Hooks, The Significance of Feminist Movement

In Bell Hooks’ The Significance of Feminist Movement, she mainly focuses on sexism and prejudice as a whole in society. Throughout the entire reading, she basically criticized the approach early feminists took in order to eliminate sexual prejudice. She claimed that instead of addressing discrimination against women in society, early feminists instead made it an issue between men and women. Consequently, animosity began to form between males and females which was never the original intent.

hooks also talked about the family’s role in sexism. She explained that because families instill in their young children from an early age that men are to be providers, and women are to stay home and care for the children, when those same children grow up, they tend to do just that. She believed that because of this tradition, whether purposely or indirectly, young girls are being raised to believe that they are somehow underneath men. Obviously, she then went on to stress the importance that such a stereotype be removed, especially from households.

In addition, hooks also made several statements suggesting that if sexism is removed from society, then ALL discrimination would soon follow. However, while I understood her point, removing one form of prejudice would in no way immediately eliminate all of them. With that said, removing sexism from our way of thinking would definitely be a step in the right direction. In order for society to continue to progress, ALL discrimination, racial or otherwise, needs to be removed, which is obvious.

Woman's Place In Man's Life Cycle

After reading Carol Gilligan’s A Woman’s Place In Man’s Life Cycle, I got the impression that she had a different viewpoint on feminism than the other writers in this section. She to wrote about the way women are mistreated in society, but she didn’t really suggest a solution to stop it from continuing. She talked about how even at an early age men are encouraged to be more independent and self-reliant, while women are urged to develop relationships with others that they can depend on. Then, later on in life, those same women tend to resort back to those same tendencies and become unable to take care of themselves. Honestly, I tend to agree with Gilligan in the sense that if a girl was raised from an early age to be self-reliant, then she would grow up to be a strong, independent woman.

Another issue Gilligan brought up that caught my attention was when she began talking about how women are usually close to their mothers throughout their lives, while men usually try to break away. She then foolishly tried to tie that in with the assumption that men aren’t usually good with relationships; however, I beg to differ. I think every situation is different when it comes to relationships, and by no means does a man’s relationship with his mother OUTRIGHT determine how he’ll fair in relationships with other women. That alone is a stereotype about men; while it may be true in some cases, it definitely isn’t in ALL. Although Gilligan’s writing was confusing at times, she definitely made some very good, valid points.

Woolf: Shakespeare's Sister

I must say, although Virginia Woolf’s reading was somewhat difficult, it was also rather interesting. Throughout the reading, she basically describes, in detail, the difference between how men and women have suffered throughout history. She talks about how women were expected to be simple housewives their whole life, and how they weren’t supposed to be ambitious in any way. Woolf also explains how even if they WERE daring enough to pursue higher goals in life, they were persecuted so much that even the thought of it never crossed their minds. She then related the hardships of women to Shakespeare’s sister in a fictional sense.

In the story, Woolf explains how a woman could have the same acting skills as a man, but still never be as successful simply because of her sex. She also talks about the lack of women in literature throughout history, and how incredibly sexist society can be. Although her essay was written a long time ago, many of her points remain relevant today. In today’s society, although it isn’t as blatant, women are still being discriminated against because of their sex. The majority of higher-ranking jobs almost always go to men now-a-days, and unfortunately, that trend doesn’t seem to be changing. Many times, a woman can do the same job a man can do, if not better, but because of their sex, companies never find out.

If our society is to move forward however, women need to be start being viewed just as equal as men by everyone.

Why people get FAT, while others STARVE!!

From first glance, I thought Robert Reich’s “Why the Rich are Getting Richer, and the Poor, Poorer” would be about why wealthy people continue to prosper while the deprived situations worsen. However, he instead discussed three basic job classes, and their futures. He described the routine producer, the in-person server, and the symbolic analysts in depth in regards to their upcoming expectations, and why.

In today’s society, the routine producer would be considered factory workers. They get paid lower wages because of what their job entails; however, Reich explains why they’ll be even worse off in the future. As technology continues to progress, those people won’t be needed as much, and companies will go overseas more and more in search of cheaper labor. So, in turn, they’ll go from little to nothing. Secondly, the in-person servers’ situation will also worsen in the future, but not quite to the extent of the routine producers. Because the routine producers will become more competitive and even look to surpass them, the in-person servers will face harder times as well, just not as outstanding.

