Posted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:38 am Post subject: Well-Behaved Women Seldom Make History
I liked this reading, because it was a contemporary take on the past. Also, to read something by a different author spiced it up a little bit. To me, the important part of this article was the ambiguity of history and the inbred perspective that we must never forget is ingrained in history as we study it. Ultimately, history is not an absolute truth, but someone's judgement, based on a source or sources, on what happened. I'm beginning to get the feeling that what happened doesn't reflect on our culture/society so much as how we interpret what happened. It's interesting to try and analyze why modern attitudes are evident in a particular version of history, which modern attitudes are evident, and if we would prefer to re-write history with a different perspective, a new attitude in mind. (Sorry to be overly philosophical, but this didn't give us specific events about the women's movement, so I'm just trying to applying the moral of the article to history in general.) But as for feminism, I think it's important to realize that what we are getting is usually a woman's perspective on feminism, because the people who were involved in the movement, recorded it and wrote books about it, were mostly women. Does this mean that only white people should teach European history, or only black people should teach Black history? Of course not, but you have to accept that the story is not only told by the winners, but by the participators. I feel like I should stop ranting and rambling, so here's my question (bunch of questions):
Which women in history have been affected by an unclear telling of history or a debate about history? How has their reputation changed because of these disputes? Has the development of large-scale media worsened this problem? Do you find you prefer the fictional accounts and legends created by history, or do you like the truth, plain and simple? Can we ever get to the truth, plain and simple, or will it always be diluted?
I enjoyed this reading the BEST out of all readings. I loved the fact how this quote was changed and used to empower women. It was as if women took this quote and used it for their owned advantaged, good or bad, I loved it. Like when the women put the quote but then also put a picture of a woman who made history like Joan of Arc. I really liked how the lady was amazed that her message or her quote was powerful for women who were quilting. Lol. Anywho, to answer Hannah’s question women all over the world I think were affected. It ranged from women who considered themselves feminists to women who were breaking the law and saying that “Well-behaved women rarely make history”. I don’t think media wise women were affected negatively at all. I was really about that women were making shirts and other accessories broadcasting this quote.
What I didn’t completely understand was why some women didn’t like the quote. What were they afraid of? Also why did some women take the quote so seriously to get arrested? Was disturbing the peace the only way for women to make history? What are your thoughts?
Frankly I was shocked by this reading, because I had always interpreted that quote as meaning that women who conform to societal norm (of being a proper, well-behaved lady) and don't speak up against their oppressors are never remembered. I found this(my own) interpretation inspiring because i felt it said that while women who speak their minds are often criticized and persecuted (for being "ill-behaved" of their gender), they are also usually the only ones who achieve social change relating to women's rights.
Upon reading this packet and finding out that many interpret it as being "naughty" or "wild" or "a 'bad girl' and getting attention from it", I was appalled. It was really frustrating to think that feminists who interpret it similarly to me and whom put the bumper-sticker on their car might be passed on the highway and be interpreted by some jerk (or sad quilter lady) to mean 'Oh she must be wild and slutty'
To answer Helen's question (and perhaps clarify my own discomfort over everyone interpreting it differently), I believe some women didn't like this quote because they interpreted it (as many men seemed to interpret it) to mean that you have to be "naughty" or "bad" to make a difference, which in my opinion is a really demeaning message. I don't think that the women who got arrested committed the crimes as a result of the slogan, but that they instead interpreted it in the "naughty" or "bad" way, and then explained or defended their actions and lifestyle with the slogan.
LOVED this reading mainly because it wasnt the Dicker.
In terms of the quote, I've never really liked it mainly because I think by the time it got to me I found it cliched. So while it was interesting to learn more about the phrases's origins and the range of reactions it recieved, I don't want us to lose the very interesting take the author had on women and history in general.
"Cool Women suggests that "empowered" women are by definition "wild" women...Since antiquity, misogynists have insisted that females, being more emotional than males, are less stable, more likely to swing between extremes. Think of the the old nursery rhyme that says, when she was good, she was very, very good, but when she was bad sh...made history?"(xxi)
It's almost like what came first--the chicken or the egg. When successful women become noticed, does that make them by default "wild" for standing out, or is it just that wild women are the easiest to spot from a historical perspective? Ulrich argues for the first, which I think makes total sense. While I think this is definitely more geared towards women than it is to men, both genders I think suffer the consequences of this idea from a historical perspective:
"Even today, publicity favors those who make--or break--laws." (xxii)
In such a media-soaked society, the rule of thumb has been: sex sells.
