3786647.pdf

8/9/2019 3786647.pdf

1/11

New Approaches to the Study of Women in American HistoryAuthor(s): Gerda LernerSource: Journal of Social History, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Autumn, 1969), pp. 53-62Published by: Oxford University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3786647.

Accessed: 16/01/2015 10:50

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Oxford University Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toJournal of

Social History.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 143.167.28.56 on Fri, 16 Jan 2015 10:50:06 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ouphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3786647?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3786647?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup

8/9/2019 3786647.pdf

2/11

GERDA

LERNER

NEW

APPROACHES

TO

THE STUDY

OF

WOMEN

IN

AMERICAN

HISTORY

The

striking act about the

historiography f women is

the gen-

1 eral neglect of the subjectby

historians.As long as

historians

held to the traditional

iew

that only the

transmission nd exercise

of

power

were worthyof their

nterest,

womenwere of

necessity g-

nored.

There was little room

in

political, diplomatic,and

military

history for Amencan

women, who

were,

longer than any other

single group

in the

population,

outside the

power structure.At

best their

relationship o power was

implicit

and peripheraland

could easily be

passedover as

insignificant.With

the rise

of social

historyand increasing oncernwith groups out of power,women

receivedsome

attention,but interest

was

focused mainly on their

position n

the family and on

their

social status.l The

numberof

women

featured n textbooks

of American

history

remainsaston-

ishingly

small to this day, as

does the number

of

biographies nd

monographs y

professionalhistorians.

The

literature oncerning

he role

of women in

Americanhis-

tory is topically

narrow,

predominantly

escnptive,and generally

devoid of interpretation. xcept for the feminist viewpoint,there

seems to be no

underlying

onceptual

ramework.

Feministwriters,

not trained

historians,were

the first to under-

take a systematic

ttempt o approach

he

problemof women'srole

in

American life

and

history. This took the

forms of

feminist

tracts,

theoreticalapproaches,

nd compilations

o

woman's con-

tributions. 2

he

early compilers

attacked he

subjectwith a mis-

GERDAERNER,historian, s a memberof the faculty of SarahLawrence

College.

1

Cf. Arthur

Schlesinger,Sr., New

Viewpoints n

AmericanHistory (New

York, 1922),

chap. 6.

For a contemporary

istorian's iewpoint, ee

David M.

Potter, American

Women and the

AmericanCharacter,

n

AmericanHistory

and

SocialSciences,ed.

EdwardN. Saveth

(New York,

1964), pp. 427-428.

2

The most

important eminist

tracts before the

launchingof

the woman's

rights

movementare: Charles

Brockden

Brown, Alcuin:A

Dialogue (Boston,

This content downloaded from 143.167.28.56 on Fri, 16 Jan 2015 10:50:06 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

8/9/2019 3786647.pdf

3/11

54

journal

of

social

history

sionaxy

zeal

designed,

above

all,

to

right

wrong.

Their

tendency

was

to

praise

anything

women

had

done

as

a

contribution

nd

to

include

any womenwho had gainedthe slightestpublic atten-

tion

in

their

numerous

ists.3

Still,

much

positive

work

was

done

in

simply

recounting

he

history

of

the

woman's

rights

movement

and

some

of

its

forerunners

nd

in

discussing

ome

of

the

women

whose

pioneering

truggles

opened

opportunities

o

otlaers

Femi-

nist

writers

were

hampered

by

a

two-fold

bias.

FirstS

hey

shared

the

middle-classS

ativist,

moralistic

approach

of

the

Progressives

and

tended

o

censure

out

of

existence

anyone

who

did

not

fit

into

this

pattern.

Thus

we lind that womenlike FrancesWrightand

Ernestine

Rose

received

little

attention

because

they

were

con-

sidered

oo

radical.

Premature

eminists

uch

as

the

Grimke

sis-

ters,

Maria

Weston

Chapman,

and

Lydia

Maria

Child

are

barely

mentioned.

The

second

bias

of

the

feminists

lies

in

their

belief

that

the

history

of

women

is

important

only

as

respresenting

he

history

of

an

oppressed

group

and

its

struggle

against

ts

oppres-

sors.

This

latter

concept

underlies he somewhatheroic, collectively

authored

History

of

Woman

Sufyrage.

This

work,

probably

be-

cause

t

represents

n

easily

available

hough

disorganized

ollec-

tion

of

primary

sources,

has

had

a

pervasive

nfluence

on

later

historians.

ollowing

the

lead

and

interpretation

the

feminists,

professional

istorians

have

been

preoccupied

with

the

woman's

rights

movement

n

its

legal

and

political

aspects.

