Roles of Women; Then And Now

Women's rights have been infringed upon for centuries, much less so today in modern times, but it surely has been a long fight to get to this point. Although things still aren't perfect with the way women are viewed and considered, it used to be much, much worse.

In the 1800's there were four characteristics of the "ideal woman". These ideas discouraged women from being anything more than a housewife, which at the time, was thought of as a simple activity while in actuality, being a homemaker today is considered a job. Woman was said to have a brain too small for knowledge or intelligence, but just big enough for love, creating the idea that women were inferior to men intellectually, let alone physically.

The first “ideal characteristic” of a woman was piety, the quality of being religious. It was important for a woman to understand that one of her sole purposes on Earth was to bring "the world out of sin through her suffering, through her pure, passionless love". Religion was one of the things that woman was able to turn to in her terribly "boring and uneventful" home life in the private sphere. Irreligion in females was considered to be the "most revolting human characteristic" and it was common thought that a godless woman couldn't be able to be a good mother.

Purity was the second characteristic. It was believed that, "without sexual purity, a woman was no woman, but rather a lower form of being", and that a woman could use her purity to control men. She was expected to remain pure until marriage, and "despite any male attempt to assault her, she must remain pure and chaste". A woman who lost her purity before marriage was said to be doomed to a life of poverty and mishaps as punishment from God for her sin.

Submissiveness was another ideal characteristic of a woman. A woman was expected to be a passive bystander, "submitting to fate, to duty, to God, and to Men", at all times. Required to wear restricting types of clothing, she was reminded day in and day out that she was lesser and restricted in all aspects of life. The clothing required was designed to reshape the body to make an hourglass shape, and often prevented proper muscle development, restricted movement and inhibited breathing. Clothing like this literally caused women to feel weak and women often fainted because of their restricted breathing.

Domesticity was the fourth and final characteristic of an ideal woman. The woman's place was in the home and her role was to complete “morally uplifting tasks” all aimed at “maintaining and fulfilling” her piety and purity. Housework was considered to be an "uplifting task" along with crafts such as needlework and other appropriate activities along with her wifely duties and childcare. The home was considered the private sphere, and everywhere else the public sphere. Women were contained to this private sphere of the home and according to the cult of domesticity solely existed to “keep the private sphere tidy and welcoming for her husband”; she had to make it a place he could go to find comfort and escape the evils of the outside world.

The Seneca Falls Convention was a woman's rights convention held by white upper-class women tired of the standards they were held to and the little rights they had. It was essentially an event where women decided they were sick of being treated as an inferior and lesser portion of the human race. There, The Declaration of Rights and Sentiments, a document modeled after The Declaration of Independence, was composed. It consisted of their demands concerning Women's roles and treatment in society, making up a list of twelve. Some demands included being equal to men not only in societal matters but also equality in punishment for wrong doings such as being impure, insisting that everyone be held to the same standard. Women's suffrage (the right to vote) was not included on the final draft of the Declaration of Rights and Sentiments because of its controversy. Almost every woman and man at the convention agreed that women should have the right to vote, but were reluctant to include it in the declaration for fear it would be asking too much. The idea was too radical for the time period and they didn't want to risk upsetting people so much because of one issue that the entire document would be dismissed as a whole.

Although the Seneca Falls Convention was a great way for women to get representation and express their opinions on what their rights should be, only white middle class women attended, leaving many other groups of women out of the equation. Our class did a mock version of the convention, but this time, with the unrepresented groups included. These groups of women included Women of New Mexico, Mill Girls, Cherokee Women, and Black/ Slave Women. The class formed resolutions that would benefit women of these groups as well as the Upper Class White Women initially represented in the convention. The group I was assigned to was Cherokee Women. The resolutions my group and I came up with were:
1) Resolved that all treaties regarding property and treatment of Native American are upheld.
2) Resolved that all people have the right to vote.
3) Resolved that all Cherokee people have the right to participate in all institutions public or private.
4) Resolved that abuse against anyone is no longer tolerated.
5) Resolved that women have the right to divorce their husband for any logical reason with or without their husbands consent.
The 3rd resolution was converted to "freedom of speech in public for all people" once coming together with the whole class. This resolution overlaps with the freedom of public speech from the actual convention; at the time women were allowed to perform in public, so they argued they should be able to speak in public too.

