Download Click www.ondix.com to visit our student-to

Click www.ondix.com to visit our student-to-student file sharing network.
Jessie Shirley Bernard, was a prominent and "unusually visible" contemporary American
sociologist who over her professional lifetime changed from a traditional positivist
sociology to a feministically informed viewpoint (Bannister 1991). Privately, Bernard
struggled with her Judaic heritage, conflicting pressures for family and career and the
demands made by Bernard's husband. All of the battles that Bernard faced throughout
her life, were essential in the creation of Bernard's sociological theories.
Bernard was born in Minnesota on June 8, 1903 to Roman Jewish parents who had
recently immigrated to the United States. With an entrepreneurial "capitalist" father and
a stay at home mother, Bernard was raised in a suburban, middle-class family (Bernard
1989,326). Upon entering high school in 1916, Bernard was taught by suffragist
teachers, who subtly transmitted a feminist message during class lectures (Bernard, 1989,
325). As a 2nd generation immigrant during a time when immigration was a major
concern to white Americans, Bernard, although a United States citizen, felt torn and
confused about her place in society. Occasionally mocked for her Romanian and Jewish
background, Bernard understood for the first time the situation of the two black families
in her town. Further, Bernard was exposed to her older sister's radical socialist friends
and their persuasive arguments and beliefs. Conscious of the controversial issues
surrounding her, Bernard began her lifelong investigation of injustice of all kinds, most
notably racism and sexism.
When Bernard was only 16 years old, in 1920, she enrolled at the University of
Minnesota initially as an English major (Deegan 1991, 71). Following one recommended
Sociology course, Bernard fell in love with the discipline. Bernard declares, "[i]t is not
surprising to me now that a young woman with a background like mine, would, with a
little encouragement, become a sociologist" (Bernard 1989, 325).
In 1925, one year after finishing her master's degree, Bernard married one of her
considerably older sociology professors, L.L. (Luther Lee) Bernard (Deegan 1991,71),
(Bannister 1991, 49). Although having already completed her bachelors and 2 master's
degrees, Bernard, as a female in a male-dominated discipline, was relegated to being a
research assistant for L.L. She concluded that at first her relationship with L.L. was "an
apprentice-master relationship" (Bernard 1989, 329), a relationship fully beneficial to
L.L. The Bernards moved almost annually during their first decade together, all the time
following L.L.'s frequent job changes. After moving from Cornell (1925) and Argentina
(1926), Luther went to Tulane (1927-1928), to the University of North Carolina (19281929), and finally to Washington University in St. Louis, where they remained for over
15 years (Bannister 1991, 56). At every university departmental heads did what they
thought would make Bernard, usually only known as L.L.'s wife, feel most at home; they
asked their wives to have her over during the day and possibly befriend her. In 1935,
when Bernard finished her doctorate at Washington University, where L.L. was on the
faculty, she knew that she no longer wished to be her husband's research assistant
(Bannister 1991, 57). She saw and understood that her work for L.L. was leading to his
most productive and successful years of his career. Assisting research was no longer an
option for her; Bernard wanted to be the researcher and the writer. By 1936 the Bernards
were struggling with their marriage, conflicted most about the decision to have children.
The Bernards separated that year after L.L. outright refused to have children. After two
years of separation, L.L. relented and agreed to have children. Their three children were
born over the next decade (Deegan 1991, 73). The rest of Bernard's career was at
Lindenwood College in St. Charles, MO and from 1947-1964 at Pennsylvania State
University.
Over the course of 60 years, Jessie Bernards' sociological interests as well as research
methodologies fundamentally evolved as a result of her personal experiences as well as
key societal movements and events. Initially she conducted empirical sociological
research, she moved on to critiquing and generating social policy, and finally investigated
and presented her research on the contemporary female world from a feminist standpoint.
