bell hooks

"The Significance of Feminist Movement," written by bell hooks, was the most interesting and straightforward piece from our Feminist section. When reading the introduction to this piece, I was fascinated by bell hooks and the issues regarding her name, and her brief history. hooks, seemed to be, unlike any other writer from this section. She was almost condescending toward the early feminists. She believed that they placed too large of an emphasis on male domination, rather than the female fight for equality. hooks felt that by focusing on men and the manner in which they oppressed women, the feminists were rapidly changing the fight, to a war of the sexes. Men were not being regarded as the enemy. This was an interesting approach to writing about the feminist movement. When we think of the fight for gender equality, the women usually seem entirely brave and we typically feel, that they should only be commended for their diligent work. Though the feminists were extremely important and did many great things, they did make mistakes. hooks felt that a different approach to the feminist movement would have led to greater results, faster. Fighting society's inherent beliefs, rather than standing opposed to men, may have been a better way to approach the Feminist movement.
"The Significance of Feminist Movement," by bell hooks was a very interesting read, and was very different from the other passages that we have read in this Feminist section of our text. bell hooks was obviously, an extremely intelligent woman, who was more worried about the fight for equality, rather than making her name famous. The content of her work was most important, and hopefully, influenced many women in the continuing feminist movement.

Carol Gilligan

The excerpt, “Woman’s Place in Man’s Life Cycle” from the novel In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development by Carol Gilligan, was more unique than the other readings from this feminism unit, so far. Gilligan’s more scientific approach to the differences between males and females was surprisingly, fascinating to read. In “Women’s Place in Man’s Life Cycle,” Gilligan not only focused on feminism, where women belong in today’s society, but also on the emotions and behavioral differences of boys and girls. Basing her work on studies done by fellow researchers, Gilligan evaluated the approach that women and men take toward relationships, and the subsequent reasoning for the drastic differences in their approach. Men, from a young age, were more focused on competition than women. Their ability to play a competitive sport or game, without trying to hurt another person’s feelings, or wound their pride, allowed their relationships with friends to be more stable, less deeply rooted. Women, rather than following through with the planned game or event, did not want to continue arguing over something. Instead, they chose to simply, back down from the
major conflict and move on to something else. Women, therefore, had greater problems keeping close friendships, because of the dishonest nature of the women involved. “Woman’s Place in Man’s Life Cycle,” was unlike anything that we have read yet in the feminism section of our text. It allowed the reader to get an in-depth look at the different ways that women today, are hopefully, utilizing constant change that was once not within existence, and moving forward in the world.

Simone de Beauvoir

In “Woman: Myth and Reality,” Simone de Beauvoir writes about the many differences between beliefs men have about women, and the realities behind these many false, sometimes ridiculous ideas. After reading Beauvoir’s work, the lack of respect and knowledge men had toward women in early times, became truly apparent. Though men, have always seemed to feel as if they know the supposed, “Truth of woman,” they clearly did not have any sense of obligation and compassion toward women of their time. In “Woman: Myth and Reality,” Beauvoir also wrote about how men seem to benefit from the myths about women. By demoralizing women, as an entire group of people, men automatically gain more power in the world. The many negative myths about women cast men in a more positive light, increasing their amount of influence on important issues. In doing this, women are continually shunned by the more powerful, male society. They are never given the chance to prove their abilities and talents if they are degraded by powerful men. In her work, Beauvoir wrote about women, during that time, passively accepting criticisms. Women have always been intelligent, they should have been able to form their own ideals and fight for their rights, even during that time period. The blame for such degradation and outrageous, irrevocable customs, though largely caused by man, may also be placed on passive women.
Simone de Beauvoir’s, “Woman: Myth and Reality,” was a very enlightening read. The myths and realities in Beauvoir’s work clearly expanded on what we have previously read from this Feminism unit.

