I've always wanted to read work by Woolf, and I found it really interesting, especially from a feminist perspective. Women need a "room of one's own" to write and express themselves in. Women haven't been able to get the space or freedom to do this, and that has historically affected the literary achievements of women. I found chapter 3 the most interesting, with her references to Shakespeare and his sister. The two authors had different levels of success, supporting Woolf's point that art is enabled by historical, social and economic realities.
I found A Jury of Her Peers by Susan Glaspell very interesting. Glaspell portrayed the women as being smart and intuitive. Both Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters are able to put the clues together and make their own conclusions, while the men are searching in the wrong places for the reason why Mrs. Wright would have killed her husband. The men, though, see the women as being inferior and worrying about inferior things. They make fun of them for talking about Mrs. Wright’s quilt and worrying about preserves. So really one can see that the women really are smarter than the men.
The article by Walters sums up several opinions on homosexual marriage and homosexual families. Today people are more accepting of homosexuality, transsexuality and such. So I don't agree with the statement that "hard edged homophobia" is growing. I see more often people that accept homsexuals. If that was even 60 years ago those same people would not be so accepting. She also mentions that "religious fundamentalism is growing", which I also don't agree with. I see that people are more accepting of different religions, but are not necessaraly more religious.
This week, I really enjoyed reading Virginia Woolf. I've always liked her, but I've never looked at her work through a feminist eye before. When she was talking about women during the Elizabethan period, and what they went through, I was really surprised. I couldn't imagine not being able to write, to recieve an education, or do all the things I want to do. Women weren't seen as equal people...they were the lesser humans. Many people, women included, weren't thought to have the capability to write or think. I think that using the character, "Judith Shakespeare," was really creative and a good way to get this message across.
This story really got me thinking. I liked how the author showed the interactions between the two women as being a variable realtionship. They frist say that the two aren't really good friends, then as the story progresses they talk more and more as though thye might be friends and to then have a common goal in the end made them at least respectful of eachother. Women are really like this when put into an uncomfortable situation we will bod on some level so that at least there is one person there whom we feel a little comfortable with. That bond may only be skin deep but it could also be a new strong bond. I also liked how the author showed the women acting differently around the men. This too happens, but not to the extent shown in the text. We are all like this on some level and will act differntly are ound siffernt people but will find someone to bond with to make uncomfortable situations bareable
reading this article in a way made me admire the gracefulness of woman as an individual person raising her voice while performing her maternal role of a caring and loving mother. Walker speak with a strong emotional purpose reflecting her lifehood and how she struggle to find meaning of her own show a real sense of individualism and human. The line "So hindered and intruded upon in so many ways, being an artist has still been a daily part of her life. This ability to hold on, even in very simply ways...." This quote explain the creativity of women, that they have the ability to create powerful image and art through such simple way (flower garden or a quill made out of torned up pieces of rags and clothes.
I liked In Search of Our Mothers’ Gardens because I found it to be true that a lot of people walk around not knowing the talents that they possess. It is really sad that most of us wait for the ‘dominant’ groups or society in general to give us the green light to pursue our dreams. I liked how Walker referred to certain parts of Woolf’s piece and directed the readers to insert a certain time period, or a woman belonging to a particular race and born into slavery, and so forth to fit it into our time and the message she was trying to get across. Woolf seemed to write to please a certain group whereas Walker was like this is a group that is being shunned behind and neglected and so she made it her goal to bring them on the forefront. I just liked Walker’s piece overall because I found myself relating to it and it just made really look into the things that women in my family, especially my grandmother and the stories as well as life that made her who she is; if not a Saint, then an unappreciated Artist.
This is a really good way of thinking of things. Women and everyone else in the world need a place that is just for them. A place that you can shut everyone else in the world out and do your best thinking. If you do not have a place to go it will drive you crazy, because it will feel that there is alway some breathing down your back. How can you do your best writing, act, or just time to yourself if there is not a place just for you. Have money is really imporant to this idea, because without money you will never be able to buy a room to call your own.
