This collection is both a reprint of primary sources and journal articles written by scholars in the field of women's history. Editors Mary Beth Norton and Ruth M. Alexander are college professors with long-standing publishing backgrounds in the field of women's history.

Although the concept of producing a compact reader was well intentioned, the principal problem with this work is it's over reliance on events and incidents prior to 1960.

Starting out as a means of showing women were involved in this country from it's beginning, the book unwittingly undercuts itself by not devoting as much time to the later accomplishments of American women's history. Less fortunate students (without access to the numerous other far well written books) may leave whatever class this was used in with a sense of confusion about the roles of women in the 1960's through the present.

While the outdatedness of the customs and laws governing gender in those times now indicates how far we have come, it does not fully indicate the long and complex process that would perhaps be of interest to the same college students this text is intended for. It is very startling to realize that most of the issues and policies that have helped my generation (reproductive rights for college women, gender equity in educational facilities) were mere dreams when our mothers were attending school.

Certainly every professor has a specialized field-but when a general volume about a historically marginalized group is written, there is an unwritten assumption that this group will finally be getting the fair coverage that has long been it's moral due.

Even though I was fortunate enough to attend a University where women's history was adequately explored in every department, this book may sadly be the only initial contact for students at more conservative institutions. Because women's history remains undertaught in American institutions of higher education, I was hoping that two professionals in the field would want to show students a much more representative breadth and depth.

Students perhaps would be more interested if the text were more expanded to include the 1960's onward-when many of the rights that most impact campus life for women were first agitated for.

Should this text be used as a book for women's history, it would be wise to include "Dear Sisters" and "Unequal Sisters" as supplemental work for better understanding of women's history in general.

This collection is both a reprint of primary sources and journal articles written by scholars in the field of women's history. Editors Mary Beth Norton and Ruth M. Alexander are college professors with long-standing publishing backgrounds in the field of women's history.

Although the concept of producing a compact reader was well intentioned, the principal problem with this work is it's over reliance on events and incidents prior to 1960.

Starting out as a means of showing women were involved in this country from it's beginning, the book unwittingly undercuts itself by not devoting as much time to the later accomplishments of American women's history. Less fortunate students (without access to the numerous other far well written books) may leave whatever class this was used in with a sense of confusion about the roles of women in the 1960's through the present.

While the outdatedness of the customs and laws governing gender in those times now indicates how far we have come, it does not fully indicate the long and complex process that would perhaps be of interest to the same college students this text is intended for. It is very startling to realize that most of the issues and policies that have helped my generation (reproductive rights for college women, gender equity in educational facilities) were mere dreams when our mothers were attending school.

Certainly every professor has a specialized field-but when a general volume about a historically marginalized group is written, there is an unwritten assumption that this group will finally be getting the fair coverage that has long been it's moral due.

Even though I was fortunate enough to attend a University where women's history was adequately explored in every department, this book may sadly be the only initial contact for students at more conservative institutions. Because women's history remains undertaught in American institutions of higher education, I was hoping that two professionals in the field would want to show students a much more representative breadth and depth. This collection opperates on the assumption that the reader automatically has knowllege of women's history prior to the college experience.

Students perhaps would be more interested if the text were more expanded to include the 1960's onward-when many of the rights that most impact campus life for women were first agitated for.

Should this text be used as a book for women's history, it would be wise to include "Dear Sisters" and "Unequal Sisters" as supplemental work for better understanding of women's history in general. .

This collection is both a reprint of primary sources and journal articles written by scholars in the field of women's history. Editors Mary Beth Norton and Ruth M. Alexander are college professors with long-standing publishing backgrounds in the field of women's history and general American History.

Although the concept of producing a compact reader was well intentioned, the principal problem with this work is it's over reliance on events and incidents prior to 1960.

Starting out as a means of showing women were involved in this country from it's beginning, the book unwittingly undercuts itself by not devoting as much time to the later accomplishments of American women's history. Less fortunate students (without access to the numerous other far well written books) may leave whatever class this was used in with a sense of confusion about the roles of women in the 1960's through the present.

While the outdatedness of the customs and laws governing gender in those times now indicates how far we have come, it does not fully indicate the long and complex process that would perhaps be of interest to the same college students this text is intended for. It is very startling to realize that most of the issues and policies that have helped my generation (reproductive rights for college women, gender equity in educational facilities) were mere dreams when our mothers were attending school.