In terms of Ulrich's argument, I interpret "sex" to mean two things: sex as in the female gender, and literal sex (and its appeal.) The fantasy of the bad girl. The popular lyrics of much modern music "I make good girls go bad..." The quintessential male fantasy is the quiet librarian who's secretly a freak. And from a sexual stand point, the speaker of the first quote wasn't wrong-- bad girls DO have a kind of empowerment. Maybe this is a fairly modern idea but "girl on top" literally and figuratively. Yes, many famous women can be described as the classical "rebel," but I think many remarkable yet well-behaved women are forced to glamorize and be BAMF's to gain attention in the male dominated field of history.
Also in response to olivias question-- does one need to do the unexpected to make history?---
I think unexpected is the wrong word. i could come to school in a wet suit and that would certainly be unexpected yet that doesn't necessarily change anyone's perspective on me, or how I'm treated.
In this same way, I feel like the phrase "do something unexpected" refers more to tactics and strategy of change like what we were discussing in class than what the actual objective is.
I think a better thing the California student could have said was, "people need to challenge societal norms in a big way to make history." (that, or kill someone/be killed.)
Which is true.
ALSO my question is, why do tou think the staff of a company in Los Angeles found the phrase "well behaved women rarely make history," so "sexist," "disrespectful to women," and "immoral and unethical?"
Honestly, Rachel, I don't have an answer for you. I found that very strange too. But maybe it was sort of what others were talking about earlier, in that its not really a woman's place to make history anyway, so whatever gets recorded must be something that wasn't appropriate. Instead of assuming that its appropriate for women to make history (OR HERSTORY! HAHA!) etc.
Urrm, I liked this reading. I thought it was clever. I wasn't particularly moved by it- in fact the whole situation of how outta control this phrase got made me just feel a little silly.
I mean, this poor woman. She was just trying to write about Puritan funeral sermons.
The kind of inarticulatable concept that kept bobbing around my head while I was reading this was "cheap empowerment". Thats to say, I think the appeal of this slogan is really based on solely pathos- it sort of makes women feel "edgy" and "empowered" with out being very substantive. And thats not to put down the woman who wrote it at all- I really enjoyed this reading and her thoughts- but its almost as if just vocalizing that "well behaved women rarely make history" is enough- you feel rebellious and powerful enough with that observation, to the point that you don't actually need to behave badly or make history. You can just keep quilting.
I think one of the best points of this reading was when Ulrich brought up that nursery rhyme "when she was good she was very very good, but when she was bad... she made history?" I don't know. I thought that was nicely touched upon, especially with the observation that whenever women are in the political/public sphere in anyway they are super scrutinized for involving their own emotions. Because, clearly, men are robots without feelings and women are inconsistent whirlwinds of illogical emotions ( <-- read sardonic tone here)
My question? Someone make the metaphor "Woman's the center & lines are men" from that pastor bigger for me. I'm not sure I understand what its trying to say.
Step back from this reading for a second:
What have we been told time and time again by teachers and parents? In order to make a difference, you need to do something special. In order to catch the reader's attention in a paper, you need to have a unique idea or perspective on the topic. In order to make a strong statement, you must have a creative idea.
So, slowly wiggling back into the reading:
well-behaved women (predictable, not wild) rarely make history
a predictable thesis on a paper proves a point without a new idea coming out of it.
So, going back to Olivia's question, Do you agree with the Californian student said; that "to make history, people need to do the unexpected"?
I'd like to answer a little bit of a different question: Do you think that doing the unexpected is necessary in order to make history?
Well, I don't. Sure, it helps to have an edge and a unique element that separates you from the 'expected'.
But I think that we tend to focus on dissenters. We focus on individual people's actions and forget all that we know about the general public and the norm at that point in time.
These people are still making history. The only difference is that their names aren't making history.
On page xxv, it talks about Mae West. It says she "allowed people to imagine the unimaginable." Can you think of a present day person (woman or man) who has allowed us to imagine the unimaginable? How have they done this?
Heather: On page xxv, it talks about Mae West. It says she "allowed people to imagine the unimaginable." Can you think of a present day person (woman or man) who has allowed us to imagine the unimaginable? How have they done this?
