Week 6 Questions/Comments-327 13

Catherine Scholten, "On the Importance of the Obstetrick Art," 1977
I don’t quite understand why the change in birthing practices is associated with the creation of a new republic? Scholten doesn’t seem to make that point clear. Although, she does indicate that because the colonists were forming a new nation they had to consider what “American” institutions were going to be like and, therefore, the science of obstetric was created. –Kasey Moore

Scholten does a great job toward the end listing embarrassing or uncomfortable situations which occur in the new physician delivery. I don’t think she does a good job of explain why women would still choose a male physician over a midwife. Male physicians have forceps, but since women were being educated -to some extent in the new republic- you think they could just let them learn how to use forceps. This question becomes more interesting as Scholten describes how uncomfortable men felt when their wives had a male physician. – Kasey Moore

I had no idea that midwives were allowed to testify in court on cases dealing with parenthood or child birthing. Midwives were able to gain respect and form relationships with the women that they attended and became a good source for them. Midwifery in my opinion definitely gave women a leadership role and an importance among the community. I know the piece gives credit to science as a reason for a shift of midwifery but was it also because men saw the power it gave the women and thought it was too much? Or was it the fact that men were viewed as superior in science? –Courtney Collier

The changes between the early methods to delivering children and the later ones was quite fascinating. Prior to the 19th century apparently women gave birth to their children surrounded by female relatives, friends, and midwives which seems to be a more reassuring process. As time progressed, male midwives became more common leading to women giving birth nearly alone which though awkward and frightening may have helped them survive childbirth because they were in more sanitary conditions. -Kearsten Lehman

I think Kasey raises a good point about educating midwives. I recognize that Scholten's essay focuses on the changes in midwifery in American from 1760-1825, but I feel like she should at least acknowledge the changes that occurred in midwifery immediately after the period she studied. Scholten does not point out how acutely uncomfortable Dr. Ewell and other physicians felt delivering babies as demonstrated in primary sources like Letters to Ladies. Instead, she portrays them as enterprising doctors. She also does not acknowledge that a large enough group of doctors believed that women should deliver babies that by 1848 Dr. Samuel Gregory and Dr. Israel Talbot founded the Boston Female Medical College with the specific intent to produce female doctors for upper-class families uncomfortable with male doctors. I feel like Scholten keeps her period of study so narrow that she draws conclusions without including information about a profession that was still continuing to dramatically change after 1825. -Mary Fesak

I think the fact that men were almost completely excluded from taking part of the birth process, whether by choice or by customs of decency, shows how embedded the gendered cultural spheres were. The housework and children-including giving birth- were the women's spheres of duty. I wonder if as male doctors increasingly aided in birth, did it become more acceptable for husbands to be in the room? -Suzannah Carretto

It is interested how much childbirth changed in such a short amount of time. Did this significant change give women more of an advantage or disadvantage in society? Was it better to have men be excluded from childbirth? Or did men want to be involved? "The doctors sex affected the relationship between women and their attendants in childbirth, and transformed the atmosphere of the lying-in-room" (87). Therefore, the presence of men in childbirth "cost women a severe struggle." (87). Did this influenced the change in social customs and medical assistance in childbirth?- Melanie Houston

A man not being allowed or choosing to not be a part of their child’s birth sounds very odd to me. It does show how the gender roles were looked at and followed back then. I thought it was interesting when she talked about having a midwife vs. having a male physician. If the child was delivered safely then why does it matter if a male or female was there to help? – Katie Way

It is interesting that as men came into the profession of midwifery, women as mothers and childbirth itself were beginning to be viewed in a better light. Women were pushed out of a professional role, but gained more respect in a personal role. I wonder how these two points relate. – Jess Hopkins

As I was reading Scholten’s essay there is one thing I do not understand, if women were the midwives and child birth was something that normally only women attended, how did the men learn the practice of midwifery? Did other midwives teach them, or other doctors who knew the basics about midwifery? Or did they simply have to learn for themselves? - Morgan H.

I found it interesting that men more and more came into the midwifery profession. Given that childbirth seems like a gender norm for women and it seems like gender norms would push women to be midwifes, why would a man want to be one? Won't gender norms of the time tell us that men wouldn't want to be associated with the feminine? -Sandra Sanchez

I think this article emphasizes the fear associated with childbirth,particularly death of self or a child. Although the practice of obstetrics is somewhat problematic because it took away an aspect of power for women associated with midwifery, I think it is important that the addition of obstetrics gave women more options for childbirth. -Katherine Miller

Why do you think this novel became an American best-seller when it first was published? -- Becca Sherman

I find it interesting that while they associate the beginning of male physicians being involved in childbirth with the Revolutionary war it actually started in 1763, a short time before the revolution. Ike C.

