Writing, or Something that Resembles the Written Word

I have been engaged in writing, or something that resembles writing, over the last few weeks. I have been bogged down at times, not very productive. I am in one of those periods now and it is an inconvenient time as I want to polish off this section of the larger history project. I read several different blogs authored by historians and others from the humanities. Some of these individuals are also writing and I have found some of their recent entries helpful. In particular, Notorious PhD Girl's recent post on "Why We Write" is spot on. She has also discussed her recent efforts at writing and this has inspired me. There are numerous "how to write" books/guides out there, but it is nice to hear from someone who is actually doing it, successfully, to gain some insights into how she does it.

What I learn from reading such posts is that there is no one special trick or secret to writing. I know, I know, we hope there is a magic pill or formula that will make us Productive Writers, but what it comes down to is doing it. Block out the distractions (I know what mine are) and forge ahead, without getting bogged down in Perfection. (What, Rosebud PhD doesn't care about Perfection? I thought that was the point of this whole project?) That will come with editing and re-writes. Hard lesson which I always learn at the last minute and swear as deadline looms, next time, I will do better. And look, there is a deadline looming as I type.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T; Or Why Don't I Get It?

I am a very self-conscious teacher. I strive to do my job well and to connect with students. I want them to like the classes I teach and learn something about history in the process. I do care what they think of me, whether or not they respect me as a professional. I am not my students' friend, buddy, or pal. I am not their girlfriend in which they can confide their deepest personal problems. That being said, I am sympathetic to my students' needs outside of the classroom that may affect their school work. I do my best to help my students and because I only teach one class, I have more mental energy to devote to them. I treat my students with respect and try to foster their confidence in their abilities. Half the battle seems to be to convince students they are smart enough to do the work, as long as they actually do the work.

Somewhere in there, I am not getting the respect I believe I deserve. In the past, I have had students who are openly disrespectful because I was young and a woman. They pushed to see how far they could go. At the time, I felt they were the ones throwing away their very expensive education. I was not going to treat them like children, even if they behaved that way. As I became more experienced and more confident, this type of behavior waned. Recently, my most consistent concern with this issue is how students address me. I have students call me by my first name, even when I tell them how to address me. Then we come to Mrs. Rosebud. It took a long time and a lot of work to earn my PhD. When I tell my students to call me Dr. Rosebud, I expect them to do so. Male professors both adjunct and full-time do not have the same problem. Why do students persist in calling me by my married title?

Sure, possibly the informality has to do with this inane idea that has emerged since the Sixties that students are equals to their professors. (I heartily blame the hippies for this one. There is nothing wrong with recognizing that teachers know more than students.) I teach students who are close to my age or older and may see themselves as my contemporary. But what accounts for the younger students, some of whom are male, who do this? I do not think students understand the distinction between adjunct and full-time faculty. They only see me as their professor. So, that cannot it be it. In good guilt-ridden fashion, am I to blame? In an effort to bring my subject (women's history) to my students, do I give off a less than serious posture?

Mostly I conclude that it has everything to do with my gender. If I were a man, I would command more authority. If I am tougher in class, less humorous, or easy-going, will my students perceive me as that feminist so-and-so? (Sorry, just cannot swear on the blog, but you get my meaning, right?) Dangerous territory, for sure. I need to keep students in my class and continue to draw them to it in the future to continue my employment. (Part-timers go semester to semester.) Students talk and they do not take classes from professors described negatively as either too harsh or too much work. For my corner of the world, feminism is still a bad word and I must tread lightly.

Change Over Time; Or Are We Fated to Remain the Same, Just Wear Different Outfits?

When I started this post, I intended to ruminate on something more personal. As I continued to put thoughts down, I had meandered toward a larger contemplation of history and the work of historians. This is something that is uppermost in my mind lately as I strive this semester to make my students understand what it means to be historians. It is my hope that if they do not have an interest in the field itself (I teach a requirement, and few take my course because they are eager women's historians), they will learn to think critically and write with a degree of proficiency. Since that was the direction of the post, I junked the first draft and proceeded with what follows. (This is ultimately better, as excessive personal whining was declared a no-no at the outset of this endeavor with the founding of this blog.)

Is history cyclical or linear? Do we evolve and progress over time, or does humanity constantly repeat itself? I know there are people who study such things and have excellent theories supporting various points of view. I do not have much of an official opinion on the matter. I do not study long periods of history. Or at least I did not until this project. My current project covers well over a 100 years of history. For me, that is a lot, as prior to this I concentrated on at most thirty to forty year periods in local studies. It is a big period of time and I am not without concerns as to how I will bring it all together into one manageable volume.

In the course of my work, I have had to consider how I work as an historian. What is my methodology? How do I think of the past and women's place in it? (I am a women's historian after all. Best if I think in that way.) I have been influenced by some recent scholarship but in many ways, I have not traveled far from how I think about the past. In many ways, it is how I think about the larger world. I probably suffer from a tendency to think that people have not changed much throughout the centuries at their core. Society evolves, changes, and people change how they behave with it, but at their nature, are they much different in terms of what motivates them? I think people have always considered what is most immediate to them: family, work, survival. Throw some culture and belief system in their and we have some fun.

How are the women of my current study different in the nineteenth century than they are in the twentieth century? Is there something fundamentally changed? Can we say they are the same, but with different dresses? What difference does changing some of the Rules of their existence make to who they are and how they see the world?

These are simplistic questions, but I need to ask them, because my findings show change. Somewhat. It is important to know that women's available choices shift from the nineteenth century to the twentieth century, that they change from the 1930s to the 1970s. If women participated in that change, that is also significant. Mindsets change. There are women in both the nineteenth and twentieth century who strove for equality, both civil and social.; and women who have worked to use their talents and gifts for the benefit of their communities. Women have in one century accepted a world view that placed them soundly within a subservient position within a larger Church, but would not accept that position 100 years later. I have found documentation which involves women who wished to remain within said Church, but wanted to adapt it to broaden their place in it. Some women religious of the 1960s and 1970s are said to be more independent, influenced by their social and political age and inspired by the Second Vatican Council. Yet, how are they different from the "spirited" women religious of the nineteenth century who gave their lives (some at quite a young age) to serve God, their Church, and build the American Catholic infrastructure? If we look at the core of women religious and what they chose in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, is it the same? Why did women choose this life and the life that the specific community I study offered?

There are more questions than answers here. I can only interpret the documents I have; I cannot make conclusions based upon some larger desire to show progress over time or the constancy of humanity, for good or ill. What are the documents telling me? What does the established history tell me? Uh oh. More questions, even fewer answers.

Stopping By

No posts. There have been no posts from the Perfection of Prudence Team. I imagine we have been out perfecting prudence or something like that.

For me, August was filled with a myriad of huge and small things that took up my attention. The semester started and preparations for that were fairly consuming. I am trying something new this semester and hopefully it will not be a complete failure. It is too soon to tell. My history project...that is the big all consuming thing. I am still trying to write.

I hope September will be better, more organized, more productive, more... If anyone is out there, reading, bear with the Team.