I think before West, much of who she was and what she had done was completely unimagineable. With her "misbehavior", she broke rules and norms that no one had ever dared to, and made a name for herself by being an outrage and a total shock to others. Barack Obama (though he obviously is not a "sexually active, streetwise girl from Brooklyn") allowed others to "imagine the unimaginable". America's history and the norms that existed within the society never allowed one to imagine a Black president. Before Obama, it was thought to be completely impossible, or simply never thought of. The way Mae broke tradition through her crazy work, Obama broke tradition. Mae West in a way opened doors for open women, and introduced them to a new way of living- Barack Obama gave people hope and introduced the idea that Blacks not only could become President, but could rise to do anything they pleased.
My question: What is meant by the term "To make history, people need to do the unexpected" (Ulrich, 25)?
So, there's no question to answer I guess, but I really enjoyed the reading as well. Though the ideas were somewhat hidden in the writing, it was nice not having it all put forward like a list the way the Dicker book does. I liked that she talked about why certain women made history and others didn't, because I consider that a lot. Like why Rosa Parks and not the other women who refused to abide by the racial laws? The answer she gave was basically that the historian has a lot of power, which is exactly what makes life almost... fictional. I really liked that she addressed this idea of historian's power because it is rarely discussed or even recognized because most would assume all history texts to be fact.
She writes about "serious history" on the last page, what is serious history? what makes history serious and why?
Helen, I thought your question was really interesting. “…Why did some women take the quote so seriously to get arrested? Was disturbing the peace the only way for women to make history?” I think that in the end some women took the quote so seriously not because it taught them anything new, but because it provided an outlet for them. If they were angry over their roles in society or the publics views of women then they could show it.
I don’t think that this was the only way women could make history though. There is a lot of behind the scenes work in movements; especially the women’s movement. A lot of the progresses that are made go unnoticed by historians because it is not as interesting as women who make overt acts by braking laws or going against the norm.
Like Heather said earlier we do tend to focus on disaster. The women who do the unexpected signify turning points in the women’s movement and are used by historians to mark and follow change.
i just finished a 2 hour, 8 page interview with my women-who-experienced-the-1970s (totally life changing and awesome for anyone who hasn't interviewed yet) so i don't have time for a really adequate post, but i do have a question:
why is it that women who make history are labeled naughty or scandalous? do you think men who have made history would be described in the same way? maybe it has something to do with women having stricter social constructs that are easy to deviate from if you want to make any progress. maybe it's just sexism. what do y'all think?
I don't they actually are labeled naughty or scandalous, I think the idea was that they needed to act 'bad,' or unexpectedly in order to make history in the first place.
I loved the contrast about Rosa Parks that was introduced on page 26. Whereas other women could supposedly or apparently only make history by being naughty, it was Parks' "publicly acknowledge good behavior" that allowed her to be part of history. Yes, her refusal to give up her seat was a 'bad' action I suppose, but it was explained that many others had done this before her, but because of their reputations or their past they wouldn't be a good representative. Parks' lack of 'bad-ness' actually allowed her to make history in this case. Yeah. I was diggin' that little unexpected zinger that was included.
On page 17 Ulrich quotes a letter she got from a woman, who described her fellow quilt-makers, saying "they like to see themselves as a little outrageous and naughty and our-of control with their hobby." I think an interesting point in general is the universal appeal of being bad. Why are humans so attracted to the unknown? Why do so many women lust after the "bad-boy?" Is it all some sort of way to act out against oppression from parents or authority figures, or something else?
Posted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:05 am Post subject: it's mad late, but here's my post
OK, so this reading started off a little bland for me, but then I got really interested in the parts of the reading where Laurel Ulrich was talking about how personal opinions sometimes/always bled into history and the formation of history. I also was intrigued when she was talking about how the definition "well behaved" varied also, based on the personal stance of an individual.
Another interesting topic which Ulrich brought up was the fact that as a historian, "one of our jobs is to explore the things that get left out when a person becomes an icon" (ulrich xxiv). And then the example of Rosa Parks and her affiliation with the local NAACP, and the planning which went into her starting the 361 day long bus boycott, AND the process in which E.D. Nixon went through in order to choose Rosa Parks as the woman to set it all off, made the statement of digging up the dirt on a new icon much more solid and concrete.
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