Bernard did little individual publishing during the late 1920s and early 30s. She
continued with her unpaid research for L.L.; all the while, L.L. nagged her, accusing her
of inefficiency in the work that he would end up publishing and with which he would
eventually be credited (Bannister 1991, 58). World War I stimulated growth in
quantitative sociological and psychological research, with a particular emphasis on
various measuring instruments and techniques. In the mid 1920s Bernard heard her first
lecture by an empiricist, and soon after met a professor of statistical psychology at
Washington University. When Bernard wrote about this period, "[the psych professor]
was a compulsive measurer and I caught the fever. I wanted to measure everything. It
became a mania. Just point me off to it and I was off and running to measure it" (Bernard
1989, 331) she was indicating that these events were ultimately responsible for
introducing empiricism to her.
In the 1920s, a radical yet respected empirical sociologist at Columbia University, W.F.
Ogburn, had the idea that the annual meetings of the American Sociological Society
should have some papers on empirical research. Bernard submitted a paper based on her
master's dissertation and consequentially was invited to participate in the 1925 program
(Bernard 1973, 773). Although Bernard has not advertised this paper much, she stated,
"the important thing was that the idea of empirical research was introduced and took
hold" (Bernard 1973, 773).
Bernard worked enthusiastically on a study of Jewish assimilation to American life in
Minnesota. Her methods of developing data were quantitative. She sent twelve hundred
questionnaires to Jewish organizations, mostly in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area
(Bannister 1991, 80). Further, she published two series of articles that appeared in the
early 1930s the first dealing with the measurement of success in marriage, the second
with social patterns of neighborhood behavior. Both articles' theories and conclusions,
although well supported and documented were, "technically interesting, if almost
unreadable" moreover "the marriage studies were really more about numbers than
people" (Bannister 1991, 83-84). Bernard survived the hectic years of the 30s and early
40s writing articles and books, teaching and mothering during a time that was particularly
hostile to women scholars.
Just as World War I altered Bernard's career path, Nazi Germany during World War II
greatly affected and changed her sociological research and publishing. Bernard clearly
understood the why she had been a strong proponent of empiricism given the historical
period in which she entered the profession:
I had paid tribute to the "monumental dream" of a society based on [empiricism]. I had
been dazzled by they idea of a science in the service of human betterment. . . .I had
organized my intellectual life around it. In the first decades of this century it had been
easy, as part of the nineteenth-century optimism, to accept that century's idea of scientists
as ethical men (Bernard, 1989, 334).
After she heard about the atomic bomb and Nazi use of human subjects in medical and
pharmaceutical research she became fully "disillusioned" (Bernard 1991, 334) about
science and scientists. As a practicing Jew in the United States, Bernard felt conflicted
by Nazi Germany; she saw injustice and was determined to critique and reform as much
policy as she could (Bernard 1989, 336-337) (Bannister 1991, 106). Thus began a new
era for Bernard generating social policy and critiquing social problems.
Although the impact of international war was the driving factor for her to focus on social
policy and reform, she rarely commented on national politics or world affairs in the
following years. Within a few years, Bernard became a leader in social problem and
societal reform circles. In the early 1950s, after the American Sociological Association
refused to take a stand on any policy issue, a group of "rebels" (Bernard 1973, 774)
including Bernard helped establish the Society for the Study of Social Problems (SSSP).
The objectives of the organization were:
(1) advancement of the study of social problems; (2) application of social science
research to the formulation of social policies; . . . (4) protection of freedom of teaching,
research, and publication and (5) interdisciplinary cooperation in social science research
(Bernard 1973, 774).
They launched the journal Social Problems, to which Bernard later contributed a piece
called, "Social Problems as Problems of Decision" (Bannister 1991, 134). All said,
Bernard spend many of her initial years at Pennsylvania State University (Penn State)
solely teaching, and only infrequently publishing. Moreover, although interested in
policy, Bernard largely critiqued society rather than also proposing solutions.
Although Bernard enjoyed her many years at Penn State, by 1964 she felt that she needed
to leave. She thought that there was too much emphasis on doing research and publishing
in high-class journals, rather than teaching students. Further, she was overly aware of the
male dominated field and special needs and problems of women in academia.
In 1961 Bernard had completed one of her most important books to date, Academic
Women. It was the first book written from her feminist voice. Academic Women
showed Bernard's transition from both scholarly analyses to more informal and popular
writing, and the academic liberalism writing of the 50s to more radical writing of the 60s.
