City of Quartz

In this book, Davis uses the city of Los Angeles to highlight and attack the negative consequences of a capitalist society.  He begins by debunking the myth of Los Angeles being the city where dreams are made and transitions into the complex and faulty power structure that rules LA.  He then illuminates the injustices committed against minorities and prophetically predicts (as he points out in the prologue) upheavals such as the riots after the Rodney King verdict.  With intense admiration it saddens Davis to see LA not living up to its full potential.  In order to save the city he loves (and perhaps all cities that have been plagued by extreme capitalism) he seems to be pushing for a somewhat socialist revolution that breaks down the current power structures and brings the citizens of LA together, rather than pushing them further apart.

While reading some news this morning, I came across this relevant NPR article.

After Years Of Violence, L.A.'s Watts Sees Crime Subside

City of Quartz

I thought that this book, likened to the others, makes a strong case for the history of racism in US History. Before reading this book, I was unaware of the racial/social underpinnings that had a hand in laying the foundations of LA. One would think it was a booming economic and cultural hub of equal opportunity. However, I found it very interesting that this was definitely not the case. The land speculation and seeming accounts of fraudulent activity masked by the "hey, come live here because it's awesome" really made me think if most hubs are like this. Are Atlanta, Chicago, New York, and other major cities all developed around "the man's" goal? I'm not an advocate of developing land for industrial/commercial/residential use....I understand it ha to be done, but it seems the way LA came into existence is purely for capitalistic gains.

Purpose of City of Quartz

What was Davis' purpose of this book? To dismantle the image of L.A. as a shiny image of constant boomtown, liberal, and utopian? While clearly Marxian at points, Davis does not ignore the problems of race within the city. Was Davis giving reasons for a peasant/race revolution?

"Quartz" in Davis' title

I find Davis’ reference to “quartz” in his book title an interesting choice. Though I could not find a direct reference in his medley of essays that make up the book’s chapters, his reference in the Preface (written in 2006 and looking back on his previously published work of 1990) to the “social and politico-economic tectonic plates” (p. ix) and chapter five’s title, “The Hammer and the Rock,” give a couple of slightly dissimilar clues. The first metaphor, perhaps the best clue, references the book’s tracing of the ‘electrical sparks,’ or social unrest and instability between the racial and economic classes and the white, elite "free enterprise-d,” that became the staple of LA city life in the elite's push to lead and become the preeminent center of globalization taking place on the Pacific Rim, as metaphorically similar when the mineral quartz generates electricity or 'sparks' when rubbed or pressed together. The second metaphor references the LAPD’s super sweeps targeting young men of color under the public rubric of opposing and hindering the drug trade of “crack” cocaine, aka “rock.” Supposedly, the LAPD's "HAMMER-ing" of the drug “rock” spins off the hammering of the natural rock, quartz, with again the result of social sparks as akin to electrical sparks from the mineral quartz. Any thoughts? Interestingly, by a quick online check, Davis' home county of San Bernardino has the most quartz mines in CA while LA County has one of the least number.

Updated Figures from Prologue

In case anyone else was curious about what some of the updated figures from the Prologue would be:

• contrary to Davis' 2010 statistical prediction, Anglos are still the majority in the state of California according to the 2010 census: 58% white v. 38% latino
• census data for L.A.: 50% white v. 49% latino
• affluence - $87,000 and above
• poverty - $26,000 and under

The census data is actually a little confusing since it doesn't total 100%.  If anyone understands why, please tell me -- numbers aren't my thing (surprise).

Section 3 City of Quartz: Excavating the Future of Los Angeles

Hello,

"Junkyard of Dreams" is the title of chapter seven of the book City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles.  In this chapter, Mike Davis details in his writing that "The City of Fontana, California is headed for economic catastrophe even as the 'Reagan Boom' was taking off." This actually did happen as re-development efforts were underway in this location and time period of American history.  Clearly, Mike Davis had an important message for both Southern California readers and history students in other areas of the world as well.
Lastly, Thanks

Section 2 City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles

Hello,

Chapter four of City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles is aptly titled Fortress L.A. The author, Mike Davis uses this chapter to explain the recent erosion of civil liberties due to the emergence of many more security cameras in the downtown area of Los Angeles.  The writing "The privatization of the architectural public realm, moreover, is shadowed by parallel restructurings of electronic space, as heavily policed, pay-access 'information orders', elite data bases and subscription cable services appropriate parts of the invisible agora." is an indication of the many competing factors involved in the erosion of civil liberties of individuals in the downtown Los Angeles area.  Privatization of public spaces has proven to be a hot topic in modern urban planning circles.

