Gendered Voices, Feminist Visions:

Classic and Contemporary Readings

7th Edition Susan M. Shaw
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/gendered-voices-feminist-visions-classic-and-contem
porary-readings-7th-edition-susan-m-shaw/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Aesthetics The Classic Readings 2nd Edition David E.

Cooper

https://textbookfull.com/product/aesthetics-the-classic-
readings-2nd-edition-david-e-cooper/

Outside Mental Health Voices and Visions of Madness 1st

Edition Will Hall

https://textbookfull.com/product/outside-mental-health-voices-
and-visions-of-madness-1st-edition-will-hall/

Biota Grow 2C gather 2C cook Loucas

https://textbookfull.com/product/biota-grow-2c-gather-2c-cook-
loucas/

Animal Visions: Posthumanist Dream Writing Susan Mary

Pyke

https://textbookfull.com/product/animal-visions-posthumanist-
dream-writing-susan-mary-pyke/
Native American Voices A Reader 3rd Edition Susan Lobo

https://textbookfull.com/product/native-american-voices-a-
reader-3rd-edition-susan-lobo/

Female Child Soldiering, Gender Violence, and Feminist

Theologies Susan Willhauck

https://textbookfull.com/product/female-child-soldiering-gender-
violence-and-feminist-theologies-susan-willhauck/

The Philosophy of Sex Contemporary Readings Raja

Halwani

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-philosophy-of-sex-
contemporary-readings-raja-halwani/

Evergreen A Guide to Writing with Readings 11 Edition

Edition Susan Fawcett

https://textbookfull.com/product/evergreen-a-guide-to-writing-
with-readings-11-edition-edition-susan-fawcett/

Foreign Policy Analysis Classic And Contemporary Theory

Benjamin S. Day

https://textbookfull.com/product/foreign-policy-analysis-classic-
and-contemporary-theory-benjamin-s-day/
GENDERED VOICES,
FEMINIST VISIONS
CLA S S I C A N D C O NTE MPOR ARY R E ADINGS

seventh edition

Susan M. Shaw
o r e g o n s tat e u n i v e rs i t y

Janet Lee
o r e g o n s tat e u n i v e rs i t y

N E W Y O R K    O X F O R D
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research,
scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a
registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and
certain other countries.

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University

Press, 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States
of America.

© 2020 by Oxford University Press

© 2015, 2012, 2009, and 2007 by McGraw-Hill Education

For titles covered by Section 112 of the US Higher Education

Opportunity Act, please visit www.oup.com/us/he for the latest
information about pricing and alternate formats.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,

stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any
means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press,
or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the
appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction
outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department,
Oxford University Press, at the address above.

You must not circulate this work in any other form

and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.

Cataloging-in-Publication data is on file with the Library of Congress.

ISBN:9780190924874 (pbk)

Printing number: 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Printed by LSC Communications, Inc.
Printed in the United States of America
Dedicated to all our WS 223 “Introduction to Women, Gender, and Sexuality
Studies” students with thanks for all they have taught us.
 CONTENTS

p r e fac e xiii
ac k n ow l e d g m e n ts xvi
about the Authors xix

chapter 1 Women’s and Gender Studies: Perspectives and

Practices 1
What Is Women’s and Gender Studies (WGS)? 1
How Did WGS Originate? 2
What Were the Origins of Women’s Rights Activism in the
United States? 8
What Is the Status of WGS on College Campuses Today? 11
What Does WGS Have to Do with Feminism? 12
What Are the Myths Associated with Feminism? 17
1. Adrienne Rich, “Claiming an Education” 22
2. Sara Ahmed, “Living a Feminist Life” 25
3. New York Radical Women, “No More Miss America” 28
4. Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards, “A Day Without
Feminism” 29
5. Kia M. Q. Hall, “A Transnational Black Feminist Framework” 32
6. Christine Garcia, “In Defense of Latinx” 38
7. Marge Piercy, “My Heroines” 40

v
vi contents

chapter 2 Systems of Privilege and Inequality 41

Difference, Hierarchy, and Systems of Privilege and Inequality 43
Discourse, Power, and Knowledge 50
Institutions 53
8. Patricia Hill Collins, “Toward a New Vision: Race, Class, and Gender as
Categories of Analysis and Connection” 61
9. Vivian M. May, “Intersectionality,” 68
10. Audre Lorde, “There Is No Hierarchy of Oppression” 75
11. Gina Crosley-Corcoran, “Explaining White Privilege to a Broke White
Person” 7 6
12. Robert Bird and Frank Newport, “What Determines How Americans
Perceive Their Social Class?” 78
13. Evin Taylor, “Cisgender Privilege” 80
14. Ellie Mamber, “Don’t Laugh, It’s Serious, She Says” 82
15. Teodor Mladenov, “Disability and Social Justice” 83
16. Jim Ferris, “Poems with Disabilities” 94

chapter 3 Learning Gender 95

Gender, Culture, and Biology 95
Masculinity 10 4
Femininity 107
Gender Fluidity 110
Gender Ranking 111
17. Anne Fausto-Sterling, “The Five Sexes, Revisited” 115
18. Judith Lorber, “The Social Construction of Gender” 120
19. Sabine Lang, “Native American Men-Women, Lesbians,
Two-Spirits” 1 2 3
20. Arvind Dilawar, “The Connection Between White Men, Aggrievement,
and Mass Shootings” 136
21. Nellie Wong, “When I Was Growing Up” 137
22. T. J. Jourian, “Trans*forming College Masculinities” 138

chapter 4 Inscribing Gender on the Body 155

The Social Construction of the Body 157
The “Beauty” Ideal 162
Eating Disorders 171
Negotiating “Beauty” Ideals 174
 Contents vii

23. Joan Jacobs Brumberg, “Breast Buds and the ‘Training’ Bra” 176
24. Gloria Steinem, “If Men Could Menstruate” 180
25. Nicole Danielle Schott, “Race, Online Space and
the Feminine” 1 82
26. Minh-Ha T. Pham, “I Click and Post and Breathe, Waiting for Others to
See What I See” 190
27. Jennifer L. Brady, Aylin Kaya, Derek Iwamoto, Athena Park, Lauren
Fox, and Marcus Moorhead, “Asian American Women’s Body Image
Experiences” 1 9 8
28. Susie Orbach, “Fat Is Still a Feminist Issue” 215
29. Jamie Lindemann Nelson, “Understanding Transgender and Medically
Assisted Gender Transition” 217

chapter 5 Media and Culture 222

Digital Technologies 2 23
Television 232
Movies 235
Contemporary Music and Music Videos 240
Print Media 242
Literature and the Arts 244
30. Virginia Woolf, “Thinking About Shakespeare’s Sister” 249
31. Emily Dickinson, “The Wife” 251
32. Audre Lorde, “Poetry Is Not a Luxury” 251
33. Emma Turley and Jenny Fisher, “Tweeting Back While
Shouting Back” 2 53
34. Ella Fegitz and Daniela Pirani, “The Sexual Politics
of Veggies” 2 5 6
35. Sherri Williams, “Cardi B: Love & Hip Hop’s Unlikely Feminist
Hero” 2 6 7
36. Judith Taylor, Josée Johnston, and Krista Whitehead, “A Corporation in
Feminist Clothing?” 270

chapter 6 Sex, Power, and Intimacy 280

The Social Construction of Sexuality 280
The Politics of Sexuality 288
Intimacies 292
37. Jessica Valenti, “The Cult of Virginity” 299
38. Ellen Bass, “Gate C22” 304
viii contents

39. Charlene L. Muehlenhard, Terry P. Humphreys, Kristen N. Jozkowski,

and Zoë D. Peterson, “The Complexities of Sexual Consent Among
College Students” 305
40. Carl Collison, “Queer Muslim Women Are Making Salaam with Who
They Are” 319
41.    Janice M. Gould, “Lesbian Landscape” 321
42. Francis Ray White, “The Future of Fat Sex” 328
43. Kimberly Springer, “Queering Black Female
Heterosexuality” 336

chapter 7 Health and Reproductive Justice 341

Health and Wellness 341
Reproductive Justice 3 54
44. Jallicia Jolly, “On Forbidden Wombs and Transnational Reproductive
Justice” 3 7 3
45. Sarah Combellick-Bidney, “Reproductive Rights as
Human Rights: Stories from Advocates in Brazil, India and
South Africa” 3 80
46. Aisha Wagner, “Doctors Need to Talk Openly About Race—Our
Patients Depend on It” 391
47. Don Operario and Tooru Nemoto, “On Being Transnational and
Transgender”* 392
48. Richard Horton, “Racism—the Pathology We Choose to
Ignore” 3 9 4
49. Kate Horowitz, “Performance of a Lifetime: On Invisible Illness,
Gender, and Disbelief” 395

chapter 8 Family Systems, Family Lives 398

Definitions of Family 399
Institutional Connections 404
Power and Family Relationships 408
Mothering 41 4
50. Emma Goldman, “Marriage and Love” 417
51.   Katherine Goldstein, “Where Are the Mothers?” 419
52. Ken W. Knight, Sarah E. M. Stephenson, Sue West, Martin B. Delatycki,
Cheryl A. Jones, Melissa H. Little, George C. Patton, Susan M. Sawyer,
S. Rachel Skinner, Michelle M. Telfer, Melissa Wake, Kathryn N. North,
and Frank Oberklaid, “The Kids Are OK” 428
 Contents ix

