“From Coveralls to Zoot Suits” Chapter 3 Discussion

“…underneath the formality and politeness a half-concealed resentment still persisted, not against women as women, but against them as rivals of men in a man’s world.”

Though during the wartime in the 1940’s immigrant women made large stride in social and economic independence, there were muted signs of sexism and sexual discrimination still visible in the workplace. I found it fascinating that the industries that needed women workers during the wartime slightly altered the jobs as to label them “female positions.” Companies established women-only departments and sex-typed jobs meant directly for women. I saw this as an institutional response to women gaining access to the workforce, trying to sustain the image of women as unequal to men. The individual response to women entering the public sphere can be seen through the sexist actions of male workers. Sexual harassment was used as a tool by men to personally reestablish their dominance over females.

“From Coveralls to Zoot Suits” Chapter 1-2 Discussion Post

I saw a lot of ideas in this reading that connected to some of our past readings. One idea that stood out to me was that the older Mexican generation, those born in Mexico and moved to the United States, distanced themselves from the pachucas because they saw them as ruining the Mexican immigrant’s reputation. This reminded me of our class’s discussion on internal diversity and the fact that sometimes immigrant groups can become the most anti-immigrantion faction. Another aspect of the reading that I found particularly interesting was the idea that female zoot suiters chose their identity as outsiders in the community instead of having that feeling and identity being placed on them by the greater society. They took an active role in forming their place in American society instead of being told their roles.

“Raiz Fuerte” Discussion Post

A major theme seen throughout the Raiz Fuerte reading is the idea of identity and transitions of identity. I found the character of Lourdes extremely fascinating to read about. With her role in the community, she was able to straddle both the traditional and progressive idea of women. By running a cantina, Lourdes is a significant economic player with the ability to severely impact social situations, such at the cotton strike, however due to her proximity and focus on food she continues to play the role of traditional women working in domestic spheres. Lourdes actually transforms the conventional gender role of women into active participation in her society.

“Confronting ‘America'” Discussion Post

I am currently questioning the relationship between domestic duties of women, cultural assimilation and suppression of women’s rights. Like in past readings, “Confronting ‘America'” explains how women play a essential part in assimilating citizens to a new culture. With women raising future children and being the ones who instill cultural values and traditions, they are integral in the process. On pages forty-two and forty-three, Ruiz states the Christian community centers and schools began to emphasize education of Mexican youth. However, “While preparing its charges for the workaday world, the school never lost sight of women’s domestic duties.” Women have such a significant part in acculturation, but I am now wondering how much of that role is actually holding them back from gaining more rights and roles in the outside world. Does the importance of women being in the household setting hinder them from achieving further accomplishments outside of the domestic realm? I’m still working this thought through..

“Underground Feminisms” Discussion Post

“Men were always there, but it was the women who got things done.”

This sentence really stood out to me as I finished up the reading on Inocencia’s turbulent life. There is a special connection between women, a sort of collectiveness that ties otherwise unrelated women together. I thought back to our first reading from this semester which also looked at the common consciousness of women. This bond is not seen with men, because they do not need the support of other men like women do. The collectiveness mentioned by Inocencia comes from women being the “other” in society, while men are the norm, the dominant.
Throughout the reading, I was extremely moved by Inocencia’s spirit and perseverance. Never in  her life did she accept her situation if she did not agree with it. Though she did not complete any revolutionary, feminist actions in lifetime, she completely embodied the feminist perspective. Her entire life she refused to be held down by her predicaments, refused to become submissive. Her understated actions resulted in reprecussions of a larger feminist change. Similar to a point in Negotiating Conquest focusing on how women play a massive role in developing culture due to raising children, Inocencia raised three daughters who were taught feminism through their mother’s behavior and outlook. Her daughters are now citizens who can make even more significant change than their mother.

“The Shifting of Women’s Agency in 19th-Century California” Critical Essay

Throughout the nineteenth century, three separate nations: Spain, Mexico and the United States, occupied the territory of California. The constant transitioning of cultures, political systems and languages significantly affected the gender roles and agency of Californians, specifically those of women. In the transitional periods of California, women lost property rights, decreasing their role and agency in the regional economy, but they gained social and legal rights, improving their agency in the community. However, the large role of tradition and culture rooted in Californian society in the nineteenth century hindered women from using this agency to its full advantage.

