Liberal Vs Marxist Feminism

.. r state that keeping mommy home is not an excuse, for many women are forced to take lower paid jobs with much heavier physical load in order to provide for their children. In the past, it was very clearly defined that office was man’s job and home was women’s place. Industrial revolution and technological changes forced men to use women out in the workplace. I don’t think that a traditional woman of the past would make such transition. Instead, wars, diseases, poverty, labor shortages, and other influences made it necessary for many women to work.

I think that our society still considers that woman’s place is in her home. Why? I may think so, because women, who make up over one half o the U.S. population, are not making themselves heard. I also see that there is a big problem with many socially accepted views on women’s positions in the workforce. One of the views underline that maternal leave, regardless of its length, damages corporate high-level positions more than it does to lower level positions.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

I disagree, for a missing teacher, nurse, taxi dispatcher, and many others are just as important as corporate CEO chairwomen. Also, the physical nature of many lover level positions is much higher than those of managerial and above. Thus if the society wanted to save women from harder work, then they would have to transfer them upstairs to the office. At the same time, many women are required to work longer hour, produce more workload, and accept larger overtime hours, for the financial need is much harder to satisfy with their small and inadequate incomes. Many men justify that lower and less important positions are better for many women in terms of maternal leave, family time, schedule variations.

Instead, I believe that the opposite is true, for lower level positions do not provide equal benefits, variable schedule, and family leave. Similarly, the myth is broken, when one starts talking about a man-parent. Man-parent also needs just as much time off work for family care and responsibilities as a woman-parent. The very idea of a maternal myth is destroyed, when one does not accept that the woman must be the solely servant and keeper of the family and the house. Why is my position pro-feminist? It demands equality on the most fundamental social level.

My position demands that women are treated at least as well as men are. I advice that corporate and social elite be reformed, for many views on woman’s position in the workforce and family are obscure and unjustifiable. Also, my position is very close to many feminist movements, for such movements state that women are oppressed and are not equal to their male counterparts in the society, home, and workplace. I also disagree that social status and view can justify lower wages and positions for women. PART III: Rape, Racism, and the Myth of the Black Rapist By Angela Davis Angela Davis informs us that sexual assaults are increasing within the United States.

According to her, it is the sign of the dysfunctionality of our society. She also informs us that the law against sexual violence was originally designed to protect men. She further writes that the protection extended to white men only; out of 455 men executed between 1930 and 1967 based on the rape convictions, 405 were of black skin color. She further states that white upper class members desired the protection for their wives and daughters originally. Author writes that the myth of the black rapist was virtually created in order to have a justification for performing any type of violence against black communities.

She indicates that at the same time black women were heavily subjected to sexual violence, especially by authorities. In many cases justice was not served. She brings up an example of how ten police officers who raped a 17-year-old Black woman in Chicago, were not persecuted; rather their crimes were covered up. She writes that the feminist movements only now acknowledge the societal oppression of black women. Only now is it realized that Black women are both victims of the sexual violence and the societal image of Black people, for the societal image socially justifies many violent acts against the Black community.

The societal image of Black men and women is often used to further exploitation of the black community. She also explains that a socially justified sexual violence against Black women affects the conduct of the society towards White women. She argues that similar effects were produced by the Vietnam experience, for many men brought back home their intentions and conduct towards women. During the Vietnam War, U.S. military viewed Vietnamese as an inferior race. Soldiers were encouraged to be sexually violent towards many Vietnamese women. The author argues that such conduct cannot but influence the conduct between men and women in the near future.

She criticizes that many anti-rape theorists do not see such influences from the society and its images on our view of many personal cases. She argues that many theorists only interpret statistics without analyzing their viewing lenses. According to her the statistics for sexual violence is not represented fully, for many white men, who take advantage of women, are not usually persecuted and reported at all. She writes that the job and its economically dominant nature only justifies that the employer or manager extends his control in the sexual realm. She also writes that the sexual violence of non-White males towards women does not carry as much male supremacy, for many non-White rapists hold =very inferior economic and power positions. The very structure of our society is responsible for the existence and increase of sexual violence against women, according to the author.