Of all of the resolutions discussed during our class’ mock convention I thought that freedom of speech in public was the most important. Once a woman has the freedom to speak in public, she is able to advocate for other rights. I believe that our society has come very far, but not far enough when it comes to the rights of women and the objectives of the convention. Yes, women are allowed to speak in public now, and yes, they are not usually considered academically inferior to men anymore, but, there are still many opinions and perceptions of women need to change. If things had really changed and women were considered completely equal to men the demeaning expression of doing something "like a girl" would not exist. Women are still thought of as lesser capable humans when it comes to many things, and are still often thought of as weak emotionally and physically. The day women are considered to be just as strong as men both physically and emotionally, and gender roles no longer define our society, will be the day that women will finally be considered as what they are, equal to men.

Ferguson Affects Our Foreign Affairs?

With everything that has been going on with the Ferguson and Garner cases regarding racial inequality in the U.S, news has spread quickly to other countries, giving them, "free propaganda rides". Our problems with race have become "front-page news" and allow other countries opportunities to argue that our problems reveal "American hypocrisy".

The article, "Ferguson and Garner Cases Hurt U.S. Foreign Policy", by Jeff Stein, suggests that President Obama should “take a page out of Kennedy’s book”, and deal with the racial issues the U.S. is dealing with today the same way Kennedy did in the 60’s. Kennedy took action quickly, working to desegregate and rule out any reasons for Russia, with whom the U.S was in the midst of the cold war with, to the U.S hypocritical for trying to police the world without policing themselves first. JFK said, “We preach freedom around the world, and we mean it, and we cherish our freedom here at home... but are we to say to the world, and much more importantly, to each other, that this is a land of the free except for the Negroes; that we have no second-class citizens except Negroes; that we have no class or cast system, no ghettos, no master race except with respect to Negroes?”, convincing the country and others that racial inequality was not okay with him. By acting upon the issues at hand, JFK was able to “change the narrative abroad”, and in the article, President Obama is called upon to do the same. Mary Dudziak, a professor at both Stanford and Emery and author of Cold War Civil Rights: Race and the Image of American Democracy, is quoted in the article saying that the, “racial problems in the U.S.” undermines “our ability to criticize”. She then suggests that “Obama needs to present [racial discrimination] as one of the nation’s most pressing and urgent problems”, claiming the alternative would be, “Ceding the battleground to the very dark forces now closing in on Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria”. Nuclear war was at stake in the 60’s, but now, even though, “The U.S. has consolidated its power”, it, “still wants and needs a powerful, positive message to compete for young minds tempted by the siren song of Islamic revolutionaries”, closing with the fact that, “We can’t pursue a human rights agenda abroad if we’re not protecting them at home”.

The Monroe Doctrine was a US foreign policy announced in an annual address to Congress made by President James Monroe regarding Latin American countries in 1823. If the U.S was still following the Monroe Doctrine today, it would not be trying to set an example for other countries in the first place because of the “Separate Spheres of Influence” portion of the Monroe Doctrine, which states that the U.S wouldn’t meddle in any other country’s business and all of the other countries shouldn’t meddle in the U.S’s; so there would be no concern for setting an example in the first place. Also in the Monroe Doctrine is the “Non-colonization” rule which states that no country can dominate another. Although this portion of the doctrine is talking about colonizing and the idea of dominating other countries and the U.S. is not doing that, the idea of the U.S. being the golden country and police for all the others would not exist if we were still following the doctrine today. The last part of the doctrine is the “Non-intervention” portion which states that the U.S. won’t interfere in other countries’ affairs unless it directs the U.S directly. If we were still following it, the idea of setting an example and trying to help other countries’ with their issues wouldn’t exist anyways, so the issue of appearing hypocritical wouldn’t either.