JUDITH SARGENT MURRAY, Story of Margaretta, 1798
This piece definitely demonstrates the new concept of "republican motherhood" with the long conversation and explanation of how the studies Margaretta are bettering her for the education and raising of men. I think it is interesting to note, however, that the education of women in America was clearly improving just by the writing style and eloquence that the writers of this unit posses versus ones we read in earlier times. The fact that women were writing novels, let alone reading them, also is a testament to the progress gradually being made. -Katie Redmiles

This shows the emergence of the idea and importance of seperate spheres. All of her training/education was reparing her for her proper sphere. The stress on the fact that beauty is not enough shows the importance that society and the household put on the work that women did in the house. -Amy Wallace

Language, especially English and French were important for women to learn and teach their children. Why were English and French so important for a woman during this era? Was it seen as more sophisticated? It surprises me that women were expected to experts at communication but only if it was acceptable to society. –Courtney Collier

The delicate balance of education and femininity desired by society in the late 18th century were covered well in this piece. Although the separation of the social spheres was occurring in 1798, women appear to have a little more freedom to learn a greater variety of skills if only among the higher classes. Yet the limits and expectations imposed upon women by society also seemed to have grown. -Kearsten Lehman

I wonder if Murray wrote this story from the perspective of a wealthy, white father to try to persuade other upper-class men to have their daughters educated? Murray emphasizes the importance of women learning topics like finance and geography while implying that an educated woman can be a very successful manager of the household. She also explains that an educated daughter makes a dignified and worthy companion of her husband. While Murray presses for a broad curriculum in female education, she crafts her argument within the constraints of patriarchal society: women are educated to benefit husbands, sons, and the greater society, not for their own enlightenment (although she does acknowledge the benefits of female education for a woman fallen on hard times). -Mary Fesak

Since this piece is written by Murray in the voice of a man, it presents a similar problem that reading about men's accounts of women's lives. To understand what an actual white, wealthy upper-class man's opinion of educating his daughter in more than just accomplishments to ensure she marries well, one needs to look at documents written by such men. -Suzannah Carretto

Why was learning English and French significant? -Melanie Houston

It makes sense that women would need to know how to speak French and English if they were going to be responsible for teaching their children the language. It is interesting that she writes as if she is a man. I think this was a smart idea. If you want to get your point across and it is not working being a woman then why not speak as a man and get your opinion heard? –Katie Way

It was deemed important to know French because that was the language of politics at the time. French was the language of aristocracy and of enlightenment.- Ryan Quint

Judith Murray describes in her narrative the extremely high expectations put on women of the upper class in 1798. Mr. Vigillius' daughter must know English, French, sewing, geography, history, etc, and all the feminine nuances that will make her virtuous. The parents tell their daughter, "every thing in future depends upon her own exertions." Women could not choose what they wanted to do or learn, they were told by their ever present "watcher" (vigil means watched in Latin), male society. --Mae D'Amico

Murray puts a great deal of pressure on women to be well rounded so that they may educate their children properly. She also mentions the importance of language and articulating one's thoughts. On a side note, what happens to these women and their skills once their children are grown? They are proficient in multiple languages and crafts. Do they continue to utilize these skills? -Katherine Miller

This description of a woman and her daughter in this era does not entirely seem atypical; however, I wonder what Murray was trying to accomplish by writing it from a male perspective. Part of me wonders if she is putting words into the mouth of a male in hopes that this could be seen as a normal way to write about your wife and daughter at the time. That is, accrediting them in all areas -- education, intellectualism, cultural knowledge, domestic skills, outward appearance, business, worldliness, etc. Would it have been odd for a man to actually have written these things? -- Becca Sherman

I really enjoyed how the Story of Margaretta went into such great detail of how important each aspect of her education, not just intellectual education but housewifery education and the education of proper dressing for the time of day was implemented to not just tell the story of her growing into her role as a future mother that and what she will be able to teach all of her children, especially her sons.--Charlotte O

I too thought that Margaretta's education claimed a very important, interesting part of this narrative. A quote that really struck me though was "No, Mr. Pedant, she was not unfitted for her proper sphere . . . "(136). It was sad to me that after such an endearing passage about Margaretta's hand writing and overall complexity for feeling, Murray continues on to define Margaretta's boundaries. While very true to the time period, almost ironic, in which order Murray mentions them. Right after the fact. - Tanner Carlton