As began to get farther into this piece I actually began to enjoy it. Alice Walker expresses herself truly and does not try to please an audience like Wolf did. It all came from her heart and the way she incorporated other peoples' work into her essay was a great idea to help prove her point.
I totally see where she is coming from with the part about her mother becoming almost like a different person while she was gardening. We have a huge flower bed for my brother and then a veggie garden out back to feed the family. Back there it is so calm and tranquil and you just relax as you work the earth. It is always a great feeling to see that you accomplished something and to prove that you did you see bright colors of flowers as well as fresh food.
There are so many subtle ways that our ancestors expressed themselves through different pieces of artwork. A quilt was a necessity and instead of wasting anything they put the scraps to good use and their imaginations to show their creativity. Alice Walker's essay is a great example of how women had to fight for their rights and the way they worked around the system and used art to express themselves in ways that men did not pick up on.
One I read into this piece a little, I actually began to like it. Alice Walker expresses herself truly and does not try to please an audience like Wolf did. It all came from her heart and the way she incorporated other peoples' work into her essay was a great idea to help prove her point.
I totally see where she is coming from with the part about her mother becoming almost like a different person while she was gardening. We have a huge flower bed for my brother and then a veggie garden out back to feed the family. Back there it is so calm and tranquil and you just relax as you work the earth. It is always a great feeling to see that you accomplished something and to prove that you did you see bright colors of flowers as well as fresh food.
There are so many subtle ways that our ancestors expressed themselves through different pieces of artwork. A quilt was a necessity and instead of wasting anything they put the scraps to good use and their imaginations to show their creativity. Alice Walker's essay is a great example of how women had to fight for their rights and the way they worked around the system and used art to express themselves in ways that men did not pick up on.
Reading the part of Shakespeare's sister in "A Room on Ones Own," I kind of expected the unfairness but at the same time shocked. It is unfair that Judith who had the same talents as William could not pursue what she loved most, writing and acting because she was a woman. She couldn't go to grammar school like he could, she had to stay at home and do household chores, she was forced to marry someone and if she didn't want to she would be beat by her father and raped by a man, which led to her suicide. It's just unfair how society is built up, that men have more privilege and dominance over women. Men believe women are to be confined in the home. They do not have freedom to express their creativity and talent, which is unfair.
I was shocked when I read "The Globetrotting Sneaker" by Cynthia Enloe. It is horrible to hear about the conditions that those women have to work in. I also find it slightly ironic that these women do not make nearly enough to make ends meet let alone buy a pair of the sneakers that they toil away at making, while on the other end the CEO of Nike is most likely a multi-millionaire. This is why there needs to be maximum wages, where the highest paid person of the company cannot make x% more than the lowest paid person. That would solve most of the problem of the widening gap between the rich and the poor, but god forbid that the very rich lose money just so those lowly workers make a decent living wage. The audacity!
After reading the lengthy online essay I realized it is important to know what year the essay is. The article talks about writers and novelists. Some parts deals with the inequalities between men and women. Such as what they drink or why can be successful and women not so much (note that this article was written long ago). The article asks whether being poor makes you a better writer. Maybe. If anyone has ever seen the movie "Orange County" there is a scene when the main character tells his very rich and successful father that he wnats to be a writer his father replies "What do you have to write about? You're not gay, poor, you weren't abused?" So that makes a point, are the writers that have gone through many negative experiences better writers? Perhaps.
This article was pretty depressing in the fact that women really do live in such horrible conditions, working for a very low amount of money to support themselves and their families. Women working for large corporations face low wages, many hours, harsh conditions, and risks of sexual assault. They’re paid super low amounts, regardless of how well the company is doing. The situation described in the article, with the Nike corporation and the Korean women affected by it, is just one example of the many women laborers being abused. I found it particularly appalling when the article explained Korean women accepting Confucian philosophy, which measured a woman’s moral status by how hard she worked for the family. That mentality pretty much sucks, because it puts them in a very dangerous position; if women withhold this philosophy, large corporations will take advantage of that. Also, I found the irony laughable with Nike’s women’s empowerment advertisements…the idea of some commercial showing some toned, thin, white woman of American suburbia running around this quaint little neighborhood in her brand new Nikes made by exploited women laborers was just too paradoxical. The worst part is that if these women do stand up for their rights, they run the risk of unemployment, something they can’t afford. It’s a horrible situation, and hopefully the efforts to bring laboring women out of this will be heard and put into effect.
