Difference between revisions of "Week 1 Questions/Comments-327 11"
From McClurken Wiki
(→Kate Haulman) |
|||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
A repeated theme in these essays was the need to move beyond a dichotomous framework for understanding women's history (women are more than just non-males, whiteness and maleness should not be considered the norm). The Castaneda essay was a little thorny for me because, while encouraging historians to seek cultural roots in precolonial norms, she refers several times to "third-world nations." Isn't this phrase in itself reinforcing a dichotomy? --Stefanie L. | A repeated theme in these essays was the need to move beyond a dichotomous framework for understanding women's history (women are more than just non-males, whiteness and maleness should not be considered the norm). The Castaneda essay was a little thorny for me because, while encouraging historians to seek cultural roots in precolonial norms, she refers several times to "third-world nations." Isn't this phrase in itself reinforcing a dichotomy? --Stefanie L. | ||
| − | + | Castenada showed me an angle to women’s history that I doubt would ever have crossed my mind otherwise. Unlike Alexander’s later essay on the similar topic of the relationship between race and gender studies, Castenada seemed to put more emphasis than I would have thought of on colonialism and the origin of races to explain why typical women’s studies was not adequate to describe the history of women of color. I understand that grasping the struggles of third worlds can help women with a related ancestry identify with their roots more than woman’s studies and its habit of being more focused on white women. However, that separation of studies reminded me of dichotomies shown in Bock’s essay that she said needed to be challenged into reconciliation of the sides, rather than allow separation. -- Cammy C. | |
