Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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