Interestingly enough all advertisements for woman slaves or "wenches" require a list of all of their certain talents such as weaving, spinning, and household business. I noticed that when men and children are listed they don't have any certain attributes or qualifications that come with their description. It's an interesting thought that the slaves that are men and children are less descriptive than the women slaves. I wonder why this is so?

Though, of course it was well deserved, but as I read I wondered what sort of punishment did she face after this letter was sent? Was it common for fathers to send away their children to harsh employers or into servitude itself? When would her sentence be over? Her language also was as good indicator of how women were taught in those times, for there are many spelling and grammatical errors.

Although it's not surprising to me that in a patriarchal society a father could send his daughter off to indentured servitude for something as little as misbehaving, i don't quite understand how white women, who ultimately played a huge role in maintaining the chesapeake colonies could be treated so horribly, be it their diet or other types of abuse.

I find it ironic that white indentured servants who suffered such horrible conditions as Elizabeth Sprigs experienced could go on to become slave owners or the masters of indentured servants, however kind to their slaves (like Molly Bannaky)

in almost all of the accounts, they mentioned that they must teach them to read the Bible. Was this task given so that when they became mothers they could spread the Christian faith to their children, or was it because the perception of women at the time was negative and they sought to purify the women? Were boys also taught to read the Bible at such an early age?

Then the daughter was unwilling to testify against her father. Why would the daughter be unwilling? societal norms promoting the submissiveness of women? Fear of the patriarch? Fear in general towards her abuser? I would say all three of these explanations are plausible.

Abigail Bailey explains how difficult it would be to get her husband arrested for his incestuous relationship with his daughter, she further explains that this is due to the fact that her daughter was not allowed to speak to her, she didn't think her daughter would testify, and that she had no legal rights. Due to the fact, as both Bailey and Mr. B point out, that Bailey was under her husband's legal control, how could she go against him? Is this a common thing? Are there other stories of the period where there are laws against incest yet a lack of reporting due to the fact that women didn't have many rights?

It was probably common for the time period for women to do most of the upbringing of their children; but Esther's case appears to be a bit more unusual in that she appears to have a bit more freedom than other women for she only had three children(not sure if that situation changed) as she mentioned in one of her letters. In addition, she was unusual in that she debated with scholars in her town on the feelings of women.

After Tuesday discussion and after looking at the readings, I am curious to know if there were ever any cases in colonial times in which women killed their husbands in order to gain their freedom and rights they had lost during the marriage?

At the heart of Puritan culture seems to be the want to tell other people what they should do. Cotton Mather does so with his theory of "well ordered families." Benjamin Wadsworth has a myriad of opinions on what families should be like. Families should love each other, spouses should be patient with each other, husbands should be gentle and easy while wives should be cheerfully obedient. Real life cannot adhere to a should statement, were they really aware of how nuclear families worked?

what is “spinning frolick

I found it interesting how the 39 nation-states in Germany produced the most progress in the field of psychiatry during the 19th century. It was made possible by the sheer number of academic institutions, fierce competition and a desire for recognition coupled with centralized government control. This was practically the opposite of the American experience that consolidated national control among a few in the field, required bottom up action to involve government, and focused on select foreign opinions to create a national treatment model.

Considering how many figures played a key role in the shaping and development of this medical science can any one person really be attributed as "The Father of Psychiatry?"

Shorter's information on psychiatry outside of the United States helped me to put American psychiatry into some form of international context. Keeping in mind Shorter's acerbic introduction and his desire to retell the history of psychiatry, he gives us a good general background in order to reinterpret this history as a whole

I had to smile at the description of Pinel's attitude in Shorter--bonhomie and frankness were critical to getting a patient to open up. Seems like common sense, but Shorter says this was revolutionary.

I don't quite understand the difference between Tuke and Pinel use of religion as treatment in Foucault's piece. Tuke believes in the fear of God and re-educating the madman moral conscience will cure him, but Pinel believes this too (just different methods?)

