bradsaptblog

One section in this reading imparticular caught my attention. Rosen discusses how the practice of both parents going to work, then she talks about the rise of divorce in America. She says that a slowing economy due to the oil shocks of 1973 caused women who were a part of lower and middle class households to get a job. While that may be true, I believe that fact did more for women in the workplace than the feminist movement on the whole. In other words, it took a severe recession and stagflation for women to enter the workforce in large numbers, not any type of social movement. While the forementioned movement might well have helped women climb up the ladder once employed, it was not the main factor in females going to work, not to sound redundant. As I said, her next paragraph discussed divorce, and I actually agreed with her analysis there. She says that the values of the counterculture and a more sexually free society led to higher divorce rates, which I believe is fairly accurate. It gave young people more freedom when deciding their future, instead of simply following the status quo of the previous generation. Also, I believe emboldened women, who became so by reading various magazines aimed at that particular demographic, realized that they should not be held captive in an abusive or love-less relationship. Previously, divorce was extremely taboo, especially if the women was the contributing party. But the revolution of women's rights, gave women the bravery to get out of terrible marriages, rather than being a hostage till death do her justice.

-Brad

I saw feminists steal each other's work, money, jobs, spouses, physically hit each other, padlock doors, turn other feminists into the police...I saw feminists instigate whisper-and-smear-campaigns to wreck each other's reputations, both socially and professionally.

Whoa. I personally found the chapter about the politics of paranoia quite interesting, especially the part that detailed the practice of "trashing." I thought it was unfortunate that these women, who were so committed to changing the social structure of this country on the whole, were so vicious and conniving individually. It actually reminded me of the current political situation in America, where those who disagree look at each other as evil, and then proceed to destroy one another and attempt to assassinate their respective characters. That type of politics only hurts the cause one is fighting for, regardless of how big or small it may be. Rosen's descriptions of trashing were shocking, and she made it clear to me that fear played a huge role in its severity, which I believe is true across the board. I believe the women's movement, and any movement for that matter, must be able to create a hierarchy together without other people constantly within the movement trying to sabotage and undermine it. If that happens, it will inevitably collapse from within. Trashing was obviously a huge problem within the feminist movement, or Rosen would have spent so many pages on it. It should be a lesson learned to any political activist, I certainly took it to heart. Revolutions dont succeed within revolutions.

-Brad

There were many topics I was considering analysing for today, but I decided to choose the least awkward one. The chapter discussing the Ms. America Pagent didnt make much sense to me. Why these women, who made such important social changes in society, would care so much about petty things like beauty pagents and Playboy Magazine is beyond me. Both are so insignificant in the grand scheme of things. If anything, I believe these two spectacles help women gain independence and power. I think that a women who strips her clothes off for a tasteful pictorial is liberating, along with walking on stage in a bathing suit for the world to see. Obviously, Im a man, so the feminists would probably scold me for looking at this situation with eyes of lust, but I assure you Im not. I just think that wasting time picketing and protesting at events like beauty pagents is not constructive. In retrospect, its one of the few areas where the women's liberation movement failed. We still have beauty pagents, more of them that ever actually, and Playboy magazine is still extremely popular. Drawing attention to pagents and such only makes them more popular, no publicity is bad publicity, right?

For this post, I would like to discuss an idea that was brought up in the original statement made by the National Organization of Women. It states:

"Women should not have to choose between family life and participation in industry or the professions. Nor should all normal women...retire from jobs or professions for ten or fifteen years, to devote their full time to raising children, only to reenter the job market at a relatively minor level."

