Blog #2, Chantalle
Section A
1. What is Patriarchy?
-Patriarchy is control by the male gender over women.
2. What is the document about?
-In the document, Jean-Jacques Rousseau speaks about the inferiority of women and their roles in society. He claims that women are naturally born inferior and hold secondary roles to men. It seems as though he only holds women responsible for raising other males as a mother figure, not as equal to men.
3. How does Rousseau justify gender inequality?
-Rousseau justifies gender inequality by denying that inequality is man-made. He
claims that gender inequality is not a human institution, but for reason. He says
that it is women are responsible for themselves to the other sex.
4. Are his arguments valid? Why or why not?
-I do not believe Rousseau’s arguments are valid. First, it seems that he is biased,
probably because he is a male in a highly patriarchal society. Second, he treats women as solely responsible for taking care of men when he states that women are to care, counsel, console, and to make men’s lives pleasant as if their sole purpose in life is to cater to men’s needs and desires. I find Rousseau’s arguments barbaric, uneducated, and extremely chauvinistic.
Section B
5. Given the enormous variety among Native America women, are there any
generalizations we can draw about their experiences in the era of conquest?
-I think Native American women must have had a harsh experience during the era of conquest. It must have been a complete culture shock to experience male domination during the era of conquest, considering that Native American women had equal roles among males in their culture, whereas the new white European conquerors were an extremely patriarchal culture.
6. What insights does a gendered history of slavery bring to our understanding of the origins of slavery in North America?
-Some interesting insights would be that African American slaves, especially the women, helped to decrease the amount of work of the white women in the home. I guess you could say that it gave white women a certain power over the black men and women slaves.
7. What were the most significant differences among European women colonists?
-Some significant differences among European women colonists were between married, widowed, and single women. Married women lost control of any property or rights. Whereas widowed and single women had more individual rights since they did not have a husband to take control over them.
4 comments:
AMBER W- BLOG 2 Response 2
Chantalle your Blog 2 was easy reading because it provides a clear and consise analysis of explanations. I practically share your perspective of Rousseau’s argument being relatively barbaric. However, his barbaric view point of gender roles somehow managed to thrive during that time, and was coined "one of the strongest and most influential arguments," in the transcript presented by Alan Bloom. I suppose this is what baffles me the most.
However, it does present a valuable lesson to us: It shows how suceptable a nation can fall to ethnical and gender intolerance if a strong enough case is made. This can also be seen with the movement Adolf Hitler influenced. This example may be seen as a bit extreme, but it further shows the potential vulnerability of society when such issues are pressed hard enough....(Despite the ethical and moralistic contradictions)
antonio z BLOG 2, R#1
I have to agree with you, Rousseau is very biased and was it is largely because of the time he was living in. Although I agree with you on his statements being wrong I can not agree calling him “uneducated” because although we might not agree with anything this man says about his views toward women we have to realize that it was the environment he grew up in that made him think this way. Although we like it or not this was the ideas people shared during this time. It was a different time and there for I cant call him “uneducated” for something I strongly disagree with.
Now days many of us refer people like Rousseau as old fashion because they are stuck in the past and the world has changed dramatically over the years.
I also think his argument for today’s world is extremely weak because he brings forth no source to back his arguments by only calling this issue as “its natures way”. However back in those days those were the only words people needed to hear to believe someone because they felt they were against God if they went against those who said “its natures way” because some saw that as saying “it’s the way God wants things to be” and there for building that sense of fear in people.
Sonia R. -R#2
Hello Antonio,
I understand your critique of Chantalle’s response to Rousseau being “uneducated.” Although he may have been educated he did have a choice. Just because you are raised a certain way does not mean that you become the environment you grow up in. A true thinker has the ability to step out of bounds to be certain that their ideas are valid. Rousseau is very intelligent and yes he did grow up in a time where women were perceived as fallen Eve. In order to keep women from becoming temptation or seeking temptation men felt that women had to be confined to the home. Inside those walls they were safe from themselves.
I completely agree with you about people still living in the past. Men are not the only ones who feel that women have a place in this world and it is not at work or in the public realm of society. Now that the environments have changed and women are being expected to work those men and women who live in the past will not budge on their traditional ideals. They are actively making a choice to believe what they believe. That is why I do not think Rousseau is an accurate scholar. He may be an intelligent man, but very one sided. As he should be considering his time I suppose. But I still think he made a choice.
Hope you have a great weekend!
R2-LIA:
Antonio, I entirely agree with you that regarding you’re your thoughts on the article by Rousseau. I also commented in my blog that the main principle which the author utilizes to drive his concept of gender inequality was due to “nature’s way.” However, when you mention the idea of “nature’s way” being possibly God’s way, this opened up a new way of thinking for me. I think this is a relative and valid possibility that people believed in at the time, due to the concept of divine right. The idea of the empowered male was likely to be accentuated by religious influence and thought.
You also touched upon the idea of fear which was instilled in people from religious thought. I definitely concur as this heightened the gouge in gender inequality because women were already seen as inferior to men; they also had the notion that they would suffer a greater consequence if they were to not e subservient; not only from their husbands or an earthly male authoritative figure, but also possibly from God. It was very interesting to read your analysis, I learnt and drew a lot from it! Thanks for sharing!
Post a Comment