Week 1 Questions/Comments-327 13

Overarching questions
What was McClurken thinking when he had us read this?

Taking into account Castaneda’s and Alexander’s critique of the feminist movement’s neglect of race and its implicit basis on the lives of white women, is there such a thing as an overall, general “American Women’s history” or are the experiences of American women more than diverse than shared?--Sarah Palmer

I am curious to know whether or not these scholars or historians in general would ever foresee a future where there was no "women's studies" but the study of history just encompassing the history of women, all women, and all minorities in general? - Katie Redmiles

Is it believed that men intentionally often ignore women’s history or do we think that this is unintentional and caused by the fact that men, with our egos, simply want to talk all about ourselves and ignore anyone who is not of our race or gender? Now that women’s history is becoming a major history field is the majority of the scholars in this field made up of women? Ike Copperthite

Is it true that historians, and people in general, primarily like to write about what they are most comfortable with? Thus men write about other men, white women write about other white women ect. And is gender a bigger jump for a man to write about then race. That being, are men typically more comfortable writing about men of another race then they are writing about women of their own race? Ike Copperthite

Kate Haulman, Defining American Women's History
How do we go about studying American Women's History? The definition seems to be slightly ambiguous, and Haulman argues that this is largely due to the fact that both the words "American," as well as, "women" have different socially constructed definitions and meanings; so, in order to fully dive into the topic, one must first define both of these terms. - Becca Sherman

There is a tribe in Papua New Guinea which has three distincts sexes: boy, girl, and intersex. I,also, recall learning about Native American Tribes in which women took on the male "sex" based on their masculine work. This ties back to Haulman's discussion of trying to define women and placing them into binary categories, when clearly it is not so cut-and-dry. - Kasey Moore

Haulmen's essay has pointed out to me that I know very little about women's history. Women's history is more about famous women that fit into a man made model and rarely do we ever learn about women in general and what life is like for the average woman in the past. And it seems to me that what we learn about famous women barley touches their whole careers. - Morgan Hayes

Both Bock and Haulman address that the way women's history has been studied is flawed, and over time, historians have struggled to fully address the complex and evolving cultural and social identity of women. -Suzannah Carretto

Haulman’s essay was very eye opening. Women’s history has been about famous women and not the normal, everyday woman. It has taken the characteristics and the jobs of these famous women and applied them to regular women of the time. I am now aware that I need to think about what the average women did and not just the commonly studied ones. - Katie Way

I appreciate the multi-faceted approach that Haulman takes in relation to gender, ethnicity, class, and social status. I think it is important to note because while women are marginalized in history, non-white women, and especially lower class women are even further underrepresented in history. To think that these women were overlooked due to their gender, and furthermore that they were ignored due to their unique cultures and experiences is disheartening because there are complete portions of society that were not acknowledged during that time. -Katherine Miller

In the early history of women’s history, historians focused primarily on the “great women,” which gave little insight into the lives of the majority of women. Later the field shifted to a study on the “female worlds” that women created amongst themselves. However, this emphasis on their private sphere neglected women in the public sphere or in mixed-sex situations. Additionally, these studies tended to focus heavily on white, middle- to upper-class women in the western world, a very narrow slice of the population, something that Castaneda and Alexander deal directly with. --Sarah Palmer

Overall, Haulman really caught my eye when she argued how only famous and well-known females such as Eleanor Roosevelt or Dolley Madison are who people think of when thinking of American Women's History. However, famous women such as Eleanor Roosevelt do not give a clear picture of the vast majority of women's lives. For example, a significant amount of women were not famous or well-known and as a result, had very different experiences as women. Therefore, after reading Haulman's chapter, I am now aware that I need to remember that there are other women besides the ones who are well-known in history- Melanie Houston.