Certainly every professor has a specialized field-but when a general volume about a historically marginalized group is written, there is an unwritten assumption that this group will finally be getting the fair coverage that has long been it's moral due.

Although I was fortunate enough to attend a University where women's history was adequately explored in every department, this book may sadly be the only initial contact for students at more conservative institutions. Because women's history remains undertaught in American institutions of higher education, I was hoping that two professionals in the field would want to show students a much more representative breadth and depth.

Should this text be used as a book for women's history, it would be wise to include Roxanne Baxandall/Linda Gordon's "Dear Sisters" and Vicki Ruiz/Ellen Carol DuBois's"Unequal Sisters" as supplemental work for better understanding of more reccent women's history.

this is the worst book i've ever read it should be burned

I read this book during the summer and I thought it was cool. It's not like the Disney movie but so what, this was published before. Read this book!!

I found myself bursting into laughter thoughout this book. I know some people may like the dialogue, but it really ruined the entire mood, if there was one, for me. If you want one word to describe the dialogue, it's 'inane'.

I borrowed this book from a friend who said it was pretty good (of course, she reads dictionaries for fun) and began reading. It seemed okay at first, albeit a bit boring. The further I got in this book, the more I wondered if this was some author's idea of a practical joke. The plot was crazy - there was very little of it and the little that existed was confusing and/or cliched. The characters are so wooden you could build a bridge out of 'em (sorry, random Monty Python quote).

Oh, and one of them is named Rhys. I loathe that name.

I would love to give you some examples of just how laughable this book really sounds, but I gave the book back looong ago. It's the only one I've actually returned to her within the same week I borrowed it, which tells you something. In fact, the only reason I finished it at all was that I was incredibly bored and that dialogue was hysterical.

All right, I'll stop harping on the dialogue.

The monster itself, which is not a monster after all, is thrown in there so randomly that I was left scratching my head (metaphorically) and staring at the book in surprise when I finished. Much of the plot seemed random, when I could follow it. I love fantasy, but books like these make me start to question my faith in the genre.

In closing, I hope the rest of the series is better than this...although I doubt it could be worse. If you're ever depressed and want something to cheer (or crack) you up, just pick up this book. They should rename it "How Not To Write A Fantasy Story".

This book is about an apprentice to the embroiderer Dame Araglas named Sarita and a ranger named Rhys and their adventure in Var-the-Outer.

