Difference between revisions of "Week 1 Questions/Comments-327 11"
From McClurken Wiki
(→Alexander) |
|||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
I found many things in the first essay, by Kate Haulman, to be very interesting. I had never before questioned or even considered the definition of “woman” or “female”. On page four when she comments on Lerner’s suggestion of assessing male and female cultures at the intersection of said cultures. She says the approach of “add women and stir” would keep women marginalized from history rather than part of the whole. Haulman also touches upon the fact that one woman does not represent the whole. When including women in the study of history we must take into account factors such as race, religion, income, etc. On page five, Haulman makes a very interesting reference to an essay by Joan Wallach Scott in which she calls for “…the consideration of “woman”, “female”, and “feminine” as concepts shaped by the societies in which they existed, rather than static realities.” I found this reference to be very interesting as well as completely true. --Emma C. | I found many things in the first essay, by Kate Haulman, to be very interesting. I had never before questioned or even considered the definition of “woman” or “female”. On page four when she comments on Lerner’s suggestion of assessing male and female cultures at the intersection of said cultures. She says the approach of “add women and stir” would keep women marginalized from history rather than part of the whole. Haulman also touches upon the fact that one woman does not represent the whole. When including women in the study of history we must take into account factors such as race, religion, income, etc. On page five, Haulman makes a very interesting reference to an essay by Joan Wallach Scott in which she calls for “…the consideration of “woman”, “female”, and “feminine” as concepts shaped by the societies in which they existed, rather than static realities.” I found this reference to be very interesting as well as completely true. --Emma C. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The essay by Haulman struck me as a timeline of sorts, wherein she details the progression of approaches towards women’s history in America. She lays out an evolution from a focus on “noteworthy women” to the lives of the supposedly average woman and finally to “Gender Studies” where the specification is that it is no longer a women’s only area of study. I may be oversimplifying, but this progression sounds a great deal like the evolution of the study of human history in general. Some of the earliest works of history where on notable figures, such as saints and rulers, and then ventured into the study of individuals and further into a study of how “humanity” is even defined. Like I said, that is a simplified example, but as I was reading the comparison kept reoccurring to me and seemed worthy of a public comment. -- Cammy C. | ||
