Blog # 2
Section A
1. Patriarchy is the reason why women have suffered throughout history. It is the opposite of matriarchy, which we rarely see. Matriarchy means that a woman is in charge of her household. Most societies around the world practice patriarchy, where the man has all the power, control, and say over the women. (From essortment.com)
2. This document is, simply, about the differences between men and women. It also shares with us that men and women are not equal and should never be equal because of their differences in manners, temper, and responsibilities.
3. Rousseau justifies the gender inequality with nature. He states, “This inequality is not a human institution—or, at least, it is the work not of prejudice but of reason. It is up to the sex that nature has changed with the bearing of children to be responsible for them to the other sex”. Rousseau points the finger at nature for making an unequal society between man and woman. Nature purposely made each gender, making specific parts for each so that later they can use those parts to just their labors and responsibilities.
4. Personally, I believe Rousseau’s arguments are perfectly valid. If this world was intended to be completely equal without inequality between men and women then the higher power that created us would have done so in a different way. But I also believe that a lot of prejudice comes from attitude. If one harbors the attitude of prejudice then that is what he/she will produce.
Section B
5. Yes, there are many. First and foremost Native American women all experienced a significant about of change physically, emotionally, and geographically. Their sexuality was exploited by European and Spaniard men. Their villages, friends, and families were often taken from them, or vice versa. They may have been taken back to Europe or Spain forcefully to be used as slaves. During the invasions of newcomers, though, Native American women at times did gain some independence. Many Native Americans married Englishmen to better their own villages. And some women married multiple husbands such as Mary Musgrove Matthews Bosonworth who married three white Georgians and was mixed blood. With her husbands, she worked for both sides, her original tribe and the White settlers for a better community (14).
6. Large numbers of women who came to America to seek opportunities not available in England found themselves signing a legal contract that bounded them as slaves. The Virginia Company used propaganda to attract women in their need for the opposite sex. Women were treated with disrespect and were often beaten and raped. If they became pregnant they were beaten more and fined. These practices were the starting point for what would later happen to African slaves in the late 1600’s. Planters found that African slaves were easy to acquire and use. Upper-class white women used slaves for household chores making their load easier and freeing up a lot of useful time. African women as well as men were forced to work in fields and tend to exhausting physical labor and the law deemed no difference between men and women. The beginning of indentured servitude for white females was no end for the slavery of Africans.
7. Besides regional differences, religious differences were the most significant and set the ways for laws and social conducts. The Puritan settlers consisted of families whereas the Chesapeake colonists were predominantly male. New Englanders “has high and rising rates of childbirth… and long marriages, both of which contrasted with the Chesapeake” (25). Puritans religious behaviors also shaped their legal foundations. They saw marriage not as a religious sacrament, but as a civil contract (25) and so were allowed to divorce and remarry. Other religions only permitted women to remarry upon the death of their spouse. Married women had few legal rights in the Chesapeake, Carolinas, and Massachusetts colonies and Massachusetts followed the principle of femme covert. Femme covert was the idea that “married women could not sue or be sued, hold public office, or vote; their husbands had legal control over their property, children, and even their bodies” (17). Most of the differences between European women colonist stem from their religious backgrounds, first and foremost.
10 comments:
R#1
Hello Tyler. It is so interesting to read how differently we interpret things. Most importantly, how humans still blame The Creator to justify their actions. I strongly disagree with you. I’d like to define what The Nature, or The Highest Power is and what Rousseau is trying to say. To begin, The Creator is an idea. My idea of It can be different from yours but The Creator Itself is still the same. Next, we know Its creations by recognizing their differences. We know the color green, because there are other colors. We know the ocean because there is land. Music is silence between the sound. Nevertheless, nothing in the nature is better. There is something not FOR the other but because of the other. While we are different physically, socially, and economically, we and our diversity exist because we perceive each other. This is The Creator’s work. However, throughout the history humans have been interpreting them incorrectly. We go to war and kill because of our differences in faith. We enslaved Africans, because they had darker skin. We let children die of hunger because they are poor. Now, how accurately do we understand The Nature and Its differences? There is nothing in it of less importance. Everything in the nature is equally balanced.
