really stuck out to me when I was reading about the childbirth differences in the post Revolution era. Since the birthing process itself changed did the after birth process change? Did women have as much time, more, or less time to recooperate? As soon as the baby was born did women take on the role of caring for the woman, nursing, etc. or did the care of the baby continue with the doctor? Another question I had was regard to the change from birth being a pain women had to endure thanks to Eve to something to be uplifted, how did this happen? Was there a shift in religious beliefs or new interpretations of Eve and childbirth that emerged at the time that would lend itself to explaining this shift? I'm not sure of the religious and social context but maybe someone could lend some light on the idea. -- Mary Beth D. | ||
| + | |||
| + | In the excerpt from Susanna Rowson’s: “Charlotte. A Tale of Truth” she writes about the tragic story of a young girl who leaves her family and friends behind for an Army Lieutenant she falls in love with. In the preface Rowson explains that she wrote the novel to warn parents about what could happen to their daughters as well as for young women who could find themselves in a situation similar to Charlottes. I really enjoyed reading this piece because even though Rowson wrote it in 1794 I found it easy to relate to the dilemma Charlotte was having over wanting to please her parents but at the same time trying to follow her heart. It is interesting to see that women today still feel many of the same pressures Charlotte felt in the 1790s. For instance many women are still concerned about choosing a husband who is accepted by their friends and family and it can split families apart when a woman defies her parents and marries someone who they find unsuitable. Many men today are also careful about respecting the wishes of their future in-laws by asking her father for permission to marry.--Caitlin Quinn | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | In regards to "Charlotte. A Tale of Truth", the preface says it's somewhat based on a true story. Despite its romanticized points, it makes me wonder if it was a common occurrence for men to take women to the colonies against their will. Also, if they did come here and were unhappy, why couldn't they write back to their fathers and tell them they were virtually kidnapped? I know my daddy would fork up any amount to get me back home. Seeing Charlotte's father's undying love for her, I'm sure he would have done the same.- Lisa Wilkerson | ||
| + | |||
| + | Telling your family wouldn't be an option because of the disgrace associated with running off with a man, whether voluntary or not. Today we think differently but a woman would have been ruined by this situation. - Allison Johnson | ||
| + | |||
| + | Maybe Charlotte was ashamed of abandoning and having disappointed her family and felt she could not reach out for their help. Or maybe she felt it was her duty to her now husband to obey him or at least stay with him. Also, Rowson writes, "Sometimes, indeed, he (Charlottes husband) would steal out at the close of evening, and pass a few hours with her; and then so much was she attached to him, that all her sorrows were forgotten while blest with his society." So even though was usually miserable, her intense love for him kept pulling her back to him. --Alex | ||
| + | |||
| + | I also found "Charlotte. A Tale of Truth" interesting but what I found most interesting was the image that was shown of the Army Lieutenant. Susanna Rowson writes his character as a less than wonderful man, after all Charlotte told him she wouldn't go with him because of her duty to her parents but he picked her up and took her anyway, at this point it seemed to be against her will. And once in America he left her alone the majority of the time and in the end instead of dying in the arms of her "love" she died in the arms of her dad (which was still very touching). Was Susanna warning girls against dishonoring her parents or keeping an eye out for men who would tell them what they wanted to hear in order to achieve their goals? - Elizabeth Frank | ||
| + | |||
| + | To me this story does not seem at all realistic. Would it have affected young women of that time differently? Would they actually have learned a lesson from it or would it have been adored by the parents and ignored by the young ladies, much as it probably would be today. -- Allison Johnson | ||
| + | |||
| + | In my history of the book seminar, we were required to read Charlotte Temple in its entirety. I really enjoyed reading the book then, and i liked rereading a couple of chapters for this weeks reading. The story itself, as other have suggested revolves around Charolette who is torn between love and duty to both her parents and her supposed lover. What is really interesting about the novel is that there are places where the author, a female author at that, speaks directly to the reader and either explains or apologizes for the actions of the characters or warns the reader away from what she sees as dangerous to young women. What is also very interesting is that this book was the first "bestseller" in the unites states. What does the books subject and popularity tell us about the readers and society during the late 18th century? ---Katelynn V. | ||
| + | |||
| + | "Charlotte. A Tale of Truth" was a very touching piece. I found it interesting that the idea of not wanting to disappoint her father mattered greatly to Charlotte. As she was dying, all Charlotte wanted was to see her father one last time and receive his blessing. It almost seems to reemphasize the beloved American concept of "Daddy's little girl." --E.Hufford | ||
| + | |||
| + | That was also how I felt with this piece. But let's not get caught up with this story that I feel has been extremely romanticized to make a point to the people reading it. This was for young women not to go astray, and to obvioulsy make it clear that a father's decision and opinion was extremely important and crucial. - Talya Halpern. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I was very taken with the story about Charlotte. I feel pretty certain that Rowson wrote this story to discourage young women to give into passions of love. I thought the way she depicted Montraville, fit the descriptions of a seducer to a tee. Charlotte’s act of giving her baby to her father and then dying in his arms was a dramatic way to drive home the message that young women should listen to their parents’ advice. ---Cheryl | ||