The Exploring Community Involvement project that we had on Wednesday was a pretty good way to show everyone in our class the different ways we can help out in the community. I liked at the end how Laurel brought in the idea that a lot of people just stay in their comfort zone and are under the group of Direct Ivolvement (which I am). I really never thought about how if we would just work on the all the other groups we would not have the need for the direct involvement.
It feels good doing this community volunteering and I am glad it is required because it helps to force us to get involved in the community. What a good way to bring us all back down to Earth!!
As I was reading this piece the author focused a great deal on how the women and other people that were given the job to make the overpriced sneakers for Nike, Rebok, etc. were given poor working conditions and low wadges compared to how much the shoe is sold for. And know that I am not saying that this is ok on any level and that I don't support forced or child labor. On the other hand, the one she doesn't really address, many of the people are coming from poorer countries where the standard of living is no where near where it is in the US. Many of the workers are poor as well and had Nike and Rebok stayed here those people would not even have a crappy job. The would have no source of income. So not that its ok for the workplace to be hazardous, but those companies in a way are helping the economy of those lesser nations and providing incomes to their poor.
After reading this article, i seem to develope two opinions, one being that what the manufacturing companies are doing with thier sweathshop is dehumanizing toward women. The second opinion is that what would the lives of those women would be like if Nike, addias and reebox were not over there. Yes what these companies doing to women in-term of un-fair wages are gender inequally and degrading the value of women in our society. Like all mean women have the right to form social group and union that could voice thier opinion and create a more equal rights and pays for women. On the other hand, what would the lives of many of these women be like if all of the sudden nike, addias ects start to bring their oversea industries back to america? For most if not all of these women it will be a harsh environment and life to them to endure into the future. With the little income that they received from working enables them to have a source of income to provide their family and themselves with some form of housing and personal financial stability. If you remove all of the manufacturing plants, the source of income will be gone. Sure there are other jobs in which these women can enter, but in a society and country where government stricten and set boundaries for social groups and unions, it a hard place to get ahead in life. To solve this inequality, the issue of political control over the society, Labor force and foreign investors need to address.
It is really sad the see that women are getting paid so little in other areas in the world. when you are not even getting you basic needs meet, you can see that there is a problem. There should be no company that is paying their works in factories this low of weekly wages. I have seen in other classes how they ship the clothing around to get the clothing made. This is really sad to see that there are people that will do anything for a dollar, even hurting people to a point that it is hard for them to live. When women do something about the way that they are being treated the company will get up and leave for another place with new people. This hurts the women even more, because they can have no job at all or one that does not give them enough money to live on.
Reading this article surprised yet depressed me at the same time. It is so sad that women are working for these brand name companies that are earning so much money a day yet these women get paid so less. A pair of shoes cost more than their weekly wage. They do not have enough money to survive and fulfill their basic needs like food. Not only do they get paid less, but they also have to work everyday and most times they are locked at night into an overcrowded dorm next to where they work. The factories are not fit for human conditions. They say that the conditions are better now, but how do we really know? Is that the truth? Something has to be done about this issue because it is inhumane.
The articles have all been about working moms and I feel that sometimes they people blame the fact that one child behaves badly on the idea that their mom wasn't there for them. I feel that it is always the womans choice whether she feels that she needs to work or not and that society cannot balme mothers only for how their kids turn out. It takes two people to make a baby and two to raise and two to support, etc. When people blame their misbahavior on their mom's job I always think to myself, "if she didn't work would you have been able to do all the sports or activites that you did had she satyed at home with you?" I guess what I am trying to say is that women are given a choice to work and should not be criticized it they chose to take on a job because men would never be scolded for having a job.