I believe that statement is very important. Women do deserve the right to live their educational and profession dreams while also fulfilling their obligations as a mother and wife, something that all women cherish. Its unfortunate that it took until the mid-1960's for words like this to be spoken, but better late than never. Times have changed so much since then, and it is almost expected that women will work. Unless the husband can financially support a family on his own single paycheck, which is becoming a rarity, women must enter the workforce to lend a hand. My mother has worked for my entire life. I was put into day care as a young child because we depended on her earning wages, even though my father also worked full time. My mom was even forced to work two jobs at one point because times go so tough. Luckily, women have been able to work their way up the ladder in the workplace. In the reading, the author discusses the lack of females in JFK's cabinet, which I took as a metaphor for all industry. Today, women hold some of the most powerful positions in the world, including CEO's, Doctors, Lawyers, Senators, and even the office of our nations highest diplomat. Politics aside, its important to recognize what the women in this book did for their sex. Its just as important as those who fought against racial discrimination. We are a better country because of it, and thats coming from someone who is the son of a very stubborn, intelligent, and independent woman. Oh boy.

-Brad

The idea I want to discuss here is actually one of the very first things talked about in the book. I was surprised when I read about how unhappy many women were in the 1950's. In retrospect, it seems that many tout those times as simple, and great. Everything about the 50's seems happy and content, for example, the dad went to work, the mom cooked and cleaned, and the kids went to school...the end. I guess the 'Leave it to Beaver' syndrome wasnt all it seemed cracked up to be. I do see Rosen's point however when I look at the situation more in depth. It would be unfortunate and frustrating if my life was already mapped out for me as a servent to my spouse and children. Sure, life would probably be less stressful, but what if I wanted more for myself, I probably wouldnt be allowed dream. Rosen then goes on to discuss the impact that The Feminine Mystique had on society. The book gave women a sense of hope, and told them that they did not have to live the life of their mothers, that there was a world out there as open to them as any man. I found an interesting parellel between feminism and the civil rights movement; I believe the civil rights argument was tougher to win, because black people did make up a very small percentage of the population, and for most the entire thing played out on their TV sets, not their streets. But women on the other hand are at a much large abundence. Most grown men had a wife, so the social changed happened within the confines of their own homes. But I think Im getting ahead of myself. Allow me to reiterate that it surprised me how unhappy many females were in the 1950's, a time in American history that seemed to peaceful and innocent.

-Brad

I actually really enjoyed this section of the book. The first part that struck me was Lewis' description of poor northern inner city neighborhoods. He was shocked to see the state that cities were in, including Harlem. He couldnt believe the fact that violence was everywhere and people had to put bars on their windows for protection. Furthermore, he overheard groups referring to white people as 'whitey' which he thought was unfortunate. Obviously, this was the area that Malcolm X regularly preached from, so violence against whites was their preferred way of protest. The second section of this chapter I enjoyed was his and the rest of the civil rights leaders workings with the Kennedy administration and also the build up to the march on Washington in August of 1963. He discussed how Kennedy originally wanted to silence the prosets like Roosevelt did, and also how A. Phillip Randolph, who dealt with FDR, was the true inspiration behind that memoral day. Lastly, I liked his description of Martin Luther King's speech at the march. He described it as mediocre at best, until the end of course. He said that he could see King realize the historical implications of the day as the speech went on, so he knew he had to speak words that would be able to be a rallying cry for the movement. At the end of the day, Lewis still did not think that it was MLK's strongest speech ever, but it was perfect for the occasion.

-Brad

It was difficult for me to come up with just one idea to write about amongst the 90+ pages we were assigned over this weekend. The first striking part of this book is the way Mr. Lewis is able to go back and forth between present day and the past. As an author, it is usually a tough task to do this without confusing the reader, but Lewis does it in a way that allows those reading his words to follow and even understand better. Besides that, the idea that I suppose stickes out the most for me was Lewis' commitment to non-violence as the civil rights movement began to heat up. This idea was made famous by Dr. Martin Luther King, and it still astounds me that they were able and willing to voice their concerns in a loving and Biblical way. Its almost hard for somebody like me to fathom, because if I were oppressed the way those men were, I would be so furious that violence would probably be extremely appealing. There were some in the civil rights movement who preached hatred, but the peaceful revolutionaries ruled the day. Lewis discusses how he was learned the teaching of Ghandi, and other peaceful men, and also how Martin Luther King taught him to love those who hate you. Again I reiterate, that way of thinking is hard for me to accept, but I thank God for men like that.

-Brad