It is a system of government in society or family where the authority is a male figure.
The excerpt is an argument where Rousseau reasons why women are of lesser rank in the society, yet they play an important role in the man‘s life.
To begin, Rousseau describes the constant physiological needs that women have during and after the pregnancy. Next, he insists that women have qualities, such as caring and kindness, that are needed in raising a child. Additionally, Rousseau believes that a man love his children through the woman.
(I will put my emotions aside and will simply invalidate his argument)
Rousseau’s arguments are not valid. First, he argues that the inequality is not a “man-made” structure but it is in the nature. Most importantly, when referring to the nature he uses the pronoun “he.” Rousseau appeals to the authority of the highest power who’s laws cannot be disobeyed. However, the statement becomes invalid, for he uses a fallacy of false authority. Additionally, the idea of Nature or God is subjective and cannot be neither dogmatic nor proven. Consequently, the rest of his argument becomes invalid, for he uses the model verb “ought to” several times when referring to the female duties in life. IF there are such laws for women to obey, their origin shall not be an abstract idea. He has no verifiable source for his evidence, therefore no evidence at all. As a result, his argument is invalid.
The role of Native American women differed from group to group. However, their similarities where the economic importance in the community. Indigenous women participated in the essentials of life, such as fishing, curing the meat, dressing the skin, and exchanged fur for other goods. Additionally, they had the liberty of leaving their husbands if they weren‘t happy. Native American men practiced polygamy which was approved by their women. After the invasion of the Americas, the overpopulation of England forced many, mostly man, to settle in the ’New Land.” Besides the sexual needs, men also needed help in farms. Therefore the government arranged for many women to move to America. However, due to various factors, such as child birth and diseases, many didn’t survive. The ones who did survive, became unpaid workers or got married hoping for a better life. Indigenous, European, and later African women faced one common factor, a drastic change in their lives.
African slave traders began to abduct and sell African women to Europeans in need of workers. While crossing the ocean, these women were held on the deck of the ships, where they were susceptible to sexual attacks by the crew. In America slaves worked in the tobacco plantations. Many factors, such as the prohibition of marriage, malnutrition, and excessive labor, led to low birthrate among the slaves. Women who had children were usually a single parent, mostly because either the fathers or themselves were sold. The slaves from West Africa were accustomed for the woman and the child to live apart from her husband, with her parents. Nevertheless, in America female slaves didn’t have their families. Eventually, masters started to provide better nutrition for their slaves to have more children for their own profit. Years of slavery strongly influenced the lives of both white and black women.
While the fundamental structure of life had some similarities, there was a major difference in the quality of life between the European and the colonists woman. This difference was significantly evident when comparing the first generation of women who arrived to America. Beside the fact that America was a new land for the colonist and didn’t have established laws, the first generation of men who migrated to America were, mostly, socially misfit in Europe. Therefore, women who arrived were practically treated as slaves. They provided free labor for the men or got married and worked for their husbands. Whereas, for women in Europe life remained unchanged.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
R#1
WOW!!! This is really impressive how you show your understanding of chapter 1. After reading your blog I kind of thought about what I wrote based on the same book. Even though we did read the same book, it appears to me that we have very different perspectives in this particular point in women history. You mentioned facts that I have not noticed, and I have mentioned facts that seemed to be unimportant to you. This is really interesting for me, because it helps me to see the same issues from another person’s eyes. For example, when you talked about slavery you focused on how slavery changed lives of white and black women, whereas I focused how masters didn’t take responsibilities if their slave got pregnant because of them. This two are different, but when you think about it they are connected because the lives of with and black women changed, somewhat because of what happened to slaves and their lives.
Another thing that I noticed is that you didn’t show any emotions when you observed the Rousseau’s document. When you said that his arguments were not valid, I kind of disagreed with you even though I too wrote the same thing. Of course you brought different examples; I said that he doesn’t specify his examples and only gives general ideas. But I also think that his arguments can be viewed as valid, because if you look at the argument briefly he does speak for what some women want to hear, and that kind of makes it a convincing argument. I am not saying that his arguments are valid, but I am admitting and realizing why others might find it that way, which is not so surprising when he does bring females ahead of males quiet often.
