Difference between revisions of "Week 1 Questions/Comments-327 11"
From McClurken Wiki
(→Alexander) |
Ashleyv456 (Talk | contribs) (→Kate Haulman) |
||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
"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 | "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 | ||
| + | |||
| + | "Defining 'American Women's History'" was my favorite section to read in this week's assigned pages. The first thing that stuck out to me is on page 2, "Scholars initially sought out 'notable women,' or 'women worthies,' to study, exceptional individuals who nonetheless remained largely invisible within traditional histories." It is very true that women were given attention only if they were wealthy, married or related to a notable man, or made a remarkable accomplishment. A passage that also stuck out to me was when Haulman admitted that early women's history focused on white upperclass women who were from good areas. These women were supposed to be your ideal, everyday, normal female. You don't have to be a genius to know that wasn't the way life really was. My favorite part of the passage was on page six. Haulman attempted to define the term "American." She stated that many people have a different meaning of the word. Some consider it to only mean people from the United States, while others may include Mexicans or Native Americans. She made it very evident of how important it is for someone to define the term so the reader knows who exactly you are talking about. -- Ashley Valentine | ||
== Gisela Bock, "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" == | == Gisela Bock, "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" == | ||