Virginia Woolf

The work of Virginia Woolf in “Shakespeare’s Sister,” was fascinating to read, because of Woolf’s creative and thoughtful ideas. In an excerpt from the novel, A Room of One’s Own, Woolf creates a character, Judith Shakespeare, and writes about what her opportunities, or lack thereof, would have been, had she existed. Shakespeare’s sister would clearly have lived her entire life in the shadow of her renowned brother. Shakespeare’s equally talented sister may have produced greater, more timeless pieces of literature than her brother. “Judith Shakespeare” would never have had the opportunity to embrace her strengths and to express her views of the world, through writing and performing. Women, being considered unequal to men during that time period, were forced to succumb to the demands and strictures placed upon them, by society.
After reading the work of Virginia Woolf and Mary Wollstonecraft, it has become even more difficult for me to imagine living during a time, when women were not considered equal to men. Being treated as an inferior race, based on outrageous male superiority, is something that no woman should ever have had to experience. Mary Wollstonecraft and Virginia Woolf were obviously, extremely intelligent women, forced to live in a time when women were not allowed to have goals and desires. As women, living in today’s more equal world, we must remember the women who fought tirelessly to bring justice to women all over the world. This reading was very remarkable. Virginia Woolf’s writing was very fascinating to read, and a very important literary text.

Mary Wollstonecraft

In “Pernicious Effects Which Arise from the Unnatural Distinctions Established in Society,” Mary Wollstonecraft impressively, expresses her clearly feminist view, in a time when women were obviously not supposed to voice their opinions. As I was reading this chapter of Wollstonecraft’s work, I was extremely surprised by her blatant defiance of important parts of that society. Wollstonecraft argued that women were supposed to offer virtue to their husbands and were expected to be diligent mothers, living a simple, sheltered lifestyle. She believed that the women of her time were playing a part, living the life that society had demanded from them. The women did not try to defy these demands because they were unwilling to step outside of the constrictions that they had always known, not knowing that they could achieve greater things in the world. In this chapter, from Vindication of the Rights of Woman, Wollstonecraft argued that women could be doctors, study politics, just living as equals among men.
In this chapter, I found Wollstonecraft’s brief mention of her desire for female representation in areas of politics and law, extremely fascinating. She was clearly a very advanced thinker, having hoped to live as equals and to vote, centuries before it actually happened. Many of Wollstonecraft’s ideas may not seem at all radical in this day and age, but it is very remarkable to see her way of thinking, so many centuries earlier, when women had absolutely no freedom in a man’s world. Mary Wollstonecraft’s writing was remarkable in many ways, and truly enlightening.

Robert B. Reich

In “Why the Rich are Getting Richer and the Poor, Poorer,” Robert B. Reich focuses on how different individuals have different positions in the world, because of the way they perform in the world. This issue of why so many Americans are living in poverty, while large numbers of Americans are wealthy, has always been an important question among all Americans in today’s society. Reich separates society’s classes into lower, middle, and upper class and explains how different situations in the job market and in the economy are part of the reason for extreme differences in financial comfort. He writes about routine producers and how their chances for success are continually decreasing because of technology and increased productivity. This idea, as developed by Reich, is undoubtedly true. As technology increases and less people are needed in factories, the unemployment rate rises along with the poverty level. Many of these same job opportunities for Americans are sent overseas, for cheaper labor, allowing Americans to aimlessly search for jobs in our competitive domestic society. In “Why the Rich are Getting Richer and the Poor, Poorer,” Robert B. Reich makes many remarkable conclusions about separations in our society, and the distinct disadvantages for the less fortunate, working Americans. As jobs are being sent overseas, the large companies in the United States make more products for a lower cost, increasing their overall chance for success and simply, making the company more wealthy. Lowering the poverty level in the United States seems to correlate directly to taking money from the top, allowing the job opportunities to dwindle down to working Americans, allowing for greater chances for success.

John Kenneth Galbraith

Poverty in the United States of America is simply one of the most tragic, and surprising traits in our dominant, wealthy country. In “The Position of Poverty,” John Kenneth Galbraith made it apparent that this little known, increasingly devastating problem needs to rise to the forefront of important American social issues. In his work, Galbraith writes about the differences between insular and case poverty, and also explains the change in modern poverty from that of a century ago. Insular poverty, or high levels of poverty in specific areas, is becoming increasingly apparent in our modern society. Looking specifically at the city of Detroit, where about thirty-eight percent of the city’s children are living in poverty, it is not remotely surprising to see that insular poverty is continually developing at a high rate. In “The Position of Poverty” Galbraith tries to help the readers understand more about solving this large issue in our society, by simply educating readers through very strong, direct text. Understanding more about living in insufficient economic conditions and simply, allowing innocent children to directly suffer was heavily emphasized in Galbraith’s work. I found “The Position of Poverty” to be a very interesting read, because of personal strong feelings about the amount of government aid given to the less fortunate members of our American society. Galbraith knew that a sudden increase in overall income could not sufficiently change the status of poverty in the United States, the process to achieving better and more fair economic conditions for all could slowly and eventually lead to more opportunities for future generations.

