So, I slept with this girl...
And by slept with, I mean I shared a bed and we literally went to sleep. Not, y'know, anything sexual. But it got you reading, didn't it?
So yeah. I don't really have anything to say, but I do have two large papers to write and SATs to study for. Therefore, it's time to write a journal entry--flawless logic, I know.
Ummm. Not much going on in my life right now. It's vacation, but I've got a shit load to do. It's almost March, which means that in about three weeks, I'll find out if I got into Summer Program X. I've decided that if I do get in to Summer Program X, I'm coming out, end of story. Of course, first I have to get in...
Speaking of coming out, etc., very soon I'll be working on the set for Guitar Night, which is, as the name suggests, a musical event/ shindig held at my school. And the senior class is running it, so I'll get to (hopefully) spend a fair amount of time with this amazingly hot senior girl on student council.
She was in my History of Women class, which was sadly only a semester class and is now over, and despite the fact that I worked on Guitar Night's set last year, I've said all of about two words to her.
But, she's gorgeous. Sorry, did I say that already? It's just, y'know, she really is. She's kinda butch--short hair, multiple piercings--so who knows, she might be gay. Maybe I'll come out to her and she'll come out to me and we'll start going out...and maybe she'll profess her undying love and get down on one knee and propose.
Haha. I amuse even myself sometimes. I'm pretty sure she's not gay, even though she has had no bf's, to my knowledge. But whatever, I'm just day dreaming. Anyways, I'm off to write five pages on why I think religion is a social construct, and then another fourteen pages on Iraq. Joy.
If you are not getting confirmation e-mails from Oasis to complete your membership, don't hesitate to e-mail jeff at oasismag dot com. Be sure to include your username.
Recent articles
Recent journal entries
Active forum topics
Who's online
Online users
- niks121997
- crazypickle
- gaynow
- scandalboy
- fleetfootedfox
- Riku
Comments
Hmm...
They were able to stretch out the history of women to fill a whole semester?
*ducks*
---
"Be like a postage stamp. Stick to one thing until you get there." -- Josh Billings.
Add me on MySpace!
What is pretty much the
What is pretty much the history of men manages to cover several years of school...don't you think us girls deserve at least a semester?!
Anyways, I won't bother giving a proper response--clearly someone's suffering from an over-blown ego as the result being an oppressor in our patriarchal society. :P heh, just kidding.
Well...
I was joking, of course. But I do think there is a problem separating it out. History is not the history of men, really, but breaking the history of women out into its own category makes me wonder: a) why isn't this stuff rolled into the regular history class, and b) would all of this stuff rank if it were rolled in.
By having a separate class, my instinct would be that the teacher of the overall history class can skip over female accomplishment, since that's covered elsewhere, so the people most in need of this information won't get it at all, no?
And, please tell me it wasn't called herstory.
---
"Be like a postage stamp. Stick to one thing until you get there." -- Josh Billings.
Add me on MySpace!
Jeff's right, mostly. There
Jeff's right, mostly. There isn't such a thing as 'women's history'.
What a patronising concept. No pun intended.
I did feel really clever the other day though. I was having one my 'are women actually just inately crap after all?' panics- I have them every now and then when it's hits me almost all human achievement was from the hands and minds of men. Then I realised that it would have been women who probably first invented agriculture. Since they were the gatherers and farming is an extension of gathering, it would make sense. It's as logical as saying men invented tools for hunting. And the neolithic revolution began the start of modern civilisation. The beginning of history.
I'm sure this is a standard concept. Or else it's wrong and I'm not clever afterall.
Honestly, I agree with
Honestly, I agree with Jeff--I do think that it should be included in the history courses taught to everyone. But the fact of the matter is, it's not. And until it is, I don't think it should be neglected--I think specific classes should be taught.
As to Loltaire--I don't think it's patronizing at all. It's simply a specialization--a specific field, if you will--within the broad range of history. And women do have a history that's not often told, simply because western civilization is a patriarchal society--they weren't at the forefront of social and political change, so their story has to be sought out and told.
You even admitted it yourself--most of the human achievements we know of are men's achievements. Don't you think women's achievements, even if they're not on as global a scale as the result of the restraints within our society, should be acknowledged and taught as well?
Anyways, I'm not sure I'm making sense or addressing your argument at all, so I'm going to shut up.
Hmm...
I just think separating it out means it is even less likely to be folded into the other class. If you want to learn about that, then you can take it as an elective, etc.
Separate but equal is usually neither.
---
"Be like a postage stamp. Stick to one thing until you get there." -- Josh Billings.
Add me on MySpace!
Um
Coming from a women's school, even if I'm not here for the feminism, I have picked up a mite of it. And I would ditto cynical1inthecorner, no matter how much she dethrones her own arguments. Would you say there is no African-American history? Or no queer history? Of course not. Women's history is a specified history; this is entirely valid. Of course it can and should be covered in general history, but studying a specified history helps understand the perspective of one group or entity over the course of time. It is especially important to record the history of oppressed groups, because their histories are often abridged or left out of the main historical narrative. Also, recording histories of oppressed groups can help provide their members with a sense of worth and culture.
Don't be so jaded about respect for women and the way their paths have diverged from men's (often unfavorably) throughout history.
No one has a right to sit down and feel hopeless; there is too much work to do.--Dorothy Day
No, there is no such thing
No, there is no such thing as womens' history or queer history. African American history can exist because it is a very specific, although still large, area of study.