   

The whole point of the article was that if President Obama doesn’t act fast, our country will appear as hypocritical to others because we would be policing other countries without policing our own. Our foreign policy today allows us to intervene, influence, and step in when other countries are struggling, which is great; but, it also unfortunately leads to bad press when it seems we don’t have our act together with our own country, causing the U.S. to appear as unfit and hypocritical when helping others. If the Monroe Doctrine were in place today there would be no issue of this, but, our country may appear as weak and selfish for not helping others and lending a hand when needed.

Article Source: Stein, Jeff. "Ferguson and Garner Cases Hurt U.S. Foreign Policy." Newsweek. NEWSWEEK LLC, 5 Dec. 2014. Web. 05 Dec. 2014.

Race: Then and Now

Simón Bolívar had the idea of uniting South American countries through the idea that they are all "South- American", using race and South- American identification as his convincing factors in persuading people of the countries he wanted to unite to get on board with his plan. He tried to paint the picture of one big culture coming together through Gran Colombia, but in the end was not able to fully complete his plan as many countries broke off right before his retirement.

Bolívar started out as a young officer in Caracas in 1810, whose goal was to liberate the whole of New Granada from Spanish rule. From 1811 until 1830 he worked to liberate and unite South American countries with the goal of creating “Gran Colombia”, one large South American Republic. But, due to the frequent reconquering of the countries by Spain and the many formal seceding’s by independent South American countries just before Simón Bolívar retired he was never able to unite all of the countries simultaneously thus causing his dream of one big republic to fall apart. He wanted to unite all of the countries through the idea that they could all identify as one thing; South American. Because the countries were so heavily divided by social class based on race at the time, the idea of all uniting under one identity was appealing to everyone, except the Spanish who controlled the countries of course. Due to frequent reconquering, the countries were forced to create their own identities to unite under in the meantime, as they didn’t belong in one place for long periods of time. Because of this development, once Gran Colombia was finally formed, many countries seceded from it; their individual country’s identification and unity being enough. Simón Bolívar was able to use race to unite South Americans through South-American-ness, inspiring those countries to individualize even further creating the cultures of the modern South American countries we know today.

The article I chose, “Chris Rock: How We Talk About Race in U.S. Is ‘Nonsense’”, from TIME.com, is written by Maya Rhodan, and is a piece describing Chris Rock’s thoughts on race in the US. It is not an article that is reactant to one particular event, but rather a perspective on racial progress of blacks and whites in the US as a whole lately and the misconceptions it carries. Racial progress is talked about often when referring to the way blacks are treated and the accomplishments black people make, and in the article, Chris Rock explains why he thinks it’s wrong to call it “progress”. Rock says, “There are no race relations. White people were crazy. Now they’re not as crazy. To say that black people have made progress would be to say they deserve what happened to them before”, which is something I completely agree with. I think that race is still a huge part of the way people identify in this country, and I do think that politics are greatly affected by it, but the idea that black people are changing and being recognized because they finally have a reason to be is completely false. As Rock said, to call it progression the black people would have had to deserve the way they were treated before and would have had to improve as people in some way, but they haven’t. What has changed is the perception of them, and even people of other races. Generations and generations of white people have become educated and many have come to realize it is not okay to judge someone based on the color of their skin; allowing black people to finally be recognized in society and allow them to accomplish big things such as become president, etc. But that is not to say racism is dead, because it is certainly not. In my opinion, if Michael Brown were a white kid, and the officer were black, he would be indicted right away, no matter where the fault lays, because that is just the way things are at the moment in our country’s perception of black crime. The only progression there has been is the progression of tolerance and acceptance of other races, which should have been there all along. Black people are not becoming better, white people just are becoming more accepting.