Modern

his-

torians,

oo,

think

that

what

is

important

o

know

about

women

is

how

they

got

the

ballot.4

The

only

serious

challenge

to

this

conceptual

ramework

was

offered

y

Mary

Beard

in

the

form

of

a

vigorous

though

often

1798);

Sarah

M.

Grimke,

Letters

on

fhe

Equality

of

the

Sexes

and

the

Condition

of

Woman

(Boston,

1838);

and

Margaret

Fuller,

Woman

in

the

Nineteenth

Century

Boston,

1844).

The

publications

of

the

feminist

movement

are

too

numerous

o

list

here;

a

representative

collection

is

incorporated

in

Elizabeth

C.

Stanton,

usan

B.

Anthony,

and

Matilda

J.

Gage,

History

of

Woznan

Sugrage

(6

vols.;

New

York,

1881-1922).

3

Typical

of

the

compilers

are:

Lydia

M.

Child,

History

of

the

Condition

ot

Women2 vols.; New York, 1835); Sarah J. Hale, Woman'sRecord.... (New

York

853);

Phebe

A.

Hanaford,

Daughters

of

America,

or

Women

of

the

Cezl-

tury

Augusta,

Me.,

n.d.

);

and

Frances

E.

Willard

and

Mary

A.

Livermore,

American

Women

(New

York,

1897).

4

Cf.

Eleanor

Flexner,

Century

of

Struggle:

The

Woman's

Rights

Movement

in

he

United

States

(Cambridge,

Mass.

1959);

Aileen

S.

Kraditor7

The

ldeas

o

the

Woman

Sufirage

Movement

(New

York,

1965).


8/9/2019 3786647.pdf

4/11

WOMEN N AMERICANHISTORY

re

fuzzOr olemic against the feminists.5What is important about

women, said Mary Beard, is not that they were an oppressed

grourshe denied that they ever were but that they have made

a continuous and impressivecontribution o society throughout

all of history.It is a contribution, owever,which does not fit into

the value systemgenerallyacceptedby historianswhen they make

decisionsas to who is or is not important o history.Mary Beard

undertook n several of her books to trace the positive achieve-

mentsof women, their social role, and their contributionso com-

munity life. Her concepts are most successfullyreflected n

The

Rise of AmericanCivilization,

hich she coauthoredwith her

husband Charles Beard. In it the position of women is treated

throughoutn an integratedway with great attention o the econo-

mic contributionsmade by women.6But the Beards's approach

to the subjectof women had little influenceon the historicalpro-

fession. Perhaps his was due to the fact that in the 1930's and

1940's both the general public and historiansbecame somewhat

disenchantedwith the woman'srights movement.

The winning of suffragehad made only a slight change in the

actual status of women, and other factors technological and

economic changes, access to higher education, changing sexual

mores nowloomed a great deallarger. The impact of Freudi-

anism and psychologyhad made reformers n general somewhat

suspect. Feminism was not infrequently reated wlth the same

humorous condescensionas that other successful failure: tem-

perance.

Women have received senous attention from economic his-

torians.There is a good deal of excellent literaturedealing with

the problem of women workers.Women as contributors o the

economy from colomal times on, the laws affectingthem, their

wages and working conditions, and their struggle for protective

legislation have been fully described.7Although female labor

5

Woman as Force in History (New York, 1946).

6

Mary R. Beard,America Through Women's Eyes (New York, 1934), On

Understanding Women

(New York, 1931), and

Women's Work in Municipalities

(New York, 1915); CharlesR. and MaryR. Beard,

The Rise of American Civil-

ization (New York, 1927).

7

For the economic ife of colonialwomen see: ElisabethA. Dexter,Colonial

Women of Afiairs: Women in Business and Professions in America before 1776

(Boston, 1931), and

Career Women of America: 1776-1840

(Francestown, .H.

1950); RichardB. Morris,Government and Labor in Early America (New York,

1946); and Julia C. Spruill,

Women's Life and Work in the Sollthern Colonies


8/9/2019 3786647.pdf

5/11

56

journal of social history

leadershave not generallybeen given much attentio-n,heir activi-

ties are on record. Excellent collectionsof materialpertaining o

women at Radcliffe and Smith College are availablebut remain

insufficiently xplored.