In the process of shifting from Mexican-California to American-California, Californian women lost a substantial amount of their property rights, which they had previously understood as inherent. From 1821 to 1847, while the territory of California was under the governance of Mexico, female citizens “…had the right to acquire property not only through grants but also through endowments, purchases, gifts and inheritance…[Women] could also administer, protect, and invest their property…” (Chávez-Garcia, 54)  With these rights, it can be understood that women were serious players in the local economy. Women had the ability to be businesswomen through land ownership, investment, and cultivation. When the United States acquired the region of California, it converted the political and legal structure to the English system, severely limiting these progressive rights of women. In 1850, a California law, “…gave married women an equal interest in marital or common property, but a husband had the authority to manage his wife’s property as if it were his own.” (126) This small change in dynamics dramatically shifted power away from women. With the new statute, men resumed their former role of regulating things, fundamentally not theirs, in place of the woman, such as with women’s sexuality in Spanish-California. (33) This suppression of Californian women’s rights could be due to the United States’ desire to exert control over the newly attained territory. By enacting these laws against women, the United States implicitly demonstrated its conquest of California.

The transition of power of the California region also resulted in increased social and legal agency for Californian women. In Spanish and Mexican cultures, “…stable marriages were the bedrock of a well-ordered society.” (90) This permeated Californian society during the periods of conquest. With the United States’ procurement of California, Western concepts of divorce marital prosecutions began to spread into California. This change unsettled the normative gender roles that had become standard over the past two centuries. In 1850, the California Assembly government formally passed the common law, including the granting of women, “…the opportunity to sue to sever the bond of matrimony…” (93) This decree resulted in women gaining significant legal and social agency compared to before. Not only could women use local judicial institutions for criminal indictments, but also they could actively participate in social situations, such as marriage, “bring[ing] their spouses before a tribunal and charg[ing] them with marital indiscretions or other inappropriate behavior…” (91) However, those women gained this ability, only a minute amount of women actually used it. In almost thirty years, from 1851 to 1879, “…less than one percent of the Californio-Mexican population in Los Angeles, challenged fundamental notions of marriage and the family by seeking a divorce.” (95-96) Due to such deep-rooted traditional values and social taboos, the majority of women stayed loyal to their husbands regardless if they wanted to become independent of him. A pervasive notion in California society instructed, “…women with abusive spouses to ‘suffer patiently’ and remain in the household for the good of the family and the larger community.” (114) Traditional ideas such as this help explain the minimal number of women who sought to active use their marital rights. The large role of tradition and community in the Californian society hindered women from using their agency to its full extent. Due to the importance of both, many women seemed to have held back from taking action to help themselves, thinking more about the honor and collective of California.

The multiple transitional periods of California both improved and deteriorated the agency of women in different realms of society. However, it is clear that the gender roles of women were drastically and permanently altered due to the changing governing nations. Women’s property rights, and thus economic agency, weakened as a result of the major shift to the United States’ legal system and the new governing body exerting their dominance over California. Women gained a level of social and legal agency from the enactment of common law in California, containing the right for women to separate from their husbands. However, only a minority of women actually ended up using this newly gained agency due to the traditional values of marriage and community.

“Negotiating Conquest Chapter 3” Discussion Post

With Chapter 3, I was most struck by the fact that women in California in the 1800’s had such extensive property rights. Women were able to own their own property, gaining independence for themselves and for their children if they had them. In addition they had the right to initiate lawsuits, enter into contracts, form business partnerships and give/receive loans. Growing up learning United States history, these actions seem so modern to me so I was so astonished to read that for these women the privileges were basic. However, I did notice the ethnic discrimination against neofitas and gentiles in property holding. Though native women were entitled to land through Spanish and Mexican laws, they acquired almost no former mission land as their own. For Spanish women regardless of their marital status or reputation, they were able to receive land relatively easily. This paradox stood out to me as a major landmark in the chapter.

“Negotiating Conquests Chapters 1-2” Discussion Post

Throughout my reading of the preface, Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 of Negotiating Conquests, I was struck at how physical and sexual abuse of women was never made an issue due to the security and rights of women. In both chapters, the author explains how multiple institutions desired to stop the abuse however their reasoning upset me. The judicial system focused the rationale of why they wanted to stop the crimes against women more on how the abuse was tarnishing the male’s reputation and honor in the community. The church organization including the priests in the new territory gave reasoning of how rape and abuse was diminishing the morality of the public. Never was the logic given principally about the women, their terror, their lack of basic security and rights.