I was completely fascinated by Pinel's "recognition by mirror" theory; the idea that a madman must observe madness in others before he can observe it in himself. I, also, liked how it logically connected to "perpertual judgement" and Tuke notion of self-regulation. Once you see yourself as mad, then it becomes your moral obligation to control yourself

I was intrigued by Shorter's section on the treatment of "nervous" problems by society doctors, particularly in that they were called to treat people with more serious mental illness, but failed to diagnose them with anything more than being under the influence of ill "vapors." Is this because serious illnesses extended beyond their expertise, or that they did not want to cause worry among the wealthy families that paid them?-

In Foucault’s Madness and Civilization I noticed on page 252 there was mention how the Retreat’s goal was to treat the mentally ill like children. While this is better than constraint and isolation, that ideal could not possibly work for everyone because each patient had different issues and different degrees of illness. However, in this case I feel the intentions were good because they were trying to educate them.

What gives rise to idea of the patient doctor relationship in the Nineteenth, and how did this idea developed over the Nineteenth century and into more recent times?

Maybe I'm misinterpreting Foucault when he says "Catholicism frequently provokes madness" (255), but is he actually arguing that religion causes people to go mad? Interesting to see considering how we've talked about religious groups helping with the mentally ill. Anyone else find this strange or is able to help me if I'm completely misreading this?

Shorter mentions in a step of advancement in institutions that patients should be separated into curable and incurable. I feel that this may be and interesting move that could be made. If a patient's disease has a cure then why put them a

On page 16 of Shorter’s book, a visitor to the Pennsylvania Hospital in 1787 recorded that, “We next took a view of the maniacs. Their cells were in the lower story, which is partly underground. These cells are about 10 feet square, and made as strong as a prison…. In each door is a hole, large enough to give them food, etc., which is closed with a little door secured with strong bolts.”

SARAH AHHATON’S TRIAL, 1668

Plane suggests that the severe punishment of Sarah Ahhaton may have been due to her race, in order to discourage further adultery. However, as she continues to discuss the conflict between the European culture and the resisting traditionalism, I feel that her husband’s role as the native Christian minister also influences her punishment. She was a native woman not only committing a crime against Christianity, but specifically committed adultery against an authoritative native Christian.

I find it interesting that the Native American men seemed to be more willing than the Native American women to convert to Christianity. I have to wonder if this is because the men liked the patriarchal culture of the Europeans that goes along with Christianity.

This document explains that Native American women should be educated, because the men were being educated, and they didn't wan tan educated man to marry a "savage" girl. This was very interesting. They would have also wanted to educate the women so that their children could have been raised "properly." I foundit interesting that they didn't want to educate the women to better the women themselves but for the men.

There's an interesting comparison between his translation of phrases and his observations that kind of contradicts itself. When talking about polygamy his translations are "He hath one Wife." or "He hath two Wives." and etc, but when explaining why it's because women have the wealth and economic power. I found that intriguing given that polygamy, in current times, can be seen as detrimental for women since it puts men as the dominant and the multiple wives as the submissive. Yet, in his observation he explains that women hold the economic power, which can completely change the power dynamic. When polygamy is seen as a male-dominant, female-submissive structure, his observation shows the opposite when it comes to economics.

Yet, he finds that the Native American government, which even though allowed women, still ran, akin to "the senate of Rome." -Suzannah Carretto

While reading about the trial of Sarah Ahhaton, it mentioned towards the end of the article that she could not get a divorce from her abusive husband, as it would be "un-christian." And yet in the same night's reading, in both "Major Problems" and Woloch's selections, we read that in some Native American tribes, divorce or separation could be decided upon by either the man or woman. This clash of ideals must have surprised Europeans,

In John Heckewelder accounts of the Delaware Indian women he stated that, “The work of the women is not hard or difficult. They are both able and willing to do it, and always perform it with cheerfulness.” I feel this is a very contradictory statement considering that these women are doing the job of men in Europe. I feel that Heckewelder may have said this to make a point of masculine strength while also trying to semi give the Delaware women a compliment. – Courtney Collier John Heckewelder's account is contradictory. He claims that an Indian man "must keep his limbs as supple as he can, he must avoid hard labour as much as possible, that his joints may not become stiffened, and that he must avoid hard labour as much as possible." However, Heckewelder asserts that "the fatigue of the women is by no means to be compared to that of the men.[...] Were a man to take upon himself a part of his wife's duty, in addition to his own, he must necessarily sink under the load, and of course his family must sink with him." Heckewelder denies that the labors of Indian women are difficult but implies that if a man participated in agricultural labor, he would destroy his body's physical capabilities. Heckewelder participates in the European notion of gender roles by projecting male superiority onto the Delaware men and minimizing the roles of the women