Thanks

Section 1 City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles

In author Mike Davis 1990 book City of Quartz: Excavating The Future in Los Angeles an apocalyptic vision of the future is detailed.  Chapter one of section one is titled Sunshine or Noir ? Davis writes "With such malice toward the landscape, it is not surprising that developers also refuse any nomenclature concession in the desert." The suburbs that spread into the California desert seem to be both a blessing and a curse by Davis.  Throughout the book more historical facts are used by Mike Davis to support this interesting conclusion.
Thanks Again

Argument in Quartz

Reading City of Quartz still looking for the argument, something to do about race and the development of LA? Anyone care to shed some light on their interpretation at the beginning of the book? Reading in an airport, is Davis' purpose for the book obvious and I am just missing it so far?

Crespino does a good job of complicating the story of Strom Thurmond and prevents readers from placing him in strict categories defined by overt racism.  It was interesting to see his role in the rise of modern conservatism, but it was also very intriguing to see his political journey throughout the book.  He has a fascinating public and private life that attracts the reader throughout.  Overall, Crespino goes beyond Storm's racist roots and succeeds in depicting him as a complex political figure that pioneered conservative ideas that we still see today.

Crespino and the theme of 'manliness' and 'civilization'

I think Crespino shows Thurmond to be a lens which focuses the bright light of historical reflection on the similar issue of manliness and civilization as in Bederman last week. For example, on p. 72, Crespino refers back to Thurmond’s infamous quote captured by Movietone News this way: “And there was no more manly matter in July 1948 than the fate of white Democracy. Thurmond knew that with this speech this throng of angry white men was testing him, and he was determined not to fall short.”  While Crespino does show an uneven and unsteady and somewhat eventual  partial transformation of Thurmond over his long life span, Crespino definitely ties white supremacist, segregated ‘manliness’ as exampled in Thurmond to the ‘civilization’ that white southerners in the main and many other non-southern whites envisioned and worked to maintain in 1948.  Anyone else agree? Further, if one accepts that Crespino's Thurmond did undergo a partial transformation of his white supremacy and segregationist views, Crespino shows a similar kind of transformation of the South's, if not the nation's, racist and white supremacists attitudes on 'manliness' and 'civilization.' Others agree or disagree?

Family Connection

I grew up in the suburbs of Chicago...aside from discussions at the occasional family BBQ or hearing about a crooked governor on the news, I never felt that politics were at the center of my society. Then I moved to the South. Politics are different here. My cousin through marriage is the attorney general for South Carolina, Alan Wilson. His father, Joe Wilson is a South Carolina representative. Their family was very close to Strom Thurmond - Alan was an intern in his office while in college and Joe was an aide to Thurmond in the 60's. One thing I have learned about this part of the family is that they are VERY proud to be from South Carolina. In reading the book this week, specifically Part One: Up From Edgefield, I get the sense that the political community in South Carolina is very close-knit, loyalty is taken very seriously, and the love for the state of South Carolina runs DEEP. Thurmond was born and raised in South Carolina, went to college in South Carolina, got married in South Carolina (twice) and died in South Carolina.  Even after the scandal with his daughter, Essie Mae Washington-Williams, many in South Carolina are still very loyal to Strom Thurmond's memory. A statue still stands in Columbia in his honor.

I find Crespino's brief connection to Thurmond very interesting. Coming from the South, Crespino acknowledges that much of the GOP (and Southern politics in general) was impacted by Thurmond. After reading Crespino's book and having a small personal connection to South Carolina politics...I'd have to agree.

Crespino's View on Family Relations

I was a bit surprised to read Crespino's description of Thurmonds illegitimate black daughter as loving in the final chapter. Read it a few times because I couldn't believe his interpretation of her actions or mindset. Am I reading that right? Missing some sort of sarcasm?

