Women: Myth and Reality

I loved this reading! Simone de Beauvoir was brilliant! I found myself laughing while reading this; not because it was funny, but I found the way in which she approached the material at hand sarcastic. She didn't necessarily choose sides, male or female. She created situations in which the female was viewed by men and sometimes by themselves and then presented contradicting situations in which these same females could no longer be viewed as such. "The saintly mother has the cruel stepmother, the angelic youth has the perverse" (de Beauvoir 786).

While I understood her writing because it was pretty straight forward in presenting its ideas, I was still somewhat thrown back by some of it's wording. For instance in the opening paragraph de Beauvoir describes her opening myth in stating, "...sublimating an immutable aspect of the human condition - namely, the "division" of humanity into two classes of individuals..." (de Beauvoir 784). I didn't know whether she meant separating man and woman into two classes or separating how women are viewed into two classes.

Another interesting thing that kinda ticked me off in reading this was a passage in paragraph 7 referring to how a man is not obligated to respect a womans body when inflicting pain upon her. I took this in terms of during sexual intercourse. "Men not need bother themselves with alleviating the pains and the burdens the physiologically are women's lot, since these are "intended by nature"; men use them as a pretext for increasing the misery of the feminine lot still further, for instance by refusing to grant to woman any right to pleasure, by making her work like a beast of burden" (de Beauvoir 787). Wow! That quote is horrible. I feel men should always respect a women, and in-turn this means respecting their bodies, wife or not. This quote totally undermines that.

de Beauvoir, Simone. "Women: Myth and Reality." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins. 2006. pp. 784-794.

Shakespeare's Sister

This chapter of Virginia Woolf's book "A Room of One's Own," she speculates on what life might have been like for the sister of Shakespeare. Assuming that this sister had the same talent and imagination as Shakespeare. In doing so, she shares the expected role of women during Shakespeare's time.
Women were basically seen as appendages of the men in their lives. They were not their own person. As an unmarried female, you were expected to do as you were told by your father. If you did not obey him, you could be beaten, scolded or punished freely at the hands of your father. This went the way for married women. As a wife, you were expected to obey your husband always. If you did not, you could be beaten and punished as he saw fit. Women had no choices in terms of marriage. Once married, usually to a man of your father's choice, you were no longer a person, you were seen as an appendage of your husband. "Marriage was not an affair of person affection, but of family avarice..." (Woolf 765).
Woolf goes on to express her dismay with the non-existing history of women. "...nothing is known about women before the eighteenth century" (Woolf 768). This entire passage goes on and on about the injustices that women of the past have faced. I especially like how Woolf uses the phrase referring to women and dogs, "...poodles dancing and women acting" (Woolf 769). She then goes on to show how this simple phrase, has evolved and carried on for centuries. All in all, I found this reading interesting and somewhat infuriating. It's a great piece of work, primarily because even after 70 years, it's underlying truths still hold some merit in today's society in regards to women and how they are viewed and treated in the everyday world.

Woolf, Virginia. "Shakespeare's Sister." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers." Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins. 2006. pp. 764-776.

Pernicious Effects Which Arise from the Unnatural Distinctions Established in Society

In reading the essay "Pernicious Effects Which Arise from the Unnatural Distinctions Established in Society," my first thought was basically what does the title mean? Not only is it long and wordy, but it's a bit confusing. As a matter of fact, reading this entire essay was confusing. I picked up some of Wollstoncrafts main ideas, yet it was always after reading through a bunch of wordy, prolonged analogies and metaphors. I felt like she said what she was trying to say, but using too many words. I don't know if it was meant as entertainment, or if she felt it was needed. Either way, for me, her style of writing sort of took away from what she was trying to say. Ultimately, taking away from the reader, and in this case that was me!

One of the most quotes that stuck out to me the most was pertaining to a phrase I grew up commonly hearing. "Whoever the devil finds idle he will employ" (Wollstoncraft 748). My grandmother would always tell me and my brother that idle hands are the devils playground. In reading this quote, my mind immediately jumped to my grandmother's warning. It astonished me that even in the late 18th century, such proverbs were circulating. I also believe this quote ties into Wollstoncraft's beliefs in what happens to individuals who are born to wealth and have nothing to do.

As individuals born into a life of wealth and privilege they are are not likely to work as the average person is required to in order to live and function in the world. It is because of this fact that these individuals find themselves alive but not living life. "Hereditary property sophisticates the mind, and the unfortunate victims of it..." (Wolstoncraft 749). I believe that this is true. Those individuals that don't have to work for a living tend to not appreciate the things they have or acquire, because they have not had to struggle and work hard to attain them. In essence, these people are getting by on their wealth and not living their life.

Wollstoncraft, Mary. "Pernicious Effects Which Arise from the Unnatural Distinctions Established in Society."A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins. 2006. pp.748-758.