I found it very interesting that women on welfare hide their working income from welfare caseworkers to keep their welfare checks as Edin points out. I think it is ridiculous how people can think that one welfare check can support a single mother. If I were in the women’s positions I would do the same thing. Welfare would not be a way for me to escape working it is a way for me to continue support for my family. There is no way I could support my children on a minimum wage check alone and if this money I make is reported to the welfare case worker then my welfare check will also be decreased. So I can completely understand where these women are coming from when they do not report any extra money they are making. It is just outrageous for people to say that women on welfare are just avoiding work to get free money from the government, lets see those people try to support their family on one welfare check a week!
This article got under my skin a little because of the fact that men (even though it was a while ago) could say that women should be staying at home and taking care of the kids and tend to the husband's needs. To read that they had to discuss where the women wage should be set because if it were too low the women would be doin tricks out on the streets or if the wages were too high they wouldn't be dependent on their family. I know family is important but you don't have to be dependent on them nor anyone, for that matter. I thought it was bogus that women were going into men's jobs and doing the same amount of work as the man but getting paid quite less than the men did. To say that as an employer you didn't want to pay them so much so that they would have money left over for social activities because they belonged at home was totally bogus. I am so glad that we have improved the outlook for men and women but it is still really sad because we still see the same problems today!
The article divided motherhood into four distinct groups; Involuntary Nonemployed Mothers, Voluntary Nonemployed Mothers, Ambivalent Employed Mothers and Nonambivalent Employed Mothers. I found that the research on these sub-groups of motherhood interesting on that fact that each type of mother decision whether to stay at home, work, or both have a lot to do with their historical past. How the voluntary nonemployed mother wants to remain at home because she resented her mother for the lack of maternal love growing up and she doesn't want her children to feel the same about her. This reflect the fact that though societal gender roles does play an important role on how men and women raise their children, but there are other external reasons such as the need for maternal love that also dictate a mother decision to stay at home. Even though the research does show relationship about societal stereotype on gender and how that may oppress women from taking full-employment, but since the sample was relatively small and only focus on one race, i question the accuracy of the arguement.
More than anything we've read lately, the Kessler-Harris article really interested me. Even though the quotes were said a relatively long time ago, some of them angered me. Just the idea that some people believed that a woman's salary should only afford her enough to barely get buy was outrageous and upsetting. I'm starting to really understand feminist roots. Thank goodness most Americans don't feel that way today. The part in the essay discussing how a woman's wage was far less than a man's because women are dependent upon men didn't surprise me. It is sort of strange to think about though...that that is what it was like not THAT long ago...that a woman WAS really that confined to her designated jobs in the home. I think, though, that the part that really hit home for me was when the authors discussed how women couldn't be ambitious and go out to do what they wanted to do because employers would less-often hire single women because they wouldn't want to pay them the amount they needed to survive on their own. As having high aspirations myself, I couldn't imagine that. If that were reality today, I'd be crushed.
More than anything we've read lately, the Kessler-Harris article really interested me. Even though the quotes were said a relatively long time ago, some of them angered me. Just the idea that some people believed that a woman's salary should only afford her enough to barely get buy was outrageous and upsetting. I'm starting to really understand feminist roots. Thank goodness most Americans don't feel that way today. The part in the essay discussing how a woman's wage was far less than a man's because women are dependent upon men didn't surprise me. It is sort of strange to think about though...that that is what it was like not THAT long ago...that a woman WAS really that confined to her designated jobs in the home. I think, though, that the part that really hit home for me was when the authors discussed how women couldn't be ambitious and go out to do what they wanted to do because employers would less-often hire single women because they wouldn't want to pay them the amount they needed to survive on their own. As having high aspirations myself, I couldn't imagine that. If that were reality today, I'd be crushed.
I liked the boxed insert by Barbara Ehrenreich because it came off as a cautionary thing of what women should expect when they enter the workforce or attempt to. “The Mommy Test” reminded me of last week’s episode of Desperate House Wives (I don’t know if anyone here watches that show) when Felicity Huffman’s character Lynette tries to go back into the workforce as she and her husband reverse roles. Her boss, in spite of being a woman gives her a very tough time about being a mother and her character struggles to separate her role as a mother and a working woman. I remember a part where her son was starting his first day of kindergarten and wanted her instead of her husband to take him to school. Her boss wouldn’t allow her to come in late for work so she can fulfill her motherly duties and so she used today’s technology to her advantage by having her husband take a video phone so she can walk through with her son to school from afar. Even when she first applied for that job, her boss was very reluctant to hire her in spite of her experience because she feared her family would get in the way. I think as females we have to constantly justify ourselves and make it clear that we will separate and balance our family lives and our works. Even if a female decides having children is the best thing for her to others she has to show or prove that her career is her priority whereas men are not held to same expectations.
