Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 11:37 pm Post subject: Chapter 8 "Flappers Freudians and All That Jazz" (
Did expectations for women change in the 1920s? Did things get "better" or "worse"? Why?
Which women are included in this chapter? Is anyone excluded?
How did women activists change their political involvement after winning the right to vote? What were they working towards? What kinds of tactics did they use? Does the author of this chapter think they were successful or unsuccessful?
Please write thoughtful responses of about 100-200 words. Try to include a new question in your response for other people to use as a jumping off point.
I believe that there was a bit of a relapse in the woman's movement. This was by no means intentional, I think that women were trying to improve on their individualism, but ended up making themsleves into a sexualized, commercial image. When I first started reading the chapter, I thought things looked good, and I was thinking, oh everything is moving in the right direction. I think that the women of the 1920s thought the same thing, thinking it was a good idea when they were really moving backwards. Evans quotes Zelda saying, "I think a woman get more happines out of being gay, light-hearted, unconventional, mistress of her own fate, than out of a career that calls for hard work, intellectual pessimism and loneliness. I don't want [my daughter] Pat to be a genius."(176) With all of the progressive thinking we have been hearing about, this seemed to be a direct contradiction.
Then Evans goes on to talk about how the 1920s was the period when sexualzation of women really went commercial. I mean we all go to CSW so we know about this, and I dont think that there is really any point in elaborating, oh man that kinda sounds I am saying that the fact we learn about that stuff is a bad, but im not. but I was really interested to learn exactly when when the issue came to common culture.
I do not really know what caused this relapse, I mean it is somewhat explained, but I still feel like I do not really get it, I guess I need like an explicit definition.....so if anyone has any ideas that would be awesome, I know that marital stress and stuff caused women to think differently and stuff, but I guess this is my question...??
Expectations for women drastically changed in the 1920s. I don’t think things got worse, but I don’t think things got better either. They were just different, and like the expectations of before, some of them were unfair to women, created by a patriarchal society.
In the 1920s women began experimenting with their sexuality and freedom, doing things that women in the 1800s wouldn’t have dreamed of doing. But although women supposedly had all this new freedom, their “freedom” was still controlled by men. Like it says in the packet, “some of these freedoms seem illusory” (p. 195). Men and society still created the standards for women’s behavior. Sex was now more open, but there were guidelines for sex, like it had to be heterosexual and marital. Woman had jobs, but they were jobs specifically for women, like receptionists, and they couldn’t get a job doing something “manly” or that paid well. Marriage became a huge standard for women; basically their one goal in life was to get married. The packet said that even their jobs were a means in which to meet men. Some women weren’t getting jobs so they could make something of themselves or make a difference in the world, but in order to meet men and get money to buy beauty products in order to entice men. Everything led back to men and marriage.
Men also made standards in order to make money off women. Men were the ones who created the beauty standards for women. They decided who the perfect woman was, made beauty products that “enhanced” that image, and then sold the products to women. The packet said “advertisements played on anxieties,” which is pretty twisted. Also because of these standards, black and other racial women were excluded once again, seeing as they didn’t fit the “perfect women” profile. Also this just added another reason for white women to exclude black women.
I don’t really have an answer to Zach’s question, but I’m curious about it as well.
I’m wondering what people thought of the fact that women split into two groups again (actually more than two groups, but in women’s separation in general), the League of Women Voters and the National Women’s Party, and why do you think they did this AGAIN when they already went through a period of being separated and it did not help anything?
Like Rachel, I can't say things got worse for women, but nor did they get better.
In this chapter we see that middle class white women are, as always included and black women aren't. We are also seeing that it's not only black women who are included but Mexican and European immigrants are being excluded.
Since women gained the right to vote at first they didn't seem to be fighting for anything. Then white women started fighting for equal rights and black women started fighting for better education and against lynching.
To answer Rachel's question, I don't know if the women separating again helped them at all. It didn't help them before, I don't see how it will help them this time. I guess it's kind of like it's so hard for a large group of people to work together because there are so many different ideas and views on things. If one group says one thing someone else doesn't agree with that could cause that person to not like that group. Which is why there's more than one group. All the groups are fighting for basically the same thing, they just have slight differences.
So I agree that expectations for women didn't exactly get better or worse in the 20's. I think that the expectations changed drastically and so did what was considered "normal" and "acceptable" for a woman. The image of the ideal woman changed from one with high moral standards to one who was beautiful, sexual, experimental, etc.
Rachel makes a very good point about this image excluding women of color as well as immigrants and women who did not identify as heterosexual. These women did not fit the norm or the social standard and were not seen as the redefined image of a "true woman".
Along with this new set of social standards for a woman came commercialized ways that she could obtain this image. By exploiting female sexuality, the economy was growing. Women "learned to market themselves as products" in hopes of obtaining the image of a "true woman" that a man could someday marry. Because the whole point of becoming this woman was so that you could get a husband. Women were still oppressed in the 1920's, but this time it was more about social normalcy and fitting in. It is ironic that women of this time period tried so hard to do what was expected of them. Their goal was to be pretty and marry a man who could keep them financially secure while they managed the home. So much for individuality!
My question is...Why did women of this time period lose connection with each other after experiencing powerful change as a result of their unity?
One thing that came to mind for me while reading this was that most of the negative and over sexualized stereotypes that we see in our media today seemed to get their start from the flapper era. This was the first time in history that women had been portrayed in this way for advertisements. Although this time in history marked a liberation of women, especially when it came to sex and fashion, with shorter skirts and birth control, this also created a new set of stereotypes which have survived for generations through the media.