| + | |||
| + | I think another aspect of "Charlotte A Tale of Truth" is that it was probably a response to the fact that girls could now make decisions about who they chose to marry. Their marriages were no longer arranged or forced to as great of an extent as they used to be so I'm led to believe that this piece was possibly a response to the idea that children, especially daughters, should still take their parents' advice when it comes to matters of the heart. Marriage is a big decision and parents only want the best for their children, be that economic gain or just to make sure they're with someone that will truly love them. - Kelly Wuyscik | ||
| + | |||
| + | I thought Rowson's piece reflected the different stereotypes attributed to women during this time. There was Charlotte, the helpless rich girl who is indecisive and weak; the promiscuous Mademoiselle, and the wise Madame Du Pont trying to steer Charlotte in the right direction. Furthermore, Rowson didn't believe these characters could change. Mademoiselle was bad in the beginning and bad in the end, Charlotte was always helpless. -F. Cobb | ||
| + | |||
| + | So while reading Scholten's piece, I decided that had I lived during that time, I strongly doubt I would have had children. Childbirth is hard enough today with the pain and anxiety surrounding it. Add the thought of dying and the need to be spiritually prepared as John Oliver so kindly pointed out in his "A Present for Teeming Women," and there is no doubt many women today would probably have been scared out of childbearing (myself included). -- E. Hufford | ||
| + | |||
| + | I totally agree. The examples and excerpts from literature given to pregnant women of the day were a bit much. Especially those from A Present for Teeming American Women, like you said. The comparison of a warm chamber to a grave was a little too freaky, but I suppose that was sort of the point.--Kaitlyn G. | ||
| + | |||
| + | In response to E. Hufford, I was thinking that childbirth would be difficult, but the only certain way to avoid pregancy would be to remain unmarried. With the limited opportunities available to women, I think many women would rather risk childbirth than a poor spinsterhood. What kind of social stigma was attached to women who chose to remain unmarried or those who were unable to have children?-- Ashley H. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I was a little confused by Murray's piece, "The Story of Margaretta." Apparently Murray wrote the series under the name of Mr. Vigillius. Therefore, she is pretending to be a man writing about the education of a woman, though she really is a woman. Why would she use the pen name? What it because she wanted to be taken seriously? - F. Cobb | ||
| + | |||
| + | Murray probably thought that using a pen name gave her more credibility. Murray might have assumed that if she wrote as a woman her views would be brushed aside. --Kelly Martin | ||
| + | |||
| + | I agree with Kelly and I would also like to add that there may have been a negative stereotype of women who write during this period. I also found the comments F. Cobb made about the pen name she choose was interesting. For some reason I didn't notice that when I was reading. Maybe Murray wanted the story to be more realistic by claiming the characters were real. -Julie Castanien | ||
| + | |||
| + | The question I had in my head while reading Scholten's article was, "why didn't women want men in there?" The article mentions prejudice as the cause, which seems ridiculously simple but obvious. Its interesting for me to see how the interpretation of the Bible seemed to follow the presence of male midwifery. Maybe its just the organization of the article, but does suggest that in America, social change precedes and causes a change in religion? Is this a common trend? The very fact that men are actually entering the profession of midwifery seems to be the flat reason for it being accepted. The need for professionals in times of emergencies ultimately gave way to just a general need when people realized that these people knew what they were doing (relatively) and that their tools wouldn't actually harm the child. On a different topic, I found this quote from Murray really interesting: "Her person, the symmetry of her features, the rose and lily of her complexion....these are the endowments of nature --while the artificial accomplishments with which she is invested...confer upon her no real or intrinsic merit." pg 137. Maybe I'm misreading that, but is that say her looks are more 'valuable' than the 'artificial' accomplishments of character? | ||
| + | -Christopher Plummer | ||
| + | |||
| + | I also really enjoyed reading Rowson's story about Charlotte. I think it is interesting how things that were written about back then can still be things we are dealing with today. Like when she talked about how women liked a man in uniform : "A man of an indifferent appearance, will, when arrayed in a military habit, shew to advantage..."(194) and the fact that even though Charlotte wanted to do the right thing she let her "boyfriend" talk her into something she did not want to. That is something that young women today still deal with. ~~Mary Beth Conrad | ||
| + | |||
| + | I agree with the opinions posted before on Scholten's article. From our lectures in class, I find it odd that men would want to exert dominance over birth. With the establishment of the concept of motherhood, this reversal seems odd. Perhaps in concerns of medical science, though, a woman could not be allowed to have that knowledge. This idea makes me wonder at what point does one gender role win out above others; what is the most important gendered difference of the period. --Robert Kopp | ||
| + | |||
| + | In response to F. Cobb's comment about Murray using a man's name in her writings, she probably did that so that her writings would actually get published. Also, at that time, if people saw that something was written by a woman, people, specifically men, would probably not take her or her writings seriously. ~Katherine Stinson~ | ||
