Difference between revisions of "328--Week 1 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
| Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
I found Bock’s discussion of equality vs. difference really interesting. She wonders why it is that “difference” is attributed to women and “equality” to men. Which makes me wonder if establishing equality in history is the main goal of women’s history, does making it a “different” field facilitate this or just reinforce dichotomies? When the women suffragists were fighting for the right to vote they weren’t voting for a “woman’s” vote they were just looking for the right to vote. I think there are the same inherent problems that we found with segregation and the “separate but equal” philosophy. -karly kovalcik | I found Bock’s discussion of equality vs. difference really interesting. She wonders why it is that “difference” is attributed to women and “equality” to men. Which makes me wonder if establishing equality in history is the main goal of women’s history, does making it a “different” field facilitate this or just reinforce dichotomies? When the women suffragists were fighting for the right to vote they weren’t voting for a “woman’s” vote they were just looking for the right to vote. I think there are the same inherent problems that we found with segregation and the “separate but equal” philosophy. -karly kovalcik | ||
| + | |||
| + | One question posed by Bock's essay that really stood out for me was the use of the words "equality" and "justice" when applied to separate genders. It was interesting that for men, these two words complement each other but for women, they are in opposition. The focus seems to be on their context in comparing history and then gender-focused history. In the traditional sense of history with a "male" focus, equality and justice are words with a positive focus, as words that have translated into positive action. When history is focused on women, equality and justice become negative, words that have been almost unachievable goals in that context. To me, it seems like it comes back to whether we are unwilling to look at history that shows us in an unfavorable light, just like the question with looking at racial minorities' history in America. --Kendall Haring | ||
| + | |||
| + | I never stopped to consider how feminism and women's history seems so focused on white middle-class women until I read Castaneda and Alexander's essays. There seems to be little representation of minority women when talking about American women's history. It seems like a race issue but is it more the case of white American women keeping minorities and race issues away from feminism or is it, as Alexander claims, that women, especially black women, are less concerned with their gender and more with race issues in history? --Kendall Haring | ||
