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.
No comments:
Post a Comment