Why the Rich Are Getting Richer and the Poor, Poorer

First off, this was an interesting read. I was kind of turned off by the random facts and figures that Reich threw in from time to time; all of which in some way added to his rhetoric about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. I suppose they were relevant, however they made this reading kind of difficult for me. I found myself re-reading quite a few paragraphs, no because the information was hard to process, but because the random examples seemed to come out of thin air and I was constantly going back trying to find a connection between them.

Secondly, in exploring an individual's position in the world economy, Reich claims that this is totally dependent on the function in which he or she performs in it. "Regardless of how your job is officially classified (manufacturing, service, managerial, technical, secretarial, and so on), or the industry in which you work (automotive, steel, computer, advertising, finance, food processing), your real competitive position in the world economy is coming to depend on the function you perform in it (Reich 420). I took this quote to mean, and I may be completely wrong, that your job defines your position in society economically. All in all it makes since. For instance, as a waitress, you aren't really seen as making a major contribution to the world as say a doctor would. Therefore, it is logical that a doctor would make much more money than a waitress. I took this analogy to sort of analyze the question at hand. While this does make sense to me, I have to question whether it is fair? It is a dog eat dog world, and competition is a must. But I truly believe that people are predisposed to certain economic statuses before they are even introduced in the work force and this too plays an important role in an individual's position in the world economy and the functions in which he or she performs.

Reich, Robert B. "Why the Rich Are Getting Richer and the Poor, Poorer." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins. 2006. pp. 420-433.

The Position of Poverty

I've never really taken the time to think about poverty as a whole, none the less there existing multiple types of poverty. I've always thought of the definition of poverty, what it represents and who it affects as a whole and not on an individual basis. In reading Galbraith's "The Position of Poverty," he categorizes poverty as being either case poverty or insular poverty. "This one encounters in every community, rural or urban, however prosperous that community or the times. Case poverty is the poor farm family with the junk-filled yard and the dirty children playing in the barn dirt. Or it is the gray-black hovel beside the railroad tracks. or it is the basement dwelling in the alley" (Galbraith 407).
I took Galbraith's explanation to case poverty to mean that this particular type of poverty affects people on an individual basis. He goes on to mention specific factors that contribute to this type of poverty. He mentions educational, mental and physical deficiencies. But even with such disadvantages his final and most important contributing factor is lack of money. "Educational deficiencies can be overcome. Mental deficiencies can be treated. Physical handicaps can be remedied. The limiting factor is not a lack of knowledge of what can be done. Overwhelmingly, it is a shortage of money" (Galbraith 411).
I believe that there are contributing factors in any case where poverty is involved. However, I strongly feel that money is the underlying foundation of any and every poverty case the exists in the world today. "If the children of poor families have first rate schools and school attendance is properly enforced; if the children, though badly fed at home, are well nourished at school; if the community has sound health services, and the physical well-being of the children is vigilantly watched; if there is opportunity for advanced education for those who qualify regardless of means; and if, especially in the case of urban communities, housing is ample and housing standards are enforced, the streets are clean, the laws are kept, and recreation is adequate - then there is a chance that that children of the very poor will come to maturity without inhibiting disadvantage" (Galbraith 411). While I believe that one must always be ready and willing to help themselves, the majority of the poverty stricken individuals of the world today were born at a monetary disadvantage.

Galbraith, John Kenneth. "The Position of Poverty." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for the College Writer. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins. 2006. pp. 406-413.

The Communist Manifesto

Karl Marx's "The Communist Manifesto" made for an interesting read. It general structure was pretty straight forward, however I found myself re-reading almost every paragraph to make sure I understood it. Even in doing so, I was still somewhat skeptical as to it's actual meaning. So while it's structure and vocabulary is simple, it's underlying meanings are not. In reading the first section labeled "Bourgeois and Proletarians," I was astounded by Marx's ability to give such a clear description separating the two classes. The rich versus the poor. That sounds harsh, but in a nutshell that's what he did. The economic conditions of the two were clearly explained and there's no mistaking one for the other once you've read the comparative descriptions of Marx.
Marx credits society's progress to the Bourgeois. "Modern industry has established the world-market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in its turn, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages" (Marx 358). I took this to mean, that it was through the fundamental evolution of the Bourgeois' society that they contributed to society as a whole. While there were the movers and shakers of society, the rich and wealthy, the Bourgeois' of society were behind the scenes contributing mostly to better society.
Marx then goes on to explain the economic conditions of the Proletarians. He presents the Proletarians to be more organized and because of this, more successful than the Bourgeois. "But with the development of industry the proletarians not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows and it feels that strength more. The various interests and conditions of life within the ranks of the proletarians are more and more equalized, in proportion as machinery obliterates all distinctions of labor, and nearly everywhere reduces wages to the same low level. The growing competition among the bourgeois, and the resulting commercial crisis, make the wages of the workers even more fluctuating. The unceasing improvement of machinery, even more rapidly developing, makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between the two classes" (Marx 364).

Marx, Karl. "The Communist Manifesto."A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for the College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins. 2006. pp. 356 - 376.