Difference between revisions of "328--Week 6 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
Yet again I found the readings in Modern American Women absolutely fascinating! I enjoyed reading how many different ways the suffrage movement was promoted and with what ideas, as well with ideas that the anti-suffragists would use (although that came through a satire). Perhaps one of my favorites of these readings was the first one, "A Western Suffragist Talks to her Eastern Sisters" by Abigail Scott Duniway. It said in the introduction that the East coast suffragists saw her as more radical than they wished to be but I don't understand what was so radical about the ideas expressed in the piece we read (this may simply be due to the time period difference). I would have thought that her arguments that the movement was not a war between the genders but a movement for interdependence and that women did not want to remove men from their rights or limit them, but simply wanted to gain the ability to chose their own rights would have been comforting to those men who felt that the movement was a threat to their power. The "Anti-Suffrage Monologue" as also very interesting, at the same time irritating because I am aware that there were women who did actually hold these beliefs. However I do wonder if they would have phrased them in this way or it the arguments were exaggerated in this piece due to its satirical nature. Lastly, I also found the rules contained in "Front Door Lobbying' for Suffrage' by Maud Wood Park to be extremely interesting because it demonstrates the desire of women to gain suffrage while still being viewed as lady-like and proper. I found every single one of these readings interesting but it was those three that stood out to me the most.-Elizabeth Frank | Yet again I found the readings in Modern American Women absolutely fascinating! I enjoyed reading how many different ways the suffrage movement was promoted and with what ideas, as well with ideas that the anti-suffragists would use (although that came through a satire). Perhaps one of my favorites of these readings was the first one, "A Western Suffragist Talks to her Eastern Sisters" by Abigail Scott Duniway. It said in the introduction that the East coast suffragists saw her as more radical than they wished to be but I don't understand what was so radical about the ideas expressed in the piece we read (this may simply be due to the time period difference). I would have thought that her arguments that the movement was not a war between the genders but a movement for interdependence and that women did not want to remove men from their rights or limit them, but simply wanted to gain the ability to chose their own rights would have been comforting to those men who felt that the movement was a threat to their power. The "Anti-Suffrage Monologue" as also very interesting, at the same time irritating because I am aware that there were women who did actually hold these beliefs. However I do wonder if they would have phrased them in this way or it the arguments were exaggerated in this piece due to its satirical nature. Lastly, I also found the rules contained in "Front Door Lobbying' for Suffrage' by Maud Wood Park to be extremely interesting because it demonstrates the desire of women to gain suffrage while still being viewed as lady-like and proper. I found every single one of these readings interesting but it was those three that stood out to me the most.-Elizabeth Frank | ||
| + | |||
| + | I found Marie Jenny Howe's An Anti-Suffrage Monologue very interesting. Her 5th anti-suffrage couplet I found to be very funny and some what accurate. She stated "women can not band together. They are incapable of organization. No two women can even be friends. Women are cats." The fact that I am a girl I really see this. Throughout our lives we deal with our friends stabbing us in the back and someone gossiping about the other. Especially as I have gotten older women have become a lot more brutal. I do find this to be an issue in social settings and political settings. However since there was and is still a belief, why do women accomplish so much when its more then one person fighting for the same goal? Is it because we are still male dominated and we have them to regulate women's organizations? -- Amanda Taub | ||
| + | |||
| + | In the Abigail Scott Duniway piece she made a point that I believe is dead on. "She said A home w/o a man in it is only half a home. A government w/o a women is only half a government. A man w/o a women is only one-half of a pair... a women w/o a man is like the other half..." What I don't understand is how men of this time period don't understand that if they did not have women in the home there wouldn't be a home. Everything she does for him wouldn't get done, and god forbid he does anything for himself when he gets home. Relating this document to Howe, she says women are there to wash the dishes and if the mistress of the house doesn't do it she hires someone. A man washing the dishes would be "blasphemy." Even before the 1900s I find it funny that men don't realize women do dictate their lives, women were influencing their husbands political activity. Women have a way of manipulating men to think they had the brilliant idea when really it was the women's decision all along. So in reality if women just stopped standing by their men then a large a majority of the American male population would probably be helpless. -- Amanda Taub | ||
| + | |||
| + | In MP the Inez Haynes piece I found to be extremely inspiring. These women speak to two senators and they honestly tell these women your bill is not coming up today. Then you have Wilson saying I am in sympathy with you, a nice little white lie and the suffragists saying ha I will believe it when I see it. I really like this piece because they weren't naive about what was really going on. But what really gets me is that these two senators did not lie to the women they were honestly like no not happening, then you have the President pretty much lying. I find that comical because it really shows who Wilson really is. But my question is why would he lie to these women? I don't understand how he could not think this was not an important issue and that when its time for re-election his presidency is in their hands. So my question is why would he lie to these women? -- Amanda Taub | ||