Karl Marx

“The Communist Manifesto”, though obviously significant, was somewhat difficult to understand, especially based on what we have always previously learned about communist rule in different countries of the world. We have always associated communism with a totalitarian-minded, horrifying ruler, based on leaders like Stalin and Hitler. In “The Communist Manifesto” by Karl Marx, the writers of this important document, base their communist ideals on helping the lower, proletariat working-class, improve their overall lifestyles and specifically, their economic conditions. In this document, the bourgeois are also considered the working class, but a wealthier, more fortunate, career-oriented middle class group of people. Marx did not believe that this wealthier class should be in control of the government, because the lifestyles of the proletariat class, would never improve. The proletariat, a lower social class, was obviously the basis for “The Communist Manifesto.” Marx seemed considerably determined to help this working class improve their sociological status, and to work their way to better conditions, without having to work through the barrier of the bourgeois. When Marx lists the principles he believes should be applied to all communist ruling governments, he lists free education in public schooling and the abolition of all right of inheritance (374). These principles, in particular, do not seem to be considerably radical. Free public schooling has always been embraced by the United States democracy. The idea of abolishing the right of inheritance, though somewhat extreme, could encourage people to work harder, to earn their comforts. I felt that “The Communist Manifesto” was a somewhat surprising, and enlightening reading.

Marx, Karl. “The Communist Manifesto.” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th Edition. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006 pp. 356-377

Martha C. Nussbaum

In “The Central Human Capabilities,” Martha C. Nussbaum writes about many of the essential opportunities and capabilities that she believes, should be provided to everyone. Nussbaum’s work is almost a response, or an addition to the work and ideals of John Rawls. In this text, she actually wrote specifically about all of the capabilities that she deemed necessary for human beings, rather than simply voicing her general ideas. After reading Nussbaum’s list of capabilities and her explanations for each, I was struck by the truth and importance behind her different capabilities. I found myself in complete agreement with her entire list of capabilities. I believe that all humans should have the opportunity to live a healthy, practical life filled with their own emotions and ambitions.
Martha C. Nussbaum also believed in providing various opportunities for all individuals, based on simple humanity, rather than social and economic status. Nussbaum was sure to remind readers, and likely her critics, of the fact that an opportunity should always be given, but human beings should never be required to take that opportunity. This was of course very important, because of the freedoms provided in our country. I was fascinated by Nussbaum’s writing, and strongly support her dramatic ideas. I believe that providing the same opportunities to all human beings would entirely change our world today. I was especially struck by the significance in providing learning opportunities for everyone, and allowing people’s minds to naturally flourish. “The Central Human Capabilities,” opened up many great ideals and standards for human beings, in general, to follow and help provide.

John Rawls

John Rawls had many abstract, complicated ideas about justice and fairness. His writing in, “A Theory of Justice,” was somewhat difficult to interpret. It was clear that he believed in equality among different sectors of social classes within our society today. He established, from early on in the text, that economic and social success was mostly based on cooperation. Even the people with the least number of advantages could succeed among the elite in society, with of course, the help of the upper class. John Rawls’ writing felt somewhat vague to me, though it was clear that his ideas were some of the most profound of his time. This new idea of equality among different social classes was probably unheard of for hundreds of years. Most people seem to believe that social and economic success is earned through hard work, that cooperation alone cannot help the lower classes flourish. In some ways, I do strongly agree with John Rawls. His ideas about justice and fairness were fascinating. I also believe that with enough cooperation, with enough people making an effort to help promote equality and success, there could be thousands more people living in better conditions. In “A Theory of Justice,” Rawls says that justice cannot be fair if some people dominate in the areas of wealth, power, and opportunities. I found this idea also very thought-provoking. If wealthier people could help provide more opportunities to the struggling, lower class, many people would be living more stable lives. “A Theory of Justice,” though somewhat vague, was an interesting look at justice in today’s society.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton

