Difference between revisions of "328 2010--Week 1 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
Overall in this reading, I was interested in how each author defined women. “Definining ‘American Women’s History'” by Kate Haulman, shows how complex American Women’s History is just by looking at the separate words: “American” “Women’s” and “History.” Focusing on the “Women” aspect, Kate Haulman mainly looks at the word “women” in opposition to men and a lump category that all individuals who identify themselves as women fit into. Gisela Bock in “Challenging Dichotomies in Women’s History” looks at the word “women” in terms of the dichotomy of sex versus gender and how people identify themselves (“sex” being biological, “gender” being social). As I read Antonia Castañeda’s essay, “Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History” the definition of “women” became even more complex in very important ways because she argues that you can’t look at women as one lump category, you have to reject the idea of a common sisterhood, because such a thing does not exist. Castañeda states, “Women’s gender experiences and definitions were as divers as the cultures from which they came”. Based off of these readings it is clear that no two scholars have the same definitions, so it is important to realize that categories and definitions are dynamic, changing with time and interpretation. -- Erin Sanderson | Overall in this reading, I was interested in how each author defined women. “Definining ‘American Women’s History'” by Kate Haulman, shows how complex American Women’s History is just by looking at the separate words: “American” “Women’s” and “History.” Focusing on the “Women” aspect, Kate Haulman mainly looks at the word “women” in opposition to men and a lump category that all individuals who identify themselves as women fit into. Gisela Bock in “Challenging Dichotomies in Women’s History” looks at the word “women” in terms of the dichotomy of sex versus gender and how people identify themselves (“sex” being biological, “gender” being social). As I read Antonia Castañeda’s essay, “Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History” the definition of “women” became even more complex in very important ways because she argues that you can’t look at women as one lump category, you have to reject the idea of a common sisterhood, because such a thing does not exist. Castañeda states, “Women’s gender experiences and definitions were as divers as the cultures from which they came”. Based off of these readings it is clear that no two scholars have the same definitions, so it is important to realize that categories and definitions are dynamic, changing with time and interpretation. -- Erin Sanderson | ||
| + | |||
| + | I found the changing dynamics of women's history to be incredibly interesting. According to Kate Haulman, in the past only "notable women" were written about. Even being characterized as a "notable woman" was defined by male terms in a male dominated society. However, there was a great shift in the study of women from these notable women to the everyday woman. Even so, this study of the everyday woman was still dominated by male terms, as Gisela Bock notes. All of women's activities were judged by the male standard, which was deemed valuable. The spheres that the study of women were divided into, suck as Public vs. Private, were still male dominated. It seems that males have dominated almost every aspect of women's history. Males are the standard upon which women are judged, they decide which women are important enough to be studied, and they define all spheres of the women's lives. --Anna Holman | ||