Modern historiansof the reform movementshave done much

to restore a sane balance to female achievement n reform; yet

one still finds excluded from notice certain women who would

have been included as a matter of course had they been men.

Sophie Loeb, Grace Dodge, and Mary Anderson could be cited

as examples.8

The historical literature on the family in America is quite

scanty, but there seems to be a revival of interest n the subject.

Several nterestingmonographs ave begun to deal with the family

role of women in its various aspects.This approach s promising

and will hopefully be pursuedby other historians.9

A new conceptual ramework or dealing with the subject of

women in American history is needed. The feminist frame of

reference has become archaic and fairly useless. The twentieth-

century revolution n technology, morality, education, and em-

ployment patternshas brought enormous changes in the status

and role of Americanwomen; these changesdemanda historical

perspectiveand understanding. he emergenceof a recent new

feminism s a social phenomenon equiring nterpretation.Most

importantly,women themselvesare as entitled as minorltygroup

membersare to having their history ully recorded.

Yet the subject is complex. It is dilEcult to conceptualize

women as a group, since they are dispersed hroughout he popu-

(Chapel Hill, 1938)* For women's economic role in nineteenth- and twentieth-

century America, see: Edith Abbott, Women in Industry (New York, 1918);

J. B. Andrews and W. D. P. Bliss, Report on Condition of Woman and Child

Wage-Earners n the United States (19 vols.; Doc. No. 645, 61st Congress, 2nd

Session; Washington, 1910); and Elizabeth Baker Technology and Womenss

Work (New York, 1964).

8 For women in reform movements, see: Robert Bremmer, American Philan-

thropy (Chicago, 1960); Clarke E. Chambers, Seedtime of Reform: American

Social Service and Social Action, 1918-1933 (Ann Arbor, 1963 , Christopher

Lasch, The New Rndicalism in America: 1889-1963 (New York, 1965), and

Daniel Levine, Varieties of Reform Thoaght (Madison, Wis., 1964).

9 For a history of the family, see Arthur W. Calhoun, A Social History of the

American Family (3 vols.; Cleveland, 1918); Sidney Ditzion, Marriage, Morals

and Sex in America (New York, 1953); Paul H. Jacobson, American Marriage

and Divorce (New York, 1959), and William O'NeillSDivorce in the Progressive

Era (New Haven 1967)


8/9/2019 3786647.pdf

6/11

WOMEN

N

AMERICAN

HISTORY

57

lation.

Except

for

special

interest

organizations,

hey

do

not

com-

bine together.

The

subject

s full

of

paradoxes

which

elude

precise

definitionsand defy synthesis.

Women

at

various

times

and

places

were

a

majorsty

of

the

population,

yet

their status

was

that of

an

oppressed

minority,

de-

prived

of

the

rights

men

enjoyed.

Women

have

for centuries

been

excluded

from

positions

of power,

both

political

and economic,

yet

as

members

of

families,

as

daughters

and

wives,

they

often

were

closer

to

actual

power

than

many

a man.

If

women

were

among

the

most

exploited

of

workers,

hey

were

also

among

the

exploiters. f some womenwere dissatisfiedwith their limitedop-

portunities,

most women

were

adjusted

o their

position

n society

and

resisted

efforts

at changing

it.

Women

generally

played

a

conservative

role

as

individuals

and

in their

communities,

he

role

of conserving

radition,

aw,

order,

and

the status

quo.

Yet

women

in their

organlzations

were

frequently

allied

with

the most

radical

and

even

revolutionary

auses

and

entered

alliances

with

the

very

groups

hreatening

he

status

quo.

If women themselvesacted paradoxically,so did society in

formulating

ts values

for women.

The

rationale

for

women's

pe-

culiar

position

in

society

has

always

been

that

their

function

as

mothers

s essential

o

the

survival

of the

group

and

that the

home

is

the essential

nucleus

of

society

as

we know

it. Yet

the

milllions

of

housewives

and

homemakers

ave throughout

ur

history

been

depnved

of

the one

tangible

reward

our

society

ranks

highest:

an

income

of

their

own.

Neither

custom,

law,

nor changes

of

tech-

nology, education,or politicshave touchedthis sacredtradition.

The

unpaid

housewife-and-mother

as

affected

attitudes

toward

the women

who

perform

homemaking

ervices

or

strangers.

Tradi-

tionally

women

in the

service

trades

have

been

the

lowest

paid

among

all

workers.

Nor

has

this

pattern

been

restricted

o

the

unskilled

groups.

