Difference between revisions of "328--Week 6 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
I found Marie Jenny Howe's An Anti-Suffrage Monologue very interesting. Her 5th anti-suffrage couplet I found to be very funny and some what accurate. She stated "women can not band together. They are incapable of organization. No two women can even be friends. Women are cats." The fact that I am a girl I really see this. Throughout our lives we deal with our friends stabbing us in the back and someone gossiping about the other. Especially as I have gotten older women have become a lot more brutal. I do find this to be an issue in social settings and political settings. However since there was and is still a belief, why do women accomplish so much when its more then one person fighting for the same goal? Is it because we are still male dominated and we have them to regulate women's organizations? -- Amanda Taub | I found Marie Jenny Howe's An Anti-Suffrage Monologue very interesting. Her 5th anti-suffrage couplet I found to be very funny and some what accurate. She stated "women can not band together. They are incapable of organization. No two women can even be friends. Women are cats." The fact that I am a girl I really see this. Throughout our lives we deal with our friends stabbing us in the back and someone gossiping about the other. Especially as I have gotten older women have become a lot more brutal. I do find this to be an issue in social settings and political settings. However since there was and is still a belief, why do women accomplish so much when its more then one person fighting for the same goal? Is it because we are still male dominated and we have them to regulate women's organizations? -- Amanda Taub | ||
| + | |||
| + | I'm not sure if I agree with Amanda's sentiment of "funny" when referring to Howe's "An Anti-Suffrage Monologue." In one passage she states, "Enfranchisement is what makes man man. Disfranchisement is what makes woman woman. If women were enfranchised every man would be just like every woman and every woman would be just like every man. There would be no difference between them. and don't you think this would rob life of just a little of its poetry and romance?" What romance novel was this lady reading! She also goes on to characterize the women that participate in the suffrage movement by saying, "Observe their inability, their mental disability, their spiritual instability and general debility!" Are these the characteristics of only the women seeking their rights or of all women? It appears that this women can make a claim to the characteristics depicted in Amanda's post because she has obviously exhibited this behavior in her writing. I think the "Antis" were afraid of change;I would guess they were quite comfortable within the sanctuary of their homes, and the thought of operating outside the domestic sphere was intimidating.--LisaM | ||
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 | ||
