Monday, April 9, 2007
Wollstonecraft
I found Wollstonecraft’s piece very interesting as well as still relevant. I thought reading something from the 1700’s would be pointless because I would not be able to relate to it. There were many things that were addressed that are still true today, one of them being class issues. Much of it had to do with the wealthy part of society. She talks of how the wealthy are often idle and will only do things to earn certain titles or honor through being a soldier or statesman. This still seems to ring true in the way that people identify certain jobs with having power or high social status. There are people in this world that only judge how successful of a life you’ve lived by how much money is in your bank account. I thought Wollstonecraft’s piece talked about this in relation to women in a good way as well. Today, women are still only climbing the corporate ladder so far and then they hit the glass ceiling. Although many think that women’s issues in the US are solved, there is still many issues that need to be resolved. Women still only make $0.75 for every dollar that a man makes. The fact that Wollstonecraft addressed some of these issues in her piece back in the 1700’s was really revolutionary and it is amazing that some of these issues are still prevalent today. The last major idea in Wollstonecraft’s piece that I agreed with is when she talks about beautiful women and women in the home. I do not agree that pretty women will neglect their duties as wives and other things just because they are pretty but I know that many pretty women will get by in life a lot easier than less-attractive women. There was a psychology study done and it showed that more pretty women were helped on the street when they needed it and many were promoted faster than other women. Also, there are still many women that face mothers and grandmothers that encourage them to be housewives when they want to go into a professional field.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I would agree with you on the fact that the more attractive women do receive more help from men and others then those less attractive. However, I think both attractive and non-attractive women accept their duties. Women have struggled for the longest time and they can now finally do alot more with their lives. If a woman chooses to have children, I believe she willingly takes on those duties as a mother and accepts her responsibility. Nothing is forced upon her she is free to make those decisions. Even with all the pressures from grandmothers, or mothers, women are free to make their own decision so if they choose to be a house wife and not become a professional in some field, they made that choice on their own. People cannot point a finger at someone else.
I do not really think that the level of attractiveness of a woman is directly related to the level of responsibility that woman has in this home. You mention in your comment "If a woman chooses to have children, I believe she willingly takes on those duties as a mother and accepts her responsibility," but what if that woman does not CHOOSE to become a mother? What if she is accidently impregnated and is stuck raising the child? Do they then have the right to choose to neglect the child that was forced into their life? Just something to think about.
This piece makes me think of the issue of women being underpaid for doing the exact same job as what men do. Also, it reminds me of the saying that the stay at home mothers work more than what any other person works. This is personal to me, because my mom is a stay at home mom. And she doesn't at all seem to be a repressed dreamless woman that is trapped at home. It just seems slightly ridiculous to think that women today are trapped at home. My mom didn't totally choose to stay at home. When we moved for my dad's job, she simply didn't get another one. She was able to spend more time with my siblings and I. She isn't dreamless and repressed and trapped in a life that she doesn't want, she chose it herself and that I think that that is just as liberating as one that chooses to have a job and a career.
In general, I think her points are still relevant, though not as much. There is still an expectation of women to be the caretakers in families, but then there was really no choice. Women are now able to pursue a career. Many still don't because they enjoy having roles similar to what the women of the 1700's did. This would contribute to the statistics that make women seem to be outcasts in the corporate world. There are many female CEOs; there most assuredly is still a distrust of a woman's ability to lead, but it is less pronounced. That's not to say that it isn't a problem. It's perpetuated by the fact that many of today's powerful businessmen grew up in the 50's or 60's, when so many mothers were homemakers. That's still true today, but to a lesser extent. Thus, when today's children are in control, the stigma of the role of women will be even less powerful. I doubt it will ever disappear, but it is being constantly watered down by the progression of society.
Post a Comment