Difference between revisions of "Week 1 Questions/Comments-327 09"
From McClurken Wiki
(→Comments that compare or contrast readings) |
|||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
I believe that two major themes rang throughout all four essays: women's history thought in male terms and cultural differences affecting the gender experience. The examination of Women's Studies prior to the 1970's was thought of in male equivalent terms. An example that Kate Haulman uses in her essay Defining ''"American Women's History"'' is that "worthy" women's history was that of "exceptional" women such as Eleanor Roosevelt or Marie Curie, and that "ordinary" women did not have any historical value. This opinion is further expressed in ''Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History'' "Historical scholarship was far from 'objective' or 'universal'" Gisela Bock argued, "because it was based on the male experience." It is refreshing to know that present day studies in Women's history are based in egalitarian terms between the genders (for the most part at least). The second theme that I found throughout the essays was the attention to the gender experience. Haulman, Castaneda and Alexander agreed that women are not just inherently female; their gender does not wholly define them. Their gender experience is directly influenced by their personal culture and their ethnicity. I agree with this theme because cultural gender interactions are not cookie cutter examples. A woman, or any person for that matter, can not be solely defined by their biological or social gender, we are a collection of personal experience, growth, and culture. - Caryn Levine | I believe that two major themes rang throughout all four essays: women's history thought in male terms and cultural differences affecting the gender experience. The examination of Women's Studies prior to the 1970's was thought of in male equivalent terms. An example that Kate Haulman uses in her essay Defining ''"American Women's History"'' is that "worthy" women's history was that of "exceptional" women such as Eleanor Roosevelt or Marie Curie, and that "ordinary" women did not have any historical value. This opinion is further expressed in ''Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History'' "Historical scholarship was far from 'objective' or 'universal'" Gisela Bock argued, "because it was based on the male experience." It is refreshing to know that present day studies in Women's history are based in egalitarian terms between the genders (for the most part at least). The second theme that I found throughout the essays was the attention to the gender experience. Haulman, Castaneda and Alexander agreed that women are not just inherently female; their gender does not wholly define them. Their gender experience is directly influenced by their personal culture and their ethnicity. I agree with this theme because cultural gender interactions are not cookie cutter examples. A woman, or any person for that matter, can not be solely defined by their biological or social gender, we are a collection of personal experience, growth, and culture. - Caryn Levine | ||
| + | |||
| + | I really agree with Caryn's statement. At first, I found it difficult to grasp the concept articulated in many of the essays that identity, whether it be gender identity, class and social standing, occupation, or even simply your identity as an "American", is created rather than fixed, preexisting, and unchanging. I think this really places an immense amount of power in the hands of the respective individual. The idea that an individual has the power to essentially take control of their own lives and influence the direction in which their lives are headed is an idea that has enormous ramifications, with the potential to be both positive and negative. I think Leslie Alexander's essay really enforces Caryn's final point that women cannot be simply or soley defined but are a collection of different experiences. Alexander's conclusion, that the field of women's history must not be afraid to grapple with differences among women and diversity in order to fully understand women's experiences, I think is our challenge as the future of historians and scholars. - Allison Godart | ||
== Kate Haulman, Defining "American Women's History" == | == Kate Haulman, Defining "American Women's History" == | ||
