Difference between revisions of "328--Week 1 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
Cat Debelius (Talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
After reading "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" by Gisela Bock, I realized how much of a connection our society's conception of women has with the writing of its history: how can women's history be properly studied without first changing our perceptions of women? If the study of women's history is part of the changing of our perception of women then should we expect its study to be apolitical? --Justin Mattos | After reading "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" by Gisela Bock, I realized how much of a connection our society's conception of women has with the writing of its history: how can women's history be properly studied without first changing our perceptions of women? If the study of women's history is part of the changing of our perception of women then should we expect its study to be apolitical? --Justin Mattos | ||
| + | |||
| + | In Kate Haukman’s essay, she talks about the difficulty of studying women without examining gender history as well. If this is the case, which Bock also believed it is, then how can it be that the study of men’s history seems often less related to gender roles? - Cat Debelius | ||
| + | |||
| + | In Bock’s essay, I found particularly interesting her comment that in today’s world we still reserve the terms “working women” and “working mother” for employed women only, overlooking, even with our language, the fact that being a mother is work. I guess this just goes to show you how truly slanted society still in is valuing men’s work over women’s. - Cat Debelius | ||
| + | |||
| + | Castaneda discusses the challenges of studying women of color. When to place a person within historical perspective, is it more important to explore their race or gender first? - Cat Debelius | ||