Thoughts on Strom Thurmond's America

Finally got some time to start on Strom Thurmond's America and my first impression is that it will not sit well with me. Having a hard time understanding why Crespino is introducing the subject the way that he is. Of course he was a racist hypocrite but I am trying to carry his luggage? People who view Strom Thurmond's conservative white south as simply racist are missing the fact that it was also  anti communist, anti labor, pro conservative Christian, anti liberal church, anti judicial activism and pro hyper-military. From my point of view all he did was make Thurmond's south sound even more backwards from today's perspective than if they had simply been a bunch of racists. I am now worried that reading this book will be like sitting through a few hours of Fox News, which I understand some people would enjoy, but not me. I have spent many summer days sailing on Lake Strom Thurmond on the Georgia, South Carolina boarder in the past, on the Georgia side they do not recognize the name and instead call it Clark's Hill lake.

Section 3 Strom Thurmond's America

Hello,

The eight chapter of section three of Joseph Crespino's Strom Thurmond's America is titled Party Hopping.  Senator Thurmond's switching of political parties from Southern Democrat to the Republican Party, in 1964, must be seen as a changing moment in South Carolina and American political history.  The quote "The day before, Thurmond had delivered a scalding denunciation of the Democratic Party, announcing his new status as a "Goldwater Republican." shows that the political atmosphere in the Southern United States was changing and the politically adept Senator Thurmond used this change to further his political advantage.  Thurmond's switch to the Republican Party could be seen as the historical start of President Nixon's political adoption of the influential "Southern Strategy." that defined national Republican strategy for decades to come.

Section 2 Strom Thurmond's America

Hello,

Joseph Crespino, the author of Strom Thurmond's America describes the "massive resistance" campaign led by the Southern Democrats on Congress to racial integration in a tidy manner.  Crespino's writing details "The image of Strom Thurmond as one of the Jim Crow South's greatest defenders-an image he so carefully-cultivated to solidifying his base and maintain his electoral viability." With this writing about Southern political history the author Crespino invites discussion among scholars and history students alike.  This debate still rages on in many political circles to this day.

Section 1 Strom Thurmond's America

Hello Again,

In order to understand Senator Strom Thurmond's rise to political power a student of history must look at the town in which Senator Thurmond was born and raised.  Edgefield, South Carolina and its surrounding environs in the early twentieth century was a unique Southern town in which many of South Carolina's previous governors had come from.  The political power that this town possessed and Thurmond's early education in politics would form the basis of his future political influence.  The author, Joseph Crespino writes "he learned too about the tragedy after the Civil War, the folly of Reconstruction and the glory of Redemption, that had set the nation on solid footing once again." This writing infers that Thurmond's early upbringing in Edgefield, South Carolina during the early twentieth century was a unique insight into the political mind of the future United States Senator.

Roosevelt history

In u.s. history classes in high school we are told of the heroic rough riders led by teddy Roosevelt himself. Never is there mention of his ideas on race superiority and imperialism. He wasn't there to save the day and lend a hand to Cubans. According to bederman, Teddy was there to embrace imperialism for the good of the master white race. He needed to fight inferior races in order to prevent racial decadence.

It is a very interesting twist on history

justifications

I thought Bederman did an exceptional job at providing backgrounds on the discourse of civilization in general and how it is constantly evolving. I found her descriptions of the connotations between manhood to masculinity interesting, because before reading the book, I had always ascribed them to mean the same thing. However, upon further reading, I got the sense that in the late 19th century, American men were really struggling with an identity crisis. They truly felt they needed to assert their masculinity, and she provides they did so through race and gender. I had never heard of the Johnson/Jeffries fight, but I was really rooting for Johnson until I read that he was a braggart...but I guess that comes with the territory. I also never realized the significant role that T. Roosevelt played in the reaffirmation of male identity and manliness. I knew he was a rough rider, and had the whole speak softly and carry a big stick thing going on- but it REALLY surprised me when I saw that he was a proponent of racial turpitude. I didn't really like him as a president before, and this made me pretty much knock him off my top 40 president list...