When

women

have

entered

an

occupation

in

large

numbers,

his

occupation

has

come

to

be

regarded

as

low

status

and has

been rewarded

by low

pay.

Examples

for

this are

readilyfoundin the teachingand nursing ields.Even intellectual

work

has

been

treated

with

the same

double

standard.

Creative

fields

in

which

women

excel

-

poetry,

the

short

story

have

been

those

carrying

he

lowest

rewards

n money

and esteem.

Only

in

the

performing

arts

has

individual

female

talent

had

the

same


8/9/2019 3786647.pdf

7/11

58 journal of social history

opportunity s male talent. Yet a cursoryglance at the composi-

tion of any majorsymphonyorchestra ven today will reveal that

in this field, too, opportunitiesor women have been restricted.

In dealing with the subject of women, studies frequentlyuse

other distinctivegroups n our society as models for comparison.

Women'spositionhas variouslybeen likened to that of the slaves,

oppressedethnic or racial minorities, or economicallydeprived

groups. But these comparisonsquickly prove inadequate. The

slave comparisonobviouslywas a rhetoricaldevice ratherthan a

factual statementevetl at the time when HarrietMartineau irst

made it.l While the law denied women equal citizenshipand for

certain purposes classed them with Indians and imbeciles it

never denied them physical freedom nor did it regard them as

chattelpersonnel. n fact, even within he slaverg ystem,women

were oppresseddifferentlyrom men. The minontygroupmodel

is also unsatisfactory. ll membersof a minoritygroupwhich suf-

fers discrimination hare, with a very few exceptionsSn the low-

statuspositionof the entire group. But women may be the wives

of Cabinetmembers the daughters f Congressmen,he sistersof

business eaders, and yet, seen simply as personsS hey may be

disfranchised nd sufferfrom economic and educationaldiscrimi-

nation. On the other handSa lower class woman may advanceto

a positionof economicor social powersimplyby marnageS route

which is generallynot open to membersof racial minoritygroups.

In one particularrespect the minority group comparison s il-

luminating:ike Negroes,womensuffer rom highvisibility?';hey

remain more readily identifiable or their group characteristics

than for their personalattainments.lt

Modern psychology,which has offered various conflicting he-

ories about the role and place of women, has :further omplicated

the task of the historian.If a social historianwishes to study a

particular thnic or religiousminorityS e can study its location

and economy, its cultureS eadership, adjustment o American

society, and contributions. he questionof psychologywould only

arise in dealing with personal biographies.But the historianof

women s at once faced with the necessityof makingpsychological

10

Society in slmerica (New York, 1837), I, 158.

11 Helen Hacker, Women s a MinorityGroup, ocial Forces, XXX (1951-

52), 60-69.


8/9/2019 3786647.pdf

8/11

WOMEN

N AMERICAN

ISTORY

s9

judgments.

s

it not

a

basic fact

that

e psychology

as

well

as the

physiology

of women

s different

rom

that

of

men?

Therefore

hey

mustof necessityhavedifferent xpectations,needs,demands,and

roles.

If

so, is the

difference

n

rights

not simply

natural,

a re-

flection

of

reality?

The problems

become

more

vexing

when

deal-

ing with

individual

women.

The

biographer

eels

obliged

first

of

all

to

concern

himself

withhis

subject's

exual

role.

Was

she mar-

ried?

A

mother?

f

she

was not,

this

indicates

that

whatever

she

achieved

was

the

result

of sexual

frustration.

f

she

was

married,

one

is under

an obligation

o

explain

that she

did not

neglect

her

childrenor perhaps hat she did. And alwaysthereis the crucial

question:

What

was her

relationship

o

her

father?

This

is

not

intended

o disparage

he

efforts

of

those

biographers

who

wish

to

enlist

the

aid of

modern

psychology

or their

work.

But

it should

be pointed

out

that

a great

deal

of excellent

history

about

men

has

been

written

without

the

author's

eeling

compelled

o

discuss

his

subject's

sex

life

or

relationship

o his

mother

in

explaining

his

historical

ignificance.

n

dealing

withwomen,

biographers

re

impededby the necessityof dealingfirst with sex, then with the

person.

This is

an approach

which

must

be examined

n

each

case

for

its

applicabilit:

where

it is

useful,

it

should

be retained;

where

t is

not,

it should

be discarded

without

apology.

In order

to broaden

the

study

of

women

in

Amencan

history,

it

is not

really

necessag

to

suggest

new

sources.