It is here that she foreshadowed her concentration on "the nature and extent of sexual
discrimination in American society, [and] the sociology of 'the female world'. . ."
(Bannister 1991, 143).
Bernard's daughter at Sarah Lawrence exposed her to a very active feminist movement
(Bernard, 1989, 338). Meanwhile, she was commissioned to write a book based entirely
on previous research findings summarizing the literature on marriage (Deegan 1991, 73)
(Bernard 1972, 291) . Bernard thought this would be a fairly simple task, after all she
had "been [her]self in the mainstream of sociological research on marriage for forty
years" (Bernard in Deegan 1991, 73). Bernard continued her investigation of the
Women's Liberation Movement and the underground press. She recalled,
My first reaction was purely academic: I saw it primarily as something interesting to
study, as something I had a professional obligation o observe. When, after considerable
effort on my part, I received an invitation to a consciousness-raising session, one of the
young women there said that I "threatened" her. Sitting quietly on the floor in their
midst, showing so far as I knew, no disapproval at all, my academic objectivity, my lack
of involvement, my impersonality, was giving off bad vibrations (Bernard in Deegan
1991, 73 and Bernard 1989, 339).
Though Bernard had originally intended to watch the new movement primarily as a
research concern, she could not help the movement's messages affecting her
academically.
Bernard actively began to question the knowledge and assumptions of the academy. Her
change in perceptions yielded a reinterpretation of the sociological evidence on marital
status. Most importantly, Bernard realized that practically all recognized academic
knowledge had been ascertained by men. She stressed that acquiring that knowledge was
based on the problems males were interested in, and that it was presented to society from
their perspective. With that in mind, Bernard reflected,
The male bias did not have to be perpetuated. I wanted the discipline of sociology to be
as good as could be by any standard. Ignorance or rejection of the growing corpus of
feminist research relevant for sociological analyses was detrimental to the discipline
(Bernard 1989, 340),
She reasoned that sociologists effectively ignore women in their research. Thus began
Bernard's long process of analyzing her professional life, and the research of her
sociological colleagues (Deegan 1991, 73). In altering her perspective, Bernard had
much to lose, namely the respect of the patriarchal profession. Mary Jo Deegan
acknowledges that "[I]t is difficult and courageous to have one's intellectual honesty take
precedence over one's professional status" (Deegan 1991, 74). However, Bernard, driven
to explain her newfound ideas to the public, recalled, "I thought the most useful form of
activism for me was investment in the spreading of the feminist message-in writing"
(Bernard 1989, 340).
According to Bernard women and men were not considered equals yet, not only in
academia but also in society as well. But Bernard believed that there was hope. Bernard
suggested that studying the female world in order to learn about its nature, culture,
structure and functioning. By studying women as a separate entity, not in the context of
male society, Bernard believed that the knowledge gained would further advance
women's efforts to achieve equality. It would also make sociology a more inclusive,
comprehensive and accurate science.
Bernard published The Future of Marriage, possibly the most well known and most cited
of all her publishing in 1972. She discovered that husbands and wives in contemporary
society experience very different marriages. The intrinsic conflict between the needs and
desires of the marriage partners led her to separate marriage into two marriages: "his" and
"hers" (Bernard 1972, 5). "His" marriage is considerably better than "her" marriage.
Bernard found that wives were less happy in their marriages than their husbands.
Married women reported much higher rates of anxiety and depression than their
husbands. Married men live longer, have better mental and physical health, are less
depressed and earn higher incomes than married women (Bernard 1972, 19,21). Just as
she divided her diagnosis into "his" marriage and "her" marriage, she divided the
suggested remedies into those proposed by men and those proposed by women. She
presented the solutions proposed by men and women as being completely different. Men
said they would be happier in their marriage if their economic burdens were alleviated
and women would overcome their sexual restrictions. Bernard was very skeptical of
these suggestions because they fail to deal with the problems of "her" marriage (Wright
1975, 1277). The proposals of many of the women draw heavily on materials generated
by the Women's Movement. Women prefered reallocation of responsibility of
housework and raising the children; ideally men and women in marriage would share all
the duties and responsibilities of their relationship-household, parental, and economic
(Wright 1975, 1278). Bernard concluded that "only a complete change in the
socialization process would prepare women to be autonomous, independent, and selfsupporting throughout their adult lives" (Wright 1975, 1278) will significantly change
marriage for couples.