She claims that the persecution of the actual rape crime will not be effective, for the society will still be living and practicing oppression of women. Instead, she demands that the society is fundamentally changed, and that women should be socially and economically equal to men. She states that we cannot live in a gender based monopoly and expect no gender based crimes, oppression, and inequalities. My analysis: Angela Davis writes that economical and financial forms of subordination only escalate the intensive to subordinate women in other forms. Sexual practice is accepted as a standard conduct between a husband and a wife.

Throughout our history, such conduct was a part of legal ownership of women by men. Husbands had exclusive rights to their spouses. Women who committed adultery was always treated much harsher then men’s, if men committed adultery was ever treated. People are usually well aware that such practices were very common. The old practice of Prima Notte was also originated from the economical and financial dependency. Today, men are more likely to commit similar steps, for our society was well built on them.

In many countries it is still popular to purchase a wife with a sum of money. Purchasing sex on the streets is another example of a more temporary marriage, for it only last an hour or two. Yet all of these practices have very much in common, for they trade women’s freedom for a sum of money. Can it be said that people of India are different from the people of the U.S.? I don’t think so. At the most, we can say that their culture is different. That is only true in the cultural specifics, for even the foundations and basis of culture are alike.

The recent imperialization of the English language also brings many cultures much closer together. Thus, we cannot really judge others to be extreme, for we a mere reflection of them; whether the reflection is dimmer or brighter, we still represent many of their views and customs. Similar is true for our past, for we are indeed derived from it. I could write much more, but I think that my point is clear. So is hers. Why do I agree with the author? I think that for many people, financial and economic dependency is much more important than the sexual oppression.

For many women, their survival is dependent on someone or some organization. An example of such dependence priorities is a common street prostitute, for she needs financial resources to survive biologically. To many prostitutes their financial stability is more important than sexual independence or oppression. That is why I believe the author when she writes that humans cannot relate to women open-minded, when they definitely have women’s subordination in financial, economic, and sometimes-legal form. Also, my previous example indicates just how vital the economic and financial dependency is.

Many women would starve, if they chose to be financially independent; our society does not have very much economically independent position. Is this issue only related to women? No, but it is much more drastic on women’s part, for throughout our history women were always specifically dependent on men in terms of finances, provisions, and legal issues. Men and women are subjected to very similar forms of economical oppression, but women can be also subdued into a sexual form of oppression. In the workplace, the manager might not want to subdue his male employees, for such actions might not please him. Women on the other side fit perfectly into the societal image of sexual dependence.

That is why the manager picks on his female employees instead. I think that my position is pro-feminist, for it advances women’s position in the society. I advocate that our society should move towards less economically dependent structure. In such structure, women and men would not be economically dependent on each other. I don’t advocate that everyone must live in a separate room with all separate from others services, but instead I argue that the economical dependency must by two sides. I think that people should be dependent on each other, but I disagree when such dependency starts at the top level of the society and continues down to the slums.

I think that one-way dependency should not exist, for it gives one side too much power and none to the other. I think that such society can be created, if there is no power based possessions. In such society, people would not have power over other people, for the very concept of materialistic power would be unavailable. I advocate that today women have the low end of the power arrow, and such arrow is usually originated from the men’s side. The dependency is usually financial and economical, but it does not prevent it from becoming sexual.

My position is pro-feminist, for I advocate that women’s side should be compensated in terms of economical and financial power. I cannot see our society have total power balance between all individuals. In such case all individuals would not possess an excess of power, and their conduct with any other member of the society would be compensated equally. Instead, I think that we can improve women’s position in the society by sharing the economical and financial power with them. I understand that a concentrated power in the hands of woman or a man would still ultimately result in its abuse; however, I think that such abuse would be double sided and will result in an equilibrium between both sides.

One of the scary thought that entered my brain was related to our discussion in class. I distinctly remember that you stated that there is a professional union for graduate students, and that the union is watching over interests of the graduate students. I know that there is an organization for lobbying purposes. What scares me is that most groups that desire the change in the country have representatives and lobbyists. In other word, if you need thing changed and maintained your way, make a special interest group. Similarly, the feminist movement would have a special interest group that would lobby and influence the state and federal senate to their point of view.

The scary part is whether it is right. I know that such propaganda and influence is necessary in the U.S. government. I am still though scared to think that this is the only way to change our society. Whether lobbyists are the only output of our intentions on a national wide scale.

I know that it is used and effective, but I am still scared. If this is the only way to move us, people, to the better or worst, then my fears have very good foundations. Social Issues.


I'm Lydia!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out