Many at the time thought that this rebellion of fashion was a step forward for feminism, such as film star Colleen Moore, who said that these new fashions were a sign that American girls were breaking the rules of fashion and conduct that had held back so many generations before them. She declared it a sign of independence. Along with this change in fashion came a another new freedom for women, the freedom for young women to have more relationships with men. However, both of these newfound freedoms had their drawbacks. The competition to find a man to date and marry caused tension between young women, and there was less time to pursue a career when they were trying to find a husband. The pressure to find a husband, as well as these new sexualized images of women in the media, began a series of standards for girls to live up to that are still in our culture today.
Abby's post helped clarify for me an important point. The revolution that began to take place after suffrage was--and still is--idealized to be more freeing for women than it actually was. Colleen Moore said (I know you paraphrased this in your post Abby) "Long skirts, corsets, and flowing tresses have gone....The American girl will see to this. She is independent, a thinker [who] will not follow slavishly the ordinances of those who in the past have decreed this or that for her to wear." While I believe that, in saying this, Moore was trying to point out the new found freedoms girls had in 1923, she essentially demanded that girls not wear the clothes they were used to. I'm sure many girls were thrilled not to wear long skirts and corsets, but telling girls what not to wear is contradicting the freedom that they supposedly had.
And, before I forget...
Martha did you notice that tonight's reading started with the term "suffragists?" I'm assuming that's a less condescending way of referring to "suffragettes." Cool, huh?
Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:42 pm Post subject: The changing of women
The changing was better because it is the kind that we use now but I realized that it depends on religion and culture because there were some people, Victorians, that were totally against this and they limited them to certain things. There were The “worse” part of it was that it limited women who wanted to be athletic and that if you had husband, you couldn’t do anything like be an athletic it have a career which is the opposite of what we have now. The good part of it is that it created a new generation of sexuality and women weren’t embarrassed of being lesbian.
It's hard to say whether the expectations were 'better' or 'worse'. They were both degrading and unfair expectations that gave men power and superiority. I think the expectations became more clear-cut. And have more to do with self rather than will. Meg said the expectations started as a women with high moral standards, then to a beautiful, sexy woman. The first set of expectations could plausibly be met by all women. But in order to a beautiful, sexy woman you have to be born that way. The second set of expectations are a lot less attainable. So for this reason I would say it got worse. Instead of women choosing to act a certain way, they had to look a certain way. So for women who were not blessed with beauty they could never meet those expectations.
"I think a woman gets more happiness out of being gay, light-hearted, unconventional, mistress of her own fate, than out of a career that calls for hard work, intellectual pessimism and loneliness", said Zelda Fitzgerald. The 1920s was the prime time of jazz culture. The way people look at a woman change. We might call it a revolution, since it denied all conventional images about "a refined lady", terrifying previous generations. At first, it appeared to be better for women as they could be more "brave, gay and beautiful", have more liberty and individualism. However, this social change later exposed the women to a lot of different complicated problems. For example, lots of women did not have more individualism as they experienced a newly defined phenomenon called peer pressure. Although the image of women was changing rapidly throughout this decade, they were still under the heavily pressured gender roles; the change was still very superficial and did not create a profound effect: "Anxieties about marital success curbed some of the flappers' new physical freedoms. If a young woman hoped to find a mate, she could not put all her energies into other pursuits such as sports or careers". The change was just the beginning of a new step toward a comprehensive social change as it effectively advocated openness toward sex and sexuality.
One interesting shift was the change in the situation of homosexuals, particularly lesbians, during this time. When the women's rights activists were trying to improve women's situation, lesbians' was worse than before and thus they were forced to exclude themselves as a "distinct group". In addition, women's rights activists still faced the same racial division as they had before: "a 'race issue' [is] not a 'woman's issue".
Question: On page 190, the author wrote: "In the context of growing political conservatism, most female reformers ran into right-wing smear campaigns labeling their efforts alien and subversive." Why was this happening?
Some of the miners' personal possessions were displayed at the memorial service
Continue reading the main story
Related stories
NZ to hold mine disaster inquiry
Town grieves for miners
NZ traumatised
More than 10,000 people have attended a memorial service for the 29 miners killed in a New Zealand coal mine.
Mourners around the country observed two minutes' silence for the dead.
The memorial service in Greymouth featured 29 tables on which the personal belongings of the miners had been placed by relatives.
A series of underground explosions which began on 19 November killed the men at Pike River Mine as toxic gases prevented any rescue operation.
A Royal Commission of Inquiry has been ordered into how the tragedy occurred.
Nation mourns
Leading the service, Reverend Tim Mora said that "our nation Aotearoa New Zealand gathers to stand with us", using the native Maori word for the country.
Continue reading the main story
In pictures: memorial ceremony
"This morning, you as families came and decorated those tables. You made them very personal... and as I wandered down those tables, those men came alive for me.
"It wasn't just 29 names any longer; there were 29 faces, there were their hobbies, their interests, there were the people that they loved, and I think every one of us who have seen these 29 tables has felt that," he said.
Maori elders, who had previously held prayers at the mine site, also opened the memorial service with prayers.
New Zealand Prime Minister John Key was at the service held at Greymouth's Omoto Racecourse; he has said that all New Zealanders shared the families' grief.
Also speaking at the memorial were the Governor-General Sir Anand Satyanand, the Grey District mayor Tony Kockshorn and Pike River Coal chief executive Peter Whittall.
The service was broadcast live nationwide by Radio New Zealand.
Mr Whittall reassured the mourners that Pike River Coal will continue to try to recover the men's remains.
"Our men are still in the mine and the mine is still holding us out," he said.
"We're fighting to win the battle with science, with courage, with tenacity and sheer bloody determination."
The victims included two Australians, two Britons and a South African.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