And lastly, as opposed to the routine producers and in-person servers, the symbolic analysts will become better off down the road. As the other classes get worse, they’ll look to the symbolic analysts, which will in turn make them more affluent. In conclusion, although Reich’s piece was EXTREMELY long, and somewhat confusing, he definitely made some good points as to the future of the economy. It really opens your eyes to what you could possibly face if you’re not prepared.

The Position of Poverty

I’m so relieved; this reading was actually in ENGLISH!! In John Galbraith’s The Position of Poverty, he discusses two different types of poverty: case poverty and insular poverty. Case poverty is described as a situation where an individual is poor due to a characteristic directly related to them, such as a mental disability or just plain laziness. Insular poverty, on the other hand, is when poverty is prevalent throughout an entire area. In this case, people that suffer from insular poverty are poor not because of their own doing, but rather because of the area they live in. The environment is so deficient and substandard that they’re not really even given a chance to succeed, or become prosperous.

Galbraith then goes on to explain how a little government intervention in the right areas can help solve poverty and deficiency in any society. He suggests that if the government were to provide better schooling and housing, just to name a few, society would be a much better place with less poverty. Obviously, I agree with him in that if the government did these things there would be less need; however, it’ll always be easier said than done. I also appreciated how he acknowledged the fact that the places that need help the most in America, the places that REALLY suffer from economic depression, are the LEAST likely to get help from the government. In my opinion, this becomes apparent with situations like Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.

Nonetheless, I thought this was a very interesting reading, and it really explained how there’s a difference between poverty in one area, and poverty in another. But the BEST part was the fact that he actually spoke ENGLISH, unlike some of the other authors in recent history!!

The Communist Manifesto

Let me start by saying the Communist Manifesto was an EXTRMELY difficult reading. However, I WAS able to understand some of Karl Marx’s basic principles and ideas. He starts off talking about two classes: the Bourgeois and the Proletarians. The Bourgeois was described as the upper class that would do anything to gain more wealth, even at the Proletarians expense. The Proletarians were considered the working class, which usually consisted of most of the people. He explained how the Proletarians suffered while the Bourgeois flourished beyond imagination. However, he would go on to introduce the idea of communism, which would, in his mind, make things more equal.

Communism promotes a classless, stateless society, where the community owns every means of production. In addition, it endorses free education, there’s no land ownership, and no inheritances. Marx believed that the more a person had, the more they should contribute to society and give to the less fortunate; as he held, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his means”. He meant to even the playing field between the Bourgeois and the Proletarians by giving the lower class a say in things. Essentially, he advocated a more equal distribution of wealth among the citizens to make for a better society.

Although the Communist Manifesto was somewhat hard to understand, ultimately it highlighted an important issue in society. By no means, in my opinion, should the poor suffer so that the wealthy could prosper. With that said, I don’t necessarily agree with all of Marx’s suggestions on fixing it, but something does need to be done to make for a better world.

Nussbaum: The Central Human Funtional Capabilities

After reading “The Central Human Functional Capabilities”, it was apparent to me that Martha Nussbaum believed that every government should allow its citizens to have a voice in the decisions that it makes. It was a VERY tough reading to understand, and many times, I had no clue what she was talking about; but it seemed as though she was really stressing the idea that if a government doesn’t allow its citizens to have a “voice”, than it’s basically taking away their rights as human beings.

She also stressed the fact that a government should make certain the things it does is accepted by its citizens. However, in today’s society, rarely is this ever the case. Many times, decisions are made in which the majority of the population don’t agree with, but it doesn’t seem to matter, because nothing changes. I also noticed that some of her main ideas piggy-backed on some of our recent readings. For example, in Dr. King’s letter from jail, he stressed the importance of racial equality. In fact, he and many others were thrown in jail as they fought for equal opportunity, and let their voice be heard. They took advantage of their rights as human beings and American citizens to stand up and be heard, and I think that’s what Nussbaum to trying to get across: that having a “voice” in government as a citizen is critical to the success of any society.

Thankfully, as Americans, we have the right to vote, which is why it’s imperative that each of us take advantage of it; because if we don’t, we give up our right to make changes.