Primary

esearch

material

s

readily

available,

not

only

in the

several

manuscript

collections

devoted

o

the subject,

but

in

the usual

pnmag

sources

for social historians: ocal histoncalrecords,letters,diaries,the

organizational

ecords

of

women's

clubs,

religious

and

charitable

organizafons,

labor

unions

in

fields

employing

women

workers.

There

are

numerous

magazines,

especially

written

for

women,

which

provide

good

source

material.

Archives

of Congress

and

of

state

governments

ontain

petitions

and

statements

made

at hear-

ings

which

can

yield

valuable

nformation

bout

the

activities

and

interests

of

women.

Many of

these

readily

available

ources

remain

neglected.

A

fresh

approach

o

known

material

and

to available

sources

could

provide

valuable

new

insights.

The following

suggestion

might

make a

useful

beginning:

First,

the subject

Women

s

too vast

and

diffuse

to

serve

as


8/9/2019 3786647.pdf

9/11

60

journal

f

social

history

a

alid

point

of

departure.

Women

are

members

of

families,

citi-

zens

f

different

egions,

economic

producers,

ust

as

men

are

but

theirmphasison these variousroles is different.The economic

role

f

men

predominates

n

their

lives,

but

women

shift

readily

from

ne

role

to

another

at

different

periods

n

their

lives.

It

is

in

this

hat

their

function

s

different

rom

men

and

it

is

this

which

must

orm

the

biasis

or

any

conceptual

framework

In

modern

society

he

only

statement

about

women

in

general

which

can

be

made

with

validity

concerns

their

political

status.

Therefore

he

subject

hould

be

subsumed

under

several

categories

and

any

in-

quiry,description,and generalizationshould be limited

to

a

narrower

ield.

It

is

useful

to

deal

with

the

status

of

women

at

any

given

time-to

distinguish

among

their

economic

statusS

family

tatus,

and

political-legal

tatus.

There

must

also

be

a

con-

sideration

f

class

position,

as

has

been

usefully

proven

n

recent

studies

f

the

feminist

movement.l2

Second,

we

should

look

at

different

aspects

of

women's

role

in

American

history.

We

must

certainly

be

concerned

with

the

woman'sghtsmovement,butonly as partof the

total

story.

His-

torians

must

painstakingly

estore

the

actual

record

of

women's

contributions

t

any

given

period

in

histoty.

It

is

interesting

hat

the

history

of

women

before

the

advent

of

the

feminist

movement

has

been

more

fully

recorded

and

in

a

more

balanced

way

than

it

has

afterward,

o

that

the

story

of

colonial

women

can

be

quite

fully

traced

through

econdary

iterature.l3

ut

when

we

deal

with

the

period

after

1800,

it

often

proves

difficult

o

establish

even

descriptive acts. During the early

national

period,

women

or-

ganized

elaborate

welfare

and

relief

systems

which

they

staffed

and

administered.

This

story

should

be

part

of

the

historr

of

the

period;

t

is

not

now.

Women

were

the

teachers

n

most

of

the

nation's

public

schools

during

he

nineteenth

entury;

his

is

worth

recording

and

explonng.

Women

made

a

significant

ontribution

to

the

growth

and

development

of

frontier

communities.

These

are

but

a

few

of

the

many

areas

in

which

more

research

and

un-

coveringof factual

inforrnation

re

needed.

Third,

we

might

well

discard

he

4'oppressed

roupmodel when

12

See

Kraditor

and

Lasch.

13

A

full

bibliography

of

colonial

women

is

to

be

found

in

Eugenie

A.

Leonard,

Sophie

H.

Drinker,

and

Miriam

Y.

Holden,

The

American

Woman

in

Colonial

and

Revolutionary

Times:

1565-1800

(Philadelphia,

1962).


8/9/2019 3786647.pdf

10/11

WOMEN

N AMERICAN

ISTORY

61

discussing

women'srole

in the political

ife of

the nation. Instead,

we

might start

with the fact

that one

generalization

bout women

which holdsup is that they were, longerthan any othergroupin

the nation,

depnved

of political and

economic power.

Did

this

mean

they actually

wselded

no power or did

they wield power

in

different forms?

My

research has

led me

to believe that

they

wielded

considerable

power and in

the middle

of ffie nineteenth

century

even political

power.

They found

a way to

make their

power

felt throughorganizations,

hroughpressure

actics,through

petitioning,

and various other

means;

these later became

models

for other massmovements or reform.

Fourth,

another

mportant

act is

that women are

a group who

for a considerable

eriod

of history

were depnved

of equal access

to education.

