The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Utopian Visions and Architectural Designs of Turn-of-the-Century Social Settlements
Abstract
This chapter explores how nineteenth-century women social reformers materially embodied their utopian visions of society through architectural designs of their public institutions. Reformers made women’s public professions and institutions acceptable within the dominant Victorian gender ideology by depicting them as extensions of women’s domestic roles (Spencer-Wood 1999a: 170-1). As reformers expanded woman’s domestic sphere to encompass man’s public sphere, they successfully argued that women’s superior morality enabled them to control their expanded sphere, increasing women’s power in both the home and the public realm. Unlike their contemporaries, the suffragists, domestic reformers did not directly confront male dominance in the public sphere by arguing that women should have public roles. Nonetheless, the reformers’ argument that women would bring a higher moral tone to government was instrumental in gaining the majority of men’s support for female suffrage (Spencer-Wood 1991: 241; 1994a: 178-80).
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Intersectionality theory identifies privilege as a function of power; however, one's degree of privilege is contextually and situationally variable because power is really heterarchical and individuals and groups often have overlapping, cooperative, or complementary roles in society, which means everybody moves in spaces where power often exists in 'both/and' rather than 'either/or' contexts.
“Intersectionality theory identifies privilege as a function of power; however, one's degree of privilege is contextually and situationally variable because power is really heterarchical and individuals and groups often have overlapping, cooperative, or complementary roles in society, which means everybody moves in spaces where power often exists in ''both/and'' rather than ''either/or'' contexts (”
From Introduction to Archaeologies Special Issue on Intersectionality Theory and Research in Historical Archaeology (2022) · cites this paper as Spencer-Wood, 2003
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Spencer-Wood, S. M. (2016) · International Journal of Historical Archaeology · doi:10.1007/s10761-016-0356-3 · Cited by 48
Self-citationSpencer-Wood, S. M., & Trunzo, J. M. C. (2022) · Archaeologies · doi:10.1007/s11759-022-09442-5 · Cited by 18
Self-citation
Metadata
- Venue
- Embodied Utopias
- Publisher
- Routledge
- Published
- 2003-12-16
- Pages
- 134-150
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review