UFC

I think Bederman's analysis of manliness would be interesting to apply to today's MIxed martial arts world and UFC. The UFC, once banned as human cockfighting has grown into a mainstream sport with shows on major network FOX. MMA is an extension of the boxing world in that it taps into the primal nature of men that bederman discusses. Also Dana White, UFC president, had a long standing rule that no women would ever fight in his organization. But recently he reversed his stance and allowed women (Ronda rousey) to be the face of such a masculine "savage" sport. Just something I was thinking about as I read. 

Bederman

 Manliness and Civilization is a sound addition to the discussion of gender, race, and power in American society.   Through her discourse on manliness and civilization Bederman successfully deconstructs the language and tools that white males have used to preserve power in American society.  She does so by highlighting the numerous contradictions in popular thought and actions at the turn of the 20^th century in hopes of debunking the faulty construction of white male power that remains in America at the turn of the 21^st century.

One critique is what about the economic factors???

Hip Size, or Things That Indicate Your Sex But Don't Actually Matter

Having had more time to construct a more thorough response to the question regarding differences between the sexes, this is the point I was poorly articulating this morning: these differences are purely physiological and divorced from gender.

Yes, there are differences: hip size, for instance, is the easiest way for archeologists to determine if a skeleton is male or female; whenever a vaccine is developed for prostate cancer, it won't be prescribed to me; men aren't going to gynecologists, but urologists; and hormone therapies affect the sexes differently, e.g. testosterone for women.  Men and women have physiological differences, not fundamental differences.

If Bederman would dismiss these very base level differences as some kind of societal construction, a figment of our imagination, then she's being an absolutist and ignoring pragmatism and the larger question.  Yes, gender is a complete construction, and the roles have been built on observed differences between the sexual functions that have been assigned social meaning.  These kind of superficial differences is where early homo [insert what have you] got the idea to divide labor: If new mothers need to breastfeed regularly, then maybe their partners should go hunt and gather for the time being.  I'd argue the male-female gender role stems from this very notion and has subsequently evolved overtime from an innocuous observation to thinking-causes-infertility-in-women-because-too-much-blood-is-going-to-their-heads-and-not-their-ovaries ideologies (I'm looking at you, G. Stanley Hall), which act as though our differences are inherently meaningful.

The larger question here isn't Are there differences? but Do they matter?
A: No. (unless you're an archeologist or medical doctor)

BSA

Boy Scouts of America, according to bederman was a concerted effort to revitalize manhood. It is interesting that today we see the BSA finally accepting gay Boy Scouts (but not gay leaders). There is still a push by a large majority or scout leaders am troops to keep the safety of their children's manhood intact by keeping gay scouts away from them. A gay scout leader to them would be endangering their children of their manhood. 

Bederman and the concept of power

To me, the concept of power is present throughout Bederman’s book, though she doesn’t undertake the concept directly and does not consider it as one of the factors, though it is behind each of the factors in the discourse of civilization. That is, why she doesn’t discuss it as evident in race, gender, and millennial assumptions along with Darwin’s survival of the fittest? Perhaps power is too analytical compared to materialist conceptions that are evident in race, gender, and millennial ideas of ‘civilization’s progress.’ Does anyone have any thoughts about this?

Bederman and Foucault

I really enjoyed how Bederman laid out her methodological approach in the beginning of the book (p. 24) and gave you a check list of Foucault that she says that she was going to follow. I am struggling, however, to relate the work in the rest of the book to the Foucauldian theory as presented up-front. Can anyone help me out?

Manliness & Civilization - What is constituted as manly today?

I enjoyed how Bederman organized this book. Each chapter flows together and clearly shows how  individual groups tried to explain why their group was the most important in civilization. By the end of the book it became clear that no matter how hard women or blacks strived, the definition of manliness only referred to white men. Whenever white men felt threatened they continued to change what manhood meant. Society went from being civilized to being more primitive. How do you believe that manliness is defined today? Is it still a blend of being civilized and savage? Is it still tied to being a certain race?

Kerbers thesis

After finishing kerber's book I am trying to find her thesis. I liked the book but my question at the end was, so what? She showed us ways women's rights were denied by not bein obligated to do other duties. However, I couldn't find an argument other than we need to look at obligations. Any thoughts on her thesis?