53. Leila Schochet, “Immigration Policies Are Harming American

Children” 43 2
54. Katherine Zeininger, Mellisa Holtzman, and Rachel Kraus,
“The Reciprocal Relationship Between Religious Beliefs and
Acceptance of One’s Gay or Lesbian Family Member” 438
55. Ashley McKinless, “Beyond the Wall” 452
56. Mohja Kahf, “My Grandmother Washes Her Feet in the Sink of the
Bathroom at Sears” 456

chapter 9 Work Inside and Outside the Home 457

Unpaid Labor in the Home 458
Paid Labor 465
57. Sharlene Hesse-Biber and Gregg Lee Carter, “A Brief History of
Working Women” 484
58. Corinne Schwarz, Emily J. Kennedy, and
Hannah Britton, “Structural Injustice, Sex Work, and Human
Trafficking” 4 9 6
59. Vesselina Stefanova Ratcheva and Saadia Zahidi,
“Which Country Will Be the First to Close the Gender Gap—and
How?” 509
60. Anna Swartz, “This Is the Hidden Financial Cost of Being an LGBTQ
American Today” 512
61. Rose Hackman, “‘Women Are Just Better at This Stuff’” 514
62. Charlotte Higgins, “The Age of Patriarchy” 517

chapter 10 Resisting Gender Violence 525

Sexual Assault and Rape 540
Physical Abuse 546
Incest 5 50
63. Andrea Smith, “Beyond the Politics of Inclusion” 553
64. Mariah Lockwood, “She Said” 556
65. Emilie Linder, “Gender Aspects of Human Trafficking” 556
66. Homa Khaleeli, “#SayHerName” 558
67. Chelsea Spencer, Allen Mallory, Michelle Toews, Sandra Stith, and
Leila Wood, “Why Sexual Assault Survivors Do Not Report to
Universities: A Feminist Analysis” 559
x contents

68. Nadje Al-Ali, “Sexual Violence in Iraq: Challenges for Transnational

Feminist Politics” 570
69. Debra Anne Davis, “Betrayed by the Angel” 580
70. Grace Caroline Bridges, “Lisa’s Ritual, Age 10” 583

chapter 11 State, Law, and Social Policy 584

Government and Representation 585
Public Policy 597
The Criminal Justice System 601
The Military 6 05
71. Susan B. Anthony, “Constitutional Argument” 611
72. Angela N. Gist, “I Knew America Was Not Ready for a Woman to
Be President” 612
73. Jennifer Greenburg, “New Military Femininities: Humanitarian
Violence and the Gendered Work of War Among U.S.
Servicewomen” 616
74. Margot Wallström, “Speech on Sweden’s Feminist
Foreign Policy” 625
75. Brenda Della Casa, “What It Feels Like to Be on Welfare” 627
76. Seyward Darby, “The Rise of the Valkyries: In the Alt-Right, Women
Are the Future, and the Problem” 629

chapter 12 Religion and Spirituality 637

Religion as Oppressive to Women 639
Religion as Empowering to Women 643
Gender and God-Language 646
Reinterpreting, Reconstructing, and Decolonizing Traditions 648
Creating New Spiritual Traditions 651
77. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, “Introduction to The Woman’s Bible” 653
78. Kaylin Haught, “God Says Yes to Me” 654
79. Karen McCarthy Brown, “Fundamentalism and the Control of
Women” 6 5 4
80. Jessica Finnigan and Nancy Ross, “‘I’m a Mormon Feminist” 658
81. Kathryn LaFever, “Buddhist Nuns in Nepal” 667
82. An Interview with Syafa Almirzanah, “The Prophet’s
Daughters” 6 7 5
83. Yitzhak Reiter, “Feminists in the Temple of Orthodoxy” 678
84. Kelly Brown Douglas, “How Evangelicals Became White” 688
85. Allyson S. Dean and Whitney J. Archer, “Transgressing the
Father Figure” 691
 Contents xi

chapter 13 Activism, Change, and Feminist Futures 702

The Promise of Feminist Education 702
Activism 70 3
Future Visions 712
86. Byron Hurt, “Feminist Men” 719
87. Li Maizi, “I Went to Jail for Handing Out Feminist Stickers in
China” 7 21
88. Teresa A. Velásquez, “Mestiza Women’s Anti-mining Activism in
Andean Ecuador” 723
89. R. Lucas Platero and Esther Ortega-Arjonilla, “Building Coalitions:
The Interconnections Between Feminism and Trans* Activism
in Spain” 7 3 3
90. Laurie Penny, “Most Women You Know Are Angry” 742
91. Yvette Alex-Assensoh, “What’s Love Got to Do with It?” 744
92. Jenny Joseph, “Warning” 745

credits 746
index 749
 PREFACE

W e are thrilled to offer a new edition of Gendered Voices, Feminist Visions: Classic and
Contemporary Readings with Oxford University Press at a time when our discipline is
embarking on theoretical shifts, our academic programs are being both fully integrated and
increasingly marginalized across the country, and threats to, and hopes for, social justice
make the news daily. We know for sure the issues we deal with here are still very relevant! This
book, formerly known as Women’s Voices, Feminist Visions, has been revised—and renamed—
to represent the shift from an essentialized notion of “woman” to a broader understanding
of gender as socially constructed categories that shape our lives. It also better reflects the re-
naming of academic programs nationwide from “Women’s Studies” to “Women and Gender
Studies” or just “Gender Studies.” You will notice in chapter introductions that we straddle
the realities of encouraging readers to question taken-for-granted normative categories of
“women” and “men,” applying the insights of postmodern and especially queer theoretical
insights, and the recognition that these materially based normative categories represent dis-
tinct social groups whose members lead lives shaped and constrained by the realities of this
very identity or group membership. We do not take these categories for granted, and we do
recognize the realities of their existence.
We originally embarked on creating this book after finding that students were increas-
ingly skipping assigned material in the introductory women’s and gender studies course.
They often found the readings to be mostly inaccessible, or, alternatively, they enjoyed
reading the more testimonial first-person accounts included in some texts but were not
grasping the theoretical frameworks necessary to make sense of these more experiential
readings. We were tired of creating packets of readings, and students were tired of having
to access alternative readings on top of purchasing a textbook. This book was crafted to
include a balance of recent contemporary readings with historical and classic pieces as
well as both testimonial and more theoretical essays that would speak to the diversity of
human experience. Each chapter has an introduction that provides an overview of the
topic and a framework for the readings that follow. Additionally, each chapter offers a

xiii
xiv preface

variety of learning activities, activist profiles, ideas for activism, and other sidebars that
can engage students with the material in various ways.
Although students of women’s and gender studies today are in many ways like the stu-
dents who have preceded them, they are also characterized by certain distinctions. Many
of today’s students come to our classes believing the goals of the women’s and civil rights
movements have already been accomplished, and, although most will say they believe in
gender equity of some sort and some identify with feminism as a political theory or social
movement, many still came of age benefiting from the gains made by feminist scholars
and activists and taking for granted the social justice accomplishments of the last century.
Moreover, as women’s and gender studies has become institutionalized on college cam-
puses and is fulfilling baccalaureate core requirements, more students are being exposed
to this field than ever before. Many of these students “choose” women’s and gender studies
from a menu of options and may come to the discipline with varying levels of misunder-
standing and resistance. Some of these students have been influenced by contemporary
backlash efforts and by conservative religious ideologies that seek a return to traditional
gender relations. All of these distinctions call for a new, relevant, and accessible introduc-
tory text.
In addition, another distinction of contemporary students compared to students in
the past is their level of digital competency, which also means more traditional types of
reading can be challenging. Students in women’s and gender studies today are often the
kind of visual learners who prefer reading from and interacting with a computer screen
or a smart phone or watching video clips over reading traditional texts. We know from
experience that a large percentage of students in introductory women’s and gender stud-
ies classes read only a fragment of the required readings (especially dense theoretical
texts that are often deemed “irrelevant” or “boring”) and that our required readings end
up as “fragmented texts.” Our intention in this book is to address these challenges by
presenting a student-friendly text that provides short, accessible readings that reflect the
diversity of gender experiences and offer a balance of classic/contemporary and theoreti-
cal/experiential pieces. The goal is to start where students are rather than where we hope
they might be, and to provide a text that enriches their thinking, encourages them to
read, and relates to their everyday experiences. We have chosen accessible articles that we
hope are readable. They are relatively short, to the point, and interesting in terms of both
topics and writing styles. Although most articles are quite contemporary, we have also
included earlier classic articles that are “must-reads.” And although the articles we have
chosen cover the breadth of issues and eras in women’s and gender studies, we hope stu-
dents will read them—and enjoy reading them—because of their relevance to their lives.
Many pieces are written by young feminists, many are in testimonial format, and, on the
whole, they avoid dense, academic theorizing. The cartoons, we hope, bring humor to
this scholarship. Our hope is that these readings and the chapter introductions will invite
students into productive dialogue with feminist ideas and encourage personal engage-
ment in feminist work.
 Preface xv

