MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2068176554 · doi:10.1353/jowh.2014.0062

Making, Shaping, and Resisting Nations in the Twentieth Century: Women in Australia, Occupied Japan, and Postwar United States and Canada

2014· article· en· W2068176554 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jean H. Quataert, Leigh Ann Wheeler

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of women's history · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueAustralian History and Society
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésWrightPoliticsMilitarismWhite (mutation)Gender studiesContext (archaeology)DemocracyConversationReinterpretationPower (physics)Political scienceSociologyHistoryLawArt history

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Making, Shaping, and Resisting Nations in the Twentieth Century: Women in Australia, Occupied Japan, and Postwar United States and Canada Jean Quataert and Leigh Ann Wheeler This issue features a remarkable trio of paired articles. All investigate the ways that women have made, shaped, and resisted the nations within which they reside, but each pair also opens a separate conversation of its own. The first two articles consider the political rights of white Australian, and the survival strategies of disfranchised aboriginal, women. The second duo examines the role of gender in U.S. occupation strategies. The third considers how maternalism expanded and delimited women’s political power in postwar United States and Canada. We are excited to present you with this distinctive publication in which thematically and geographically focused conversations play out within the context of the broader theme of women and nationhood. As usual, we conclude with a number of review essays that bring recently published books into productive and dynamic conversation. We open with Clare Wright’s fascinating reinterpretation of one nation’s founding, “‘A Splendid Object Lesson’: A Transnational Perspective on the Birth of the Australian Nation.” Historians have attributed the rise of an independent and democratic Australian state to its men’s military accomplishments during World War I, especially the legendary heroism exhibited at Gallipoli. Wright, however, shows that the fledgling nation earned global respect as early as 1902 for providing white women political rights equal to white men. Wright thus challenges “the centrality of militarism in historical and popular accounts of nationhood,” moving gender equality to the heart of Australia’s founding story by demonstrating how reformers and leaders of western democracies—most notably in the United States and the United Kingdom—looked to Australia as a model of democratic governance and gender equality. Wright acknowledges that white women’s political empowerment in Australia accompanied the disfranchisement of aborigines in what proved for white women “a timely alignment between the ideals of international feminism and the historical coincidence of federalism.” This fascinating story, then, counters “the androcentric underpinnings of Gallipoli’s enduring ‘birth of a nation’ mystique.” That mystique effectively drowned out collective memories about the nation’s founding achievements in legal equality. Indeed, Wright shows clearly that long before the First World War offered men opportunities to show off their military might, white Australians reveled in their global status as pioneers in the quest for more egalitarian political processes. [End Page 7] If Wright recounts the history of Australian nation-building from elite white women’s perspective, Kathryn Hunter aims to rewrite Australian history from the vantage point of indigenous women near the bottom. In “Aboriginal Women in Australia’s Travelling Shows, 1930s–1950s: Shadows and Suggestions,” Hunter explores the murky and poorly documented world of women who performed in “sideshows,” “tent shows,” and other ephemeral entertainment venues. The performances staged multiracial groups, including many aboriginal women who were presented as “Polynesian” or “South Seas” women—primitive but glamorously exotic Pacific Islanders rather than local, colonized aborigines. Hunter demonstrates that the nomadic lifestyle required of these performers placed them beyond the bounds of respectability drawn by white Australians who “celebrated settlement as the core of modern nation-building.” But aboriginal women who performed in travelling shows were, according to Hunter, actually pursuing a modern lifestyle in one of the few independent occupations open to them. Indeed, as the modern Australian state increasingly invaded the lives of indigenous peoples—by confiscating their wages and their children, for example—travelling performers escaped much of the state surveillance that kept others dependent and impoverished. Thus Hunter argues that indigenous performers were not simply objects of a modernity imposed on them by the Australian state; they were, rather, agents who participated in “making themselves modern” by claiming independence from that very state. The next two articles examine the central role of gender in nation-building—or, to be more precise, nation rebuilding—and they add foreign policy to the mix in their explorations of women in U.S.-occupied Japan. Meghan Warner Mettler’s piece, “Modern Butterfly: American Perceptions of Japanese Women and their Role in International Relations, 1945–1960,” uses American newspaper articles, novels, and movies...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,701
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,041
Tête enseignante GPT0,286
Écart entre enseignants0,245 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of women's historyMême sujetAustralian History and SocietyTravaux en français237 207