The major part of the data found in The Future of Marriage is simply summary of
research comparing the mental health of both sexes in different situations. She took this
data from many psychological studies and journals (Bernard 1972, 210). Bernard seemed
to use other people's research findings and her own struggles in her marriage with L.L. in
order to make all of the conclusions she made in this book. Most often her writing style
was informal and almost personal, speaking directly to the reader.
Shortly after the release of the Future of Marriage Bernard published another major work
of hers: The Future of Motherhood released in 1974. Bernard introduced the message of
the entire book in the title of the first chapter, "Mother is a role, Women are Human
Beings" (Bernard 1974, 7). Initially, she acknowledged that she cannot speak about all
women, in all countries in all times. Culture and time in history impact the female
situation. Bernard, after presenting that, analyzed the mother role in the United States in
the 19th and 20th centuries. In this book, Bernard showed us that women and mothers
are products of the roles they play. She depicts the two most common contradictory
images of mothers and their roles. One portrays mothers as "moms" (Cantor 1967, 663),
overprotecting their children and therefore turning their daughters into unfulfilled
women. However, others portray the quintessential American mother as saintly and
loving, both sacrificing and self-denying. Bernard stressed that both images are antiwomen; both are only possible where one individual, isolated from other adults, does the
nurturing of the young. Bernard briefly described the Victorian Image of motherhood as
a role, and showed that the structure of motherhood as we have known it is changing
because of social and economic conditions (Bernard 1974, 109). Bernard even lamented,
"Victorian motherhood was a male--and a middle-class--conception. The more female
historians study it from the point of view of the women themselves the less authentic it
looks. . .Women are just not like that. Now or ever" (Bernard 1974, 13). Bernard
continues throughout the book arguing that motherhood, traditionally, has been
institutionalized and she believes it needs to end.
Bernard advocated a world that values strength and compassion. She described a utopian
world when she says,
The cooperation of men and women in their marriages and in their work would probably
be the most Utopian solution of all. If the society at large could break free of the rigid
form of the working day and kick the habit of hiring only full-time workers, many
families could manage two careers ad family life with a minimum of outside help. . . .
The husband's sharing of all tasks on an informal shift system allowed the women to
work. Women finally entering the mainstream of American life might be the beginning
of a transformation of work in our society into a more meaningful, individualized activity
(Bernard 1974, 177)
Bernard supported the de-institutionalization of motherhood, and made many good
supporting points, however, her argument was weakened when she describes her ideal
solution to be a utopia; the way she explained it at times, seems almost impossible.
Bernard, although considering herself no longer a policy writer and more so a feminist
sociologist, wrote two articles, "Women as voters: From Redemptive to Futurist role" and
"Policy and Women's Time," combining her feminist perspective with her ability to spot
injustice and act on it. In both essays, Bernard criticized society, essentially, for not
keeping up with the times. She felt as though with women rapidly entering the work
force, formal company policy and verbal marriage contracts needed to change in order to
equalize the two roles women currently have: working at home and in the office.
Building on her previous feminist work, Academic Women, Bernard published The
Female World in 1981. Here, Bernard opened her book with, "The idea is to deal with
the female world in and of itself, as an entity in its own right, not as a by-product of the
male world,"(Bernard 1981, 3) presenting the thesis of her book. Bernard had previously
realized that males introduced knowledge to society; therefore indicating that we live in a
male biased world. In The Female World she attempted to present the world of the
female without the current inherent male bias. Throughout the book she discusses
past stations and spheres of women, the incomplete demise of a distinct women's sphere,
the age and social class structure or the women's world, networks and associations,
culture and ethos of the female world, economic and political status and finally the
relationship between the female and the male worlds (Cavan 1983, 260).