Article Source: Rhodan, Maya. "Chris Rock: How We Talk About Race in the U.S. Is 'Nonsense'" Time. Time, O1 Dec. 2014. Web. 01 Dec. 2014.

Congress of Vienna; No More Napoleon

Napoleon's reign as emperor was influential not only when he was alive and conquering, but even after he had been exiled and out of power.

In fact, he was so influential, that all of the European powers decided to hold a Congress in order to make a plan and set up new rules that would protect from one becoming as powerful as Napoleon did.

Our essential question this week was "What should people in power do when their power is threatened?". It pertains to the decisions made in the Congress of Vienna to protect against a napoleonic abuse of power. In class, we modeled the congress of Vienna. We were given problems to discuss in small groups, and then picked which  solution we thought would best benefit the "New Europe". After all of the groups decided what would be best, we were told what solution was actually picked by the congress members. This gave us insight to how the congress worked, and the ideas behind the new customs Europe implemented.

The Holy Alliance was a concept initiated by Czar Alexander of Russia, in which monarchs had Divine right to rule, and any revolution was treason and against God. The congress implemented this concept in order to stamp out the threat of revolution, which is what had caused Napoleon's rise to power in the first place. They hoped that making revolution a charge of treason and declaring it "against God" would ensure that peace would continue. This, and all of the other concepts initiated by the Congress of Vienna, were all to prevent anything like Napoleon's reign of power from happening again.

I don't think that the best solution would have been the Holy Alliance. Personally, I feel that if the Congress of Vienna chose to have the "monarchs act with more benevolence toward their peoples in the hope of quelling revolutionary ideas" and have "European leaders support religious toleration and greater freedom of speech and develop and support the arts, sciences and education"; or, in other words, choice C, Europe would have had a better chance at maintaining peace. In order for chaos and revolution to be avoided, a ruler needs to listen and accommodate people. By doing that, trust will be built between the monarch/government, and the people wouldn't have a reason to uprise. The powerful should be willing to sacrifice some of their power in order to maintain a peaceful country.

SOURCE: http://www.napoleonguide.com/convienna.htm

The World's Most Iconic Little Leader

Napoleon was arguably Europe’s most iconic leader. Although he was and continues to be quite a controversial figure in history, there’s no denying he was great at what he did. While he was in power, he not only redrew the map of Europe through all of his conquering and overtaking of other countries, but established many other social, economic, and political reforms while he was at it, completely changing the way much of Europe was operated. His influence still lives on today, and will most likely until the end of time; Napoleon was and continues to be one of history’s finest leaders.

Through his social impact, Napoleon’s concern for education and merit was made clear. All across Europe he abolished all titles of nobility, serfdom, and church privilege; thus ending the long standing ideas that one could be considered lesser or greater based on the status they were born into. His reform didn't end social class based on birthright completely, but it was a step in the right direction for hard-work to be valued. He also established a meritocracy, a system in which people were rewarded for their skills instead of their social class, again establishing the idea that merit was important. He granted everyone more rights to property and made education more accessible for citizens as well.

Source: http://www.biography.com/people/napoleon-9420291

Bonaparte also had a huge economic impact on Europe. He was able to restore economic prosperity to France after the Revolution through controlling prices, encouraging and stimulating new industry, removing trade barriers, and building new roads and canals. He was able to establish the Bank of France, balance the budget, and undertake massive public work programs; all of which only contributed to his supporters’ admiration for him. All of his changes had great and positive impact on not only France and much of Europe’s economy, but the way he was viewed as well. His ingenious ideas won over many of the average citizens, and so did the avid concern he seemed to have for the middle man. He was considering others beside himself and the government, which was something that hadn't really been done in past European governments.

