Difference between revisions of "328--Week 6 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
In the Abigail Scott Duniway piece she made a point that I believe is dead on. "She said A home w/o a man in it is only half a home. A government w/o a women is only half a government. A man w/o a women is only one-half of a pair... a women w/o a man is like the other half..." What I don't understand is how men of this time period don't understand that if they did not have women in the home there wouldn't be a home. Everything she does for him wouldn't get done, and god forbid he does anything for himself when he gets home. Relating this document to Howe, she says women are there to wash the dishes and if the mistress of the house doesn't do it she hires someone. A man washing the dishes would be "blasphemy." Even before the 1900s I find it funny that men don't realize women do dictate their lives, women were influencing their husbands political activity. Women have a way of manipulating men to think they had the brilliant idea when really it was the women's decision all along. So in reality if women just stopped standing by their men then a large a majority of the American male population would probably be helpless. -- Amanda Taub | In the Abigail Scott Duniway piece she made a point that I believe is dead on. "She said A home w/o a man in it is only half a home. A government w/o a women is only half a government. A man w/o a women is only one-half of a pair... a women w/o a man is like the other half..." What I don't understand is how men of this time period don't understand that if they did not have women in the home there wouldn't be a home. Everything she does for him wouldn't get done, and god forbid he does anything for himself when he gets home. Relating this document to Howe, she says women are there to wash the dishes and if the mistress of the house doesn't do it she hires someone. A man washing the dishes would be "blasphemy." Even before the 1900s I find it funny that men don't realize women do dictate their lives, women were influencing their husbands political activity. Women have a way of manipulating men to think they had the brilliant idea when really it was the women's decision all along. So in reality if women just stopped standing by their men then a large a majority of the American male population would probably be helpless. -- Amanda Taub | ||
| + | |||
| + | I agree with you to an extent, Amanda. You're right when you say that women influenced their husbands' political activity, but if you think about the reasons men were afraid to let women vote, one of them dealt with the fear that women would vote exactly like their husbands and without their own agenda. In reality, these women wanted the vote so that they could help themselves. I don't think most of them wanted to vote the same way as the men in their lives did. But your right; women did have (and still do) have a major impact on the way men acted politically. -- Kelly Wuyscik | ||
I agree with Amanda, and I was really struck by the comment "A home without a man in it is only half a home. A government without a woman is only half a government..." But I think the fact that men didn't really understand demonstrates the double standard at that time. It seems that they thought that yes, a home without a man is only half a home, but they only thought that women should stay in their "domestic sphere" and should not enter the public sphere. The double standard is that men have to be in the home or it would only be half of a home, but women's place is only in the home. In this same article, I was also struck by her comments on the "evolution" of homemaking and her discussion of how more was being done in factories. She also discusses how more girls will work more in the factories through this process of evolution. I thought that these comments were a little brave, because isn't that what men were fearing? That women would leave the home and enter the workforce? But then, she reconciles it a little by saying that the younger girls will go to work so that the mothers can stay home... --Katie Nelson | I agree with Amanda, and I was really struck by the comment "A home without a man in it is only half a home. A government without a woman is only half a government..." But I think the fact that men didn't really understand demonstrates the double standard at that time. It seems that they thought that yes, a home without a man is only half a home, but they only thought that women should stay in their "domestic sphere" and should not enter the public sphere. The double standard is that men have to be in the home or it would only be half of a home, but women's place is only in the home. In this same article, I was also struck by her comments on the "evolution" of homemaking and her discussion of how more was being done in factories. She also discusses how more girls will work more in the factories through this process of evolution. I thought that these comments were a little brave, because isn't that what men were fearing? That women would leave the home and enter the workforce? But then, she reconciles it a little by saying that the younger girls will go to work so that the mothers can stay home... --Katie Nelson | ||