Black women

How different would this book be if it focused on the obligations and rights of black women? I am enjoying the book, but like always I am determined to look for the silent voices. The obligations and rights of black slave women would offer quite a different narrative than we find in Kerber's book. 

Also on page 80, Kerber discusses issues of black women being obligated to work by American society. Do we not still hear calls from conservative groups about forcing "welfare moms" (which they assume are poor and black) to get jobs?

rights

After reading Kerber's book, as well as the supplemental reading from Hartog (and giving my presentation) I definitely think I have a better grasp on the differences between obligations and rights and how people have interpreted these words throughout our history. I think it is safe to say that people's interpretations of such a "concrete" document have obviously changed and the beauty is in the fact that the Constitution allowed for the ebb and flow of such ideas. In both the book and supplemental reading, we can see that citizenship and the attainment of rights is something we (Americans) have somehow always struggled for though we have evidence say "we the people" and "all men are created equal," etc... It was eye-opening to see how groups of different identity/class/ethnicity/gender have created so many layers to our conception of the world today. I think it is a great thing to question the meaning behind certain words and to truly examine if we all are due said rights or were they put in place for us to challenge them...

Future

I think it would be interesting to have Kerber write another section about the last two decades an the new definitions of gender roles, marriage and more. The recent DOMA cases included. It would be more interesting to see if gender roles and power struggles within same-sex marriages arise from income or racial distinctions between same-sex couples. 

Women and Manliness

I thought it was interesting that a manly man respected women and was chivilrous but he did not give her rights. A independent woman would have been a threat to one's manliness. This seems to show that men saw women as important, but for traditional reasons of raising a family and maintaining the household. A man did not want a wife who thought that she should be able to vote or hold the same job as her husband because he would be ridiculed and the whole paternalistic system would be destroyed.

Section 3 Manliness and Civilization

Hello Again,

Chapter five of Manliness and Civilization describes Theodore Roosevelt and his thoughts on "civilization" in his rise to being President of the United States.  From a historical standpoint, Theodore Roosevelt's meteoric rise from New York assemblyman to President of the United States was a story of political ambition and being fortunate enough to capitalize on political opportunities in a turbulent time period in American history.  One political and social thought about which Roosevelt detailed in his writings was about the idea of "civilization." Bederman's quote, "Roosevelt drew on "civilization" to help formulate his larger politics as an advocate for both nationalism and imperialism." helps explain Roosevelt's pragmatic and distinctively American rise to power.  "Civilization" and a outgoing persona would help Roosevelt become a popular figure in American during this time period.

Thanks

Section 2 Manliness and Civilization

Hello,

An interesting historical figure in Bederman's Manliness and Civilization is the educator, G. Stanley Hall.  Unlike Jack Johnson, Ida B. Wells, and Theodore Roosevelt, Hall would live his life in a manner that was outside the public eye.  As an early twentieth century educator, Hall believed in propagating the theory that little boys in America were softening and that kindergarten teachers should help boys become savages, in order to harden these boys into strong young men that could help strengthen American society.  If over civilization was threatening American manhood during this time period, then why did Hall assume that making boys do savage acts in early age, would make them strong young men in American society? Serious intellectual thought refuted Halls theory but I still ask what was the social atmosphere of this time period that allowed for this theory to come forth in the first place?

Thanks

Section I Manliness and Civilization

Hello Again,

In Gail Bederman's 1995 book Manliness and Civilization: A Cultural History in the United States, 1800-1917 an interesting historical argument about racial sensitivities in the early twentieth century is explored.  The 1910 Jack Johnson versus Jim Jefferies heavy weight boxing title match is the setting for Bederman's first chapter.  The title fight had Johnson as (black) champion figure versus Jefferies a (white) champion figure.  Johnson would win the fight decisively, but was this was also the start of race riots around the country, as well.  I tend to think the fight was an instigating factor in these race riots, but social, political, and economic factors also played a key role in the start of these particular riots.