It seemed as though Bernard set the book up to be, and fairly clearly stated her purpose to
be, treating the female world as a distinct entity. However, she consistently referred to
the negative effect of the male world on the female world. Her examples of both worlds
were extremes of each other, with the male world always proving harmful to that of the
female. She defined the female world to have either a "love or a duty ethos or both"
(Bernard 1981, 31) in its nature.
Bernard, like in many of her books, did not do original research to test assumptions or
predictions. She carefully presented supporting data throughout the book, but failed to
incorporate any of the contradictory data. Bernard's conclusions in The Female World
seemed to be more realistic than her conclusions in the Future of Motherhood. She does
not expect the male "ethos" to continue its domination, but realizes that the female ethos
will not take over. Rather, Bernard anticipated a decrease in male ethos and an increase
in participation of women in economic and political activities (Cavan 1983, 291).
Finally, in 1987, Bernard presented her final work , The Female World from a global
perspective, having produced it by building off of her previous work, The Female World.
Bernard immediately pointed out that the majority of sociological research done in the
past 2 centuries has been by white, educated, middle or upper-class male citizens, usually
living in the United States, Sweden, Germany, France and England. Inherent in the
researchers personal demographic information was bias. The Female World from a
global perspective identified many biases and analyzed all female worlds, past and
present, European or African, rich and poor. Bernard gave many rich details and
examples; however at times her historical stories become verbose. The Female World
from a global perspective encompasses so much of what Bernard dedicated herself to in
her lifetime: the feminist message, past, present and future, empirical data, policy writing
and personal opinion. As her last major work, before her death in 1993, Bernard finally
accomplished what she was so dedicated to in the entire 20th century; she presented her
findings to society, and that was what she knew to be her "most useful form of spreading
the feminist message," (Bernard 1989, 340).
Like so many of the women sociologists we have studied this semester, classical and
contemporary, Jessie Bernard recognized women in the social world and believed them to
be worthy of study. Further, female sociologists continued to give a female sociological
perspective, a perspective often different than that of a male.
Female networks in the academy continue to be scarce yet unquestionably needed. Hull
House, founded by Jane Addams, offered an extraordinary world of female friendship,
mental stimulation, and professional advice in an intellectual institution where women
had the ability to define their own views and social roles (while not being dominated by
patriarchal ideas) (Pat and Jill 69). Female sociologists Mary Montigue and Mary Astell,
both writing in the 18th century, had significant networks of intellectual female scholars.
Although Astell and Montigue did not always have females physically accessible to
them, the females of their era corresponded through letters. Bernard and each of the
contemporary sociologists we studied lamented about the lack of personal and academic
female connections, and emphasized the need for female networks exactly like Hull
House in Chicago.
Consistent with Jane Addams' main epistemological principles: "that knowledge of social
life can be gained only through direct social experience" (Pat and Jill 75) and that with
knowledge the sociologist is ethically bound to move from knowledge to social reform,
Bernard used her sociological research to generate public policy and to propose solutions
to the social problems she encountered. Further, Ida B. Wells-Barnett identified
problems, retrieved relevant data, and reported her thoughts simply and directly through
pamphlets, news articles and even speeches. Bernard also wrote simply to a general
population, enlarging her audience size.
Bernard, like Maxine Weber, Beatrice Potter Webb, Charlotte Perkins Gilman and
Harriet Martineau, were fairly race-blind in their research; each typically wrote about
women in middle class families or relationships. It is understandable, as they all had a
middle class background. After many years of writing, Gilman in Ourland and Bernard
in The Female World from a global perspective acknowledged the inherent and
significant differences between women of different classes and races and during different
time periods and wrote with a conscious effort to consider the differences.
Bernard has created a remarkable record of achievement as a sociologist in many realms
of the discipline. She conducted her empirical research in a time when women were not
doing very much quantitative work, only qualitative. Her enthusiasm for empirical
research drove her to ignore academic domination by men. Bernard did not just comment
on the female situation; she consistently was generating policy, and producing possible
solutions to social problems. The centuries old struggle for a supportive intellectual
environment, scholarly recognition and academic opportunity is a struggle that academic
women will continue to face for years. With the current "feminization" of sociology we
can only hope that in the near future, women at every level of academia will find
themselves surrounded by intelligent women and men, all working towards eliminating
the gendered discipline Bernard uncovered.