We also structure opportunities for students to reflect on their learning throughout the
text, and, in this sense, the book is aimed at “teaching itself.” It includes not only articles
and introductions but also a number of features designed to engage students in active
learning around the content. For example, we address students’ tendencies to lose inter-
est by creating a format that presents smaller, self-contained, more manageable pieces of
knowledge that hold together through related fields and motifs that are woven throughout
the larger text as boxes. This multiple positioning of various forms of scholarship creates
independent but related pieces that enable students to read each unit in its entirety and
make connections between the individual units and the larger text. We see this subtext as
a way to address students’ familiarity and comfort with contemporary design and mul-
tiple windows. By also presenting material in these familiar formats, we intend to create a
student-friendly text that will stimulate their interest. We encourage them actually to read
the text and then be actively engaged with the material.
Pedagogy is embedded within the text itself. In addition to the textual narrative, we
include in each chapter learning activities, activism ideas that provide students with
examples, and opportunities for the practical implementation of the content that help
students explore chapter themes critically. Instructors will be able to utilize the various
pedagogical procedures suggested in the text (and those in the accompanying instructor’s
manual found on the Ancillary Resource Center [ARC] at www.oup.com/us/shaw) to de-
velop teaching plans for their class sessions. By embedding some pedagogy within the text,
we hope to create a classroom tool that enables connections between content and teaching
procedure and between assigned readings and classroom experience. Thus, students and
instructors should experience the text as both a series of manageable units of information
and a holistic exploration of the larger topics.
Like other women’s and gender studies text-readers, this book covers a variety of issues
that we know instructors address in the introductory course. We do not isolate race and
racism and other issues of difference and power as separate topics, but thoroughly inte-
grate them throughout the text into every issue addressed. We have also chosen not to
present groups of chapters in parts or sections but to let the individual chapters stand
alone. Pragmatically, this facilitates instructors being able to decide how they want to or-
ganize their own courses. At the same time, however, the chapters do build on each other.
For example, after introducing students to women’s and gender studies, Chapter 2 presents
the systems of privilege and inequality that form the context for social justice education,
and then Chapter 3 explores the social construction of gender, building on the previous
chapter by introducing the plurality of sex/gender systems. The following chapters then
examine how sex/gender systems are expressed and maintained in social institutions.
For this new edition, we have revised chapter framework essays to reflect the most
up-to-date research and theory in the field. We’ve also included new readings that are con-
temporary and exciting. With each new edition, we strive to keep the textbook fresh and
interesting for our students. We wish you all the best in your class and hope the book is a
helpful addition to both teaching and learning.
xvi preface

NEW TO THIS EDITION

• Fifty-eight new readings, bringing in young feminist writers and contemporary topics
such as disability and social justice, trans*masculinities, transgender issues, Cardi B,
queer Muslim women, immigration policies, human trafficking, #SayHerName, sexual
assault on campus, military femininities, white supremacist women, activism, and
much more.
• Revised chapter framework essays to reflect the most up-to-date research and theory in
the field.
• A new feature in each chapter called “The Blog”: posts written by Susan when she was
blogging for the Huffington Post from 2015 to 2017. While most of these brief pieces were
written in response to some current event, the feminist lens they offer remains timely,
and the topics are still important for feminist conversations.
• A new title—Gendered Voices, Feminist Visions—to represent the shift from an essential-
ized notion of “woman” to a broader understanding of gender as socially constructed
categories that shape our lives. This also reflects the renaming of academic programs
nationwide from “Women’s Studies” to “Women and Gender Studies” or just “Gender
Studies.”

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Writing a textbook is inevitably a community project, and without the assistance of a
number of people this project would have been impossible. We would like to thank Karen
Mills, administrator for the School of Language, Culture, and Society, and Leo Rianda,
office assistant for Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, for their support; our gradu-
ate students and colleagues who wrote a number of sidebars for this edition; and students
Lauren Grant and Nasim Basiri, who helped with fact-checking.
We also would like to acknowledge the work of the many reviewers who provided in-
sights and suggestions for this edition:

Ozlem Altiok, University of North Texas

Josephine Beoku-Betts, Florida Atlantic University
Suzanne Bergeron, University of Michigan Dearborn
Adriane Brown, Augsburg College
Suzanne M. Edwards, Lehigh University
Kara Ellerby, University of Delaware
Julie Goodspeed-Chadwick, Indiana University-Purdue University Columbus
Tara Jabbaar-Gyambrah, Niagara University
Rachel Lewis, George Mason University
Hilary Malatino, East Tennessee State University
Amanda Roth, SUNY Geneseo
Robyn Ryle, Hanover College
Carissa Jean Sojka, Southern Oregon University
Beth Sutton-Ramspeck, Ohio State University
Martha Walker, Mary Baldwin University
 Preface xvii

Jan Wilson, University of Tulsa

One anonymous reviewer

Finally, we want to thank Sherith Pankratz and Grace Li at Oxford University Press,
who have provided invaluable support and encouragement; Micheline Frederick, our pro-
duction editor; and Mary Anne Shahidi, our amazing copyeditor. We’d also like to thank
Serina Beauparlant, who initiated the first edition of the book with us when she was an
editor at Mayfield Publishing.
 ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Susan M. Shaw is professor of women, gender, and sexuality studies at Oregon State Uni-
versity. Her research interests are in feminist theology and women in religion. Professor
Shaw teaches courses in global feminist theologies; feminist theologies in the United
States feminism and the Bible; gender and sport; and gender, race, and pop culture. She is
author of Reflective Faith: A Theological Toolbox for Women (Smyth & Helwys, 2014) and God
Speaks to Us, Too: Southern Baptist Women on Church, Home, and Society (University Press of
Kentucky, 2008), and co-author of Intersectional Theology: An Introductory Guide (Fortress
Press, 2018) and Girls Rock! Fifty Years of Women Making Music (University Press of Ken-
tucky, 2004). She is general editor of the four-volume Women’s Lives Around the World: A
Global Encyclopedia (ABC-CLIO, 2018). She is an avid racquetball player, reader of murder
mysteries, hot tubber, and fan of Beavers women’s basketball.

Janet Lee is professor of women, gender, and sexuality studies at Oregon State University,
where she teaches a variety of courses on gender and feminism. Professor Lee’s research
interests include early-twentieth-century feminist and queer British histories and histori-
cal geographies of the relationships between space, modernity, and masculinities. She is
author of War Girls: The First Aid Nursing Yeomanry (FANY) in the First World War (Manches-
ter University Press, 2005) and Comrades and Partners: The Shared Lives of Grace Hutchins and
Anna Rochester (Rowman and Littlefield, 2000); co-author of Blood Stories: Menarche and the
Politics of the Female Body in Contemporary U.S. Society (Routledge, 1996); and co-editor with
Susan Shaw of Women Worldwide: Transnational Feminist Perspectives on Women (McGraw-
Hill, 2010). Her new book Fallen Among Reformers: Miles Franklin, and the New Woman Writ-
ing from the Chicago Years is forthcoming from Sydney University Press. She enjoys playing
tennis and all things equestrian.

xix
 C HA PTER 1

WOMEN’S AND GENDER STUDIES

Perspectives and Practices

W H AT I S W O M E N ’ S A N D G E N D E R S T U D I E S ( W G S ) ?
WGS is an interdisciplinary academic field devoted to topics concerning women, gender,
and feminism. It focuses on gender arrangements (the ways society creates, patterns, and
rewards our understandings of femininity and masculinity) and examines the multiple
ways these arrangements affect everyday life. In particular, WGS is concerned with gender
as it intersects with multiple categories, such as race, ethnicity, social class, age, ability, re-
ligion, and sexuality. Exploring how we perform gender and how this interacts with other
aspects of our identities, WGS focuses on the ways women and other feminized bodies
experience discrimination and oppression. Simply put, WGS involves the study of gender
as a central aspect of human existence.
The goal of WGS, however, is not only to provide an academic framework and broad-
based community for inquiry about the impacts of gender practices on social, cultural,
and political thought and behavior, but also to provide advocacy and work toward social
change. This endeavor is framed by understandings of the social, economic, and political
changes of the past half century that include a rapid increase in globalization and its im-
pacts locally, including the deindustrialization of the global north, the blurring and disper-
sal of geopolitical boundaries and national identities, and the growth of new technologies
that have not only transformed political and economic institutions, but supported mass
consumerism. Such changes shape contemporary imperialism (economic, military, politi-
cal, and/or cultural domination over nations or geopolitical formations) with implications
for people in both local and global communities.
In this way, WGS seeks understanding of these issues and realities with the goal of
social justice. In this endeavor it puts women and other marginalized peoples at the center
of inquiry as subjects of study, informing knowledge through these lenses. This inclusion
implies that traditional notions regarding men as “humans” and women as “others” must
be challenged and transcended. Such a confusion of maleness with humanity, putting
men at the center and relegating women to outsiders in society, is called androcentrism.

