Brief Paper #5
Pols 205
By Amber Davis
Bell hooks, in chapter 14, discusses the issues that arise while liberating a marriage and partnership during the feminist movement. Hooks explores how important partnership is within relationships, marriage, and parenting. Hooks shows us that while some arrangements have changed, there seems to be some that are held back due to socially constructed problems.
"Imagine living in a world where there is no domination, where females and males are not alike or even always equal, but where a vision of mutuality is the ethos shaping our interaction," (hooks x). This a quote is from the introduction of Hooks text. This quote signifies all of the key players within a healthy and satisfying marriage or partnership.
…show more content…
I believe that hook wants us to see these qualities as a kind of lifestyle. A lifestyle that doesn't require women to submit under the power of men, that raising children should not be left for only a woman, and that our sexual relations will become healthier under the realization that women are not sexual slaves. Hook begins by pointing out that the start of liberating a marriage and partnership is through breaking the bonds of sexual slavery.
"Elements of intimacy, care, and respect, were sacrificed so that men could be on top-could be patriarchs ruling the roost," (hooks 79) Hook shows us that once men were able to accept the idea that women would turn to other means (celibacy, lesbianism) to receive these components, that men became more willing to accept the role of feminism. I think that this point is a great way to open up to larger relationship roles like marriage and parenting. A strength to this argument is that by breaking down a barrier of dissatisfaction for the women, men are more willing to be open to things such as housework and helping with raising kids. This argument is supported by the evidence of men previously accepting the role of feminism and being open to relationship bonds. Hook shows us that as long as men continue to be overworked and underpaid, the role of parenting will continue to be pushed upon the woman. Hook also shows us that the media is another enforcer of past and previous ways that are just putting us in the position of a setback. I think that these points make Hooks argument not only logical, but stronger. I say this because no great progress can be made along a journey without hitting a couple road blocks along the way and that as long as we are smaller than the simple minded entities, we wont be able to overcome past ideas. I think that this is part of Hooks message as a whole though. That while we may stride towards a better future, it won't be possible until real and consistent change is
instilled.
May begins by exploring the origins of this "domestic containment" in the 30's and 40's. During the Depression, she argues, two different views of the family competed -- one with two breadwinners who shared tasks and the other with spouses whose roles were sharply differentiated. Yet, despite the many single women glamorized in popular culture of the 1930's, families ultimately came to choose the latter option. Why? For one, according to May, for all its affirmation of the emancipation of women, Hollywood fell short of pointing the way toward a restructured family that would incorporate independent women. (May p.42) Rosalind Russell in His Girl Friday and Scarlett O'Hara in Gone with the Wind, for example, are both forced to choose between independence and a happy domestic life - the two cannot be squared. For another, New Deal programs aimed to raise the male employment level, which often meant doing nothing for female employment. And, finally, as historian Ruth Milkman has also noted, the g...
Bell Hooks is a well-known Feminist. She has achieved a lot through her lifetime, and is still going strong. Bell Hooks is mostly known for her fight for feminism and for mainly African American females. She is also known for the many books she has written and for her public speaking. But besides all the major facts above, there is a lot more to Bell Hooks then you think. Throughout your readings you will learn a little more about Bell and her accomplishments. The main resource I used to do my research was the internet.
He also discusses how love and the desire for commitment play a big part in the argument for and against gay marriage. Stoddard begins his argument successfully with pathos, or emotional appeal, to attain the reader’s empathy for those who have been deprived of a loved one. The story tells of a woman named Karen Thompson, who was basically married, but not legally, to her female partner; when Thompson’s partner was in a critical car accident, her partner’s parents completely cut Thompson off from all contact with their daughter. Had the two women been married, they would not have had to deal with such heart-throbbing pain. This example is effective in presenting how marriage “can be the key to survival, emotional and financial” (Stoddard, 1988, p. 551).
In her novel called “Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center” one of the many areas bell hooks speaks of is the perpetual racial confinement of oppressed black women. The term double-bind comes to mind when she says “being oppressed means the absence of choices” (hooks 5). The double-bind is “circumstances in which choices are condensed to a few and every choice leads to segregation, fault or denial” Therefore, this essay will discuss how hooks’ definition of oppression demonstrates the double-bind in race relations, forcing the socially underprivileged minority to “never win,” and as a result allowing the privileged dominate “norm” to not experience perpetual segregation.
Therefore, feminists are just confusing themselves when they try to look towards a more genuine contract, that being one between true and fair equal partners or one that has joined without any force. “In contract theory universal freedom is always a hypothesis, a story, a political fiction. Contract always generates political right in the forms of domination and subordination” (Pateman 8). In other words, Pateman has explained it is proven that there has been an influence of private sphere that has been seriously abandoned throughout historical times. The most interesting idea from Pateman is her statement that “political right originates in the sex-right or conjugal right” (Pateman 3). Pateman describes that there are only two spheres in civil society, but the focus is mainly being directed towards the public sphere of civil freedom. She believes that this is politically incorrect to sit there and avoid the private sphere which consists of the marriage contract. The act of doing so most definitely ignores more than half of the original contract, according to Pateman. These two spheres are separate but at the same time connected in a very difficult
Women continuously are portrayed as subordinate in comparison to men. This idea eventually created another idea; feminism. Sheryl Sandberg, wrote a book about these feminist concerns, claiming that women are the source of the inequalities. Sandberg believes women need to alter their life in accommodation to equality. However female activist bell hooks writes in response to Sandberg arguing that men created this stereotypical “stay at home” woman. Hooks begins by going further than Sandberg, in reasoning about the unequal gender crisis, with putting both men and women at fault.