I liked that Haulmen brought in other reference points in history to prove that although these world wide changes or country shifts were happening, at the same time a very distinct shift in how women are not only living their lives, but also the way that they are viewed by society is going on. The most noticeable, but one that I had to think back on was her reference to the civil war, and how the real change that was happening actually came from women's public and private spheres changing as a result industrialization.--Charlotte Owens

Gisela Bock, "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History"
I was extremely intrigued by the "equality vs. difference" section of this essay, because Bock raises a great point: men and women are inherently different. As we discuss ways in which women have aimed to be viewed as equal to men, how do we take into account their differences? Are these differences directly related to the dichotomy between sex vs. gender? - Becca Sherman

I was fascinated by the idea of gender versus sex, and how gender became utilized as a term to show that the idea of women as being “powerless” and inferior” results from social and cultural constructs rather than natural. It was even more interesting when she said “women’s studies do not only concern half of humankind, but all of it because it is not only women who are gendered beings.” I especially like this concept because I have always believed that much of our society today is ruled by the assumed perceptions of both genders, and we should highlight the misconceptions that occur as a result of separated the genders into specific spheres. I feel that we should be aiming towards a way of discussing and learning about history through the lens of the two genders together, instead of “women’s history” being its own separate sphere. –Katie Redmiles

I also was intrigued by the idea she presented of fatherhood being seen as a social job and motherhood being seen as natural. I remember recently having a conversation with a friend who said that being a father is a sad job because they are not expected to be the nurturing type, they are only expected to be the distant provider. I wasn’t sure if I agreed with them or not, but this argument of social versus natural holds up to some of the preconceived notions that plague family dynamics today. –Katie Redmiles

I really like how Bock shows the complexity of the dichotomies. How its not clear cut that work and culture is male, but nature and family is female. It was a great way to think about it. I'm a socg major and alot of theories truly believed that culture was male. Obviously, we don't believe thatme, historians have struggled to fully address the complex and evolving cultural and social identity of women. -Kasey Moore

The first set of dichotomies that Bock believes categorizes women's history reminded me of The Murder of Helen Jewett. The first set of lenses are similar to how she was viewed at the time, whereas the second set are more closely linked to how the 21st century author and reader view her situation. This shows, as Bock points out, that although dichotomies have not been eradicated, they have been transformed and may continue to do so. -Suzannah Carretto

I think that Bock's discussion of gender dichotomies, especially equality versus difference and integration versus autonomy are extremely relevant not only to the study of women's history, but to the present society and the evolution of women's position in the American society, economy, and legal codes. -Mary Fesak

I found that Bock’s Work versus Family discussion can still be considered relevant today. Men and Women are still trying to figure out where they belong. The work they do crosses over each other and has not clear lines or boundaries. I think it shows how the work of women is still changing today. - Katie Way

Several of the articles that we read briefly mentioned women within the queer community, but I feel like not enough space has been given to them or is currently being given to them by historians. -Amy Wallace

I also believe that the work vs. family argument is still valid especially as it is becoming more common for men to be stay-at-home fathers. -Amy Wallace

In the dichotomy of equality versus difference, Bock points out that though “equality” and “justice” seem to be entwined when they apply to men, they become viewed as oppositional when applied to women. Navigating this dichotomy involves not just negotiating the degree to which gender specific problems need gender specific solutions but also dealing with how this dichotomy works from the idea that “man” is the default and “woman” is the difference. --Sarah Palmer

In Bock’s “work versus family” dichotomy, the definition of “real work” evolved and became centered on salaries, which I find interesting. Here, it seems as though it resulted from men’s attempt to distance them from anything “feminine” and assert their power over women. I wonder how this idea that ‘wages define real work’ applies to today’s society in regards to pay inequality among different races and genders. -Katherine Miller

I enjoyed reading Bock’s essay, especially the part about the first framework, nature versus culture. Bock described men as being more culturally valued while women were nurturing in a natural manor. I would assume that much of the influence of these roles came from Christianity in the Bible. While the teachings do have evidence of backing this up, in my opinion anatomy also has a strong influence. Women’s bodies are the gateway of life to the earth and are capable of taking that role on. Men and women are so different so of course it is difficult to focus the problem on only one solution. I also agreed with the argument she made about how hard gender is to define. –Courtney Collier

My favorite dichotomie Bock mentioned was work vs. family. I think work vs. family is still a significant issue for women today. For instance, when a woman decides to be a stay-at home mom, society will argue that she is not working, when in reality, she is absolutely working. Do you think that work vs. family is more of an issue today or in the past. If so, why? -Melanie Houston

Antonia Castaneda, "Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History"
Like Haulmen's essay, Castaneda points out that I know little about women from other cultures. Rarely are we ever taught about foreign men in high school history classes and women are left out entirely. Each individual type of women's history is very intriguing and how different cultures play into the obstacles that women face makes all women's history very fascinating. - Morgan Hayes