Liberty's Daughters is really the combined collection of two books. Part I: The Constant Patterns of Women's Lives, sets the reader up for Part II: The Changing Patterns of Women's Lives. In a way, Part I explains the life of the prewar colonial woman. Part II discusses the changes that would occur for women during and immediately following the war. Norton makes a convincing argument that women's lives were forever changed by the Revolutionary War. Chapter 1 was extremely interesting as Norton details the differences between rural women of the colonies with urban women. She details the lives of rural women of the North in comparison to women of the rural South. Plus, Norton discusses the even harsher life of the female slave. In a way, there is an underlying sentiment that life was very difficult for both men and women during this period of time. I appreciated Norton's realization that men also experienced plenty of toil during this time in history. In other words, there was plenty of hardship to go around. One main theme that the reader quickly notices is how important spinning was to the women of colonial America. The first chapters detail how women would have to spin to make clothes for themselves and their families (and sometimes very large families). To pass the time, women would often spin in groups. This activity gave them a sense of companionship. This community would lay the important groundwork for their support of the men during the Revolutionary War. The second part of the book informs the reader how women formed formal spinning groups that actively worked to help the patriots. In a way, women now took up spinning as a part of the campaign for freedom against the British. Sewing gave women a sense of nationality as they could actively contribute to the defense of colonial liberties. Norton explains in the first chapters how women needed a certain degree of conversation. Women loved to talk, most particularly while they spun. In Part II, Norton explains how politics is all anyone could talk about during this era, so why would women want to be left out? Indeed, they were not left out of the conversation, and they were even more than willing to take part in the action. After all, it was their families who were at stake. Women actively took part in the mobs and spoke out against loyalists - partially to avoid from themselves becoming targets of the patriotic fever that swept much of the colonies. Just as in any other civil war, not all women agreed. Political differences caused breakups and differences in friendships and marriages. Though we read from other sources that Washington held contempt for the women who traveled with his army - taking precious rations and supplies, Washington also displays his gratitude to Ester Reed and her girls for this organization's contributions. He put these girls, "to an equal place with any who have preceded them in the walk of female patriotism." The significant sign of change in the lives of colonial women is found midway through Part 2 when the postwar female generation led political discussion and even took part in activism. This was completely alien to most women born before 1760. Nineteenth-century women took pride in the contributions that members of their sex had made to the winning of independence. The existence of such public-spirited models showed that women could take active roles in politics without losing their feminine identity. It was not by chance that in 1848 the organizers chose to use the Declaration of Independence as the basis for their calls for reform in women's status. They understood the relevance of the revolutionary era to their own endeavors. This is a far cry to the woman detailed in Chapter 1 who had no idea about even the financial state of her husband. Here is another profound change from Chapter 1: As time went on, women learned more about the family's finances while at the same time their husband's knowledge became increasingly outdated and remote. In a way, the soldiers increasingly delegated responsibility of the finances to their wives. Women received freedom from the British - just as did men. However, women also gained certain freedoms for their gender. Following the war, female children consequently began to expect the right to decide for themselves in marital matters if they so desired. Many girls continued to seek their parents' and friends' assessments of potential spouses. However, some women made up their own minds, and this is a revolutionary concept. After all, even today in some countries, women have yet to acquire this freedom. Not only were they given more choice in who they were to marry, the increasing use of contraception in the last two decades of the century can also be seen as a reflection of women's improved status within marriage. This came as quite a surprise to me as I had not been aware of any such methods of contraception at this early period of time. I had always assumed that people of this era had only one method of contraception: do not do anything! After the war, women grew increasingly willing to challenge the conventional wisdom about feminine faults. Women finally stood up against the arguments about their nature - particularly against negative aspects of their nature. They were less inclined to allow remarks about their "natural state" pass without harsh comment. This is, in my opinion, the true birth of a P.C. culture! Norton's argument is successful. The lives of women were forever altered by the Revolutionary War. Further, women had just begun to seek liberties for their own gesture. In a way, this book should be read before one begins to study and attempt to understand the feminist movement of the 1840's, before the Suffrage movement that gained women's right to vote, and before the feminist movement that would begin in the 1960's. Indeed, we still live with the consequences of the changes in women's society during the Revolutionary War.

This book is utterly AWFUL when it comes to comparing it with other academic histories. I would not recommend it to anyone, except as one of the worst histories written, EVER.

By Mary Beth Norton. Founding Mothers and Fathers: Gendered Power and the Forming of American Society. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1996, hardcover 1996. Pp. ix, 496, appendix, abbreviations, notes, index....hardcover.)

From the time of the Pilgrims to present day, women have played more of a substantial role than they are commonly accredited for. In Founding Mothers and Fathers: Gendered Power and the forming of American Society, Mary Beth Norton parlays her idea that although woman did not have an independent role in the political arena of early American society there were many woman and groups of woman who knew the undisclosed sins of the community. This they used in the assumption of leadership roles among the communities.
Norton goes on to explain power inside the household as well as in the community. She connected Sir Robert Filmers' (The Filmerian view) and John Lockes' philosophies (the Lockean view) to both domestic life and the political structure and formation of early American society.
As you probably know, the practice of bearing children was most likely the primary focus of 17th century colonial woman. Lacking in birth control, a woman would go through a constant cycle of becoming pregnant and giving birth. Norton points out that these regular childbearing sessions excluded men from attending. It is very important to understand the role of the midwife. She could be the necessary one in keeping the woman and child alive during birth. She could, as well, expose any form of bastardization, premarital sex, adultery, and infanticide. The power of the midwives and the ignorance of men on the subject of childbearing gave way to many cases in which women could bend around the "man-made" laws.
It is probably demeaning these days to say that woman "gossip." Well, according to Norton, this did indeed go on during colonial times. The reader will discover the "gossip networks." Due to the fact that woman were separated from men in many social aspects led to these networks. Rumors of criminal activities would travel this way to the Colonial Magistrate and would very often result in punishment for the crime.
I found the two different philosophies on gender power to be very interesting. Should the most power come from the parent most represented, whichever that may be? This idea would bring more power to widows and present them with a greater role in the community. However, the people of this enlightened area would demand that the power of a woman's authority was inexistent outside the home.
Mary Beth Norton is a very accredited historian. This book gives remarkable incite to the power of woman in colonial times. Anyone interested in the social history of our country would enjoy this book and feel enriched after reading it. Many of the woman's roles discussed were unknown to me. Norton puts them across in a very intelligent and unquestionable way using many actual cases of the times to back up her theories.
This book, although written by a scholarly author, is not a difficult reading. Since it deals with many aspects of colonial life unknown to many people the readers interest should withstand through its entirety. Indeed, woman played an immense, although not formal or independent, role in the formation of our country as it is today.
-Charles Michael Farley-

Norton argues that during the mid to late 17th century, colonial American political authority was based on biblical interpretations which encouraged a unified, gender-power based authoritarian system centered on the role of the father as undisputed ruler of his household. The founders were operating in a "Filmerian system" in which the sources of authority in the state and family were identical.