Feminism’s objective is to end sexism, and forms of oppression. Women are being harm by racial oppression, not by “racial oppression” itself, but by what race they are. Women as a group experience many different forms of injustice, and the sexism they encounter interacts in complex ways with other systems of oppression. In my point of view, I certainly agree with Hooks’s argument, it does not matter what race you are, all women is women, and all women has it’s own nature and motherhood. Histories cannot examines what and who the term “women” is but by its nature and within. I cannot evaluate other races cultural issue but as a woman, I have the passionate to women’s rights. Women’s right should not be limited based on their history and race, as women, we have the same goal, and that is the equality of sexist. The interconnection between sexism and race struggles black women for liberation.
Marriage, children and the ‘traditional’ family were reoccurring themes throughout this book, regardless of the large somewhat non-traditional kin group, most of the members sought normative heterosexual relationships, where marriage was the preferred route to legitimacy. Through Stacey’s study we were able to see the strong connections women had, which made me consider the previous backlash feminist have received because of their strong connections to other women, and threat to
I am not a feminist simply because I was raised in a feminist household. I am not a feminist because I am an independent, educated woman. I am not a feminist because I am a bitter female, nor because I am a “woman scorned.” I am not a feminist because I hate men, nor because I am a lesbian nor because I like to listen to the Indigo Girls. To the contrary I love men and I am not a lesbian. While I agree with hooks that “feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression” (viii), I believe that her definition of “feminism” states the goals of the movement rather than actually defining the term itself. In my mind, feminism is a synonym for equality. I am a feminist because I believe in the equality between men and women, plane and simple. No hidden agenda, no gimmicks, no tricky explanations. Sounds like an easy enough concept to comprehend. So why then is feminism such a misunderstood and feared notion? Why has this “ism” in particular become the new f-word of pop culture? Equality is a word commonly associated with American culture; it is a long-standing theme of our history. This does not make a great deal of sense to me. After all, America was established on the premise that all MEN are created EQUAL. The term “men” is very specific as is the rest of the wording of the Constitution. It is doubtful that the founding fathers of our country meant this to include men and women or else they would have stated exactly that. It is only in the latter half of the past century that this equality was extended to include the fair treatment of all peoples, regardless of race, gender, or ethnicity. America was first settled in large part by religious outcasts seeking a saf...
Warren Farrell is a well educated man who focuses his attention on gender. In his essay “Men as Success Objects,” he writes about gender roles in male-female relationships. He begins, “for thousands of years, marriages were about economic security and survival” (Farrell 185). The key word in that statement is were. This implies the fact that marriage has changed in the last century. He relates the fact that post 1950s, marriage was more about what the male and female were getting out of the relationship rather than just the security of being married. Divorce rates grew and added to the tension of which gender held the supremacy and which role the individuals were supposed to accept. “Inequality in the workplace” covered up all of the conflicts involved with the “inequality in the homeplace”(Farrell). Farrell brings to attention all ...
... “ corporations have done little to accommodate the needs of working parents, and that the government has done little to prod them” ( ) Essentially Hochschild argues that change is possible but really only through government intervention and policy (re)formation. Although the economy was able to transform women it was not able to transform the rest of society. Thus it is up to the government and the corporate sector to do so. If the government were to create “a safer environment for the two-job family” and families in general, men would be drawn out of their gender roles into the lives of children. As a result, women would be greater supported and society as a whole would gear its culture towards a more family oriented atmosphere rather than a capitalistic one. ( )
bell hooks, the pen name of Gloria Watkins, wrote numerous books on social problems of the time period. In this particular article, Watkins describes what Americans truly think about poverty. She argues that the poor are represented in a negative manner, and she proposes solutions to this problem.
In the book Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center written by bell hooks, an African-American author, social activist and feminist first published in 1984 the author explains what she believes are the core principles of feminism. Throughout the book the author examines the early feminist theory and goes on to criticize it saying that it did not aim for a systematic change also that the movement has the potential to improve the lives of both men and women immensely. In the book the author investigates the performance of African-American women in the movement and what is needed to drive the movement towards ending oppression of all kinds.
Holden is been kicked out of another school, and he has wanted to say goodbye to his favorite teacher. The teacher is sick so he stays home and also, it ends f the semester anyway. He goes to see hi and doesn't like the poor condition that he's in but he just remains calm in the situation cause he respects him. The teacher tried to lecture Holden about his academic failures and how fed up he was with him. Mr. Spencer, the teacher, is annoyed by Holden academic performance and he shows him his horrible results on an exam. Mr. Spencer then goes on to tell Holden to change his life around but Holden didn't want to hear it. Mr. Spencer was concerned with Holden's well being but Holden didn't want any advice from anyone. The theme of this chapter
In this reading, Susan.L Brown talks about the growth in unmarried cohabitation over the past few decades and how this fundamentally has altered American family life by providing a context for intimate partnership and childbearing outside marriage. Cohabitation has challenged our understanding of the family. Families were formed as a result of courtship, but now it is not the case, cohabitation has replaced courtship; this has changed the state of American families today compared to fifty years ago. In the past, marriages were the only things that allowed people to cohabitate, but now it is not the case anymore. Young adults have a different lifestyle compared to those who lived 50 years ago. They share their life together before getting married