1
2 gendered voices, feminist visions

LEARNING ACTIVITY
WHY ARE WE READING THESE ESSAYS?
Margaret Stetz, University of Delaware
Imagine that you, not Susan Shaw and Janet Lee, have
final responsibility for Gendered Voices, Feminist Visions.
Shaw and Lee have finished arranging all the contents,
which appear in their current order. Everything is ready
to go to press, and at this point you cannot move any-
thing around. Nonetheless, you have just received an
urgent message from the publisher, who wants to include
one additional essay in the book: Pandora L. Leong’s
“Living Outside the Box” from Colonize This! (2002). Your
instructor will let you know how to access this article.
Now it is up to you to figure out where to place Leong’s
essay in the existing volume. Leong discusses a number of
feminist issues, which means that the essay could go into
any one of several different sections of the book. You will
have to decide which is the most significant of the topics
that Leong raises, as that will determine which chapter
would be most appropriate for this inclusion.
But you will also have to choose where, within the
chapter, to put the essay, and that, too, will be an impor-
tant matter. If you place it at the start of a section, how
might that affect readers’ feelings about the essays that
follow, especially the essay that comes right after it? If
you place it at the end of a section, how will its presence
implicitly comment on the earlier essays in the section
and perhaps color readers’ reactions to the essay imme-
diately preceding it? And if you sandwich it between two
essays, midway through a section, how will that influ-
ence the way readers look at both the essay that comes
before it and the one that comes after? You have a lot of
power here, and you must think about how to exercise it.
Write a report to the publisher. In your report, you
will need to do the following:
1. Identify the issue in Leong’s “Living Outside the
Box” that you think is most worth highlighting, and
describe what she says about it.
2. Explain how you chose a place for “Living Outside
the Box” in Gendered Voices, Feminist Visions, and
make a case for your choice.
3. Discuss the possible implications of its placement,
talking briefly about the essays that will surround it.
What do you think this activity suggests about the con-
struction of an introductory women’s and gender stud-
ies textbook? What kinds of decisions do you think Shaw
and Lee had to make in developing Gendered Voices,
Feminist Visions? If you were a co-author/co-editor,
would you make similar or different decisions?

By making those who identify as women and other marginalized peoples the subjects of
study, we assume that our opinions and thoughts about our own experiences are central in
understanding human society generally. Adrienne Rich’s classic essay from the late 1970s
“Claiming an Education” articulates this demand for women as subjects of study. It also
encourages you as a student to recognize your right to be taken seriously and invites you
to understand the relationship between your personal biography and the wider forces in
society that affect your life. As authors of this text, we also invite your participation in
knowledge creation, hoping it will be personally enriching and vocationally useful.

H O W D I D W G S O R I G I N AT E ?
The original manifestation of WGS was the emergence of women’s studies programs and
departments in response to the absence, misrepresentation, and trivialization of women
in the higher education curriculum, as well as the ways women were systematically ex-
cluded from many positions of power and authority as college faculty and administrators.
This exclusion was especially true for women of color, who experienced intersecting obsta-
cles based on both race and gender. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, students and faculty
began demanding that the knowledge learned and shared in colleges around the country
 Women’s and Gender Studies 3

be more inclusive of women’s issues. It was not unusual, for example, for entire courses in
English or American literature to not include a single novel written by a woman, much less
a woman of color. Literature was full of men’s ideas about women—ideas that often con-
tinued to stereotype women and justify their subordination. History courses often taught
only about men in wars and as leaders, and sociology courses addressed women primarily
in the context of marriage and the family. Similarly, students and faculty asked to see more
women in leadership positions on college campuses: entire departments often consisted
exclusively of men with perhaps a small minority of (usually white) women in junior or
part-time positions. Although there have been important changes on most college cam-
puses as women’s and multicultural issues are slowly integrated into the curriculum and
advances are made in terms of leadership positions, unfortunately these problems still
exist in higher education today. What kinds of people hold leadership positions on your
campus?
It is important to note in terms of the history of WGS that making women subjects
of study involved two strategies that together resulted in changes in the production of
knowledge in higher education. First, it rebalanced the curriculum. Women as subjects
of study were integrated into existing curricula through the development of new courses
about women. This shifted the focus on men and men’s lives in the traditional academic
curriculum and gave some attention to women’s lives and concerns by developing, for
example, courses such as “Women and Art” and “Women in U.S. History” alongside “regu-
lar” courses that sometimes claimed to be inclusive but focused on (usually white) men.
In addition, not only did traditional academic departments (such as sociology or English)
offer these separate courses on women, but the development of women’s studies programs
and departments offered curricula on a variety of issues that focused specifically on (ini-
tially, mostly white) women’s issues.
Second, the integration of women as subjects of study resulted in a transforma-
tion of traditional knowledge. People began questioning the nature of knowledge, how
knowledge is produced, and the applications and consequences of knowledge in wider
society. This means that claims to “truth” and objective “facts” were challenged by
new knowledge integrating the perspectives of marginalized people. It recognized, for
example, that a history of the American West written by migrating whites is necessar-
ily incomplete and differs from a history written from the perspective of indigenous
native people who had their land taken from them. Although the first strategy was
an “add women and stir” approach, this second involved a serious challenge to tradi-
tional knowledge and its claims to truth. In this way, women’s studies aimed not only
to create programs of study where students might focus on women’s issues and con-
cerns, but also to integrate a perspective that would challenge previously unquestioned
knowledge. This perspective questioned how such knowledge reflects women’s lives
and concerns, how it maintains patterns of male privilege and power, and how the con-
sequences of such knowledge affect women and other marginalized people. This ap-
proach fostered heightened consciousness and advocacy about gendered violence and
was also central in the development of other academic fields such as gay and lesbian
and gender studies.
4 gendered voices, feminist visions

HISTORICAL MOMENT
THE FIRST WOMEN’S STUDIES curriculum of 11 courses. The school hired one full-time
DEPARTMENT instructor for the program. Other instructors included
students and faculty from several existing departments.
Following the activism of the 1960s, feminists in aca-
Quickly, many other colleges and universities around
demia worked to begin establishing a place for the
the nation followed suit, establishing women’s studies
study of women. In 1970 women faculty at San Diego
courses, programs, and departments. In 1977 academic
State University (SDSU) taught five upper-division wom-
and activist feminists formed the National Women’s
en’s studies classes on a voluntary overload basis. In the
Studies Association (NWSA) to further the development
fall of that year, the SDSU senate approved a women’s
of the discipline. NWSA held its first convention in 1979.
studies department, the first in the United States, and a