The document, “Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions,” by Elizabeth Cady Stanton was undoubtedly the effectual beginning of the feminist, suffrage movement. In this document, Stanton demands rights for women, that I could not imagine living without today. The right to vote, the right to an education, and the right to make decisions without the influence of a man, are rights that most women, including myself, take for granted today. In this declaration, Elizabeth Cady Stanton lists many of the specific powers that men had over women during that time period. Men did not allow women to vote. Once married, most women were under the complete control of their husbands. Their husbands also demanded dowries, and were allowed to spend it anyway they pleased. Women had no voice in the formation of laws, but were still forced to follow these laws. Elizabeth Cady Stanton listed many of the oppressions that women faced, because of controlling, power-hungry men. There were so many unjust laws placed on women during that time, it is difficult to imagine any woman being able to live happily in that type of society. In the pretext reading of this document, the author says that the “Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions,” was almost a parody of Thomas Jefferson’s “Declaration of Independence.” After reading Stanton’s declaration, the parallels between the two texts were very clear. Looking back on the Declaration of Independence, I can understand this presence of hypocrisy and irony in the document. Preaching equality to men and women, but not including women, was clearly unjust. The fight for women’s rights, especially the fight for suffrage, was far too difficult and took far too long. The hypocrisy of men during the 1800s, in a “free” country, was unbelievable.

Martin Luther King Jr.

It is very rare that you find a writer and activist with the ability to express their beliefs in such a profound manner. After reading “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” I was beyond impressed by the depth and honesty of Martin Luther King Jr.’s words. In the letter, he writes about the rallying that took place for desegregation, before he was thrown in jail for supposedly, protesting without a permit. Martin Luther King Jr. later expressed his disbelief and disappointment in his fellow, white clergymen. The clergymen wrote him criticizing letters, claiming that desegregation would come with time, and that the civil rights leaders were acting too quickly and too rashly. Martin Luther King Jr. expressed his former hope that the clergymen would fight with him from the beginning, and understand better than anyone, his devotion to desegregation. In one of his many, forceful and beautifully written statements, Martin Luther King Jr. says that,
“the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is…the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice” (181).
I felt that this quote, along with many others from the letter, had a great impact on the readers. His feeling of disappointment toward the white church was clear throughout the letter. He felt that the indifference of a white man was far worse than their loud disapproval. King wished that the white church could appreciate the hardships that African Americans had suffered, and step up to rally with them, rather than merely watching from the sideline. “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” was by far, the most profoundly and humbly written piece that we have read thus far. Martin Luther King Jr. knew that the nothing would stop African Americans from having their voices heard, and that eventually, freedom and basic civil rights would be won.

Works Cited
King Jr., Martin Luther. “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th Edition. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006 pp. 173-189

Henry David Thoreau

Henry David Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” was a very interesting, but somewhat confusing speech. Thoreau’s writings attracted national, as well as global attention. The recognition he received, particularly the influence his work had on Mohandas Gandhi during India’s fight for independence from Great Britain, was remarkable. In this particular speech, Thoreau argued strongly against following and allowing government actions that the people considered to be unjustifiable. He believed that openly disobeying state and national laws could truly make an impact on other people, as well as the government. After reading “Civil Disobedience,” I was somewhat impressed with Thoreau’s own actions of civil disobedience; refusing to pay a national poll tax, was a particularly courageous and defiant action against the United States government. Thoreau believed that people who did not agree with any law or government action, had an obligation to openly defy that certain principle, and not damage their own personal belief system by participating or following in something that they did not believe or agree with. Even after being thrown in jail for a night, Thoreau continued to encourage civil disobedience. The people could make an impact, without waging a civil war. In many ways, especially after learning of the success that Mohandas Gandhi had in using civil disobedience to gain freedom from Great Britain, I find many of Henry David Thoreau’s ideas very enlightening and significant to our world today. In the United States, we are lucky to have the freedom to fight and rally for what we believe in, while many other countries in our world are not so lucky.

Stephen L. Carter

Before reading Stephen L. Carter’s “The Separation of the State“, I also harbored the belief that religion should be protected from the state, rather than the state being protected from religion. Carter’s essay makes it even more clear that the First Amendment in the United States Constitution places protection on the freedom of the people to practice any religion without state interference or prohibition. Carter writes about the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, in which the Supreme Court passed the ruling that reimbursing private, religious schools for tuition and salaries was unconstitutional. This ruling by the Supreme Court, was undoubtedly the right decision. I am sure that most people will agree that only public schools should receive government funding. Students and parents who want their children to gain an education, without religious study, should not have to suffer from lack of aid to their respective school districts.
This case was significant in the idea that other smaller cases, wanting government aid for their religious affiliations, could no longer be passed. It is important to be careful when regarding situations that may involve the interference of the state in religious practices, but Carter believes that many times the government may be too extreme. He writes, “…if the courts continue to read Lemon as they have, the Establishment Clause might well end up not antiestablishment but antireligion.” (Carter, 109) Carter believes that the government, in their attempt to preserve the First Amendment of the Constitution, is promoting antireligion. I cannot completely agree with this Carter belief. I have always felt that people are entitled and obligated to have their own customary set of beliefs. Government interference, negative or positive, will not change a person’s religious identity.