The Reading by Alice Kessler-Harris is very interseting. She talks more about how women's work was valued between the 1900's to the 1930's. Telling us that women were the property of men and that all women need is a man to take care of them and that is all she can hope for. Employers did not want to raise the wages for women because than they would have to raise them even more for men. They felt that it was not important that women make the same amount of money because every women should have a men to take care of her. I feel that this was a very poor way of thinking. Things have not changed very much, because a women still do not make the same amount as men today.
I enjoyed reading Segura's article on the differences of Chicanas and Mexicanas. It was interesting learning their points of view on motherhood. They had different thoughts of what makes a good mother. The majority of the Chicancas believed that taking care and nurturing their children full-time is what makes a good mother. If they worked outside the home, they would feel guilty that they are not spending enough time with them. On the otherhand, the majority of the Mexicanas believe that supporting their children through work is what makes a good mother. Both these groups want the best for their children and both these groups have a different approach to what makes a good mother.
I thought the article "The Wage Concieved: Value and Need as Measures of a Woman's Worth" by Alice Kessler-Harris is very thought provoking. It is interesting to see how things have changed since the early 20th century. However, there were many things in that article that really mad me mad. One thing that made me mad was the part on page 187 where advocates of the living wages said that women's standard of life was lower than men's. I think it is amazing that people had these notions that women were some sort of "sub-gender" or something and therefore did not need the same things that men needed such as money for recreation. Also, the fact that they were expected to turn their wages over to a husband or a father is crazy. The thing that probably made me the most angry was the part where it talked about how if men made enough to support their families women would be freed from the responsibility of paid labor and be allowed to work in their own homes. I don't know about anyone else but for me, going to work is an escape from the work I have to do in my own home, work that never ends and is unpaid. And the fact that they even said they "allowed" women to work at home is just wrong. Overall, I liked the article a lot because it helped shed light on how women were treated less than 100 years ago.
I really liked the movie that we watched in class The Women of Summer. I think its great that they took these women who would usually have no chance for an education and give them this wonderful opportunity to learn. I also found it awesome that most of these women not only got a good education but they learned to be socially active and loud! That is what we need in this country, more women to speak up for their rights. Thats what got us where we are today and it will get us where we are going in the future. If it werent for these women going to Bryn Mawr they would never have gotten that great experience to be activists and America may be a lot different if it weren't for them.
I enjoyed watching "The Women of Summer." It was so wondering seeing that all the women cooperated and showed so much love toward one another. They seemed to get along great and did not show any jealousy, envy or hatred toward one another like girls nowadays, which is unfortunate. The women were thrilled to go to school and they actually wanted to learn. They would do anything to go to school and school meant so much to them because getting into school was very difficult for females during that time. They appreciated the education they were recieving and it is kind of sad how we are fortunate enough to go to any school we want to but we complain about it. Watching this film has made me realize how fortunate we are and we take it for granted.
I thought the Women of Summer was a very engaging film. It was interesting to see the opportunities provided for the working women. The women at the reunion seemed so touched by everything, their reactions were representative of how appreciative they were. I found it especially heart wrenching when two of the women were walking through the dormitories, reminiscing about past experiences they had there. They were so grateful that it made me appreciate my own education more.
