American History

GENDER
There existed a great disparity in the treatment of male and female issues. For a long time, female issues were not given much attention and it seemed in place. As the author observes, womens history in the United States in the 1960s was an area that had not been explored much yet it was full of analytical questions that were undeniable. Women had not been brought into history. This is as a result of the trivializing and viewing as personal, by historical investigators of the things that most of the women did frequently, which involved family and private concerns like child rearing. Sharing housework was viewed as a phenomenon unique to the 20th century while the 19th century viewed domestic activities as natural female activities just as childbearing and that this was not a means of social manipulation.In the mid-seventies, the womens history and liberation centered on their private lives, which anyway, characterized women. Thus, by overlooking the private sphere of women and focusing on the public sphere which was a monopoly of men, shock waves were sent through all the sets of structures which put the woman to the family.

Women demanded for inclusion in political participation and because this was not fount on family life, their demands represented their aspiration for power and a place that was not dependent on family structures and women subordination, which it was feared, would reorganize and disrupt gender relations. It is the thought of the author that the political angle given to the history of women was shortchanging it and thus focusing on the factor of subordination of women. There was thus a shift to the claim of the word political to mean that the personal constituted the political. This implied that relationships of power characterized the even seemingly most private encounters existing between men and women including housekeeping and lovemaking. This stretched definition of power included the public, the collective and more organized dimension to politics which essentially meant that on this basis, feminist goals would be won.

In the 1980s, the focus shifted to the possibilities in politics offered by the yearnings and frustrations encouraged in the circles of private life. Equal labor force chances, liberal divorce laws and increase in sexual choices did not thus did not serve the interests of women.

In the 19th century, the demand for political participation by both feminists and anti-feminists was a fundamental element of womens protest against the oppression meted on them. The 19th century movement was however more of a social than an intellectual movement, which provoked people to act while the 20th century historians were not positioned to redefine its most fundamental aspect. The movement for women suffrage was on the basis that it overlooked the oppression of women within the private sphere. It demanded for her inclusion in the public sphere and thus admission to citizenship. In New England, 17th century, family position determined citizenship and this usually was the domain of the head of the household. In the 19th century, patriarchy did not determine citizenship even though only men were allowed to be citizens.

The author feels that feminism has been compromised and is of the view that there should be a relationship involving womens history practice and modern feminist politics potential.

RELIGION
The place of women in the family affected their place in the church. They were excluded from church while the adult male had a position as a member of a church. Men were disturbed by the fact that women could get involved in priesthood.  Having a sense of a religious profession changed both men and women from being passive to new heights of action and thought. However, unlike women, men were unable to differentiate between religious institutions and religion, between their personal profession and the ministers authority and the church.

According to Garrisonians, as the author observes, churches were considered human institutions and thus not immune to criticism of humans. Evangelicals had made a major achievement in drawing a distinction between their capability to understand institutions of religion and to make a distinction between them and their own overwhelmingly religious impulses.

The church is depicted as ironically, one of the institutions that used the bible to encourage oppression of women. Priesthood was depicted as a basis of moral dishonesty and consequently, women were charged to interpret the bible again for themselves. Women also got to a point where they could criticize entire institutions like the church. The Grimke, for instance, due to their religious profession, were in a position to move outside of the womans private sphere and criticized the clerical authority for encouraging oppression of women by asking them to go back to the womans private sphere. As quoted, The pulpit had been prostituted, the bible has been ill-used and passages from the bible were being used in a way they were never meant to be.
 
Religion is depicted as imprisoning. It takes away the freedom of free thought from its victim. The author recounts how Eizabeth Santon struggled to spiritual liberation by being told the truth after having to stay under spiritual bondage of undefined, vague fears and being priest-ridden for quite a long time.

RACE
Historians in the early days had racial biases. As the author points out, various types of oppressions which were experienced by women, not in the white and middle-class were ignored.Racism discrimination was evident in the push for political inclusion among women. The argument moved away from the originally upright universality which encompassed all the races to the necessity for political inclusion only among the middle-class, white educated women which excluded other races and classes of women.

Garrisonians, however, tried to do away with the racial biases and found a ground on which to treat the races as equal. Even though they believed in the biological differences existing between different races, they stressed on the moral identity and the common humanity of the races and ignored the historical, physical and cultural characteristics that would have distinguished whites from blacks.
An earlier historical slavery theory viewed black people only in the shadow of their masters, which is a racist culture. This culture, however, encouraged the blacks into resisting their masters power and consequently establishing confines to their mistreatment.

CLASS
The attention given to oppressions sometimes depended on the social class of the group in question, meaning there was a class bias. Only oppressions experienced by the white people in the middle class were given attention, the rest of the women were ignored.

In the 19th century, the focus of gender issues was on the political concept of power and independence. 20th century feminists shifted their focus to an attention on economics and on reflecting upon social democratic thoughts. The woman was slowly now being viewed as a worker and not as a mother.