Beauvoir

It appears that men prefer the myth of the Eternal Feminine to the reality of women, because they would rather not admit that a woman has a brain and can think for herself. At one time, women had no say in anything. Their words didn’t mean anything, and they could not stand up for themselves. There was no right or wrong when it came to women, what was right was what men did. Femininity appears to be something foreign to men. Beauvoir states “ In actuality, of course, women appear under various aspects; but each of the myths built up around the subject of woman is intended to sum her up in toto; each aspires to be unique. In consequence, a number of incompatible myths exist, and man tarry musing before the strange incoherencies manifested by the idea of Femininity” (Beavoir 785). What she is basically saying is that it is hard for men to accept the fact that women are not these statues that just stand there to look good. A woman has a mind of her own and wants to be unique. Not all women are the same, and nor do they want to be. Femininity is about a woman feeling comfortable in her own skin. Some women are not what society sees as feminine, but if they are comfortable and happy that is all that matters. Some men look at femininity in a very sexist way. They think that being feminine means having long hair, wearing make up, and basically looking like a Barbie doll. However, in reality that is not what it is. Some men would rather believe a myth of how women should look and act rather than accept that all women are different and have different ways of being or feeling feminine.

De Beauvoir, Simone. "Woman: Myth and Reality." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Trans. H.M. Parshley. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. pp. 784-794

Woolf

The expected role of women in Shakespeare’s time was to basically sit around, look pretty, and not say much. It seems like women at this time were more like property than an actual human being. Men had the right to abuse their wives, physically, mentally, and emotionally if they did not comply with them. Virginia Woolf talks about how young girls, who were barely teenagers, were married off at 13 and 14 years old to men who were older than them. Not only was that bad enough, but they could not even choose the man they married. The father chose the husband and that was it. The girl had no say in whether or not she loved the man or even liked the man. The bottom line was that she had to marry him because her father commanded her to do so. It is hard to believe that this was something that consumed women’s life at one point in time. They really had no rights at all. A woman was basically around just to provide a man with children and be his arm candy. She didn’t have any actual reason to be around besides that. It is also hard to believe that this is what the women at this time were used to. It was the only way of life they knew. In a time like todays, most fathers would be appalled if his daughter’s husband was abusing her in any kind of way. A father should always approve of his daughter’s choice in marriage, but should never decide for her. Yes, some inequalities still exist in today’s society, but generally nothing of this sort.

Reich

The world of economy is a very interesting place. There are many different positions that a person can have in a place of work and depending on where they stand in their job how much money they make differs from others. Those who are higher up in a company are always going to make more than those who are lower than them. That is why there are such things as promotions. People are required to work their way up in a company, and when they do they are rewarded. When people get promoted they get certain benefits. One of these benefits is pay. When a person is promoted their pay is increased and this affects the economy. However, certain jobs may pay more just because a person has a college education or a degree of some sort. For example, there is a two year nursing program that can be done at a community college to become a registered nurse. However there is also a four year program that is done at a four year university. A person who has done the four year program can be hired in as a supervisor, simply because they have a four year university degree, as opposed to a two year degree. Because there are so many different jobs, the world of economy is very diverse. There are many people who are “blue collar” workers that do jobs in construction, plumbing, carpentry, and many other jobs that do not require a college education. There is also the medical field, the corporate field, the education field, the arts field, and other fields as well. This is why the economic world is so diverse, because there are so many fields out there.

Galbraith

I’m not sure I fully understand what case poverty is, but the idea of case poverty appears to be poverty that is caused by the inability that a person has to do something. The person may have a problem of some sort that does not allow them to participate in activities that occur in day-to-day life. This includes the opportunity to work “But some quality peculiar to the individual or family involved—mental deficiency, bad health, inability to adapt to the discipline of industrial life, uncontrollable procreation, alcohol, discrimination involving a very limited minority, some educational handicap unrelated to community shortcoming, or perhaps a combination of several of these handicaps—has kept these individuals from participating in the general well-being” (Galbraith 407). Many people have disabilities where they cannot do certain things, therefore cannot find a job in a certain type of area. For example, someone with a back condition such as scoliosis or some other type of condition would not be able to work in an industry where heavy lifting must be done. If I am not mistaken, this is what Galbraith means by case poverty. There are people who cannot work in certain industries therefore they have no means of earning a living. They have no income because their capabilities are less than those who have income, because they can work in all areas. This makes it difficult for many people who do have handicaps to earn a living. Even though they may be able to work in a certain area, they are discriminated against in many areas.