The political impact Napoleon made was equally as important as his social and economic impacts. He had great influence and power, and was able to conquer almost all of Europe besides Britain through his war leadership and tactics. He was a bit intimidating too, seeing as when the Directory became aware of his intentions to overthrow them in 1709, all five members resigned. Napoleon also reorganized the government of Egypt and established the Institute of Egypt while he was at it, an establishment that eventually began the study of Ancient Egypt, which is still a huge part of the world’s studies today.

Although there are many who claim that Napoleon was an unlikable character or not as influential as he is claimed to be, there really is no argument that he changed the way a lot of the world worked. Through his economic, social, and political reforms he was able to not only change much of Europe for the better but also impact other countries as well; even to this day many of his ideas still resonate in many societies. Napoleon Bonaparte was not only Europe’s most influential leader, but one of the most influential leaders to have ever walked the Earth.

Socialism, Capitalism, and Starburst

To think that the number of starburst you received at the beginning of our class activity on last Thursday determined how wealthy you would be in our mock capitalist society is admittedly quote absurd to imagine. Although that was the case, it certainly had its purpose. We spent our class learning about Capitalism and Socialism, and even though the idea of using starburst sounds silly, it was a lot more helpful in explaining how the societies worked than you would think.

Upon entering class, Ms. Bailey handed each of us either three or ten starburst, thus determining your position in society. There were a lot less people who ended up with ten, and a lot more of us who received only three (I was one to receive only three). The reason for the difference in numbers was to show how some people are born into more money than others. So few people were given ten to demonstrate how there are so few people sharing such a great amount of wealth, in our case starburst, in the upper class of societies, and how the little money left had to be spread over a much larger amount of people. After distribution, we were told we could play rock-paper-scissors with each other to try and gain more starburst, this was to demonstrate how no matter your class, you can gain or lose money. Trading ensued, and the class ended up figuring out alternative ways to gain, such as stealing and begging. Through this, anyone had a fair chance to gain or lose starburst. Then Ms. Bailey collected all of our starburst, no matter how many we had gained or lost through trade, a redistributed the starburst, each of us receiving three. This caused some rage, mostly from the people who had worked hard to gain (or steal) starburst, because they were now equal to all of the others, even though they worked hard to be successful. The newfound equality of starburst among us was to demonstrate a socialist society. I was personally really frustrated when the candy was collected, because although I stole the majority of the candy I ended up with, it was still hard work.

In the socrative seminar there were a lot of great points made about both the activity, and about Capitalism and Socialism. April had a simple, but very relatable comment on the redistribution of the candy, which was: "If you're working hard for something and you become successful, to have it all taken away just really sucks". I really couldn't have said it better myself, and everyone seemed to agree that having it all be equal wasn't fair to the more successful people in the class. There was also a mutual agreement about socialism, being that it's a great system for the poor and lazy because they're provided with an equal source of income without much work required, but for the wealthy and hardworking it is very frustrating that they receive the same amount of money as people who don't work half as hard as them; coming to the conclusion that how the system is flawed. Socialism allows for inactive members of a society to remain inactive and be rewarded for it, and grants no real reward for those who work 3 times as hard and deserve 3 times as much income as everyone else. Julianne put it well, saying that socialism "destroys natural competition", meaning, without social classes there is not only no way for people to get ahead, but nothing for anyone to aspire to be or have, thus creating lazy members of society. But, Capitalism isn't perfect either. Julianne also said, "Capitalism is intended for people with good intentions and working habits, but societies don't always support that— the rich don't always help out the poor, and the poor don't always work", which I again, couldn't agree more with.

