Difference between revisions of "328 2010--Week 1 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Also commenting on SSellers and in agreement with Erin, just because women's history is a somewhat new classification of history, doesn't mean its "inferior." Studied, accepted history is in the eyes and pens of white, European men. What we study and learn starting in kindergarten is what they (those white men) wanted us to know about their lives and times. Studying women's history, or any other classification of history (black, native american, chinese, etc.) isn't segregating any one group. You can't learn about anything by looking at it strictly in isolation. You must take these primary sources and examine them for hidden meanings, context, perspectives, goals, etc. In this course we are not simply learning what women did, we are learning what they did in comparison to what was going on in the rest of the country and population, and what was expected previously and currently of them. (I don't know if being in the first half of this class has made me biased, but there ya go!!) - Christine Leckner | Also commenting on SSellers and in agreement with Erin, just because women's history is a somewhat new classification of history, doesn't mean its "inferior." Studied, accepted history is in the eyes and pens of white, European men. What we study and learn starting in kindergarten is what they (those white men) wanted us to know about their lives and times. Studying women's history, or any other classification of history (black, native american, chinese, etc.) isn't segregating any one group. You can't learn about anything by looking at it strictly in isolation. You must take these primary sources and examine them for hidden meanings, context, perspectives, goals, etc. In this course we are not simply learning what women did, we are learning what they did in comparison to what was going on in the rest of the country and population, and what was expected previously and currently of them. (I don't know if being in the first half of this class has made me biased, but there ya go!!) - Christine Leckner | ||
| + | |||
| + | I think that these are very interesting comments on the issue of inferiority between men's and women's history. Is men's history be superior because there is more written information, because certain historical men had larger political influence than most women did, or because of how history is taught today? I know we can't really understand women's history without looking at men's history, but couldn't the same be said for men's history? - J Rowley | ||
The debate between "equality" and "difference" in terms of women in Gisela Bock's article stood out to me as well. The groups in support of both singular approaches have valid points, but I would say that they are not mutually exclusive. The knee-jerk reaction is often that different equals inferior or bad, but I think its possible to acknowledge something as different without demeaning it. Maybe it ultimately comes down to the fact that every individual is different, so determining and highlighting some great difference women supposedly possess or some manly standard women should be aiming for seems silly in light of how varied women, and men, are. -MMackey | The debate between "equality" and "difference" in terms of women in Gisela Bock's article stood out to me as well. The groups in support of both singular approaches have valid points, but I would say that they are not mutually exclusive. The knee-jerk reaction is often that different equals inferior or bad, but I think its possible to acknowledge something as different without demeaning it. Maybe it ultimately comes down to the fact that every individual is different, so determining and highlighting some great difference women supposedly possess or some manly standard women should be aiming for seems silly in light of how varied women, and men, are. -MMackey | ||
