Beauvoir

Eternal Feminine

Simone De Beauvoir was a woman that lived in the 1900’s. She wrote of something called the eternal feminine. This was a myth in all actuality that was around for many years. Surprisingly though, the myth remained the same and remained present even with things that were presented to de-bunk it. Much evidence built around the myth but it remained static and was unchanging.

The “eternal feminine”, was the idea that women are mysterious, unpredictable, and out of reach of being understood by a man. There were two groupings in essence, one being men and the opposite group referred to as “the other” (also known as woman) but considered “not man”. Mystery being the main part of the myth leads it to be completely pointless. Mystery does not really matter. If someone is mysterious or if they are not, does not really hold much authority in the real world. Mystery really does not describe how a person is or how they act towards others. It is just a describing word of pretty much nothing useful. This uselessness description really has no standing or importance and is an odd myth. Who cares if someone is mysterious? There is no reason that woman should have been underrated because men did not take the time or effort to understand a woman.

The myth is pointless and is just a way for men to try to lower women’s integrity but in a very uneducated, ignorant way. For as smart as men made themselves seem back then, it is surprising that a woman being “mysterious” was the best put down they could come up with.

Beauvoir, Simone De. “Myth and Reality.” The Second Sex. A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. pp781-795.

Woolf

What was the expected role of women in Shakespeare’s time?

Women were viewed as property in the Elizabethan Era. Virginia Woolf wrote of the inequalities that women experienced but made it so that it did not lean too far to one-sided extreme feminist view. If she had, people may have not read what she had to say. She described how at a young age of thirteen to fourteen girls were sent of to be married. The family or in other words, the father, decided who his daughter was to marry. There was no dating her father’s choice and then if she did not care for him, have her father choose another. His first choice was her final choice. This is very disturbing to think that a woman had to obey every man in her life and all huge decisions that impacted her, were made by others. Divorce was not even a possibility while a woman’s husband had the “right” to beat her if she did not follow his orders or just because he felt like it. There would be no one to turn to and no one to save you. Feelings of helplessness would consume the women, I’m sure.

Women complain of inequalities today, but I am glad that we have made it as far as we have from this narrow thinking. It is a scary thought to have my father’s choice of men be who I ended up being smacked around by. Virginia Woolf made these happenings real by writing of them.

Woolf, Virginia. “Shakespeare’s Sister.” A Room of One’s Own. A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. pp403-415.

Reich

What are “routine producers”? What will be their fate in the future?

Routine producers are the group of people Robert B. Reich describes as being in the boat that does nothing but sink rapidly. The boat that sinks rapidly in the boats on waves metaphor is the boat that signifies the loss of income and positions in their fields. Routine produces are those people that are production workers, working in factories or on lines to get the job done. They used to be paid quite well. Then companies got wind slowly, that immigrants or other foreigners in other countries would do the work for a fraction of the cost. Obviously, businesses wanted to make as much money as possible, which meant switching to the lower-waged people to do the job cheaper without losing the workmanship or efficiency in which the products are produced. The more time goes on the more companies switched to cheaper labor and increased their pocket size.

Routine producer’s fate does not look good. Machines began replacing their jobs. Machines doing the jobs are just as efficient and then they do not need as many actual workers to operate them and pay them. This lessens the cost of production even further. This also results in more jobs being lost. After technology advances, ten to one they do not go back to old, less productive ways as long as production continues to run smooth.

This relates to today as well. The big controversy at this time is having migrant workers come do the same jobs Americans are doing and get paid for less money. Immigrant workers came and took over the landscaping jobs here in America. It used to be a job nobody wanted. Once others came over to do it, suddenly Americans were upset saying they are stealing jobs. It’s a vicious cycle.

Reich, Robert B. “Why the Rich Are Getting Richer and the Poor, Poorer.” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. pp403-415.

Galbraith

What is case and insular poverty?

Poverty is considered not having enough money, food or support to maintain life. Poor is an even exchange of the word poverty. In “The Position of Poverty,” by John Kenneth Galbraith, he explains that there are two categories of poverty that can be experienced. He described them as case and insular poverty. The difference between them is who the poverty affects and why.

In terms of case poverty, the individual is solely affected along with the possibility of his or her family. Case poverty, in many cases is brought about from something the individual lacks or does. Alcoholism, mental deficiencies, handicaps or even possibly discrimination against them are all things that could cause case Poverty. Even being fired from a job can cause it as well. It will affect the individual and his or her family’s income, resulting in poverty.

Insular poverty on the other hand affects a group of people in a certain area. This poverty can be caused by the environment. A poor standard of living that can be overlooked will lead to this kind of poverty. Places like Detroit could be considered to have insular poverty in some areas. This poverty affects the whole area within the society and not just certain individuals there. This is an epidemic among citizens in a certain area. It is not caused by individual deficiencies as is the case of case poverty.

John Kenneth Galbraith brings to light, these issues in hopes of attempting to fix them. He suggests that curing poverty is possible but he is not sure that people along with the government see it as an important issue unless they themselves experience it. This document was written in 1958. He brought poverty to the forefront but he was correct in his assumptions of people not caring to solve the problem of it. It is now 2007 and we still deal with the same problems as he wrote about in 1958. Soon, people are going to wish they had taken steps to fix it instead of ignoring it as the economy continues to slip here in Michigan.

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

What is the economic condition of the bourgeoisie? What is the economic condition of the proletariat?

The bourgeoisie is a group of people that fall under the category of the “middle class.” According to Karl Marx, they oppress all the other social classes found within the same hierarchy. They are modern capitalists. Capitalists, referring to wealthy people involved in business enterprises. They monopolize the wealth system and this monopoly is exactly what oppresses the other classes. The bourgeoisies are the owners of property which is a personal wealth that the proletariats cannot possess.
Proletariats are the group of people that would fall into the category of the “working class.” According to Karl Marx, they are considered the class of modern wage laborers who do not have a means of production of their own so they are reduced to selling their labor-power in order to live (Marx 357). Proletariats are the hard working people that use their skill of laboring to maintain a life and support their loved ones. They struggle from day to day trying to find work. It became harder for them with the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution came about, bringing machines in to replace the work of people. Only few people are needed to actually run the machines. Those that once did the same work as the machines are replaced by a more “efficient” means of production.
Proletariats are worse off than the bourgeoisie economically. But according to Karl Marx in “The Communist Manifesto”, the proletariats are better off in the long run. Their skills will be utilized longer and they are more efficient. Communism will level the playing field for them when it removes the owning of property from the bourgeoisies rights. The action of the revolution of communism was explained as, “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). In retrospect, communism should actually help fuel the proletarians along and also help them conquer the bourgeoisie.
The two classes were in constant struggle but the proletariats would shine through with communism.

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.