SUSANNA HASWELL ROWSON, Charlotte: A Tale of Truth, 1794
At first, when I began reading the story, I thought it would be one of empowerment and independence for women. Yet, as I continued I found that not only was Rowson cautionary towards woman independence, but the story's message itself is a detrimental one even in today's society. Especially with authorial intrusions, Rowson paints women to be weak, vulnerable creatures, who are only safe from the uncontrollable urges of men by staying under their parents or guardians surveillance. Though I understand she writes in the culture of her time, I do not see Charlotte's tale to be one of going against gender roles, but rather one of perpetuating those that existed in the time. -Katie Redmiles

This shows the expectations or women when choosing a husband. This story stresses the importance of making a good match, and serves as a warning against following love, because it will lead you astray. This would possibly be able to reinforce the role of parents in the choice of their daughter's marriages. -Amy Wallace

Rowson’s piece shocks me as still being relevant today. The idea that a young girl can be easily seduced by external features and demeanor still holds true today. I loved the part where Charlotte attempts to break-up with the officer, yet, she can’t do it. I can’t you how many times I’ve had friends go back-and-forth with a guy who they know is no good. I think this piece was extremely popular for its time not only because it spoke to the true dilemma young girls faced, but because it cautioned girls from allowing their new reason and intellect to trump the wisdom of their parents. – Kasey Moore

Rowson's work was quite interesting in that while it explains the dangers of falling in love with the wrong person, it does not explicitly place the blame upon Charlotte. It only cautions women to be more careful in whom they choose to marry, for they may be a different less savory character behind closed doors. In addition, does anyone know who Charlotte was based on (for Rowson had an acquaintance whom she related the character to)? -Kearsten Lehman

Crafting this cautionary tale into a novel form was an interesting choice on Rowson's part. When they first began being published, novels were considered popular trash and not true literature, but simply meaningless romance stories that lacked morals for women to read. This traditional belief is challenged by Rowson, who combines a story of romance with a moral lesson for the girls and women reading it. She cautions girls to stay away from seduction and to instead fulfill their parental duty by showing the dangers of rash decisions such as the one made by Charlotte. -Suzannah Carretto

The story of Charlotte's abandonment was a fictional telling of what was realty for many women during the Revolution and immediately after. As British soldiers and officers, personified by Montraville, came over to the colonies and the wide expanse of the North American continent, it was easy for them to abandon their wives and other camp followers. - Ryan Quint

Susanna Rowson is not just outlining the social concequences of absconding with an impertinant match, but the religious implications as well. Charlotte Temple, who's name is in itself a religious allusion to virtue and church, loses her purity with her actions. Temple not only committed a crime against her family when she ran off with a soldier, but a crime against God. This crime could only end in death--a beautiful death which again exemplifies her original purity. -Mae D'Amico

This work certainly cautions women to listen to their parents over their own hearts and wills. However, I think that it also cautions women to be aware of their influences and friends. In this tale, Charlotte’s friend and confidante is constantly telling Charlotte to disobey her parents and to disobey societal norms. – Jess Hopkins

I really enjoyed the story about Charlotte and the message Rowson conveyed. Even today this story can be seen as meaningful because people should be weary of the people they chose to date. Of course this story is trying to teach women to be cautious and virtuous but it can be useful to men as well. However, I am confused as to why Charlotte stayed in the house Montaville put her in for so long. After all that time could she have really been in so much love as to put herself and her child at risk? - Morgan H.

I thought Mademoiselle La Rue was a very interesting part to this late 18th century equation. She seemed like the last person a high paying parent would want educating their child. In the description, " . . . and on coming to England [La Rue] had lived with several different men in open defiance of all moral and religious duties . . ." , La Rue seems like the type of woman that is mostly left out in these late 18th century texts. - Tanner Carlton

When reading the origins of this document and about who Sussanna Rowson is, you expect this piece to have more of an impact on the the push for women to play a more significant social role. However in chapter 11, Conflict of Love and Duty, she reemphasizes the woman's dependent role on the male figure even when it is not a husband/wife situation. For the most successful book until Unlce Tom's Cabin you would want to hope that it would have a bigger positive impact for women, but i think that its success comes from the fact that it does not play into woman's push for more social and political power. --Charlotte O

I find it interesting that this book written by a woman in 1791 became so incredibly popular. Do we know who the audience primarily where? I am curious if it was a large number of literate women who made this book so popular or if it was mainly men or a mixed audience. Ike C.