Galbraith, John Kenneth. “The Position of Poverty.” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. pp403-415.

Marx

I found this reading to be quite boring and hard to understand but from what I do understand it seems that the bourgeoisies were considered the middle class at that time. They owned property and were considered wealthy. The proletariats on the other hand were the opposite. They were considered the lower or working class at that time. They were the ones who possessed skilled labor. It seems that the bourgeoisies in a way were running a monopoly because they were the only ones who could own property. The proletariats did not have the option of owning property at all, but at the same time most had a hard time working for the bourgeoisies. The proletariats were very hard working and were forced to endure hard labor in order to provide for their families. It was very hard for them to find work and with the industrial revolution making its way it became even harder for them to find jobs. The proletariats were being replaced by machines and their labor was no longer needed. It seems as if Marx’s whole point of communism was to, in a sense, take away the power that the bourgeoisies had and create more opportunities for the proletariats “The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all the other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois of supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat” (Marx 368). It also seems like communism was supposed to make everything equal, even if that meant taking away property and many other things from the bourgeoisies. It’s basically almost as if communism was supposed to help those who couldn’t help themselves.

Marx, Karl. "The Communist Manifesto." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Trans. Samuel Moore. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. pp353-379.

Rawls

I’m not sure I understood this reading, but Rawls seems to articulate his idea of “justice as fairness” by basing it off of the principles of justice “These principles are to regulate all further agreements; they specify the kinds of social cooperation that can be entered into and the forms of government that can be established. This way of regarding the principles of justice I shall call justice as fairness” (Rawls 199). He also discusses conception of justice which seems to tie into the principles of justice. It is almost as if the conception of justice is a part of the principles of justice “Justice as fairness, begins as I have said, with one of the most general of all choices which persons might make together, namely with the choice of the first principles of a conception of justice which is to regulate all subsequent criticism and reform of institutions” (Rawls 200). I think by this he means that in order for people to have a concept of what justice means, there must be principles of justice that people must follow. If they don’t know the principles of justice then they cannot have a concept of it. He gives many examples as to what his idea of “justice as fairness” is “One feature of justice as fairness is to think of the parties in the initial situation as rational and mutually disinterested” (Rawls 201). I think in order to understand his idea of “justice as fairness” a person has to have a concept of the principles of justice, because this is what he bases his idea off of.

Rawls, John. “A Theory of Justice.” A World of Ideas: Essential Reading for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. New York; Bedford St. Martins, 2006. pp 195-206.

Stanton

Stanton seems to feel that men have had power over women by controlling what they can and cannot do. The way she describes how women were treated in this essay, it’s almost as if women were just property of men at this time and had no rights at all “In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming to all intents and purposes, her master-the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement” (Stanton 165). Men could control everything about women because at this time women could not do anything without men, and they couldn’t voice their opinion about it either. If the woman was married and worked, everything that was rightfully hers went to the man regardless of whether she earned it or not. It’s hard to imagine a time like this, when women had nothing without a man. Today it is not unusual for a woman to be independent and successful. Many women today are financially stable on their own and do not need a man to help them. Another thing that is surprising is that at the time that Stanton wrote this when a man and a woman got divorced, the man received sole custody of the children “He has so framed the laws of divorce, as to what shall be the proper causes, and in case of separation, to whom the guardianship of the children shall be given, as to be wholly regardless of the happiness of women-the law, in all cases, going upon a false supposition of the supremacy of man, and giving all power into his hands” (Stanton 165). It is hard to believe that this at one time was the case, when now in the majority of divorced couples the mother gets sole custody of the children. I can’t imagine living at a time like this when women weren’t considered actual people, but just the property of a man.

Stanton, Elizabeth Cady. "Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford St. Martins. 2006. pp 161-169.