While they were

not

illiterate,their education

was

limited,

usually to below

the

high school level.

This was true

of

the majority

of women

until the end

of the

nineteenthcentury.

It

might be vety useful

to investigate

what

impact this had

on

female

behavior

and more

specifically,

women's performance

as

a group in termsof outstandingachievement.To put it another

way,

how many

generations

of educatedwomen

are

necessary o

produce

a significant

umber

of outstanding

women academicians?

How

many generations

o college-trained

women are necessary

before

women in sizable

numbers make

contributions

n the

sciences?When

do

women begin to

move

from the small-scale,

home-centered

creative

forms, the

fiction, poetry,

and article-

writing,

o the larger-scale

work

within the framework

f cultural

institutions?s the proverbialdearthof femalephilosophers eally

a result

of some

innate distinctiveness

f female mental

function

or rather

the

productof centuries

of environmental

nd institu-

tional

depnvation?

This type

of inquiry ends

itself to a compara-

tive

cross-cultural pproach.

A comparison

between the educa-

tional deprivation

f

women and that

sufferedby certain

minority

groups

might lead us

to a demonstrable

orrelation

between

edu-

cational

depnvation

and a gap

of severalgenerations

before ade-

quateand competitiveperformances possible.This could explain

a great

deal

about some of

our problems

with minority

groups,

public schooling,

and academic

achievement.

Fifth, it

would be

most worthwhile

to distinguish

the

ideas

society held

at any

given moment in

regard to woman's

proper


8/9/2019 3786647.pdf

11/11

62

journal

f

social

history

place

rom

what

was

actually

woman's

status

at

that

time.

The

two

o

not

necessarily

overlap.

On

the

eontraryS

here

seems

to

beeonsiderablegap between

the

popular

myth

and

reality.

Soeial

istorians

might

legitimately

be

eoneerned

with the sig-

nifieanee

f

this

gap,

how

to

aeeount

or

it,

and

whether

t

fits

any

distinguishable

attern.

It

would

also

be

important

o

understand

the

unetion

of

ideas

about

women

in

thSe

general

ordering

of

soeiety.

as

the

faet

that

eolonial

women

Fvere

dealized

as

thrifty

housewives

nd

able

helpmeets

ause

or

eSeet

of

the

labor

shortage

in

he

eolonies?

Are

the

idealized

uburban

ousewifeS

he

fashion-

eonseiouseenager, he

sex-symbol

model,

eauses

or

effects

of

our

eonsumer-oriented

oeiety?

And

what

effeetdoes the sociallyheld

eoneept

f

woman's

ole

have

on

the

developnzent

f

female

talent?

On

oman's

eontribution

o

the

soeie-ty?

Finally,

we

eome

baek

to

the

initial

problem

of

how

to

judge

the

ontribution

of

women.

Are

women

noteworthy

when

their

aehievement

alls

exaetly

in

a

eategory

of

aehievement

et

up

for

men?

bviously

not

for

this

is

how

they

have

been

kept

out

of

the

historyooks up

to

now.

Are

women

notewolthy

then,

as

the

feminists

ended

to

think,

if

they

do anythingat all? Not likely.

The

aet

remains

hat

women

are

different

rom

men

and

that

their

role

n

soeiety

and

history

s

different

rom

that

of

men.

Different,

but

qual

in

importanee.

Obviously

heir

aehievements

must

also

be

measured

on

a

different

seale.

To

define

and

devise

sueh

a

seale

s

diffieult

until

the

gaps

in

our

historieal

knowledge

abiout

the

aetual

eontributions

of

women

have

been

filled.

This

work

remainso

be

done.

But

we

already

know

enough about the subjeetto eonelude

that

he

role

women

played

at

different

imes

in

our

history

has

been

ehanging.

The

patterns

and

signifieanee

of

these

ehanges,

the

eontinuities

and

diseontinuities,

he

expeetations

and

stnvings

of

the

pioneers

and

the

realities

of

the

social

scene

all

these

await

study

and

new

interpretations.

ne

would

hope

at

onee

for

a

wider

framework

and

a

narrower

oeus-a

disearding

of

old

eategories

and

a

painstaking

seareh

of

known

sourees

for

un-

known

meanings.

It is an endeavorthat should enlist the best

talents

of

the

profession

and?

hopefully

and

at

long

last,

not

primarily

emale

talent.

3786647.pdf

Documents

Transcript of 3786647.pdf