Difference between revisions of "328 2010--Week 1 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Yeah, me too! | Yeah, me too! | ||
| + | |||
| + | So apparently I'm the first to comment, yay. In "Defining "American Women's History" I really liked the concept on page 6 that "if gender is created rather than assumed... then so too is race, ethinicity, health, age, work, social status, sexuality, and so on." I found it interesting to think about Women's history in that sense especially when correlated with the later readings on black women in the United States and their association with both (what is considered to be) an "inferior" race AND gender and how that affects them. --SSellers | ||
| + | |||
| + | It also seems like a Catch-22 to be in this course now. Learning about Women's history separate from "men's" history empowers the women by allowing them to be a distinct categorization, but also segregates Women's history and makes it seemingly inferior to Men's history. I have no idea where to stand on the separation... --SSellers | ||