Women’s studies has its origins in the women’s movement of the 1960s and 1970s,
known as the “second-wave” women’s movement. The second wave refers to this twentieth-
century period of social activism that addressed formal and informal inequalities associ-
ated, for example, with the workplace, family, sexuality, and reproductive freedom. The
second-wave movement can be distinguished from “first-wave” mid-nineteenth-century
women’s rights and suffrage (voting) activity, which sought to overturn legal obstacles
to women’s participation in society, and more contemporary “third-wave” movements,
discussed in more detail later. As an academic discipline, women’s studies was influenced
by the American studies and ethnic studies programs of the late 1960s. The demand to in-
clude women and other marginalized people as subjects of study in higher education was
facilitated by broad societal movements in which organizations and individuals focused
on such issues as work and employment, family and parenting, sexuality, reproductive
rights, and violence. The objective was to improve women’s status in society and there-
fore the conditions of women’s lives. The U.S. women’s movement emerged at a moment
of widespread social turmoil as various social movements questioned traditional social
and sexual values, racism, poverty and other inequities, and U.S. militarism. These social
movements, including the women’s movement and the civil rights movement, struggled
for the rights of people of color, women, the poor, gays and lesbians, the aged and the
young, and the disabled, and fought to transform society through laws and policies as well
as changes in attitudes and consciousness.
Two aspects of the women’s movement—commitment to personal change and to so-
cietal transformation—helped establish women’s studies. In terms of the personal, the
U.S. women’s movement involved women asking questions about the cultural meanings
of being a woman. Intellectual perspectives that became central to women’s studies as a
discipline were created from the everyday experiences of people both inside and outside
the movement. Through consciousness-raising groups and other situations where some
women were able to come together to talk about their lives, participants realized that they
were not alone in their experiences. Problems they thought to be personal (like work-
ing outside the home all day and then coming home to work another full day’s worth of
 Women’s and Gender Studies 5

domestic tasks involved in being a wife and mother) were actually part of a much bigger
picture of masculine privilege and female subordination. Women began to make con-
nections and coined the phrase “the personal is political” to explain how things taken as
personal or idiosyncratic have broader social, political, and economic causes and conse-
quences. In other words, situations that we are encouraged to view as personal are actu-
ally part of broader cultural patterns and arrangements. In addition, the idea that the
personal is political encouraged people to live their politics—or understandings of the
world and how it is organized—in their everyday lives: to practice what they preach, in
other words. This concept is illustrated in the essay (originally presented as a leaflet) “No
More Miss America,” written in 1968 by members of an organization called the New York
Radical Women. It accompanied a protest against the 1968 Miss America beauty pageant
and was one of the first women’s liberation protests covered widely by the national media.
The 10 points in the leaflet present a feminist critique of the objectification of female
“beauty” and its connection to sexism, racism, and consumerism. Is this critique still
relevant today? Particularly interesting about the 1968 protest was the way the media
produced the idea that women were “burning their bras.” Even though no bra-burnings
took place there, and there is no evidence that any ever took place, the notion has survived
many decades and still exists as a fabricated, yet iconic, aspect of feminism. Why do you
think this is the case?
By the 1970s questions were being raised about this generic notion of “woman” and
the monolithic way “women’s experiences” were being interpreted. In particular, cri-
tiques of the women’s movement and women’s studies centered on their lack of inclu-
sivity around issues of race, class, sexual identity or orientation, and other differences.
These critiques fostered, among other developments, a field of black women’s studies that
encouraged a focus on intersectionality that continues to transform the discipline. Inter-
sectionality involves the ways all people’s experiences of gender are created by the inter-
section, or coming together, of multiple identities like race, ethnicity, social class, and so
forth. The need to provide more inclusive curricula involves the necessity of incorporating
knowledge by and about people of color and those who do not identify with the bina-
ries of gender (masculinity/femininity) or sexuality (heterosexuality/homosexuality) or
who represent marginalized communities like immigrants, migrants, or people with dis-
abilities. Although intersectionality is most easily understood as multifaceted identities,
it also necessarily includes the organization of power in society and can be used as a tool
of social justice. Kia M. Q. Hall addresses these intersections in the reading “A Transna-
tional Black Feminist Framework,” using the Black Lives Matter movement as an example
of intersectionality and solidarity in activism. As readings in Chapter 2 also illustrate,
intersectional analyses have shown how systems of power maintain patterns of privilege
and discrimination.
The emergence of WGS within the last few decades represents not only the inclusion
of intersectional analyses as mentioned earlier, but the movement away from a stable and
fixed idea of “woman,” as in “women’s studies,” toward a more inclusive focus on gender,
as in “gender studies.” The latter encourages the study of gender as socially constructed,
6 gendered voices, feminist visions

historically and culturally variable, and subject to change through social and political
action. Recognizing that “woman” and “man” are changeable and contested categories is
central to the study of the ways gendered personhood is mapped onto physical bodies. In
particular, gender studies provides knowledge and advocacy for understanding the ways
bodies and gender expressions (as feminine or masculine) do not necessarily adhere to the
typical female/male binary (implied in what is known as “trans” or gender fluid or gender
nonbinary and discussed more in later chapters). However, while such a study emphasizes
the ways social practices produce bodies that perform gender, it is important to note that
gender performances are privileged and constrained by institutional structures that affect
people who actually identify as “real” women and men. This means that even though
gender studies may provide a more inclusive approach, there are social and political con-
sequences of identifying as a woman, or living with a feminized body, that result in certain
experiences and outcomes (for example, being more likely to live in poverty, or experience
violence and sexual assault). The importance of understanding the experience of living as
women in society, alongside the recognition of inclusivity and intersectionality, means
that “women’s studies” tends not to have been changed to “gender studies,” but instead
to have been transformed into “women’s and gender studies.” This move recognizes the
historical development and contemporary reality of the field of women’s studies as a site
for social justice for those who live and identify as women in the world.
A key term for WGS writers and activists is “patriarchy,” defined as a system where
men and masculine bodies dominate because power and authority are in the hands of
adult men. Discussions of patriarchy must recognize the intersectional nature of this
concept whereby someone may be simultaneously privileged by gender but face limita-
tions based on other identities. Men of color, for example, may benefit from patriarchy,
but their expressions of masculine privilege are shaped by the politics of racism. It is
important to remember that many men are supporters of women’s rights and that many
of the goals of the women’s movement benefit men as well, although being a supporter
of women’s rights does not necessarily translate into men understanding how everyday
privileges associated with masculinity maintain entitlements in a patriarchal society. It
is one thing to feel indignant about inequality or compassion for marginalized people,
and another to recognize that one’s privilege is connected to the oppression of others.
Connecting with the personal as political encourages men to potentially function as
allies on a deeper, more authentic level. The concept of the personal as political has rel-
evance for those with masculine privilege as understandings are made about the connec-
tions between social institutions that reward men and personal experiences of gendered
entitlement.
In terms of societal change, the U.S. women’s movement and other social movements
have improved, and continue to improve, the lives of marginalized people through various
forms of activism. The legal changes of the second wave include the passage of the Equal
Pay Act of 1963 that sought equal pay for equal work, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 that forbade workplace discrimination, and the creation of the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 1965 to enforce antidiscrimination laws (although
 Women’s and Gender Studies 7

LEARNING ACTIVITY
WHAT’S IN A NAME? Different colleges and universities have grappled
with the controversies and developments in different
What is the program that sponsors this introduc-
ways. At Oregon State University, our program came
tory course at your institution called? Is it “Women’s
into being in late 1972 as “Women Studies.” Notice
Studies,” “Gender Studies,” “Women’s and Gender
the absence of the apostrophe and “s.” In the archives
Studies,” “Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies,”
we have a number of memos back and forth between
“Feminist Studies,” or some other name? Have you ever
the founder of our program and university administra-
stopped to think about the history and politics of the
tors about this. The founder argued (successfully) that
name of that unit?
women were the subject of study, not the owners of
In this chapter we have discussed how in its early
the discipline. Therefore, she contended, the program
years, women’s studies tended to focus on women as
should be “Women Studies,” not “Women’s Studies.”
an essential category and explored the ways women ex-
This name lasted for 40 years, even as the focus of our
perienced discrimination based on sex or recovered the
program shifted with changes in the discipline. From
ways women had contributed to society. Soon a number
about 2008 to 2012 we added faculty members with ex-
of critiques and realizations challenged this understand-
pertise in multicultural, transnational, and queer femi-
ing of the discipline, emphasizing that sex and gender
nisms, and so in 2013 we changed our name to “Women,
are socially constructed ways of relating within systems
Gender, and Sexuality Studies” to reflect growth both in
of domination and subordination.
the discipline and in our specific program. As our name
This realization that gave rise to “gender studies”
change proposal moved through the approval process,
as an interdisciplinary field examines the complex inter-
we were asked several times why we wanted to keep the
actions of biology and society, sex and gender, with a
word “women.” Our response was twofold: We did not
specific emphasis on how gender is constituted across
want women to become invisible in our identity, and we
forms of difference.
wanted to acknowledge our history. So, as you can see,
Another contested area of study that related
politics played a very important role in the naming of
to but was not always central to women’s studies
our program and shaping of our identity nearly 50 years
and gender studies was sexuality. While many early
ago and very recently.
second-wave feminists made important connections
What about your program? Research the history of
between women’s oppression and the control of sex-
your program’s name, and find out why your institution
uality, others feared the intrusion of lesbian politics.
made the decisions it did. Has the name changed over
As queer studies emerged, debates also arose about
the years? Why or why not? Ask your professors how
the place of gay men, transgender people, and queer-
they think those choices have affected the courses and
identified people in the women’s studies and gender
degrees the program offers. What difference do you
studies curricula.
think the name makes for you?

