Response Paper on the Readings

On Higginbotham and Barkley Brown:

The Higginbotham and Barkley Brown pieces engage the reader in a discussion of what it means to study “Women’s History” and what it SHOULD mean to study “Women’s History.” Both authors acknowledge that women’s history is nearly impossible to understand as a cohesive unit, for the question of a woman’s race is constantly taken into consideration. Although they often cite similar sources, at times they seem at odds over what the appropriate solution is to the question of race in women’s studies.

From what I gather from her article, Higginbotham makes the claim that feminist scholars should not shy away from including race in their discussion. She argues that race is a social construct just like gender is, and should therefore receive the same consideration in scholarly thought. Citing Elizabeth Spelman, Higginbotham accuses white feminists of imposing two separate identities onto their black counterparts – the racial and the gender. This concern that “universal womanhood” has come to mean only “white womanhood” dominates her argument that gender cannot be understood outside of the context of woman’s race.

Elsa Barkley Brown, on the other hand, approaches the issue differently. She is concerned that a degree of “political correctness” has seeped into women’s history, which has required all scholars to “recognize the diversity” in women’s experiences for fear of being called insensitive. With her focus on “asymmetry” in women’s history, Barkley Brown does not deny that differences exist among the stories of women’s experiences, but she does not find that highlighting those differences is the only way to understand women’s history. Barkley Brown would disagree with Higginbotham in her assertion that the best way to address challenges in women’s studies is to highlight racial differences: Barkley Brown might consider that a cop-out from the harder task of identifying similarities among all women. Using the example of changes in white and black women’s participation in the labor force, she makes the point that women of different races have different experiences, but that their histories are interlocked – white women moved into the professional world because black women were moving into the service spots that white women were vacating. They share the same story, but different angles. This slice of women’s history can be understood in racial terms, but there can be no separation of white or black women’s history.

Most notably, Barkley Brown expresses the fear that discussing women’s history exclusively in terms of race reinforces the idea that women of color are “not the norm.” On the other side, Higginbotham (it seems) would appear to celebrate the idea that women of color are not the norm, and indeed are different.

I enjoyed both of these pieces, though I found that at times, both authors attempted to pump a lot of material into a little space. I found the small examples (such as the one with workforce changes) helpful, but the drawn out explanations of race and gender in relation to violence and court cases seems superfluous. They each could have made their argument stronger with shorter examples that stick in the reader’s head without distracting them from the main argument.

On Atha Fong on “Ma Rainey:”

I really enjoyed reading Atha’s article because it showed that students can produce concise and interesting pieces in their class work. I’m particularly impressed by her ability to take a subject most readers will have had no exposure to, and make them familiar and comfortable with it by the end of the piece.

I found that Atha executed certain aspects of her paper very well. Firstly, she uses great sources and cites them well – especially the relevant Higginbotham article! Additionally, she provides great examples to bring Ma Rainey’s music alive. Obviously, when writing about a performing art conveying the power of the message can be difficult. I appreciate that Atha provides a substantive example to contrast Ma Rainey’s serious lyrics with other, more upbeat Blues singers. In fact, all of Atha’s quotes are succinct and effective, adding the quality of the piece rather than distracting.

I like that Atha presented Ma Rainey as a multi-faceted person. Through her references, we could see the sensitive and soulful sides of her, as well as the peppy and extravagant aspects. Atha highlighted not only how poor country blacks accepted her, but also that Harlem intellectuals ostracized her for “holding back” the race. I also liked that Atha titled the subsections of her piece, so the reader understood the focus, and it never felt disjointed.

I found some areas that Atha could improve upon in her introduction. It was nice to hear where she pulled her sources from, but I don’t believe she didn’t need to make a laundry list of authors and their works in the body of her paper. Also, the introduction was a little long and got repetitive before we understood the real argument of her paper.

In general, I loved this piece and think it is a great example for how we can construct our own papers!