Thanks

The relevance of obligations

I decided to re-read the epilogue, hoping to figure out exactly why Kerber is interested in a history of obligations. It certainly seems the case that Kerber believes that a history of women's obligations is a more informative way to explain the story of women's political autonomy and changing citizenship, than say simply a history of rights. On page 309 she writes that "I hope that this book has persuaded its readers that the basic obligations of citizenship have always been demanded of women; it is the forms and objects of that demand that have varied over time." I'm not sure if Kerber throws out an explicit and cohesive definition of obligation, if she did I certainly passed it over without notice. However, I think filling in this quote with a more clear understanding of what obligations are would really flesh out the history of women's obligations.
After some thinking on the basic conceptual difference between rights and obligations, it seems that obligations require and thus imply a set of abilities or autonomous means for action. This is distinct from rights insofar as rights merely offer avenues to express autonomy, they don't ever have to be actualized. Of course, this is probably more speculation on my part I haven't done much digging into he history of the definition of rights and obligations. Thus while women may have always had the obligations of citizenship, the political advancements over the course of 200 years have let them better express the autonomy they have always had access too. Therefore, a history of obligations would offer more insight into the ways women can and have expressed their autonomy more so than a history of only rights. But, this is all most just speculation, I would totally retract these ideas if presented with some badass evidence to say otherwise.

Class ? On race and gender

Someone asked in class about the intersections of the fights for racial equality and gender equality. What Kerber did not mention, perhaps because she was writing during the inception of it, there is/was a 3rd wave of Feminism. It began in the 1990's and brought the struggles of race and gender and all struggles for equality for groups of disadvantaged people into the broader Feminist discussion. It was in a way a backlash against 2nd wave Feminism that was primarily driven by and fighting for the interests of white, middle and upper class women. 3rd wave Feminism strives to include the voices and concerns of women of color, people in poverty, the LGBT community, and other underprivileged groups. In Kerber's book, all the women principals she introduces us to like the plaintiffs in the cases were white women of middle or upper class, such as the Smith sisters. Most of the female lawyers she describes taking up the causes of the legal cases were also white, at least middle class, and privileged enough to be able to earn law degrees.  I think a reading of legal cases related to 3rd wave Feminism issues would certainly include the two recent Supreme Court decisions, DOMA and Prop 8.

Comparison with Wood and Morgan: Effective but not magisterial

Unlike Wood and Morgan, I would say Kerber proves her point: “Women never collected the “wages of gender.”…The gradual deterioration of coverture was accompanied by the substitution of obligation to the state for obligations to husbands and family…and engendered its own debates on a timetable independent of the timing of debates about the obligations of male citizens.

However, she lacks their gravitas.  I think here work could be on their level, but her weakness for making unproven assertions and an occasional uncharitable characterization of her opponents* drag her down a notch in my estimation.

Either way, I would say I learned as much from her about how to do history: how to use sources, distill a teaching, and even provide a picture that reinforces your point.

Does she think that Hoyt should not have been found guilty of anything?

She mentions the greater understanding we now have of the self-defense argument of battered women.  But, to what extent does that apply to Hoyt?  I know she had been beaten before and that should be taken into account, but immediately before killing him she had been trying to entice her husband to stay by wearing an negligee.  Does that show that some motives other than self-defense were at work?

Pithy Insights

Kerber is expert at locating or coining pithy phrases that sum up big ideas and really give you a handle on the topic at hand.  Here are some examples:

“The dilemma of difference”: This phrase gets across the challenge they had in arguing for women’s role in jury.  They had to show equal capacity and obligation.  But, they also had to show difference—for, if men and women were the same then (by virtue of “virtual representation”) men could stand in for women.

Also helpful is “Jane Crow”.

Finally, the phrase that encapsulates her thesis: “the wages of gender are not privilege.” 

Insights into surprising connections

Andrea mentioned that she did not know that women were still dealing with birthright issues into the 80s.  Neither did I.  Here are some other insightful surprises Kerber had in store:

-“At one point the association of Communism with attacks on segregation erupted in the demand that black faculty testify to their own support of segregation in order to clear themselves of charges of Communism.”

-Tensions between minorities during WWII: Negroes, for example, had been able to move into the homes left vacant by the Japanese-Americans who had been interned.”

Uncharitable characterizations of opponents.

Examples:

“Women had not been enslaved,” claimed Judge Armstead Brown, ignoring all African-American women.”  It seems to me that he is not ignoring African American women but saying women as a group weren't enslaved because of the fact that they were women.

