Difference between revisions of "Week 1 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
| Line 122: | Line 122: | ||
>Personally I think, out of all the essays, Kate Haulman’s essay really hits it on the nail. Haulman argues about Worthiness, it seems that worthiness is a measure of scholarly review. She uses the examples of Marie Curie, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Clara Barton. These Individual women were covered based on their individual merit, but do they represent all women in general? The point I’m trying to make is that worthiness is measured in a male dominated world, and it is reflected in history text books. But the error, in my opinion, is that worthiness is inclusive and is not representative of the whole population. Thus are rich white male noble elites that shaped are nation with laws and institutions a fair representation of all white males in general? My answer is no. Therefore, history in general is extremely complex as it has its range of class, race, gender, etc. And the study of women’s history has these complex issues a sort of Pandora’s Box that once open it presents a multitude of problems that Haulman points out in her essay. –John Furner | >Personally I think, out of all the essays, Kate Haulman’s essay really hits it on the nail. Haulman argues about Worthiness, it seems that worthiness is a measure of scholarly review. She uses the examples of Marie Curie, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Clara Barton. These Individual women were covered based on their individual merit, but do they represent all women in general? The point I’m trying to make is that worthiness is measured in a male dominated world, and it is reflected in history text books. But the error, in my opinion, is that worthiness is inclusive and is not representative of the whole population. Thus are rich white male noble elites that shaped are nation with laws and institutions a fair representation of all white males in general? My answer is no. Therefore, history in general is extremely complex as it has its range of class, race, gender, etc. And the study of women’s history has these complex issues a sort of Pandora’s Box that once open it presents a multitude of problems that Haulman points out in her essay. –John Furner | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | In response to Vanessa's question in the beginning I don't think one womans goals and how she plans to achieve them makes one woman better than any other. My older sister for example is paying 50,000 dollars in loans to go to grad school, however, her eventual goal in life is to be a housewife. There's nothing wrong to want to be educated but at the same time want to raise your family. Secondly, my favorite part of these articles is on page six when Haulman talks about how gender is fluid and a woman isn't just a woman but how there is so much more to her. That's how Women's History should be approached. Just don't look at a woman as a politician, see her as a mother, a daughter, a friend, a sister, a wife, and a contributer to society. Then we can get a clear idea of women from the past. | ||