R #1
Hi Marianna. Thank you for your response. It is truly enlightening. I must be honest though, I am not religious by any means. Not that I don't believe that there is or isn't a God, but that I just haven’t figured out what I believe yet. My reference to a "higher power" wasn't intended on blaming anyone, or anything. I was referring to whatever the reader believes in. Some believe that God created us; some believe that we evolved from Nature.
Like you said to me, it’s interesting how differently we interpret things. I completely understand your points and now, looking back at the excerpt I see what you mean. Rousseau was putting women below men. But like I said, I believe that it comes from attitude. We are not equal to men, you cannot deny this. We probably never will be. Physical and emotional differences set us apart too much. Whereas women want the same rights as men, we do not want to be treated like them in the streets. I see where Rousseau’s points were flawed, and I do agree with you. But some points he makes are valid.
I believe that you have to take this document for what you see it, and prove it wrong. It’s all attitude. It’s a new world now and women have gained so much independence from men. When it was written it was a different story. Women’s attitudes have changed and they have started to stand up for themselves, and really, that is all it takes to turn this document around.
Thank you for the enlightening response. Your words have made me stop and think differently about what Rousseau was saying.
R#2
Hi Tyler we have not met, I am Tatev. After reading your response to Marriana’s blog I started questioning my own. After reading the document I understood that Rousseau’s was putting man below women, but now I am a little confused. You said that the author puts women below men, but I don’t see how. He says that females nurture males, educate them, console them and take care of them, that without them men can’t be, that this mean that he is putting females down. Now I am really confused, because what I saw in this document appears to be from wrong angle. I do understand that we all are suppose to have different opinions, but I think in this case the three of us are just a little bit too different. Thanks to both of you now I am starting to see how other people feel about this document.
Thank YOU!!!
R#1
Hi Marianna,
Nice to meet you. I must say, your interpretation of the document is very interesting. It seems like we both look at it from totally different angles. It’s interesting to see that we can have such different views on one topic. After reading the document, I got the impression that he was speaking of the importance of women in the society and in a way giving women and men an equal rank rather than lesser rank. He does
state that happiness as well as the education of men depends on women. This shows that without women, men could not be where they are.
After reading your blog, I took another look at the document to understand your view, and looking at it from another point of view, I can see where you’re coming from when you say “lesser rank,” however, I disagree with you, because even though he speaks of the “constant physiological needs” at the same time he shows that the tasks of women play very important roles in the lives of men. He points out that “The goal of their labors is common, but their labors themselves are different.” Explaining, they may have different roles and tasks, but the level of importance remains the same.
I agree with you, that his argument is invalid, due to the fact that his arguments are based on
assumptions rather than facts. I as well do not see
any valid proof.
Hi this is tatev again. i met you today and it is very nice to meet you. we are sitting in the same class.
so thought i would say HI
Sharmagh D - R2:
Hi everyone, There is a lot of different conversation going on with Marianna's blog and so I decided to join in.
Marianna and anonymous user (La Historia), It is very clear that we all agree that Rousseau argument was based on what God/nature has made of men and women. All three of us pointed out that evidence like that is not valid proof. I feel like Rousseau contradicts himself because he is saying that physically and emotional there is a huge different between men and women. Yet, La Historia has shown Rousseau’s philosophy of what he thinks of the jobs men and women did. In the end, even he said they are still both equally important. I think that men and women are suppose to work as a team to get things done. One should not be put higher than the other based on physically appearance. That again can be proven wrong. For example, it is said that men are stronger than woman. Now think about any woman wrestler and a man that works at the bookstore in a wrestling match. Who do you think will win? If it is said that men and stronger than women, it should be in all cases, even the one in my odd example. Because there is an obvious physical difference between men and women; there is always going to be controversy on the topic, Are men and women are equal? See you both next Tuesday.
Post a Comment