Difference between revisions of "Week 1 Questions/Comments-327 09"

In both Bock(p.8) and Haulman's(p.4) piece they discuss how the history of women is not just about the oppression of women but the how the confinement to a certain sphere knitted them together and created a unique community. They were not just victims but actively shaped their own lives. What does this mean for studying women's history? How does seeing women as active in the midst of oppression and not necessarily victims change our view of them? --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 19:14, 26 August 2009 (MDT)

In both Bock(p.8) and Haulman's(p.4) piece they discuss how the history of women is not just about the oppression of women but the how the confinement to a certain sphere knitted them together and created a unique community. They were not just victims but actively shaped their own lives. What does this mean for studying women's history? How does seeing women as active in the midst of oppression and not necessarily victims change our view of them? --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 19:14, 26 August 2009 (MDT)

I believe that two major themes rang throughout all four essays: women's history thought in male terms and cultural differences affecting the gender experience. The examination of Women's Studies prior to the 1970's was thought of in male equivalent terms. An example that Kate Haulman uses in her essay Defining ''"American Women's History"'' is that "worthy" women's history was that of "exceptional" women such as Eleanor Roosevelt or Marie Curie, and that "ordinary" women did not have any historical value. This opinion is further expressed in ''Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History'' "Historical scholarship was far from 'objective' or 'universal'" Gisela Bock argued, "because it was based on the male experience." It is refreshing to know that present day studies in Women's history are based in egalitarian terms between the genders (for the most part at least). The second theme that I found throughout the essays was the attention to the gender experience. Haulman, Castaneda and Alexander agreed that women are not just inherently female; their gender does not wholly define them. Their gender experience is directly influenced by their personal culture and their ethnicity. I agree with this theme because cultural gender interactions are not cookie cutter examples. A woman, or any person for that matter, can not be solely defined by their biological or social gender, we are a collection of personal experience, growth, and culture. - Caryn Levine

I believe that two major themes rang throughout all four essays: women's history thought in male terms and cultural differences affecting the gender experience. The examination of Women's Studies prior to the 1970's was thought of in male equivalent terms. An example that Kate Haulman uses in her essay Defining ''"American Women's History"'' is that "worthy" women's history was that of "exceptional" women such as Eleanor Roosevelt or Marie Curie, and that "ordinary" women did not have any historical value. This opinion is further expressed in ''Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History'' "Historical scholarship was far from 'objective' or 'universal'" Gisela Bock argued, "because it was based on the male experience." It is refreshing to know that present day studies in Women's history are based in egalitarian terms between the genders (for the most part at least). The second theme that I found throughout the essays was the attention to the gender experience. Haulman, Castaneda and Alexander agreed that women are not just inherently female; their gender does not wholly define them. Their gender experience is directly influenced by their personal culture and their ethnicity. I agree with this theme because cultural gender interactions are not cookie cutter examples. A woman, or any person for that matter, can not be solely defined by their biological or social gender, we are a collection of personal experience, growth, and culture. - Caryn Levine