Difference between revisions of "328 2010--Week 9 Questions/Comments"

==Louise Mitchell Denounces the "Slave Markets" Where Domestics Are hired in New York City, 1940==

==Louise Mitchell Denounces the "Slave Markets" Where Domestics Are hired in New York City, 1940==

I found it interesting how Mitchell compared domestic servitude to a slave market.  This piece, like almost all the other primary sources, really reveal the sense of distress that many women, namely black, felt as a result of the Depression.  Women were willing to stand on streets and street corners all day in the hopes of being selected for a domestic job, which at this time were scarce.  Her piece hints at a backwards-ness for blacks because despite slavery's end after the civil war, working as domestics for primarily white families has similarities to [old] slavery.  While domestic servitude was still  one of the most common jobs for all  women, the impact of the depression hit this profession hard, hence why Mitchell writes that women spent endless hours hoping for a job.  The reality of this work is also reflected through this piece.  Domestic servitude was not an easy job and it often required hard labor, long hours and little pay.  I think the desperation of the depression reveals women's willingness to take these jobs, simply because some money was better than no money.  Mitchell makes an important distinction about race, by stating that about half of all domestics are negro and ends her piece by stating that reform needs to occur for "the most oppressed section of the working class- Negro women" (350).  Black women at this time felt the affects much harder than white women, but I think it is important to understand that most people, even whites were suffering from the effects of the depression, not just African Americans.  -abratchi

I found it interesting how Mitchell compared domestic servitude to a slave market.  This piece, like almost all the other primary sources, really reveal the sense of distress that many women, namely black, felt as a result of the Depression.  Women were willing to stand on streets and street corners all day in the hopes of being selected for a domestic job, which at this time were scarce.  Her piece hints at a backwards-ness for blacks because despite slavery's end after the civil war, working as domestics for primarily white families has similarities to [old] slavery.  While domestic servitude was still  one of the most common jobs for all  women, the impact of the depression hit this profession hard, hence why Mitchell writes that women spent endless hours hoping for a job.  The reality of this work is also reflected through this piece.  Domestic servitude was not an easy job and it often required hard labor, long hours and little pay.  I think the desperation of the depression reveals women's willingness to take these jobs, simply because some money was better than no money.  Mitchell makes an important distinction about race, by stating that about half of all domestics are negro and ends her piece by stating that reform needs to occur for "the most oppressed section of the working class- Negro women" (350).  Black women at this time felt the affects much harder than white women, but I think it is important to understand that most people, even whites were suffering from the effects of the depression, not just African Americans.  -abratchi

==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley Comments on Birth Control and the Depression, 1934==

==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley Comments on Birth Control and the Depression, 1934==

I think my favorite part of women that we have studied so far has been about the issue of birth control. I think it’s because, even as a women in the 21st century it’s something I can relate to the women of the 20th century and earlier. Birth control and the processes of staying a healthy woman have evolved over the years, but the ideals and concerns haven’t. I think it’s also very interesting to see the evolution of the methods and devices used before modern day birth control; it’s a very intriguing history. In my joy of learning about birth control, I loved this article. Some of the statics that Bromley presented were somewhat comical, such as “in 1932 there were 43 percent more births in families without any employed workers than in families with one or more full-time workers,” (338). In summary, couples who weren’t employed were having more children because they had more free time to get busy. Why couldn’t scientists just state that? Then the statistic that “rich classes who took no preventative measures were as fertile as the women of the poorer classes, colored women included,” (338).  Did white, middle-class and upper-class women really think that working class women were more fertile? Could that be a racist issue? I suspect that white middle and upper-class women thought that because the “working-class” ranked low on the social hierarchy, that couldn’t control themselves, when they really just couldn’t afford or weren’t offered birth control? Besides that Bromley cites that the “chairman of the section on Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Abdominal Surgery, listed birth control as one of the four major problems in gynecology,” (339) but then the committee refused to study about. Why? Was the subject still too taboo to speak of, even at a committee meeting about Gynecology and Obstetrics? Just like last week's article on Generational Conflicts by Bromley, she writes in a certain way to influence people, this time the doctors and committees who need to make birth control available to everyone, not just to those that can pay for it. -Morgan

I think my favorite part of women that we have studied so far has been about the issue of birth control. I think it’s because, even as a women in the 21st century it’s something I can relate to the women of the 20th century and earlier. Birth control and the processes of staying a healthy woman have evolved over the years, but the ideals and concerns haven’t. I think it’s also very interesting to see the evolution of the methods and devices used before modern day birth control; it’s a very intriguing history. In my joy of learning about birth control, I loved this article. Some of the statics that Bromley presented were somewhat comical, such as “in 1932 there were 43 percent more births in families without any employed workers than in families with one or more full-time workers,” (338). In summary, couples who weren’t employed were having more children because they had more free time to get busy. Why couldn’t scientists just state that? Then the statistic that “rich classes who took no preventative measures were as fertile as the women of the poorer classes, colored women included,” (338).  Did white, middle-class and upper-class women really think that working class women were more fertile? Could that be a racist issue? I suspect that white middle and upper-class women thought that because the “working-class” ranked low on the social hierarchy, that couldn’t control themselves, when they really just couldn’t afford or weren’t offered birth control? Besides that Bromley cites that the “chairman of the section on Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Abdominal Surgery, listed birth control as one of the four major problems in gynecology,” (339) but then the committee refused to study about. Why? Was the subject still too taboo to speak of, even at a committee meeting about Gynecology and Obstetrics? Just like last week's article on Generational Conflicts by Bromley, she writes in a certain way to influence people, this time the doctors and committees who need to make birth control available to everyone, not just to those that can pay for it. -Morgan