Difference between revisions of "426--Week 7 Questions/Comments--Tuesday"
From McClurken Wiki
(→Chapter 1) |
(→Introduction) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
I really enjoyed Whites description of how the dominant people (white men, with the "view from no where") were actually socially defined by their subordinates (ie. women, children, slaves). Along these same lines, White also talks about how white southern men defined their manhood through the institution of slavery. This immediately made me think back to our last book. I wonder, to what extent was the manhood of white Southern men defined through the norm of sexually exploiting slave women? My guess would be that the sexual exploitation of slave women was a huge part in defining the masculinity of white Southern men. -- Rebecca | I really enjoyed Whites description of how the dominant people (white men, with the "view from no where") were actually socially defined by their subordinates (ie. women, children, slaves). Along these same lines, White also talks about how white southern men defined their manhood through the institution of slavery. This immediately made me think back to our last book. I wonder, to what extent was the manhood of white Southern men defined through the norm of sexually exploiting slave women? My guess would be that the sexual exploitation of slave women was a huge part in defining the masculinity of white Southern men. -- Rebecca | ||
| + | |||
| + | What struck me about White's introduction was her discussion of men's history and how it has lergely been ignored and simply assumed to be a part of the general history. I have often wondered why historians assume that men constitute the general history and women a separate history. White's contention that men are as gendered as women is a good one and something which I believe needs to be addresses more often. --Sarah Gardner | ||
==Chapter 1== | ==Chapter 1== | ||
