Our bodies contain 75% water, so without water, it is impossible to survive. It is easily identifiable that the goal authors Susan I. Hautaniemi and Deborah L. Rotman of Sharing Spaces and Divided Places is to create a bridge between gender issues and landscape research. In chapter 5, “To the hogs or the House” it is difficult to keep track of what the central theme is. At one point, it seems as if the primary theme is on the impact of women on water sources and their roles during intensified agricultural production. However, as a member of the audience I find myself extremely confused for almost the entire duration of the chapter. In addition, although the thesis is easily identifiable, it is increasingly difficult to read to chapter due to the poor layout. Overall, authors, Susan I. Hautaniemi and Deborah L. Rotman provide credible examples to support their extremely broad thesis, however it is difficult to follow what the one subject they want to key in on is. …show more content…
Examples of Deerfield Village and Moors homelot provide a minor centralization of the purpose of the chapter. Deerfield Village provides a base for gender relations. They state, “Women’s participation in Deerfield Village was distinctive as well as a unique expression of themselves as women. Some individuals brought nonagriculturally derived wealth to the main street running through the center of the village” (Hautaniemi & Rotman, 152). In addition, when discussing Moors homelot it was found that women made efforts for secure organizational control for their accumulation of resources. It is seemingly identifiable that the title of this chapter is partially deceiving, and although it shows some relevance to the contrast between women and men when handling resources, the chapter would have benefited from a better title as