Difference between revisions of "Week 1 Questions/Comments-327 11"
From McClurken Wiki
(→Alexander) |
(→Kate Haulman) |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
The dichotomy of sex vs. gender is one that fascinates me, because--like many of the dichotomies/questions Haulman mentions--it applies equally to men and to women. Women's or domestic spheres have increasingly been addressed, if not taught, in history classes in middle and high school. However, the way in which gender roles affected not only women but men ("If a 'man' knits is he still a 'man'? And is knitting still 'woman's' work?"[p.5]), and the way in which women's history has, historically, been almost entirely the history of upper-class white women, are both significant issues that I have never before considered. I'm embarrassed for an American Women's History class I took in high school, which focused on middle- to upper-class white women in the United States of America, with no mention of precolonial women at all. At the time, that seemed logical to me; however, seeing how many preconceptions and assumptions went into that, (all women represented by white upper-class women; America as synonymous with the US; gender and sex as equivalent in terms of social roles, etc.) it occurs to me that in fact that class covered the much narrower scope of "Great actions of a few white, biologically female, Anglophone United States citizens/residents." And that sounds like a significantly less interesting class. --Nicole Steck | The dichotomy of sex vs. gender is one that fascinates me, because--like many of the dichotomies/questions Haulman mentions--it applies equally to men and to women. Women's or domestic spheres have increasingly been addressed, if not taught, in history classes in middle and high school. However, the way in which gender roles affected not only women but men ("If a 'man' knits is he still a 'man'? And is knitting still 'woman's' work?"[p.5]), and the way in which women's history has, historically, been almost entirely the history of upper-class white women, are both significant issues that I have never before considered. I'm embarrassed for an American Women's History class I took in high school, which focused on middle- to upper-class white women in the United States of America, with no mention of precolonial women at all. At the time, that seemed logical to me; however, seeing how many preconceptions and assumptions went into that, (all women represented by white upper-class women; America as synonymous with the US; gender and sex as equivalent in terms of social roles, etc.) it occurs to me that in fact that class covered the much narrower scope of "Great actions of a few white, biologically female, Anglophone United States citizens/residents." And that sounds like a significantly less interesting class. --Nicole Steck | ||
| + | |||
| + | "Add women and stir". This is probably one of the most interesting lines in all of Haulman's essay. It sums up her idea that when scholars first began to pay more attention to women's contributions and achievements in history, they only focused on noteworthy women who had done something outside of the norm and in the realm of the male word. The accomplishments of a few, exceptional, white, middle/upper-class, women were the only representation of women we saw in history. There was little to no significance given to the everyday lives of women at all. However now, with the idea of gender studies scholar have begun "to consider 'man' or 'male' as a topic of inquiry, not the assumed and moral standard against which all other form of identity were measured"(p.5) To me, this is an idea that is not really ever addressed. We can easily say that there are many women of the past who we now hold is high esteem, but Haulman is quite right to point out that most of the notable women of the past are notable because they were either connected to a powerful man (like Abigail Adams), they did something during a significant time period (Clara Barton and the Civil War), or because they accomplished something in an area usually reserved for men ( Nobel Prize winner Marie Curie for physics). This idea of placing women in a "separate sphere" will, I think, do much for the study of women's history because it will allow more for the appreciation of the average women in her everyday life. -- Grace Christenson | ||
== Gisela Bock, "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" == | == Gisela Bock, "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" == | ||
