- Friedan: https://www.scrible.com/contentview/page/MGQA110KJ6LMOJ2A20C1O2PB4I806M87:31579383/index.html
- Beauvoir: https://www.scrible.com/contentview/page/U0GG090LI6509J6224S3S08RC6A4660A:30318064/index.html
Friedan
- According to Betty Friedan, how were women pressured into accepting the role of "housewife" in the post-World War II years?
- What is the "problem that has no name"?
- What caused the problem?
- What social needs did the feminine mystique serve?
- What solutions does Friedan suggest?
- Who was the audience?
- What is the significance of this book?
- What are the major shortcomings of the book?
- Does the work still apply today? How?
Beauvoir
- How does Friedan's work relate to Beauvoir's The Second Sex?
- What does Beauvoir mean by women as "other"?
- Discuss how Beauvoir describes paternalism and "separate but equal work" as it applies to gender discrimination.
- Beauvoir on male and female domination/subordination:
What kinds of questions should we be asking? Not whetter one is superior or inferior,
- What is the situation?
- How did it get this way?
- Who benefits and who loses from such an arrangement?
I have to admit that I had a hard time reading and relating to both of these works, however I can understand how they made sense at the time they were written. It must have been very difficult and confusing for women to go from being forced into working during the war to being forced into "housewivery." Being a very independent and opinionated woman, I cannot imagine ever "denying the dissatisfied voice within" myself and I am thankful to Ms. Freidan for sparking the discussion that gives me the freedom to speak my mind today. I think we have come a long way since then and I believe that in many ways women are respected now for not fitting those outdated ideas of what femininity is. Today's "Supermom" and single mothers and stay-at-home dads are just some of the examples of how we are now defying the Feminine Mystique.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, reading "The Second Sex" was even more difficult for me because de Beauvoir's argument was so combative and brusque. While it may be true that often "duality gives rise to conflict," I do not believe it is always the case. Sex is not a game and there doesn't have to be a winner. I think the real goal is equality, just as in race and economy, and although I know we are not there yet, I think we have made great strides. Her statement about women always being man's dependent or slave may have been somewhat true in the past, and may be somewhat true today in some cultures, but I do not believe it is the case in America today. Similarly, her claim at the beginning, that "women lack concrete means for organising themselves" to fight for their rights is not completely true. This year there was a record number of women in Congress, and although that's only about 18%, I think it will help set a tone and will open the path for more women to have a say in the laws that govern the workplace.
Maybe I'm living in a bubble, or maybe I'm an eternal optimist, but I'm convinced that we are heading in the right direction.