1.Bannister, Robert C. 1991. Jessie Bernard: The Making of a feminist. New Brunswick:
Rutgers University Press.
2.Bernard, Jessie. 1972. The Future of Marriage New York: World Publishing.
3.Bernard, Jessie. 1973. "My Four Revolutions: An Autobiographical History of the
ASA." American Journal of Sociology 78:773-791.
4.Bernard, Jessie. 1974. The Future of Motherhood. New York: The Dial Press.
.
5.Bernard, Jessie. 1975. Women, Wives, Mothers. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
6.Bernard, Jessie. 1979a. "Women as voters: from redemptive to futurist role" in Sex
Roles and Social Policy ed. Jean Lipman-Blumen and Jessie Bernard California: SAGE
Publications Ltd.
7.Bernard, Jessie. 1979b. "Policy and Women's Time" in Sex Roles and Social Policy ed.
Jean Lipman-Blumen and Jessie Bernard California: SAGE Publications Ltd.
8.Bernard, Jessie. 1981. The Female World. New York: The Free Press.
9.Bernard, Jessie. 1987. The Female World from a global perspective. Indianapolis:
Indiana University press.
10.Bernard, Jessie. 1989. A Women's Twentieth Century.
11.Bernard, Jessie. "Marital Stability and Patterns of Status Variables." in Journal of
Marriage and The Family, 28: 421-448.
12.Cavan, Ruth Shonle. Book Review of The Future of Motherhood by Jessie Bernard.
American Journal of Sociology: 260-261.
13.Cantor, Muriel G. Book Review of The Future of Motherhood by Jessie Bernard.
Contemporary Sociology: 663-664.
14.Deegan, Mary Jo. 1991. "Jessie Bernard (1903- )," in Women in Sociology: a biobibliographical source book. edited by Mary Jo Deegan. New York: Greenwood Press.
15.Wright, Mary Jo Neitz. 1975. Book Review of the Future of Marriage by Jessie
Bernard. American Journal of Sociology. 1277-1279.
Keywords:
jessie shirley bernard prominent unusually visible contemporary american sociologist
over professional lifetime changed from traditional positivist sociology feministically
informed viewpoint bannister privately bernard struggled with judaic heritage conflicting
pressures family career demands made bernard husband battles that faced throughout life
were essential creation sociological theories born minnesota june roman jewish parents
recently immigrated united states with entrepreneurial capitalist father stay home mother
raised suburban middle class family upon entering high school taught suffragist teachers
subtly transmitted feminist message during class lectures generation immigrant during
time when immigration major concern white americans although united states citizen felt
torn confused about place society occasionally mocked romanian jewish background
understood first time situation black families town further exposed older sister radical
socialist friends their persuasive arguments beliefs conscious controversial issues
surrounding began lifelong investigation injustice kinds most notably racism sexism
when only years enrolled university minnesota initially english major deegan following
recommended sociology course fell love with discipline declares surprising that young
woman background like mine would little encouragement become sociologist year after
finishing master degree married considerably older sociology professors luther deegan
bannister although having already completed bachelors master degrees female male
dominated discipline relegated being research assistant concluded that first relationship
apprentice master relationship relationship fully beneficial bernards moved almost
annually during their first decade together time following frequent changes after moving
from cornell argentina luther went tulane university north carolina finally washington
university louis where they remained over years bannister every departmental heads what
they thought would make usually only known wife feel most home they asked their wives
have over possibly befriend when finished doctorate washington where faculty knew
longer wished husband research assistant understood work leading most productive
successful years career assisting research longer option wanted researcher writer bernards
were struggling marriage conflicted about decision have children bernards separated year
after outright refused have children separation relented agreed children three were born
next decade deegan rest career lindenwood college charles from pennsylvania state
course jessie sociological interests well methodologies fundamentally evolved result
personal experiences well societal movements events initially conducted empirical
sociological moved critiquing generating social policy finally investigated presented
contemporary female world feminist standpoint little individual publishing late early
continued unpaid while nagged accusing inefficiency work would publishing which
eventually credited world stimulated growth quantitative psychological particular
emphasis various measuring instruments techniques heard lecture empiricist soon
professor statistical psychology washington wrote about this period psych professor
compulsive measurer caught fever wanted measure everything became mania just point
running measure indicating these events ultimately responsible introducing empiricism
radical respected empirical sociologist columbia ogburn idea annual meetings american
society should some papers empirical submitted paper based dissertation consequentially