Women were not allowed to be on the council of elders and very seldom were they chiefs, why? Why even in a less oppressed society compared the the settlers were women still left out of prestigious leadership roles?

I am curious to know, after reading about how much power Native American women had in certain tribes, how and when did the power from European women get stripped?

I found it interesting that many people perceived the mentally ill patients as possessed by the devil. Since religion overpowered thinking in the early nineteenth century it was a widely thought assumption. I also doubt the early scientific movement helped with the sometimes cruel treatments that were more like experiments. However, Grob did a good job of giving different dynamics of Christian perception in his examples or cruelty on the mentally ill. While many viewed them as possessed some Christians like Reverend Louis Dwight, who visited jails and asylums, found those who had been in the same room for eight and nine years with no human contact, windows, and bed. Obviously these asylums’ priorities were not curing the ill but obtaining wealth off of their misfortunes. How could anyone belief that that type of treatment would help someone. Luckily, Reverend Dwight pushed for investigations and was appalled by the horrible treatment. It makes me wonder if these thoughts were separated by different denominations. – Courtney Collier I was most intrigued by the part where Grob discusses Dorothea Dix and her challenges as a woman trying to help the mentally ill at that time. Her life was shaped by her religious beliefs yet she actually saw the mentally ill as human beings who could be helped and cared for with the right treatment. Even though women lacked any power at the time Dix and other women were able to sneak under the radar with social activism. This allowed Dix to give speeches and travel to spread the word of these asylums. Grob not only talked about her statistical achievements but her zeal and passion for the treatment of the mentally ill. –Courtney Collier

Did the idea of the mental institution carry on for too long? Why did it take such a long time to realize that institutionalization does not always work? Once the idea of institutionalizing the mentally ill, families began to dispose of their relatives rather than find an opportunity for a cure. Was the reason for the large increase in the population of institutions caused by an overall population increase or did it become the norm in society to place those deemed unfit into these asylums?

I was intrigued and also not surprised by the fact that some African Americans where denied entrance into institutions and this raised some questions about mentally ill slaves and African Americans in the south in the 18th and 19th centuries. Who admitted these people into asylums at the time if they were to be accepted? How were mentally ill slaves cared for before the creation of such asylums?

What caused the changes in the reasons of why people were considered to have a mental illness? Did it just occur with the passage of time as new knowledge of individuals and what effects them were studied, or did it also include social and cultural factors of how people are treated?

I began to wonder how mad children were effected

Just as how the class had difficulty defining "mental illness", so did people in each era. Again, people outside of societal norms were marked as insane, but what defined "normal"? I would like to know more about how race and social class fell into the class of insanity. Obviously, immigrants such as the Irish or the Chinese did not fit the standard of white Protestant society, so did "normal" people automatically view them as more susceptible to mental illness?

At several points throughout, he states that the patients were extremely critical of institutions, but their objections are treated as incidental. There were whole paragraphs on p81-82 that made me angry.

I was particularly intrigued by how quickly perceptions of mental illness and methods of treatment changed in such a short amount of time. What amazed me was how smoothly the transformation occurred, and how they almost seemed to make sense.

Letter with medical remedies Vaughn, Benjamin ca. 1805 Location of original: Maine Historical Society, Portland, Maine

melasses

costiveness

Antimonial wine

Miss Elizabeth Atkins of Mount Vernon

opium, purpurea digitalis, & gum arabic

laudanum

pthisis pulmonalis

Shorter's preface, to me, was interesting because it seemed to focus more on brain chemistry and genetics as a connection to mental illness. After reading all three preface's it seems like qualities from each one would make the approach to mental illness better

As I was reading the Nancy Tomes piece I was drawn to the quote she added from Andrew Scull, a sociologist, which stated the asylum was, “a convenient place to get rid of inconvenient people.”