Reading Ideology, Experience, and Identity reminds me of how my parents tried to raise my siblings and I like the children discribed. Like the children too, I grew up not only with my family but my peers and society played an important role in my upbringing. In fact, I grew up in an area where girls sat inside and helped their mothers with household chores and boys were always out assisting their fathers with manual works ("manly chores"). I was a tomboy, always out and about doing what I felt like doing without fear. I remember when my parents would have their friends over and they would comment on my "boyish behaviors"and reinforcing the idea that it wasn't "proper" for me to be acting like that. I grew up thinking I could be whatever I wanted to be and looked at myself as equivalent to boys. Of course as I matured I realized what separated me from my male-counterparts. I guess I eventually gave in by participating in things considered more feminine. The sad part is my whole mentality and way of thinking changed. For instance, my little brother used to be open to everything; doing sports and not into the aggressive things like some of the boys we read about in this article. I recall advicing him to be careful, because boys aren't supposed to act certain ways. That's something I regret doing because it always upsets me when people tell others 'oh this is not for you' and here I was telling my brother 'oh you can't do this.'
I thought kimmel agruement on the notion of boys will boys may a good point on how society put a negative stigma on boys when they need to justify why for boys/men violence. This notion create a negative stereotype that targets boys as uncivilized sex predatory, aggressive and have the tender to use physical violence for any dispuse. I agree with tremmel when he argue that most of the negative violence that boys/men occur because boys are taught to suppress emotional sufferings, but over time, the suppressed thoughts intensify to a point where physical violence often is the prefer way to release anger. Kimmel suggest that the best way to get rid of teen violence is to challenge the view of how boys feel about sexism, racism and gender issues and get them to express their feelings in a open and non-pressure way.
Although I had to leave before it ended, I really enjoyed the movie we watched during lecture--Women of Summer. I guess I never realized how difficult it was to get an education back then because my grandma, who is 93, went to college. In fact, up until the the time when one of the alumnus said that she only attended school through the 8th grade, I thought the summer school was a college.
Also, because people prized education during that difficult time, those women WANTED to learn. That's not the fact in America today (in many cases). Kids hate going to school. It really struck me when one of the alumnus was describing the experience she had with one of her teachers. She said that he pretended to leave early one day, and all the students said, "Why are you leaving? Class isn't over yet!" In most high schools, that never would have happened. Instead, students would be ecstatic to see their teachers leave class early.
I also thought it was amazing how the women actually took a stand and worked for the social issues in which they believed--not all concerning women. That sort of made me want to take a stand for the issues in which I, myself, believe. The part when the foreign men were hanged just shocked me. I knew there was a lot of racism in the early to mid-twentieth century, but I never realized to what extent it acually went.
Oh, and the part where one of the alumnus was describing the point at which she finally decided to tell her father that she had the opportunity to attend summer school--oooh, I loved that. His reaction made me want to cry almost as much as I did when the two women (one-alumnus) sang those songs describing some of the times they had together fighting social injustices.
I found Thorne’s article on gender separation is school’s very interesting. All throughout my childhood and I’m sure many other’s childhoods girls and boys have been separated. As I was reading the article I found myself remembering doing the same things that the children Thorne observed were doing. There was always a boy’s team and a girl’s team, boys and girls never really played together, and they almost never sat together at lunch. If a boy ever did venture into girls “territory” or vice versa he/she was almost always ridiculed and made fun of. This never really occurred to me as gender separation until I read Thorne’s article. I have to say I never really thought of it as gender separation, but what I find most interesting is that these groups are made without the enforcement of an adult. Boys and girls separate on their own without any second thought as to what they are doing.
I agree with what people have to say about gender. How boys and girls are to act different and do different things. For many girls and boys they will be made fun of if they play with something that is not for there gender. Boys should not play tea set or dolls and girls sould not play football or play with toy cars. There are some kids that really want to do something and can not because of their gender for it is really hard to be apart of it. When girl want to play football it is really hard to get involved and when they are they are seen as a boy not a girl anymore. It is as if they have changed gender, even if they still see them selfs as female.
I really identified with what the author was saying in the article "Girls and Boys Together...But Mostly Apart". While I was in school Inever really realized any of those separations but noe that I look back it is very realy and did happen. The boys always had the sports covered and if any girl wanted to join it became a big ordeal because it was like a cliche for a girl to want to play a sport with the boys. I couldn't help but look back into my past and think to mysef "hey that happened to me" it was a realy fun article that onpened my eyes to how my elementary school experience was s ostructured into boy with boys and girls with girls.