Gender History

To start I just want to mention how much of a intellectual labyrinth I found Joan Scott’s article to be. There were sections that I had to read two or three times and I’m still not sure I fully understand what she was attempting to get across. In that regard, Meyerowitz’s interpretation of Scott and Ditz really helped me solidify my understanding, to an extent, of the subject at hand.

Before even reading this week’s prompt, I continually came back to Meyerowitz when she asks “When (and how)…did the language of gender crucially structure experience and actually influence behavior and decision-making, and when did it simply add a convenient rhetorical flourish or embellish with a hollow cliché? When…did the language of gender constitute other relations of power, and when was it just a minor paragraph of a supplemental example within the narratives of social and political order?”  (1351) Ditz may have had this question in mind when writing her article, however after completing it I found myself fairly disappointed. I feel like she brings up wonderful points about gender/masculinity and its function in society. Her points made things come together and broaden my perception of what gender history really means. However, I found her use of primary sources and evidence to be quite lacking.

To start, I wish Ditz would have gone deeper in exploring the 18^th century context of the phrases she analyzes. She treads a careful line between literary analysis and contextualization. I feel like she is juggling the two and ends up fumbling. Several times she brings up examples of how masculinity was defined and internalized amongst the Philadelphian merchants. In doing so, on many occasions, I found the evidence she provides didn’t set a strong basis for her argument. So when she then goes off exploring the meaning in relation to gender, it easily comes off as conjecture. She cites Robert Bisset “must apply somewhere to raise Money in order to prevent a disgrace happening to the yet unsullied Credit of (the House)” (67) and claims this to be evidence of evoking ideas of chastity/purity/public opinion that I found to not be substantiated by the quote itself. As I continued reading I found this to be the case more and more. The one that sticks out in my mind is when Ditz cites a shipwreck as this contention between masculinity and nature. (76) Though, from what I saw, there were several gendered aspects of what Drinker wrote, Ditz goes into a hyper analysis on how it represents child birth, rape, miscarriage, and deep symbolism that seemed almost fabricated.

I think there are several problems with Ditz’s article that I would like to offer suggestions for. First and foremost, she needs to broaden her source material. I haven’t done a scathing review of all her footnotes, but the in-text evidence she provides stem from very few sources. Bisset is cited for nearly half the paper. I understand when there are limitations to the textual sources available, but I find her confinement to just a couple individuals to represent an entire city, nation, language, time period, to be a massive oversight. I think Ditz should have also contextualized the 18^th century definition of words. Perhaps our modern notions mask the gendered roots. A great example is when she states “the use of ‘ruin’ – a term with strong sexual and moral overtones” (66) and I want to ask “alright, how so? Please explain.” To be fair, she does a great job with the term “friend” in contextualizing the 18^th century connotation. I just wish she had done more of that to help solidify her literary base of evidence.

I regret spending such a long time lambasting parts of Ditz’s work. I do think she is on the right track and many of her points I found intriguing/compelling and I don’t think she is technically wrong. I just feel she could have done a much better job making her case. Meyerowtiz’s short article does a wonderful job in reviewing the groundwork for gender history and pulling together Scott and Ditz. I feel as if I had read Meyerwitz before reading Scott, I could have gathered more from Scott’s articles. Her use of philosophical and sociological framework seemed very impressive yet very confusing. I am still not quite sure I understand what structuralism and post-structuralism means. She does a wonderful job illustrating the different schools of thought and defining her notion of gender as not something that can be studying in seclusion. This is why, in Scott’s view, Women’s history is troublesome. Not only is the term gender more politically neutral, it illustrates the relationship between masculinity and femininity. Scott shows how that relationship is key to understanding gender. From what I gathered her article seems to stand the test of time because her work stands as a voice for the beginning. It demands that historians look further and legitimize gender history and is obviously one of the greatest motivators for the movement.