 Karl Marx, the father of Communism, and co-creator of socialism, and Adam Smith, creator of Capitalism and the “Invisible Hand” both had the poor of society in their best interests, but had very different theories on how to help them. Marx believed that with Socialism economic equality could be reached through the government’s complete ownership of industry, meaning there was no free trade. Through Socialism Marx aimed for a classless society, which seems great from the perspective of someone living in poverty. If there were no classes and no one had more money than others, there would be no more poverty; but this only works to a certain extent. Everyone earning the same amount of money would mean that a Neurosurgeon would be paid the same salary as a fry cook, which isn’t fair in the least bit. With that idea in place, what motivation would one even have to become something as important as a surgeon, if they would be paid the same money as someone working half as hard as them? Socialism is great in the sense that poverty wouldn’t be as big of a problem, but it creates a lazy society in which people won’t work as hard to earn salary, because its equal to everyone else’s. But that doesn’t mean Capitalism and the Invisible Hand theories aren’t just as flawed.

Smith’s idea of Capitalism would work perfectly in a completely honest and good society, but those, unfortunately, do not exist. Capitalism is the idea that there is private ownership of industry and freedom of competition, or, in other words: people are born into the money that they’re born into, and depending on how hard they work they will be able to change social classes. But, it results in unequal economic classes and due to the greedy nature of many humans, much poverty. Capitalism is made to work in an ideal society in which the rich would help the poor, but that is very few times the case. The Invisible Hand is also made for an ideal society, for it is made to work like this: the people would govern themselves, if competition between companies arose they would battle it out until one becomes more prominent, leaving the other to find something different to market. This way the things people want are produced with no excess, and the market grows. The problems with this theory are that it would only work if people were all good and honest, and there were unlimited supplies for people to move onto working with. It is very ideal and unlikely to work, not only because of the said reasons, but also because the economy could stall and it takes a very long time to reach equilibrium in an economy.

I would have to say there isn’t one theory I like best. I would say capitalism, but only if the society was perfect and all of the ideals in Capitalism worked out. I feel like a blend of both Socialism and Capitalism might be key, but just what that blend might be, I don’t have a clue. I kind of liked what Ryan came up with in the Socrative Seminar, it was to give everyone just enough money to live on, plus a little more. The extra money could be used for anything, and with it, people could either get ahead or fall behind. There would be social classes without complete poverty or absurd wealth. But, I also disagree with that theory because I don’t think everyone should just automatically get paid for being a part of society, only those who were ambitious would rise up, and everyone else remaining stable yet somewhat lazy because they could rely on the same amount of money to have all the time without working too hard. So I guess my answer is I have no idea. Both work in theory, but neither is really a GREAT solution, even though I prefer Capitalism to Socialism. 

RAFT- Luddites: Taking Sides

During England's Industrial Revolution, a group of  people known as the Luddites became a prevalent force. They were skilled artisans, against machinery replacing people making goods. They believed that there was value in handmade goods, and because of industrialization their business' were being evaporated by the new, cheaper, and faster- made goods the factories provided for their former customers. They became fed up with all of the industrialization because of this, and started destroying machinery to make the point that they wouldn't put up with it destroying their business'. The Luddites weren't necessarily hateful people, and they didn't hate the people who worked in the factories, but, they did wish that the employees working at the mills were actually skilled in the craft of their business' instead of just being a source cheap labor for the factory owners. The following is a mock primary source letter from a skilled weaver being pressured to join the Luddite movement.

Dear Addison,

I have written to tell you about the Luddite Movement. I know you have probably heard some about it already, but Mother told me to write and tell you the details. The Luddites are a group of skilled artisans protesting machinery taking over small business'. They protest it by destroying the machines destroying their livelihood. I am not a Luddite yet, but I am a weaver, and my business is crumbling because of all of the factories and industrialization. I used to have a solid 15 customers who came to me regularly, and I am now down to about 4. I don't want to resort to the violence, as the machines have done nothing wrong, but I am feeling all sorts of pressure from my colleagues to join the movement. I'm so torn; I was to remain a pacifist, but I will go out of business if things continue the way they are, and I feel it is my duty to join the Luddites.

I hope all is well, and perhaps in your response you can tell me your thoughts on my predicament? Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Give Aunt Lucy and Uncle Samuel my best wishes, and I hope all is well over in Pennsylvania.

Your Cousin,
Siobhan