After it's happened history doesn't belong to anyone. Women's history isn't 'my' history just because I am a woman.
By calling a subject 'women's history' the implication is women didn't have a place in the rest of history. It reduces history to this outdated idea that the past can be understood as a series of leaders and commentators. And although that's important, a series of poor harvests can change the course of history just as much- even more- than a war. But we don't have 'poor illiterate men's history' programs. Although they were as disenfranchised, literally, as women and made up the vast bulk of the male population.
A noble woman in the late 14th century led a very different life to a peasant and a peasant led a different life to a nun who led a different life to a member of the emerging middle class traders. And to understand this you'd have to understand the political, economic, social and religious background of the period and suddenly you're not studying women's history afterall, just history.
And taking the example of Mary Wollstonecraft, who I'm sure would be studied on a women's history program. Why would you study her as a woman, rather than a figure of the Enlightment? Surely, the best understanding of her significance comes from examining her in the intellectual and social context in which she was writing.
Women aren't not and never have been one group.
If someone suggested a course that studied Henry VIII one week, Abraham Lincolm the next and Hitler the next on the basis that they were all male leaders, everyone would say it was ridiculous.
And THERE IS NO SUCH THING as a main historical narrative!
History isn't a path or progression it's a messy impressionistic used canvas of events and thoughts, from which a clear picture may or may not emerge.
Yes, I believe history should be taught differently at school. But I also believe women's history is patronising and... old fashioned.
And although this is a seperate argument queer history is just an idiotic idea.
I don't think history
I don't think history belongs to a certain group of people, and I certainly don't believe women's history is "my" history, simply because I'm a women; if I ever said anything to that affect, I apologize. History belongs to everyone, no matter if it's the history of a specific group or not.
Anyways, I agree that there is no such thing as a "main historical narrative." There is, however, basic history; yes, the entirety of history--all the little nuances and details--should be taught to everyone. Is that possible or even feasible? No. Some of history (quite a lot, actually) has to be trimmed down and not included simply to teach history within a reasonable time frame. Yeah, that sucks, but it's necessary.
So, in the required history classes, we are taught the broad trends and sweeps of history. We are taught about wars and famines and actions that have long reaching affects. Women's history is not cut out of this class, but it's not gone into in very specific detail. We'll learn about people like Alice Paul and all about the feminist movement and all that, but in no deeper detail than anything else.
For the people that want to go into deeper detail, they have a more specific class. Loltaire, you say it's impossible to isolate history and to understand a specific part of it without being aware of all the political, social, economic, etc. activities of the era. And I completely agree. History of women (or history of some other specific group) classes are taught for people who have already taken another history course, who are aware of all these trends; they can view the specific history of women within the larger context of general history, and come to understand the implications all of that has on this specific group.
Saying we shouldn't have specializations within history is like saying we shouldn't have specializations within science, because you can't really understand microbiology without a firm grasp of all the other basic sciences.
And personally, I do think women have a history of their own. As do queer people, and African Americans, and so on--all groups of people do. It's not an isolated history, but it still is their history; it's not like within that group everybody's the same. There are still cultural and socioeconomic differences and so on, but they do share a common trait, and so can be lumped together to study. I guess I can't understand why African Americans can have their own history and not women? That is, why is the study of African Americans any more specific than the study of women?
As for the whole separate but equal thing--I do think more women's history should be taught in general history classes. However, no matter how much they teach women's history in U.S. history or what not, I--being a rabid feminist--personally will want to go more in depth. So, for people like me, they create an elective. It's not like they cut significant women figures out of general history; there was actually quite a lot of overlap between my women's history and U.S. history class. I dunno, I just don't see the problem with having a more in-depth separate class. It's like having electives for art history and other things.
brick wall meet my head
I'm not saying women's lives shouldn't be studied. In fact I'm saying the opposite.
I'm just saying that women's history simply isn't a specialism.
A specialism might be the history of 15th century Florence or the intellectual history of the Enlightenment.
A branch of history might be economic history or social history.
Look at what you're claiming to be studying: every class in every culture and society in every time period in every country has been 50% women. How does that narrow anything down enough to be considered a specialism?
Granted you can have feminist historians (not historians who are feminists, I mean feminist history as a method historical criticism, as opposed to say Marxist criticism).
Women aren't a group. They aren't, they aren't. It's bad lazy artificial history to suggest they are.
And what would you study in queer history? I mean honestly! That doesn't exist either. Oh you can do a course in it, but it that doesn't there mean there has ever been such a thing as queer history.
Eh...
It is not jaded or disrespectful to think that creating a separate area of study because you aren't being represented in the larger history classes will only ensure it stays bifurcated.
I will say that I find women's history as valid an area of study as African-American history and queer history for the majority of students. :-)
---
"Be like a postage stamp. Stick to one thing until you get there." -- Josh Billings.
Add me on MySpace!
hmm.
Haha, it did get me reading as sad as that may be. I wish I got to write reports on subjects like those. What, exactly, makes you think she isn't gay? Are you sure you aren't just being cynical?
Risks make life a lot of fun.
Seriously harsh jeff. Haha.
I don't mind writing the
I don't mind writing the report so much as I mind writing it over vacation. The last paper I wrote was on the history of the bicycle and it's relationship to women's rights. I have a tendency to write about bizarre things...
Anyways, I don't know what her sexual orientation is, but I make no assumptions. So I don't know if she's gay or not...just that she probably doesn't know who I am, let alone have any interest in little ole geeky me. :]