Works Cited
Carter, Stephen L. “The Separation of the State.” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th edition. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006 pp. 102-109

Hannah Arendt

For the past few decades, since the end of World War II, people around the world have learned about the devastating Holocaust that took place under Nazi rule in the 1940s. After reading the excerpt from Total Domination by Hannah Arendt, it is clear that no one can truly know what the human beings, imprisoned in concentration camps, experienced. Simply trying to find words to describe the unbelievable cruelty of those concentration camps is beyond difficult, and that is based only on what we have learned from textbooks and teachers. Arendt believed that it may not be possible for even those courageous survivors to describe the sufferings they endured. After reading this passage, I can honestly agree that the burden of even attempting to relive those painful times, is far too great.
Arendt also took an entirely different approach to understanding the lives of the prisoners in the concentration camps than what we have previously learned. She believed that the mental suffering and the isolation took a greater toll on those human beings than anyone could imagine. They were cut off from the rest of the world and were made to believe that they had no personal value, nothing to work toward. She also expressed her belief that even the prisoners could not describe or relive their own pain, because of the obvious trauma. I can understand this in many ways. It is always easier to repress painful memories and to try to work for something better. The human beings in the concentration camps during World War II survived an unimaginable horror. They lived a life far away from civilization and any type of humanity. It is impossible for us to understand their sufferings, but it is also our duty to be certain that such a tragedy should never take place in our world again.

Machiavelli

The Qualities of the Prince was interesting to read because of the complexity in Machiavelli’s extreme ideals. Reading Machiavelli’s obstinate views concerning the prince’s heavy participation in warfare and his belief that a prince should be feared rather than loved, was in many ways, difficult to comprehend. He believed that a prince should never be hated, but at the same time, it was acceptable for a prince to be feared. I found this Machiavellian belief somewhat contradictory. Is it really possible to be feared, and not hated?
Fearing your country’s leader automatically invokes a feeling of resentment, eventually leading to hate. Machiavelli believed that the prince should never be hated, in order to preserve his own security and personal safety. Where is the sense of security among the people, if they are living in fear of their leader? I am quite sure that most leaders of a democratic government today, would want to be loved by the people, rather than feared. Understanding that circumstances and the way of living in the 1500s may have been drastically different, I still find it difficult to believe that any person would want to live in a country where they could not feel safe.
Machiavelli’s The Qualities of a Prince was like nothing I have ever read before. He expressed ideas so drastically different from what I have always known to be right, that it was almost an eye-opening experience to read his beliefs. It is practically unimaginable for me to believe that any leader would incorporate Machiavellian principles into their way of ruling.

Lao-tzu

In Thoughts from the Tao-Te Ching, Lao-Tzu made it apparent that he believed a government should be run without any one person, or group of people taking charge. To many people, his ideas may seem radical in this day and age, where the government seems to be the cornerstone of our society. He strongly believed that the government, should be extremely limited, in it’s power and influence in a country’s affairs. He believed that there would be a sense of serenity among the people if they had control of their own lives. Lao-Tzu also felt that if people continued to have their own ambitions, they would increasingly demand more power over others. He wanted the government to be moderated. Too much government would take away the rights of the common people; leaving his people to their own devices was a sure way to make sure the country was always content. So according to Lao-Tzu, the people of his country were better off making their own decisions and simply, living their own lives.
I find his perspective very enlightening in many ways. I also believe that too much government power is inevitably going to lead to an unhappy society, but I feel that he may have been a bit extreme with his ideas. Leaving a country to the hands of the people, and simply expecting it to flourish without any outside interference, seems implausible. There have to be boundaries in every society, and I feel that a balance is important, more than anything else. Distinguishing the line between too much government power and not enough, is something that we are still learning.