Castañeda furthers Haulmen's argument of not knowing how women throughout history have lived, by pointing out there is an even larger gap of information in regards to women of color in history. When looking at history, we generally look to the people who are in power using that power to do influential things, not the every day struggle of the common man or woman. What I do not understand is what she means by women of color writers looking to "third world liberation movements" for some aspect of history to write on. --Mae D'Amico

Castañeda explains how feminist scholars, male-dominated ethnic studies departments, and gender, sexuality, and women's studies departments ignore race and class - particularly they ignore women of color. As a women and gender studies major and a Hispanic woman, I find myself realizing more and more that most of my classes only assign one class to talk about women of color. I wish to understand more why we still ignore women of color when talking in the context of women's history and how we would fix this problem. - Sandra Sanchez

When Castañeda talks about how women of color are ignored, I wonder if there's a detriment of calling all women that aren't white women of color. Wouldn't that lead to lumping them all together, making stereotypes about them, and ignoring the vast diversity in that group? Just like the experiences of white women can be different from those of women of color, can't the same be said for Hispanic women, Asian women, and black women since they also all have different experiences. - Sandra Sanchez

In her essay, Castaneda mentions that the study of women, white and black, really took off in the 1960s and the 1970s as women’s liberation movements et cetera began to gain power. Castaneda uses broad strokes to explain that Black women got involved because of “third world liberation movements.” However, I think Castaneda also misses a point of why it took off. If we examine the events of the 1960s and 1970s with knowledge of the Civil Rights Era, we also notice that those events fall during the Centennial of the Civil War and Reconstruction. Women black and white, alongside their male counterparts, realized that in 100 years since the end of the Civil War, they still lacked basic civil rights. They recognized the fact that their ancestors had taken an active role in gaining their freedom, and they too would take an active role in not only remembering their ancestors through the lens of history, but also in fighting for their Civil Rights. –Ryan Quint.

Castañeda mentions scholars being challenged to integrate the studies of gender and sexuality with race and class. I think this is a crucial point that is mentioned throughout the four essays. Although the uniting factor of women’s history is clearly womanhood, the additional aspects and influences of a woman’s life cannot be ignored or pushed aside. Those additional aspects such as race and class help to define what womanhood is to that individual. – Jess Hopkins

In Castaneda’s essay she focused on racial effects on women. Her discussion of what makes a good or bad African American and Asian women reminded me of an experiment that was done with young children. Kids were given two dolls; a dark skinned doll and a light skinned doll. The majority of the girls (of all races) chose the lighter skinned doll simply because they viewed it as good and pretty. Castaneda’s other point about subjectivity also ties into the so called natural role of women in American society. –Courtney Collier

Leslie Alexander, "Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women's History"
I did not understand her point about the feminist methodology should not be applied to the study of Black women. -Kasey Moore

Shouldn't some aspects of feminist methodology still apply to African American women? After all, they are women living in American society. I understand that African American women need to be studied through their culture and their race, but aren't there overarching aspects of being a woman in America that are addressed through feminine methodology? -Mary Fesak

Is Alexander arguing that African American women are defined more by their race than by their gender, whereas white women are defined more by their gender than their race? -Suzannah Carretto

Alexander pointed out that black women are more likely to identify as black than as women when they are forced to choose. This shows that their race has more of an impact on their lives in their view. This is one of the reasons that traditional feminist ideas cannot be applied, because it leaves out women of color in its analysis. -Amy Wallace

I thought it was especially compelling that Alexander makes it an implicit statement to say that it is impossible to study Black women by removing them from their community and culture. Their community and culture is more of an important facet, according to Alexander, rather than their gender. Are we doing them a disservice if we just make it about gender? –Ryan Quint

Haulman’s argument that the terms “woman,” “female,” and “feminine” do not have fixed definitions, but are defined by society lends itself to Alexander’s argument against “homogenous womanhood.” There are too many differing environments and additional ways women identify themselves to attempt to look at womanhood from one angle. – Jess Hopkins

In Alexander’s essay she made a point about how historians try to include or almost force race in women’s history was a clumsy effort. I completely agree that often throughout history some historians have given some credit to minorities but never shared the whole story. –Courtney Collier

Alexander's essay in the opening sections displays the blatant racism embedded in the history of feminism. I can agree that the notion of "feminism" is something that is universalized and isnt meant to cover every part of every woman, be it her race, sexual orientation, social class etc, but there is a unity on some level about being a female that focussing on the race of a female forces us to overlook.--Charlotte Owens