Rousseau is saying that women should live for men, not for themselves. Nevertheless, if women cannot fully be, than men are meaningless. If a woman is stoned to death for choosing to love a man, than Rousseau’s argument is not logical. According to him, women should not get education, yet they have to educate their children. There is an error in his argument, a contradiction, which makes it invalid. According to Rousseau, a man loves his child because the woman “serves as the link between them.” However, life has proven otherwise. A divorced or single father still loves his child. Finally, no man can tell a woman not to, when to, or how to think because than she won’t exist as a human. Consequently, men will not exist because there will be no comparison to perceive the difference. Rene Descartes says, “I think, therefore I am.” Both men and women shall have the natural right, human right to be equally free to live their lives. That is The Nature.
R#2
Hi Tyler. I’m actually not a religious person either. I just explained how differently the concept of nature and its creations can be perceived. As a matter of fact, I, just like you and Tatev, found some of Rousseau’s statements pleasing and somewhat true, such as how man and their happiness depend on women. However, the statement that follows, I think, is the main point of the argument. He notes, “to please men, to be useful to them, to make herself loved and honored by them…” Now, here it is where the first statement may be intestinally manipulative, for the bottom line of the argument is to inculcate in women the idea of living their lives to worship men. I really think that if any person, regardless of gender, lives life only to please another, let it be his or her choice, not an obligation. When you say we are not equal to men, I assume you mean that women are physically different. And yes, I agree with you. However, like I said before, the differences do not and should not deprive anyone of any rights. Thanks to both of you for reading my blog and for responding. See you on Tuesday!
R#1
First, you did a pretty good job answering all the questions. Second, I would love to get into this whole argument with Marianna but it looks a little brutal so I am just going to stay out of it. Anyways, I actually started to think about the part where you wrote that the higher power intended us to be the way that we are. Since I believe that God created nature, and that according to Rousseau, nature created the division of the roles between men and women, then it might be true that it is the way the higher power intended. Many people have their own beliefs and those beliefs will always affect the way we view the world around us. Some might even comment on this because I am being bias with my religious views but they should respect my opinion as much as I respected Rousseau’s in his. I also believe that men and women should always be equal and that this argument is irrelevant to modern day because we live in a time and place where women have proven to be just as intelligent and hard working as men. I have to say that Rousseau does show the importance of women because he shows that the woman keeps everyone strong and in tact, which to me, is one of the most important characteristics in life.
Rachel R#2
Hello Marianna,
One thing I wanted to point out that we viewed quite differently was in response to Rousseaus idea of a woman serving as the link between father and child, and the mother alone being able to “make him love them and give(s) him the confidence to call them his own”. In response to Tyler’s blog you noted that yes indeed a divorced or single father can still love his child. I absolutely agree but that is not what I took Rousseau to mean. I took it quite literally actually. I believe what he meant was that, because only a woman can give birth, and only a woman can carry a child to full term, a man must and can only love his child through the mother because without the mother, the child would not exist. It takes both man and woman to conceive a child, but it takes the mother alone to develop that child and bring it into the world. Without her, the mans bloodline would cease to exist and so would his children. Only the mother can take both the fathers genes and her own and make something that is of each of them. I do not think Rousseau is saying that a man can not love his child if the mother is no longer in the picture. I think what he is saying however, is that a man will love his child and find his confidence in that child through the mother because she is the only one who can give such a gift to him.
Amber W: R#2
Hey Tatev. Its amazing to see the different perspectives each of us extract from Chapter 1. I stand on the same ground with you in regards to Rousseau's arguments especially. Although his view points are not valid, the harsh reality is that he does an eloquent job of making a strong case. He effectively does this by paying strong tribute to their strengths and making his case based on that. "She serves as the link between them and their father...How much tenderness and care is required to maintain
the union of the whole family!" Its almost as though he provides enough height to their attributes to knock them down later.