this enforcement did not occur until 1972). Rulings in 1978 and 1991 prohibited discrimi-
nation against pregnant women and provided women workers the right to damages for
sex discrimination, respectively. The Family Medical Leave Act of 1993 provided 12 weeks
of unpaid, job-protected leave for workers to care for children or ill relatives (although
it is required only for businesses with more than 50 employees and for workers with at
least a year’s tenure in their job). Affirmative action as a legal mechanism to combat dis-
crimination was first utilized in 1961 and was extended to women in 1967, although it
is increasingly under attack. Similarly, although Supreme Court decisions such as Roe v.
Wade legalized abortion and provided reproductive choices for women and the Freedom
of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act of 1994 protected reproductive health care work-
ers and patients accessing these services, such gains are currently under attack as well.
In terms of legal changes directly aimed at higher education, Title IX of the Education
8 gendered voices, feminist visions

Amendments of 1972 supported equal education and forbade gender discrimination, in-
cluding in sports, in schools. Since that time the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1988 re-
versed a Supreme Court decision gutting Title IX, and more recent rulings (e.g., Fitzgerald v.
Barnstable School Committee, 2009) established parents’ right to sue for sex discrimination
in schools under both Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amend-
ment to the Constitution. Women’s right to fight in combat positions and the overturning
of the antigay military policy “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in 2012 also reflect the activism of
the women’s and other civil rights movements, especially LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual,
trans, queer) activism. These examples of civil rights legislation, often taken for granted
today, are the result of organized resistance and a concerted effort to democratize the legal
structure of U.S. society.
Legal changes in the United States have been accompanied by relatively significant
increases in the numbers of women and people of color running for political office; taking
positions of authority in government, business, education, science, and the arts; and be-
coming more visible and active in all societal institutions. These societal changes have
strengthened the demand for alternative educational models: Not only is it the right thing
to include women in college life, but it is illegal to prevent their participation. Alongside
Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards’s classic essay “A Day Without Feminism,” which
encourages you to think about these second-wave gains, is Marge Piercy’s plea to recognize
the “heroines” who continuously strive every day in their families and communities to
improve women’s everyday lives. Her poem/reading “My Heroines” emphasizes that it is
these people who write our future.

W H AT W E R E T H E O R I G I N S O F W O M E N ’ S R I G H T S
A C T I V I S M I N T H E U N I T E D S TAT E S ?
Although the original women’s studies programs emerged out of the second wave of
mid- to late-twentieth-century social activism, that activism itself was a part of an ongo-
ing commitment to women’s liberation that had its roots in late-eighteenth-century and
nineteenth-century struggles for gender equity. Women had few legal, social, and eco-
nomic rights in nineteenth-century U.S. society. They had no direct relationship to the
law outside of their relationships as daughters or wives; in particular, married women lost
property rights upon marriage. Women were also mostly barred from higher education
until women’s colleges started opening in the mid-nineteenth century. However, when
socioeconomically privileged white women started to access higher education in the late
nineteenth century, most women of color still faced obstacles that continued through
the twentieth century and into the present. Despite this, African American women like
Ida B. Wells, Mary Church Terrell, and Anna Julia Cooper (see “Activist Profile”) offered
strategies of resistance that provided an explicit analysis of patriarchy to address racial
domination.
Most early women’s rights activists (then it was referred to as “woman’s” rights) in the
United States had their first experience with social activism in the abolition movement,
the struggle to free slaves. These activists included such figures as Elizabeth Cady Stanton,
Lucretia Mott, Susan B. Anthony, Sojourner Truth, Sarah M. and Angelina Grimke, Henry
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
that time and he had an agreement for five years starting on the
basis of three guineas a week with an advance of four shillings each
year. At Bramah’s death not long after, his sons took charge of the
business, and soon grew jealous of Clement’s influence. By mutual
consent the contract was terminated and he went at once to
Maudslay & Field as their chief draftsman. Later he, too, set up for
himself and had an important part in the development of the screw-
cutting lathe, the planer and standard screw threads. Whitworth was
one of his workmen and Clement’s work on taps and dies formed the
basis of the Whitworth thread.
Bramah died in 1814, at the age of sixty-six. He was a man of
widely recognized influence, a keen and independent thinker, a good
talker, and, though it might not appear from what has been said, a
cheery and always welcome companion. He left a reputation for
absolute business integrity and the quality of his workmanship was
unrivaled until his later years, when he was equaled only by those he
had himself trained. He gave the world some great and valuable
devices and paved the way for others. His influence on modern tools
can probably never be accurately judged, but Smiles’ tribute to him is
as true today as when it was written, two generations ago:
From his shops at Pimlico came Henry Maudslay, Joseph Clement, and many
more first-class mechanics, who carried the mechanical arts to still higher
perfection, and gave an impulse to mechanical engineering the effects of which
are still felt in every branch of industry.[24]
[24] Smiles: “Industrial Biography,” p. 244.

Bramah had an invincible dislike for sitting for his portrait and
consequently none exists. A death-mask was made by Sir Francis
Chantrey, who executed the Watt statue in Westminster Abbey, but it
was unfortunately destroyed by Lady Chantrey. The complete
catalog of the National Portrait Gallery in London[25] gives Bramah’s
name. The reference, however, directs one to Walker’s famous
engraving of the “Eminent Men of Science Living in 1807-1808,”
which shows about fifty distinguished scientists and engineers
grouped in the Library of the Royal Institution. This engraving is the
result of four years’ careful study. It was grouped by Sir John Gilbert,
drawn by John Skill, and finished by William Walker and his wife.
Bramah’s figure, No. 6, appears in this group, but with his back
turned, the only one in that position. It is a singular tribute to
Bramah’s influence among his generation of scientists that this
picture would have been considered incomplete without him. As no
portrait of him existed he was included, but with his face turned
away. The figure was drawn in accordance with a description
furnished by Bramah’s grandson, E. H. Bramah.
[25] Cust’s.
 Figure 8. Eminent Men of Science Living in 1807-8
From Walker’s Engraving in the National Portrait Gallery, London

1. William Allen, 1770-1843

2. Francis Bailey, 1774-1844
3. Sir Joseph Banks, 1743-1820
4. Sir Samuel Bentham, 1737-1831
5. Matthew Boulton, 1728-1807
6. Joseph Bramah, 1749-1814
7. Robert Brown, 1773-1859
8. Sir Marc Isambard Brunel, 1769-1849
9. Edmund Cartwright, 1743-1823
10. Hon. Henry Cavendish, 1731-1810
11. Sir William Congreve, 1772-1828
12. Samuel Crompton, 1735-1827
13. John Dalton, 1766-1844
14. Sir Humphrey Davy, 1778-1829
15. Peter Dollond, 1731-1820
16. Bryan Donkin, 1768-1855
17. Thomas Cochrane, Earl of Dundonald, 1775-1860
18. Henry Fourdrinier, 1766-1854
19. Davis Giddy Gilbert, 1767-1839
20. Charles Hatchett, 1765-1847
21. William Henry, 1774-1836
22. Sir William Herschel, 1738-1822
23. Edward Charles Howard, 1774-1816
24. Joseph Huddart, 1740-1816
 25. Edward Jenner, 1749-1823
26. William Jessop, 1745-1814
27. Henry Kater, 1777-1835
28. Sir John Leslie, 1766-1832
29. Nevil Maskelyne, 1732-1811
30. Henry Maudslay, 1771-1831
31. Patrick Miller, 1730-1815
32. William Murdock, 1754-1839
33. Robert Nylne, 1733-1811
34. Alexander Nasmyth, 1758-1840
35. John Playfair, 1748-1819
36. John Rennie, 1761-1821
37. Sir Francis Ronalds, 1788-1873
38. Count Rumford, 1753-1814
39. Daniel Rutherford, 1749-1819
40. Charles, third Earl Stanhope, 1753-1816
41. William Symington, 1763-1831
42. Thomas Telford, 1757-1834
43. Charles Tennant, 1768-1838
44. Thomas Thomson, 1773-1852
45. Richard Trevithick, 1771-1833
46. James Watt, 1736-1819
47. William Hyde Wollaston, 1766-1828
48. Thomas Young, 1773-1829
Group originated by William Walker. Designed by Sir John Gilbert. Engraved by
Walker and Zobel.