However, this Filmerian system did create opportunities for women to wield some power. High-ranking widows were the rulers of their households and were deferred to by both males and females of lower ranks. Problems arose when these high-ranking widows failed to fall in with the male consensus, such as Anne Hutchinson.

In the Chesapeake region, the Filmerian system was much less successful than in New England because the Chesapeake settlers were predominantly single men. The family-based power system failed in this region because it had very few traditional family households. Although power remained gender-based in the Chesapeake region, it became more like a "Lockian system" in which power in the family was differentiated from political power.

I had just finished Norton's and Lackey's "Elvenborn" when I picked up "Wind in the Stone", so I had high expectations. From the start, I was unimpressed, particularly with the writing style. Probably Norton was attempting to write in a Shakespearean fashion, but it came off seeming awkward and rather detached. Throughout the book, I felt no attachment to the characters and didn't particularly care whether or not the villain triumphed in the end. The plot itself had countless holes where Norton could have expanded upon the story and the characters, but she missed these opportunities time after time. On top of that, the weak plot that was actually present was unable to hold my interest, and I found myself struggling through each paragraph, wishing it were over. By the end, all I was hoping for was a descent conclusion to make amends for the rest of the book, but I was denied even that; the end left me with no sense of satisfaction - except that I had actually struggled through to the finish.
For a seasoned author like Norton, this book came as a tremendous disappointment. The story was ultimately a cheap rip-off of "Elvenborn" with the same plot except written dispassionately and awkwardly. This was the first book I had read that was written solely by Norton, and it will be a long time before I read another.

How I treid to finsh it! I couldn't get past the first 70/80 pages or so. the only part that interested me was Irasmus. I wanted to find out more about him and his thoughts. The narrative is sometimes confusing and it is hard to empathize with the characters. It is very hard to get ino the book

I have read the rest of the reviews impatiently .Wind in the Stone is a perfectly good book.True ,it begins slow ,true Norton did put some pointless stuff in it ,but overall it was good.At first I thought it would be horendous as the previously written book ,Scent of Magic,but it was fine.As I always do when I read one of Norton's best ,I enjoyed the creatures that Norton invented .Especially the Sasqua and the gobbes.Her villain is hateable ,her characters loveable,the plot enchanting .Here is the plot :Irasmus ,the evil magician assaults the valley with his gobbes.The Dark was driven out long ago by the Wind (in this book Wind is a powerful substance)but now it has returned .Irasmus brutally attacks a family with a woman with two twins,one boy one girl .Irasmus catches the boy but not the girl .The girl ,Falice flees into the wood with her Mother .Her Mother dies but she lives and is adopted by the Sasqua,the inhabitants of the wood .When she grows into a young woman ,the Wind tells her that she must overthrow Irasmus and free her brother.

I was warned about this book by a friend, but I was so desperate for a new Solar Queen story that I ignored her. That was a big mistake. I wasn't even halfway through the book before I was wishing someone would toss Rael the Wonderful out the nearest airlock. Later I started fantasizing about even worse fates for her. I was masochistic enough to finish the story, but I've been soured on any of the new Solar Queen books as a result.

The introduction of a female character made sense for a book written in the nineties, but why create one so offensive? Why not one better thought out? Why did Rael have to dominate the story, being the miracle cure for all problems, while whining way too much about how tough life has always been on her in spite of all the magical advantages she had?

Nonetheless, awful as Rael is, the book might have been tolerable if the other characters hadn't been pushed into the background and marginalized. The old main character (Dane) spent most of his time as a resentful nitwit. The shipboard niche Rael supposedly filled (medic) was already capably occupied by another character, who got shunted aside in her favor. The others were similarly treated. The only old character that got halfway decent treatment was the captain, and he was reduced to the role of Rael the Wonderful's love interest and sidekick. Gad.

