tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12631722.post717432397802012088..comments2024-03-23T15:06:27.495-05:00Comments on The Lucas Countyan: Queering the family tree: Part 3Frank D. Myershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09553291415988366101noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12631722.post-20315169911427446752013-06-05T07:35:57.308-05:002013-06-05T07:35:57.308-05:00It did feel odd (and incomplete) to make the focus...It did feel odd (and incomplete) to make the focus here mostly male. But the situation with women is considerably more complex and I don't necessarily understand all the implications. For one thing, the pressure on men to marry was largely societal, but the pressure on women was economic, too. Until not that long ago, there was no way in most instances for a woman to support herself unless attached somehow to a man. Plus, it seems to me, genealogy, by its very nature,tends to marginalize women. It's usually Grandpa's accomplishments we focus on, not Grandma's.Frank D. Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09553291415988366101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12631722.post-65144892164530221522013-06-05T07:14:08.279-05:002013-06-05T07:14:08.279-05:00Frank,
I enjoyed your series on the gay ancestors ...Frank,<br />I enjoyed your series on the gay ancestors and the fact that we are in an area of research were in most cases no direct source of proof will be found. One of my thoughts while reading each of your offerings was these were all males you spoke about and I am sure that many of the 'spinsters' may have a similar reason for not taking on a partner of the other sex. I believe there are several folks from both sex in my tree who could fit the image but like you mentioned, they all are an end of that twig. No new growth from each of the single members. <br />Thanks - normNorm Princehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05059671755034635586noreply@blogger.com