take a different approach to the male outlook of themselves. Many women today have
found inner beauty as another ‘boost’ of self confidence. However, in the early nineteen
Sadly, men has had a tremendous amount of persuasion to contribute to this fact. As long
as a woman had a pretty face, she would have a man to take care of her.
This did little for
I once read a literary about a woman named Gladys Bell. One of the first
‘feminist’ of the century. She began her ‘journey’ as many women did and still do, as a
woman only having goals emphasized on her mate. First, as a young lady trying to be
justifyably partriarchal amoung certain social orders, such as a famous quote “Beauty but
no brains.” The goals’ main objective was marriage before a person reached her twenties
and right after education stopped.
This playing an important role in constructivism–to
borrow a generally recognizable label for convenience sake. (Richard A. Rogers,
“Constructivism, Feminism and Nature: Does Language Have to In-Form?”) It was
convenient for a woman to have no education, but be attractive and get married at a
young age. A man to take care of their needs, but did they really?
With that question, I bring about the topic of feminism. Were women
totally unparalell then with today’s working woman? A question often asked, but never
really dissolved. My point in tact would be women were basically the same emotionally,
but had a greater demand to be socially and politically correct.
In doing so, men were
predominant with their wives. The goal of the female then being fulfilled and socially
constituted with means of constructivism.
Gladys Bell brought about many questions of her time and somewhat enabled
subjugation of oppressed groups of women, feminists. In the traditional train of thought,
feminism doesn’t mean “Girl Power,” if you will. Feminism is the female right to move
‘freely’ throughout mankind and be in control of their thinking and actions. Free will, as
some may want to execute.
Women were rarely ‘permitted’ to speak without being asked a question in public.
Now, in 1998, we have women in the Supreme Court. As I heard in Biology one night,
men would marry a woman just to produce a son. Not for romantic love, a harsh reality
to face that our gender was looked on in such a manor. (Donna Haraway’s words,)
It is barely admissable recognition of the odd sorts of agents and
actors which/whom we must admit to the narrative of collective
life, including nature, that simultaneously, first, turns us decisively
away from enlightment-derived modern and post modern premises
about nature and culture..
.and, second, saves us from the deadly
point of view of humanism, come down to the story line that “man
makes everything, including himself, out of the world that can only
be resource and potency to his project and active agency.” This
production is about a man the tool-maker and -user, whose highest
technical production is himself; i.e., the story line of phallogocentrism.
(297) (Richard A.
More recently women have began to utilize the fact that they have just as much
right and we are gaining power. Gladys Bell questioned if there was ever real love in her
marriage. Many would argue that “A successful marriage requires falling in love many
times, always with the same person.” — (Mignon McLaughlin) All these points trace
back to the misconception that women are only here for the main purpose to acquire to a
males needs, but is it a double-standard? I mean some think men should be labeled to
have the same purpose. But they are not, even today.
Communication between the two genders has slowly begun to open up, causing
more understanding among the population.
The recent movement of women caused
somewhat of an uproar among the male population. Being more dissolved now, men
most men are open with the movement, therefore causing more of a communication