| Line | Two works published in 1984 demonstrate |
| contrasting approaches to writing the history of | |
| United States women. Buel and Buels biography | |
| of Mary Fish (1736–1818) makes little effort to | |
| (5) | place her story in the context of recent |
| historiography on women. Lebsock, meanwhile, | |
| attempts not only to write the history of women in | |
| one southern community, but also to redirect two | |
| decades of historiographical debate as to | |
| (10) | whether women gained or lost status in the |
| nineteenth century as compared with the | |
| eighteenth century. Although both books offer the | |
| reader the opportunity to assess this controversy | |
| regarding womens status, only Lebsocks deals with | |
| (15) | it directly. She examines several different aspects |
| of womens status, helping to refine and resolve the | |
| issues. She concludes that while | |
| women gained autonomy in some areas, | |
| especially in the private sphere, they lost it in | |
| (20) | many aspects of the economic sphere. More |
| importantly, she shows that the debate itself | |
| depends on frame of reference: in many respects, | |
| women lost power in relation to men, for example, | |
| as certain jobs (delivering babies, supervising | |
| (25) | schools) were taken over by men. Yet women also |
| gained power in comparison with their previous | |
| status, owning a higher proportion of real estate, | |
| for example. In contrast, Buel and Buels | |
| biography provides ample raw material for | |
| (30) | questioning the myth, fostered by some |
| historians, of a colonial golden age in the | |
| eighteenth century but does not give the reader | |
| much guidance in analyzing the controversy over | |
| womens status. |