invited participate program although advertised this paper much stated important thing
idea introduced took hold worked enthusiastically study jewish assimilation american life
minnesota methods developing data quantitative sent twelve hundred questionnaires
organizations mostly minneapolis paul area further published series articles appeared
early dealing measurement success marriage second social patterns neighborhood
behavior both articles theories conclusions well supported documented technically
interesting almost unreadable moreover marriage studies really more numbers than
people survived hectic early writing articles books teaching mothering particularly hostile
women scholars just world altered path nazi germany greatly affected changed publishing
clearly understood been strong proponent empiricism given historical period which
entered profession paid tribute monumental dream society based empiricism been dazzled
idea science service human betterment organized intellectual life around decades this
century been easy part nineteenth century optimism accept century scientists ethical
heard atomic bomb nazi human subjects medical pharmaceutical became fully
disillusioned science scientists practicing united states felt conflicted nazi germany
injustice determined critique reform much policy could thus began generating social
policy critiquing problems impact international driving factor focus reform rarely
commented national politics affairs following within became leader problem societal
reform circles association refused take stand issue group rebels including helped establish
study problems sssp objectives organization advancement study problems application
science formulation policies protection freedom teaching publication interdisciplinary
cooperation launched journal which later contributed piece called decision said spend
many initial pennsylvania state penn state solely teaching only infrequently moreover
interested largely critiqued rather than also proposing solutions enjoyed many penn felt
needed leave thought there much emphasis doing high class journals rather than students
further overly aware male dominated field special needs women academia completed
important books date academic women book written feminist voice academic showed
transition both scholarly analyses more informal popular writing academic liberalism
writing more radical here foreshadowed concentration nature extent sexual discrimination
female daughter sarah lawrence exposed very active movement meanwhile
commissioned write book based entirely previous findings summarizing literature
thought fairly simple task self mainstream forty continued investigation liberation
movement underground press recalled reaction purely primarily something interesting
something professional obligation observe considerable effort part received invitation
consciousness raising session young there said threatened sitting quietly floor midst
showing knew disapproval objectivity lack involvement impersonality giving vibrations
though originally intended watch movement primarily concern could help messages
affecting academically actively began question knowledge assumptions academy change
perceptions yielded reinterpretation evidence marital status importantly realized
practically recognized knowledge ascertained stressed acquiring knowledge males
interested presented perspective mind reflected male bias perpetuated wanted discipline
good could standard ignorance rejection growing corpus relevant analyses detrimental
reasoned sociologists effectively ignore thus long process analyzing professional
colleagues altering perspective lose namely respect patriarchal profession mary
acknowledges difficult courageous intellectual honesty take precedence status however
driven explain newfound ideas public recalled useful form activism investment spreading
message according considered equals academia also believed there hope suggested
studying order learn nature culture structure functioning studying separate entity context
believed gained advance efforts achieve equality also make inclusive comprehensive
accurate published future possibly known cited discovered husbands wives contemporary
experience very different marriages intrinsic conflict between needs desires partners
separate into marriages hers considerably better found wives less happy marriages
husbands married reported higher rates anxiety depression husbands married live longer
better mental physical health less depressed earn higher incomes just divided diagnosis
into divided suggested remedies into those proposed those proposed presented solutions
proposed being completely different said happier economic burdens alleviated overcome
sexual restrictions very skeptical these suggestions because fail deal wright proposals
many draw heavily materials generated prefered reallocation responsibility housework
raising ideally share duties responsibilities household parental economic wright
concluded complete change socialization process prepare autonomous independent self
supporting throughout adult lives wright will significantly change couples major part data
found future simply summary comparing mental health both sexes different situations
took data psychological studies journals seemed other people findings struggles order
make conclusions made book often style informal almost personal speaking directly
