Hello Fellow Classmates!
I have just started reading “No Constitutional Right to be
Ladies” and here are some of my thoughts so far.
1.
Linda Kerber sets up her argument and purpose
for writing the book right from the start in the preface, which I find
extremely helpful as I keep this information in mind throughout the remainder
of the book.
a.
There are 5 obligations to the nation that she
structures her argument around.
b.
These obligations, she argues “appears at first
glance to weigh on all individuals equally,” but “turns out in practice to have
been experienced differently, over the years, by men and by women” (xxiii).
2.
When I read or research history, I enjoy finding
a relation between the subject and myself.
For this reason, I have never connected with U.S. history on the same
level as I do with European or British History, but I am finding that this book
is quite interesting for me, a fact that I can owe to my womanhood.
3.
I think that because Kerber is building her
thesis on stories of legal cases, that it will not only be a more interesting
read, but will also hopefully present multiple viewpoints so that we can
establish a well-rounded perspective on the issues she brings up.
Hey Katie,
ReplyDeleteI am a bit more than a third of the way through the book and would say that her strong reliance on court cases and individual struggles for each chapter does make the book quite interesting.
I also enjoyed the structure of the book. It is easy to follow and the court cases are interesting and very well researched.
DeleteAfter completing the book I found her vivid research on individuals in the court cases to be very beneficial to the flow of the stories she told. I especially liked how she allowed the reader to get to know not just the defendants or complaint ants but also the judges and lawyers through biographies.
DeleteIt was a great idea for her to structure the book in the form of obligations. In the modern age, we tend not to think about the obligations of citizenship, were more focused on our rights.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Kerber does a good job of showing how important gaining these obligations are to gaining rights.
Purav,
ReplyDeleteI agree that Kerber does an exceptional job explaining and clarifying the court cases in her work. Also, I think that this accomplishment is vital to the overall success of her argument. At the beginning of the book, it seemed as though Kerber is making the argument that the technicality and structure of the law serves as a way of camouflaging patriarchy. Therefore, I agree with you that she does an amazing job explaining each of the court cases so that a reader without a law degree can easily access the decision and the results. From my understanding of second wave feminism, one of the primary means of challenging the patriarchy is consciousness raising. Therefore, it is vital for the feminist cause to demystify the law. As long as the law camouflages the patriarchal structure of the American society, patriarchy will remain entrenched in daily life. Thoughts?
Mark
I am all in agreement with Mark and others and agree that the court cases are deconstructed in a way that makes them easy to read. However, I can't help but feel that the reliance on the court cases, while central to the thesis of the book, negates the importance and impact of individual and group behaviors throughout American history. Is this a fair reading of the book?
ReplyDelete[Disclaimer: I am still finishing up as my book did not arrive until Saturday!]
I felt the court cases and background research that Kerber provides in the book really helped put things in context for me. I found it to be an easier read than the past books.
ReplyDeleteKatie -
ReplyDeleteI found her preface to be very descriptive as well. Some books do not have a strong introduction, but I like how she thoroughly explained her setup AND she connected to English law & the Revolution which we discussed earlier in class. For example: at the time of the Revolution men controlled women's property, etc., and with the control of her husband, her right to vote would have been her husband's control.