Also, would opponents of the ERA consider opposing the ERA a “rite of purification,” or is she trying to make them sound a bit fanatical?

Atomized Individuals?

“Women are individuals, even when married …”

She seems to replace relational ties between individuals in families (could they perhaps be mutual instead of one-way as with coverture?) with  an atomistic individualism that leaves no barriers (no intermediate levels of authority) between the individual and the state.  That, itself, sounds like it might be a threat to liberty.  It’s good to break down hierarchy, but are we left with anything but individuals, who by themselves, could not stand up to a government if it decided to take away our liberties?   

From Wood: “the connectedness of colonial society—its capacity to bind one person to another—was exceedingly fragile and vulnerable to challenge”

-Does she take away informal means of bonding each other together (such as the family) and leave only the state (with all its powers of coercion) left to do the job of binding us together?

Conversations

Kerber  is having some interesting conversations with wood and Morgan in the first chapters. Kerber mentions the patriarchy of Morgan and draws parallels to woods point that slavery and the role p women changed very little in the revolutionary period. 

As current day readers it is easy to say that the American revolution was radical in equalizing all. Yet we need to remember that the change we see today is not reflective of how the framers made the system.

I wonder if the historiography of social change in the American revolution reflects a growing trend of writing that indeed the revolution was radical.

Unnecessary Unfounded Assumptions

She says, "By the end of the war, Washington’s General Orders allowed no more than one woman to draw food rations for every fifteen men in a regiment. Some, no doubt, came for a taste of adventure."

But, she provides no evidence that some came for adventure, and I don't see how it adds to her thesis.  She seems to make moves like this one or two times a chapter.

She's a good historian: she is adept at marshaling evidence and has an uncanny knack for grasping startling insights.  I don't see why she makes (what I consider) unforced errors like this.

"Studies that show"--Hmmm.

(I apologize if this shows up twice, I had difficulty getting it to post, so I re-posted)

Kerber says “Studies have shown that married women who earn money have a more emphatic role in family decision making than those who do not.”

I never trust the phrase, “studies show.”  I have seen too many instances where someone else gets a hold of the original data and “shows” the opposite conclusion. Better to say, "authors of studies argue."  Worse, she not only fails to give the data supporting the study, she does not even cite the studies so that readers may look them up and analyze them for themselves.

I Didn't Know That...

I didn't know that women were still dealing with birthright issues into the 1980s. I had a basic understanding before reading that men had more freedom to move about and marry foreigners and keep their citizenship, but women struggled when marrying foreigners. Specifically Kerber discusses in her "Marriage with a Foreigner" section that "not until 1989 did a federal court affirm maternal birthright citizenship for a women born abroad before 1934." The fight for women's seems so "Victorian," but Kerber makes sure to make it clear that the fight for rights did NOT end with the 19th Amendment.

Kerber

It seems like I am going to be in the minority on reviews of this book.  I understand the argument (I think) and feel like it was well written, but I just did not really enjoy it.  I think it is maybe because I do not particularly enjoy legal history, even if it is written in a narrative form.  Maybe the discussion of the book will help me appreciate it more.

P.S. Not liking this book does not make me a male chauvinist.   

One of the most effective use of graphics I have seen in a monograph.

She has a knack for selecting graphics.  Her pictures get across exactly the point she wants to make.  For example, the cartoons of what courtrooms would look like with female jurors, highlights her point about how men viewed women at the time.  Just about every graphic is perfectly chosen and placed.  I'd like to take a course from her on how to find just the right graphic--the research must have taken a lot of time.

Helpful Insight

Kerber doesn’t just regurgitate data.  Her insightful analysis gives depth of meaning to the data.  The following provides a good example.  She indicates how the inconsistencies in arguments both for and against women in juries (both sides alternating between the genders’ difference and sameness) reveals the culture’s ambivalence on the issue.

“Everywhere the case for women jurors seesawed back and forth between an emphasis on women’s and men’s sameness…and an emphasis on women’s and men’s difference…The case against women jurors also seesawed back and forth…The images alternated, often in the same memo, sometimes in the same paragraph, their internal contradictions and oxymoronic nature reflecting deep cultural ambivalence.”