reader shortly release future published another work hers motherhood released introduced
message entire title chapter mother role human beings initially acknowledged cannot
speak countries times culture history impact situation presenting analyzed mother role
centuries showed mothers products roles play depicts common contradictory images
mothers roles portrays mothers moms cantor overprotecting therefore turning daughters
unfulfilled however others portray quintessential saintly loving sacrificing self denying
stressed images anti possible where individual isolated other adults does nurturing young
briefly described victorian image motherhood role showed structure motherhood known
changing because economic conditions even lamented victorian middle conception
historians point view themselves less authentic looks like ever continues throughout
arguing traditionally institutionalized believes needs advocated values strength
compassion described utopian says cooperation probably utopian solution large break
free rigid form working kick habit hiring full workers families manage careers family
minimum outside help husband sharing tasks informal shift system allowed finally
entering mainstream might beginning transformation meaningful individualized activity
supported institutionalization made good supporting points however argument weakened
describes ideal solution utopia explained times seems impossible considering herself
writer wrote voters redemptive futurist combining perspective ability spot injustice essays
criticized essentially keeping times though rapidly entering force formal company verbal
contracts needed order equalize roles currently working home office building previous
here opened deal itself entity right product presenting thesis previously realized males
introduced therefore indicating live biased attempted present without current inherent
bias discusses past stations spheres incomplete demise distinct sphere structure networks
associations culture ethos political status between worlds cavan seemed though fairly
clearly stated purpose treating distinct entity consistently referred negative effect
examples worlds extremes each other always proving harmful defined either love duty
ethos nature like books original test assumptions predictions carefully supporting failed
incorporate contradictory conclusions seemed realistic does expect ethos continue
domination realizes will take rather anticipated decrease increase participation political
activities cavan final global having produced building previous immediately pointed
majority done past centuries white educated middle upper citizens usually living sweden
germany france england inherent researchers personal demographic information bias
global identified biases analyzed worlds past present european african rich poor gave rich
details examples historical stories become verbose global encompasses what dedicated
herself lifetime present opinion last before death accomplished what dedicated entire
findings knew useful form spreading sociologists studied semester classical jessie
recognized believed them worthy sociologists continued give often networks academy
continue scarce unquestionably needed hull house founded jane addams offered
extraordinary friendship mental stimulation advice intellectual institution ability define
views while being dominated patriarchal ideas jill mary montigue mary astell significant
networks scholars astell montigue always females physically accessible them females
corresponded through letters each studied lamented lack connections emphasized need
exactly hull house chicago consistent jane addams main epistemological principles
gained through direct experience jill ethically bound move used generate public propose
solutions encountered wells barnett identified retrieved relevant reported thoughts simply
directly through pamphlets news even speeches wrote simply general population
enlarging audience size maxine weber beatrice potter webb charlotte perkins gilman
harriet martineau fairly race blind each typically families relationships understandable
background gilman ourland acknowledged inherent significant differences between
classes races periods conscious effort consider differences created remarkable record
achievement realms conducted doing quantitative qualitative enthusiasm drove ignore
domination comment situation consistently generating producing possible centuries
struggle supportive environment scholarly recognition opportunity struggle will continue
face current feminization hope near every level academia find themselves surrounded
intelligent working towards eliminating gendered uncovered robert making brunswick
rutgers press york four revolutions autobiographical history journal york dial press
chicago aldine company voters redemptive futurist jean lipman blumen california sage
publications jean lipman blumen california sage publications york free indianapolis
indiana twentieth marital stability patterns variables journal cavan ruth shonle review
cantor muriel review bibliographical source edited greenwood neitz review
Keywords General:
Essay, essays, termpaper, term paper, termpapers, term papers, book reports, study,
college, thesis, dessertation, test answers, free research, book research, study help,
download essay, download term papers