Source Interpretation and Research
1. What is Patriarchy?
Patriarchy is when the power of a group or society is completely controlled by the male figure. An example of this is when a family is mostly powered by the father.
2. What is the document about?
2. What is the document about?
The document talks about the differences between man and woman. It states how women are treated differently and also talks about the expectations that women have throughout their lives such as the care they are to give to the family in order to keep the family strong and united as one. Rousseau tries to point out the distinct roles that men and women play and also mentions that they should not “violate his faith.”
3. How does Rousseau justify gender inequality?
Rousseau justifies gender by stating that it is important that men and women do not carry out the same roles in society; since he believes that the division of men and women is caused by “nature” and not by “human institutions.” An example of this is when women are the ones who give birth to children and therefore responsible to the opposite sex.
4. Are his arguments valid? Why or why not?
4. Are his arguments valid? Why or why not?
I believe that Rousseau sets out interesting valid points. Yes, a women is able to bear children and has many roles to play as a woman in raising her children. However, I do not believe that the unfaithful women is able to destroy the family more so than the male, because the unfaithful male is able to break the marriage just as much as the woman can. When an unfaithful man leaves his family he has just destroyed not only the foundation of the house financially but emotionally for his children as well.
Textbook: Chapter 1
1. Given the enormous variety among Native American women, are there any generalizations we can draw about their experiences in the era of conquest?
Textbook: Chapter 1
1. Given the enormous variety among Native American women, are there any generalizations we can draw about their experiences in the era of conquest?
The experiences of the various Native American women during the era of conquest were similar in that changes were brought upon to every tribe that existed among the indigenous people. All the native women had been disrupted by a new way of life in which they would eventually have to adapt. All natives had their own duties depending on which region they were settled. The Native Americans were affected in many ways such as the spread of smallpox which was brought in my the Europeans (5). This caused a huge “wipe out” of the Native American people. The European countries tried to influence the native Americans by preaching Catholicism throughout the tribes. The European men that had colonized allowed the native Americans to go into their colonies and work as slaves. While working as slaves in the colonies, many of these Native American women slaves had made children with the European men creating mixed-races of European and Native Americans (6). Many of the Native American women eventually began marrying European traders and were able to introduce them to the Native American culture. Many saw these women as being the “mediators” between cultures (14).
2. What insights does a gendered history of slavery bring to our understanding of the origins of slavery in North America?
Slavery has always been a large part of American history. Gender played a large role as well. The white women that lived in the colonies were sometimes seen as laborers even though the work they did was not done in the fields, but as chores in the household. Many of them were indentured as they first went into the colonies. Then, Africans were introduced as the new laborers. The lives of white women had changed when more African slaves were available. Africans were always the servants but had now become the slaves that were owned and could not leave their masters. Laws that were passed made everything even worse for the slaves because the law showed the basic differences between the blacks and white women’s roles. This also allowed for another law which allowed enslavement to be passed to the children of the enslaved women. This caused many of the white male slave-owners to rape their slaves.
3. What were the most significant differences among European women colonists?
3. What were the most significant differences among European women colonists?
The European women colonists had differences in that the women in Chesapeake and the Carolinas were lower and subordinate to the men and had a less freedoms than that of those in other colonies. The women in Chesapeake who were married usually had all their possession owned by their husbands. The women did not have too many legal rights. The New England colonies favored the women more than the other colonies. The Puritan New Englanders “encouraged love and respect between husbands and wives“(25). Also, unlike the Chesapeake, the New Englanders traveled as family groups while those in Chesapeake only had the males migrate. Since the New Englanders were Puritans, they were also more religious than those in Chesapeake and the Carolinas which is why family was more important.
4 comments:
Rachel R#1
Hello Elias,
I agree that an unfaithful woman does not always destroy the family as much as an unfaithful man. I find it incredulous that one could be more damaging than the other or hold more serious consequences. Have you thought about how Rousseau is once again portraying the inequalities among men and women, this time in the light of sexual behavior? He is saying that for a man to cheat is only to withhold the only reward a woman receives for living such a sober and dutiful life. Yes he is called an “unjust and barbarous” man but there is no real reprimand for his actions. When the woman becomes unfaithful there are no adjectives to accompany her name, but instead, she is left with the blame for the dissolution of her family. Seems pretty harsh considering the man only gets called a few names doesn’t it? This is where Rousseau shows his view of women as being subordinate to men. Each sex can choose the same behavior but with extremely different consequences. The man must never be betrayed by the woman for the family will fall apart. And yet if it is the other way around, and she is betrayed, the woman is expected to cope. I am sure this, in part, has to do with women not being seen as sexual beings. Double standard of the 18th century and sadly still a common view held today! Ive enjoyed reading your blog (and the first one too!), thanks for sharing, and I will see you in class tomorrow!
Tyler R#2
Hello to both Elias and Rachel! Elias- Great job on your blog! I know it was difficult for you since you didn't have a book, but your work paid off!
Rachel- I agree with both you and Elias. I didn't touch on this subject in my own blog, but there is a double standard in any community in regards to adultery. It is not fair that women are portrayed worse than men if they cheat or break a marriage, but the man gets off with a slap on the wrists and nicer new apartment. I think in today's society it is seen as such a worst offense if a woman is, lets say promiscuous, than if a guy was to do it. Just look at the Greek system. Frat boys, I'm sure, sleep around just as much if not more than Sorority girls, but the girls are nick named "sorority sluts" while the boys are "just being boys". I think that Rousseau's point on this is very invalid in today's society. But back when his work was published it was different world. And when reading work like that I think everyone needs to take a step back and remember that. Thank you for your post! See ya Tuesday!
Ruba R #2
Hello Elias, Rachel and Tyler,
In response to Rachel R #1, I agree with you in regards to fact that unfaithfulness from either partner will damage the family just equally. I think that Rousseau’s document views a woman as being the main force for keeping the family together and she is to blame if it is not. This is extremely unfair either way. As you mentioned in your R1, all the man is punished with is to be” called a few names”, when the woman’s adultery, on the other hand, would be the blame for tearing the family apart. I think that Rousseau based his argument on how big of a role a woman had as far as raising the family and caring for the man’s needs through out the family’s life. However, what he failed to mention is the emotional aspect of all this. Would a man be more devastated if his wife committed adultery than a woman would if her husband was unfaithful? Obviously, he made it sound as if that was the case. As if the woman as you mentioned, “Is expected to cope”.
Thank you all. Have a nice week.
Virginia R#2
I would like to respond to what everyone has to say. I must agree that it is not right to blame everything on the women when a marriage or relationship fails. It take two to tango, a marriage or relationship is a two way thing both partners need to put time and effort into one another for it to be successful. Once one wonders off the relationship starts getting rocky. As to what Rousseau said this happen to be his opinion. And back in the day people believed everything they read and had to do with the nature (God). If nature was responsible or brought up then it must be true. People didn’t understand that it wasn’t only the women’s job to take care of the house and kids. Or that both men and women can be the ones to bring home the money. The bottom line is that today society and the society they lived in when Rousseau wrote that document where two very different worlds.
Post a Comment