The engraving includes many other men of interest whose names

are indicated. Some of them have already been considered; others,
while famous as engineers, worked in fields other than the one we
are considering.
 CHAPTER III
BENTHAM AND BRUNEL
In the genealogical table shown in Fig. 5, Sir Samuel Bentham and
Sir Marc I. Brunel are indicated as having originated the famous
“Portsmouth Block Machinery,” which was built by Maudslay and
which first gave him his reputation as a tool builder. While Bentham
was primarily a naval administrator and Brunel a civil engineer, they
were among the first to grasp the principles of modern manufacturing
and embody them successfully. Both were men of distinction and
each had an interesting career.
Samuel Bentham, Fig. 9, was a brother of Jeremy Bentham, the
famous English publicist and writer on economics, and a step-
brother of Charles Abbott, speaker of the House of Commons. He
was born in 1757, went to the Westminster School, and later was a
naval apprentice in the Woolwich Arsenal. His tastes and his training
led him toward the administrative and constructive work of the navy,
and for this he had the best education available at that time. He went
to sea after a final year at the Naval College at Portsmouth; and in
1780, in consequence of his abilities, was sent by Earl Howe, then
first Lord of the Admiralty, to visit the various ports of northern
Europe. He went through the great ports of Holland and the Baltic,
eastward to St. Petersburg, and was introduced at the Russian court
by the British ambassador.
Figure 9. Sir Samuel Bentham
 From an Old Miniature

The Russians took to him kindly, as he was handsome, tall, and

distinguished in manner, inspired confidence, and made and held
friends. He was well received by the Empress Catherine, and soon
became a favorite of Prince Potemkin. He traveled over a greater
part of the empire from the Black Sea to the Arctic and as far east as
China, examining mining and engineering works. On his return to St.
Petersburg he fell in love with a wealthy heiress of the nobility. The
parents objected; but though the empress, who was interested,
advised an elopement, he gave it up as dishonorable and went away
to Critcheff in southern Russia as a lieutenant-colonel of engineers in
the Russian army. While there he took charge of Potemkin’s grossly
mismanaged factories in order to put them on a sound basis, an
undertaking suggestive of the twentieth-century efficiency engineer.
In this he was not wholly successful. In 1787 he built and equipped a
flotilla of ships, and in the following year distinguished himself in a
naval battle with the Turks, in which John Paul Jones was also
engaged. One of the vital elements in the fight was the use of the
large guns built by Bentham, which fired shells for the first time in
naval warfare. Nine Turkish ships were burned or sunk and 8000
men were killed or taken prisoners. For his part in this battle
Bentham was knighted and made a brigadier-general.
There were few skilled artisans in Russia and almost none
available in the southern provinces—a Danish brass founder, an
English watchmaker and two or three sergeants who could write and
draw were all he had. This set Bentham at work on the problem of
“transferring skill” by means of machines, so that unskilled workmen
might be made to produce the same results as skilled labor.
While Bramah and Maudslay were working in London on their
metal-cutting tools for making locks, Bentham, in Russia, was
thinking out substantially the same problem in woodworking
machinery. He returned to England in 1791 and that year took out his
first patent. Certain suggestions which he made to the Admiralty
about the introduction of machinery into the dockyards led to his
making an extended inspection of the dockyards throughout the
kingdom, and he reported that immense savings were possible. The
office of inspector general was created for him and authority given
him to put his recommendations into effect.
For the next eighteen years he served the British navy. When he
took hold it was honeycombed with inefficiency and worse. His
business-like methods, his skill as an engineer and naval designer,
and his fearless integrity were elements in the preparedness of the
British navy in the Napoleonic wars. He was an intrepid enemy of red
tape and graft and soon made cordial enemies; but he was a good
fighter, with no weak spots in his armor, and it took many years to
bring him down. In 1805 he was sent to St. Petersburg, and kept
there on various pretexts for two years. It was remarked by some
about the Admiralty office, that so high was their opinion of his
talents they would be glad to give him £6000 ($30,000) a year if by
that means they would never see him again. He returned in 1807 to
find his office abolished and its functions transferred to a board, of
which he was made a member at an increased salary. Here his
power was diluted somewhat, but even this solution was too strong
and he was retired on a pension in 1812. For the next fifteen years
he lived in retirement in France. The years abroad softened the
rancor of his enemies and from his return to England in 1827 until his
death, Bentham was in frequent and friendly consultation with the
navy officials. Bentham may well be considered as one of the first
and greatest of “efficiency experts.”[26]
[26] See the biography of Bentham, by William Lucas Sargant: “Essays
of a Birmingham Manufacturer,” Vol. I, No. V. London, 1869. Also, “Memoirs
of the late Brigadier-General Sir Samuel Bentham,” by Mary S. Bentham, in
“Papers and Practical Illustrations of Public Works.” London, 1856.

The patent of 1791 referred to is not important, but it was followed

by another in 1793 in which was set forth the whole scheme of
woodworking machinery which had been maturing in Bentham’s
mind. This has been characterized as one of the most remarkable
patents ever issued by the British Patent Office. More than fifty years
after, one of the Crown judges said of it in summing up a case before
him involving woodworking machinery, that “the specification of his
(i.e., Bentham’s) patent of 1793 is a perfect treatise on the subject;
indeed, the only one worth quoting that has to this day been written
on the subject.”
 Jeremy Bentham had revolutionized the prison system of England,
and had introduced the system of labor in penitentiaries which has
become an essential element in all modern penal systems.
Woodworking was the most available field of work, but the greater
part of the prisoners were of course unskilled, and Samuel Bentham
was called upon to devise machines to meet the need. The two
brothers established a factory and began making woodworking
machinery for the prisons and dockyards.
The work for the dockyards soon took definite form. Pulley blocks
formed one of the important supplies of the navy. A single full-rigged
frigate used about 1500 and the Admiralty were purchasing at that
time about 100,000 yearly. This formed a large business in itself and
one in which the interchangeability that Bentham was continually
urging was especially desirable. On Bentham’s recommendation, a
government factory organized on a manufacturing basis and utilizing
machinery had been begun at Portsmouth and a few machines of his
design already installed, when Brunel, who had been working
independently on block machinery, was introduced to him.
Marc Isambard Brunel, Fig. 10, was a Norman Frenchman, born in
1769, who was the despair of his father because he would not study
to be a priest and would persist in drawing and in making things. As
a family compromise he received a naval training and served as an
officer for six years. In 1793, his ship being paid off, he was in Paris.
His outspoken loyalty in one of the cafés on the very day when Louis
XVI was sentenced to the guillotine brought down upon him the
anger of the republicans present. He escaped in the confusion, spent
the night in hiding, and leaving Paris early the next morning, made
his way to Rouen. Here he hid for a time with M. Carpentier, the
American consul, in whose home he met a young English girl whom
he afterwards married. Six months later he sailed from Havre on a
forged passport, under the nose of a frigate searching for suspects,
and landed in New York only to find a French republican squadron
lying in port. As he was personally known to many of the officers and
in danger of being recognized, arrested and condemned as a
deserter, he left the city at once and went to Albany in the vague
hope of finding M. Pharoux, a friend who was undertaking the survey
of a large tract of wild land in the Black River valley, east of Lake
Ontario. Brunel found him by good chance, joined the party, and
soon became its real leader. They showed the capacity, which the
French have always had, of working in friendly relationship with the
Indians, and their work was successfully accomplished. Fifty years
later there were still traditions among Indians in the valley of a
wonderful white man named “Bruné.”
 Figure 10. Sir Marc Isambard Brunel