Tomes mentions that asylums were disillusioning due to being filled with patients who did not get better and it made me wonder the psychological effects it had on the staff caring for these patients?

I want to know how this stigma developed. Why can we look at a person with a broken arm or chicken pox and wince when we do, but then carry on with our lives when, on the flipside, someone mentions that they have a psychological disorder of some sort causes us to look at them with big eyes and then scoot away?

Each of the pieces does focus on a different aspect of mental health, and I think that it's only through looking at all three that we can obtain a clearer view of mental illness and how it fits into American society.

If people were more open about illnesses would it be easier and more acceptable for people to seek out help?

What has happened to the majority of mental institutions?

I was struck by the language used to describe mental illness and the mentally ill. Words that are not as commonly used today such "lunatic" and "insane" seem to reflect a permanent state, whereas "mentally ill," sounds rectifiable. Does this reflect the change in availability and types of treatment over time, or is it simply a change in appropriate language?

Although the uniting factor of women’s history is clearly womanhood, the additional aspects and influences of a woman’s life cannot be ignored or pushed aside.

Haulman’s argument that the terms “woman,” “female,” and “feminine” do not have fixed definitions, but are defined by society lends itself to Alexander’s argument against “homogenous womanhood.”

Is Alexander arguing that African American women are defined more by their race than by their gender, whereas white women are defined more by their gender than their race?

When Castañeda talks about how women of color are ignored, I wonder if there's a detriment of calling all women that aren't white women of color. Wouldn't that lead to lumping them all together, making stereotypes about them, and ignoring the vast diversity in that group? Just like the experiences of white women can be different from those of women of color, can't the same be said for Hispanic women, Asian women, and black women since they also all have different experiences.

What I do not understand is what she means by women of color writers looking to "third world liberation movements" for some aspect of history to write on.

As a women and gender studies major and a Hispanic woman, I find myself realizing more and more that most of my classes only assign one class to talk about women of color. I wish to understand more why we still ignore women of color when talking in the context of women's history and how we would fix this problem.

Bock described men as being more culturally valued while women were nurturing in a natural manor. I would assume that much of the influence of these roles came from Christianity in the Bible.

I wonder how this idea that ‘wages define real work’ applies to today’s society in regards to pay inequality among different races and genders.

Several of the articles that we read briefly mentioned women within the queer community, but I feel like not enough space has been given to them or is currently being given to them by historians

ock's discussion of gender dichotomies, especially equality versus difference and integration versus autonomy are extremely relevant not only to the study of women's history, but to the present society and the evolution of women's position in the American society, economy, and legal codes.

The first set of dichotomies that Bock believes categorizes women's history reminded me of The Murder of Helen Jewett. The first set of lenses are similar to how she was viewed at the time, whereas the second set are more closely linked to how the 21st century author and reader view her situation.

I feel that we should be aiming towards a way of discussing and learning about history through the lens of the two genders together, instead of “women’s history” being its own separate sphere.

I was extremely intrigued by the "equality vs. difference" section of this essay, because Bock raises a great point: men and women are inherently different. As we discuss ways in which women have aimed to be viewed as equal to men, how do we take into account their differences? Are these differences directly related to the dichotomy between sex vs. gender? -

although these world wide changes or country shifts were happening, at the same time a very distinct shift in how women are not only living their lives, but also the way that they are viewed by society is going on.

However, this emphasis on their private sphere neglected women in the public sphere or in mixed-sex situations.

Now that women’s history is becoming a major history field is the majority of the scholars in this field made up of women?

I am curious to know whether or not these scholars or historians in general would ever foresee a future where there was no "women's studies" but the study of history just encompassing the history of women, all women, and all minorities in general? -

is there such a thing as an overall, general “American Women’s history” or are the experiences of American women more than diverse than shared?

Roe has standing to sue; the Does and Hallford do not. Pp. 123-129.

Letter with medical remedies Vaughn, Benjamin ca. 1805 Location of original: Maine Historical Society, Portland, Maine