Difference between revisions of "328 2010--Week 1 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
| Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
I find the discussion thus far fascinating in that there seems to be a consensus that there is such a thing as a separate/distinct/different history of women in opposition to the heavily male-centric histories that have become so entrenched as to be not so much history but heritage. There seemed to be an undercurrent of "rescuing from undeserved obscurity" throughout the readings as well as many of the entries here, and while that is an admirable goal, but it seems to me that many historians, not only those who focus on feminist history but other minority segments of the population as well, assign agency with a very liberal hand. The focus on the "ordinary woman/man," I think, is helpful in tracing larger societal and cultural trends that in turn influence the larger politically-driven histories that seem so male-centric, but I feel as though the liberal assignment of agency by many revisionist historians have actually delegitimized the achievements of figures that really have had an impact on history and wonder about the implications of that; for example, the growth of (in many times pseudo-history) African-American centered histories during the mid-late 1970s (not quite sure about the dates) that assigned agency to African Americans in outlandish ways such as asserting that the race was responsible for more or less every major event in American history. I might be making a stretch here, but I think that the creation of identity-based histories and the influence of such politics on histories are detrimental to minority segments of the population. Random thoughts--should there be such things as categories in history? Is there such a thing or are there just historians who specialize in certain aspects of history? -schang | I find the discussion thus far fascinating in that there seems to be a consensus that there is such a thing as a separate/distinct/different history of women in opposition to the heavily male-centric histories that have become so entrenched as to be not so much history but heritage. There seemed to be an undercurrent of "rescuing from undeserved obscurity" throughout the readings as well as many of the entries here, and while that is an admirable goal, but it seems to me that many historians, not only those who focus on feminist history but other minority segments of the population as well, assign agency with a very liberal hand. The focus on the "ordinary woman/man," I think, is helpful in tracing larger societal and cultural trends that in turn influence the larger politically-driven histories that seem so male-centric, but I feel as though the liberal assignment of agency by many revisionist historians have actually delegitimized the achievements of figures that really have had an impact on history and wonder about the implications of that; for example, the growth of (in many times pseudo-history) African-American centered histories during the mid-late 1970s (not quite sure about the dates) that assigned agency to African Americans in outlandish ways such as asserting that the race was responsible for more or less every major event in American history. I might be making a stretch here, but I think that the creation of identity-based histories and the influence of such politics on histories are detrimental to minority segments of the population. Random thoughts--should there be such things as categories in history? Is there such a thing or are there just historians who specialize in certain aspects of history? -schang | ||
| + | |||
| + | Goodness that's a lot to read! I thought all of the essays presented good points and I found the overlap (when dealing with race, etc within the gender) interesting, but what stuck out to me was the number of ordinary terms that the authors put in quotation marks. So much of the basic terminology we use to talk about women's history has complicated connotations and everytime someone addresses the issue they basically have to start out redefining the terms all over again. (I mean, Haulman's entire essay was concerned with this!) I'm not sure if this is a failure of language or a corruption, so to speak, of the terms, but it never fails to catch my eye. --Sarah Smethurst | ||
| + | |||
| + | Responses to student statements: | ||
| + | Towards the top history vs women's history was discussed, and later someone stated something about the genders being "equal" now (oh look, quotation marks...). Personally, I think it's interesting that the tag "women's" history needs to be used at all. Like many other disciplines in the minority, women's history is defined by opposition to the larger culture as a whole, and that's precisely why it's such an important and interesting subject--it's viewed through an alternative lens, a lesser-known perspective. | ||
| + | Christine's comment about the sources of information we study was dead on. | ||
| + | Taylor: It's not only that maternity leave is considered sick leave (is that just because both involve the hospital?) It's also that men are RARELY if ever offered or encouraged to take paternity leave... --Sarah Smethurst | ||