You also provided a good perspective on the text book reading. I think it was also nice how Tyler was able to further extend our understanding of the ethnical implications imposed by slavery.
R#1
I do not really agree with all of Rousseau’s argument because yes there are gender differences that makes certain this unequal. Such as a women can give birth and a man cannot and there for a women should be the one to make sure a man has a “good” life. However, they should be given a equal opportunity for certain things like education, work, etc. In his document he only mentions education shouldn’t be the same in my opinion both the man and women should be given the equal right and same education they ask for. A women and just as capable then a man to be able to go to school and be work and bring home money. And women’s job shouldn’t only be to make sure the children get what they need and there husband has a happy clean house to come to. This should be both the man and women job. They need to but an equal amount in to the family to get a balance family. However, things were so different back in the days that I can you can understand where Rousseau’s is coming from even though it’s not true in this day and age.
Hi Tyler, i just met you. and we are sitting in the same class, so i though i would say HI, so HI
Mariam R#2
Hey everyone,
I agree that, if the division of roles is by nature, then it is how it is and it cannot be fought.
It is obvious that women and men are intended counterparts in nature. One can say of equality in that sense that they both contribute equally -- without a woman there cannot be human product and vise versa. As far as the kind of contribution, it is different. And so from the beginning of life the contribution of both counterparts have been different, because a masculine
contribution is different from a feminine contribution. A feminine being can contribute what a masculine being can, potentially but not actually because what the female counterpart is lacking is the actual masculinity, and same goes for males.
Therefore, although I agree with Marianna, that “a divorced or single father can still love his child”,and has the potential to raise a child as well as a mother, I think that he will lack certain things because he lacks feminity.
We can see that throughout history women have been fighting for equality, and this equality that were fighting for has been mainly for political roles, freedom of speech, independence, etc, and we have come a long way. Today women in most of the parts of the world women have as much equality as men do. This document was written a very long time ago, when the roles of women and men were totally different. And like many of you said, what Rousseau wrote in this argument is unrelated to modern day.
Xochitl R # 2
Hey Elias,
I agree with your comment. Women had stood in his believes and had made a huge difference in society. One of the examples is Harriet Tubman who was born into slavery in 1819, in Maryland. She suffered from domestic abuse during her childhood. When she was 25 year-old she freed herself running to Canada where she established her home temporary. Later on she went back to Maryland where she freed 300 people and played an important role to free millions more. She is an example to follow in courage and determination. She stood for her believes and that is what made her an important figure in history, a woman that claimed for equality and justice. Like Harriet Tubman there are many women in history who had played an important role in oppression and abolition and had contributed to the change around the world for our good. Women have to have the same opportunities as men for everyone benefit.
George S. R#2
This response is to Marianna. I would like to focus on just a small part of your response in which you may have misread or misinterpreted Rousseau’s publication. You stated that, “According to him(Rousseau), women should not get education, yet they have to educate their children.” First off our visualization of education is greatly different than that of a person living in the middle of the 18th century in Europe. We see an education as a combination of a high school diploma and perhaps an Associate’s Degree or a Bachelor’s Degree. In the 18th century, however, a respectable and profitable education could be obtained through apprenticeship, accumulation of experience through work, or even from your parents. Rousseau distinctly said, “Once it is demonstrated that man and woman are not and ought not be constituted in the same way in either character or temperament, it follows that they ought not to have the same education.” In his reasoning, if a woman was to stay home and handle affairs of the house and look after the children then her primary source of education should be her mother or an elder woman and her education would consist of things relating to her primary duties. This is to say that women, perhaps, shouldn’t be educated to one day become blacksmiths or shipwrights. Rousseau could not have meant to say that women should be completely uneducated, because that would go against his whole argument of “The first education of men depends on the care of women.” So if women didn’t know how to correctly care for their men, if they never learned, according to your interpretation of Rousseau’s thought society would be in chaos.
Post a Comment