From a Photograph by Walker, Ltd., of the Portrait in the National

Gallery, London
 Brunel remained in America for over five years and was
naturalized as a citizen in 1796. During this time he was engaged on
the Hudson-Champlain canal and various river improvements. He
was a friend of Major L’Enfant, who planned the city of Washington
and he submitted one of the competitive designs for the original
Capitol. He also designed and built the old Park Theater in New
York, which was burned in 1821. He was appointed chief engineer of
New York, built a cannon foundry and had a part in planning the
fortifications of the Narrows in New York harbor.
He was gay, refined and a favorite among the emigrés who
enlivened New York society in the closing years of the eighteenth
century. It was at Alexander Hamilton’s dinner table that the first
suggestion of the block machinery came to him. He had been invited
to meet a M. Delabigarre, who had just arrived from England. M.
Delabigarre had been describing the method of making ship’s blocks
and spoke of their high and increasing cost. Brunei listened with
attention and then pointed out what he considered the defects of the
method and suggested that the mortises might be cut by machinery,
two or three at a time. The shaping machine he afterward used was
conceived while he was at Fort Montgomery in the highlands of the
Hudson. Brunel left America for England early in 1799 and remained
in England the rest of his life. His marriage soon after his arrival to
Miss Kingdom, the girl whom he had met at Rouen, doubtless gives
the reason for this change.
Two months after reaching England, he took out a patent for a
writing and duplicating machine and he also invented a machine for
twisting cotton thread. Meantime he was working on the drawings for
a complete set of block machinery, and by 1801 he had made a
working model of the mortising and boring machines. He offered his
plans to Fox & Taylor, who held the navy contract for blocks. Mr.
Taylor wrote in reply that his father had spent many years developing
their existing methods of manufacture and they were perfectly
satisfied with them. He added, “I have no hope of anything better
ever being discovered, and I am convinced there cannot.”
Brunel, through introductions brought from America, then laid his
plans before Lord Spencer, of the Admiralty, and Sir Samuel
Bentham. Bentham, as we have seen, was already working on the
same problem. He saw at once the superiority of Brunel’s plans and,
with the freedom from jealousy and self-interest which characterized
his whole career, he recommended their adoption, with the result
that Brunel was commissioned to build and install his machines.
About sixty years ago there was a sharp controversy over the
origin of this Portsmouth machinery. Partisans of Bentham and
Brunel each claimed the entire credit for all of it. The fact is that
some of Bentham’s machines were used for the roughing out, but all
the finishing work was done on Brunel’s, and there is little doubt that
the definite plan of operations and all the more intricate machines
were his. Bentham conceived the enterprise and had it well under
way. His broad-minded and generous substitution of Brunel’s plans
for his own was quite as creditable to him as the execution of the
whole work would have been.
While Brunel was a clever and original designer, he was not a
skilled mechanic. His plans called for a large number of refined and
intricate machines which were wholly new and he no sooner began
actual work than he felt the need of a mechanic capable of building
them. Maudslay had just started in for himself and was working in his
little shop on Oxford Street, with one helper. M. Bacquancourt, a
friend of Brunel’s, passed his door every day and was interested in
the beautiful pieces of workmanship he used to see from time to time
in the shop window. At his suggestion Brunel went to Maudslay,
explained to him his designs, and secured his help. There could
hardly have been a better combination than these two men.
Maudslay’s wonderful skill as a mechanic and his keen, practical
intuition supplied the one element needed and together they
executed the entire set of machines, forty-four in all.[27]
[27] For a description of the Portsmouth Block Machinery, see
Tomlinson’s “Cyclopedia of Useful Arts,” Vol. I, pp. 139-146. London, 1852.
Also, Ure’s “Dictionary of Arts, Manufactures, and Mines,” Vol. I, pp. 398-
402; Seventh Edition. London, 1875; and Rees’ “Cyclopedia,” article
“Machinery for Manufacturing Ship’s Blocks.”

The machinery was divided into four classes.

First. Sawing machines, both reciprocating and circular, for
roughing out the blocks.
 Second. Boring, mortising, shaping and “scoring” machines for
finishing the blocks.
Third. Machines for turning and boring the sheaves, for riveting the
brass liner and finish-facing the sides. In the larger sizes small holes
were drilled on the joint and short wire pins riveted in to prevent
slipping between the liner and block.
Fourth. The iron pins on which the sheaves turned were hand
forged in dies, turned and polished.
In addition to these there were several machines for forming “dead
eyes,” or solid blocks without sheaves, used in the fixed rigging. A
detailed description of the entire set would be too long. A brief
description of one or two of the machines will serve to give some
idea of the others.
Fig. 11 is taken from an old wood-cut of the mortising machine.[28]
A model of it is shown in the background of the portrait of Brunel in
the National Gallery, reproduced opposite page 26. A pulley and
flywheel are connected by a cone clutch M to a shaft D. At the front
end of this a crank and connecting-rod drive the reciprocating cutter
head from a point a. The chuck carrying the block, movable forward
and backward on guides, was operated by the feed screw R, a cam,
and the ratchet motion shown. A system of stops and weighted
levers on the side threw out the ratchet feed at the end of the cut,
and the carriage was returned by hand, using the crank r. The
crosshead had two guiding points, a double one below the driving
point and a single one above it at F, and made 150 strokes per
minute. The chuck could take either one or two blocks at a time.
[28] Tomlinson: “Cyclopedia,” Vol. I, p. 141.

Fig. 12 shows the shaping machine.[29] Ten blocks were chucked

between two large, circular frames, the same working points being
used as in the last machine. The principle of establishing and
adhering to working points seems to have been clearly recognized. A
cutter g was moved across the face of the blocks as they revolved,
its motion being governed by the handles l and G and a former i.
One side of each of the ten blocks was thus finished at a time. The
blocks were then indexed 90° by revolving the bevel K, which turned
the wormshafts d and rotated all the chucks simultaneously. The
blocks were then faced again in their new positions and the
operation continued until the four sides were finished. The strong
curved bars at the top were provided to protect the workman in case
one of the blocks should let go. As the momentum of the frame and
blocks was considerable, a spring brake was provided between the
bearing and bevel-gear to bring them to rest quickly.
[29] Ibid., Vol. I, p. 144.
Figure 11. Brunel’s Mortising Machine
 Figure 12. Brunel’s Shaping Machine

Another well-designed machine “scored” the outside of the blocks

for the ropes or straps. Two disks with inserted steel cutters grooved
the blocks which were chucked on a swinging frame. The depth and
path of cut were governed by a steel former against which a roller on
the cutter shaft bore. In the metal working machines, under the
fourth group, cutters were used in which a short, round bar of
tempered steel was held by a binding screw in a holder of the lathe-
tool type. From the sketch of it shown by Holtzapffel, the whole
device might almost be used as an advertisement for a modern tool-
holder for high-speed steel cutters.
 Enough has been said to show that these machines were
thoroughly modern in their conception and constituted a complete
range of tools, each performing its part in a definite series of
operations. By this machinery ten unskilled men did the work of 110
skilled workmen. When the plant was in full running order in 1808 the
output was over 130,000 blocks per year, with a value of over
$250,000, an output greater than that previously supplied by the six
largest dockyards. It continued for many years to supply all the
blocks used by the Royal Navy, and was in fact superseded only
when wooden blocks themselves largely made way for iron and steel
ones.
Brunel devised other woodworking tools, but none so successful
as these. He started a mill at Battersea which burned down; his
finances became involved and he was thrown into prison for debt.
He was freed through a grant of $25,000 which friends secured from
the government. His later work was in the field of civil engineering—
the most famous work being the Thames tunnel. He was given the
Legion of Honor in 1829, was knighted in 1841, and died in 1849.[30]
[30] For fuller information, see the biography of Sir Marc Isambard Brunel
by Richard Beamish, F.R.S. London, 1862.

His son, Sir Isambard K. Brunel, was also one of the foremost
engineers of England, a bridge and ship builder, railway engineer
and rival of Robert Stephenson. At the age of twenty-seven he was
chief engineer of the Great Western Railway, and built the steamer
“Great Western” to run from Bristol to New York as an extension of
that railway system. This was the first large iron ship, the first regular
transatlantic liner, and the first large steamship using the screw
propeller. Its success led to the building of the “Great Eastern” from
his designs. This ship was about 700 feet long and for nearly fifty
years was the largest one built. She was a disastrous failure
financially and after a varied career, which included the laying of the
first transatlantic cable, she was finally broken up. Brunel was a
strong advocate of the broad gauge and built the Great Western
system with a 7-foot gauge, which was ultimately changed to
standard gauge. While a number of his undertakings were failures
financially, his chief fault seems to have been that he was in advance
of his generation.
 CHAPTER IV
HENRY MAUDSLAY
We have mentioned Henry Maudslay frequently. In fact, it is hard
to go far in any historical study of machine tools without doing so.[31]
[31] For best accounts of Maudslay, see Smiles’ “Industrial Biography,”
Chap. XII, and “Autobiography of James Nasmyth.”

Maudslay was born in Woolwich in 1771. He was the son of an old

soldier working in the arsenal, and had but little schooling. At twelve
he was at work in the arsenal, first as a “powder monkey” filling
cartridges, later in the carpenter shop and smithy. Young as he was,
he soon became the leader among the workmen. He was a born
craftsman and his skill was soon the pride of the whole shop. To
dexterity he added an intuitive power of mechanical analysis and a
sense of proportion possessed by few men, and from the beginning
he showed a genius for choosing the most direct and simple means
for accomplishing his purpose. He was a great favorite among his
fellows from his fine personal appearance, his open-heartedness
and complete freedom from conceit.
In the chapter on Bramah we have seen how Bramah, seeking
someone to help him devise tools to manufacture his locks, turned
first to an old German mechanic in Moodie’s shop. One of the
hammer men in Moodie’s shop suggested Maudslay, apologizing for
his youth, but adding that “nothing bet him.” When Bramah saw
Maudslay, who was only eighteen, he was almost ashamed to lay his
case before him. Maudslay’s suggestions, however, were so keen
and to the point that the older man had to admit that the boy’s head
at least was old enough. He adopted the suggestions and offered
him a job in his shop at Pimlico, which Maudslay gladly accepted. As
he had served no apprenticeship, the foreman had doubts of his
ability to work among experienced hands. Without a moment’s