I have to agree with the reviewer who described this book as "someone else's adolescent fantasy." That's exactly what it was. It's rare to see such a blatant case of "self-insertion of the author's fantasy self" in a pro novel. I can only attribute this nonsense to P.M. Griffin (whose other work I am unfamiliar with), since other Andre Norton books that I've read don't display this reprehensible trait.

For all you budding writers out there, this book is a perfect example of what *not* to do, unless you want to alienate your audience.

I grew up reading the original Solar Queen adventures - they were my introduction to science fiction (if you don't count the Edgar Rice Burroughs Mars books). I loved Norton's books for their thumping good plots, exotic, yet believable aliens, and most especially for her finely drawn portraits of the crew. Many of the fantasies that got me through a boring English Lit or Government class involved flying off into the wild, black yonder aboard the 'Solar Queen'.

Unfortunately, our library only carried the first two books in the series, but I finally located the two 'Solar Queen' novelettes and read them, too. They weren't quite as good - Norton was concentrating on fantasy by then, and somehow it didn't quite mix with the crew of the 'Solar Queen'. However, I never lost my original affection for the series.

Then, decades after the publication of the original novels, I found 'Redline: the Stars'. I couldn't wait. I bought it in hardback rather than holding out for a cheaper edition. The fact that it had a second author's name on it was worrisome, but I assumed I'd be reading mainly Norton.

Not true.

I read the book from cover to cover, hoping to find at least a trace of Norton and a trace of the original 'Solar Queen', then hurled "Redline: the Stars" into the wastebasket.

I felt totally cheated. I usually give up my non-keepers to the library and loan my keepers to my friends, but I couldn't pass this one on to some other poor, unsuspecting Solar Queen fan.

I am pretty sure that all Norton wrote was the introduction to "Redline: the Stars". The original characters were passive, uninteresting shadows - even the Captain and the Cargo Master!. I felt like I was reading someone else's adolescent fantasy of the 'Solar Queen' and her crew that never should have been published under Norton's name. Nothing seemed 'true to life' (if I can use that phrase about something that was a novel to begin with). It was a horrible reading experience - the literary equivalent of visiting an old friend who has advanced Alzheimer's Disease. I don't recommend this book.

If you just want something to read and you do not want to work too hard this is the book for you. I found it a fast read, exciting, but not too challenging. The main characters are never really developed. The minor characters all clump together with no distinct personality so you don't need to worry about knowing their names. The plot was always on the verge of great - but never really got there. The ending was tidy, but not powerful.

I enjoyed this book and went on to read the next in the series. It reminded me of the Star Trek original book series in that it takes reading several books for you to get to know the crew, and several books for you learn about why the Solar Queen is special. That is not immediately obvious in this book. But there is lots of action.

I recommend this book for teen readers who may be new to scifi and need to be "gentled" into it. No radical offworld ideas are set forth here. Good and bad are clearly identified, and sex is nowhere to be found.

This book appears to be a collaberation between Andre Norton and Grace Hogarth, but it reads very unlike Ms. Norton's style. I was very disappointed in this book and had to stop reading it after only three chapters. The plot was very predictable, the characters are not very believable. I have to think Ms. Norton only glanced at what Ms. Hogarth was writing, and did not contribute to this book either in plotlines or in characterizations. Don't waste your money!

Fredericka, a librarian on vacation, is definitely not a modern woman, being given to attacks of fright and a reluctance to do anything without the approval of the men in her life. A dead body in the backyard is a good reason to be nervous, but not to avoid going out, especially since murder isn't mentioned for quite a ways into the book. It's a good period piece, but has to be read with an eye to the times, as the characters all smoke and actions taken for granted in the 50's ie smoking in bed are no-nos in todays world. The solution was good, and the plot worked, but it seemed a little contrived, especially to a child of the computer age.

i have read many of Nortons books, and myself own about 20. I have loved almost all of them, and never before have i encountered one that i disliked this much. I found that i could barely finish it, which is odd for me with ANY book. I would just like to warn prospective buyers to stick to Nortons other books, most of which rate four stars or higher, but just borrow this book from the library.

I found this book to be more of a so-called cultural study instead of the old-fashioned facts-and-chronologies accounts of history. The book is highly opinionated to the point where the events unfold along the lines of the author's opinion about the matter. I also found the book to be heavily slanted to the Left-wing way of thinking.

My son was required to read this book for his history studies at school, but I can't help but wonder if there is any good American history book that plainly tells the facts.