#progression2

Casual Hitsugaya, almost-finished sketch. This is an outfit he’s going to be wearing in one of my fanfics. I’m still not sure if I’m going to add anything else to the outfit - he’s never struck me as a particularly flamboyant dresser, though I definitely get some rock or punk vibes from him. 

Jasmine Glover

Professor Beiber

ENG 115

16 October, 2014

Imposed Gender Roles of Society

Morals and values alter over time due to developments in society and culture influence. We’ve experienced the progression of culture beliefs that have given us prominence today, such as equality in treatment and opportunity, religious freedom, and gender differences and roles. In the early 1980’s, the status quo was that men were the supposed providers of their family, and that women were primarily responsible for homemaking and childrearing. In this ethnography, we will identify why these beliefs are still alive, and the different responses that are given concerning gender roles.

For this observation assignment, I chose to work with Stephanie Ayala, to conduct our polls. The time span of our polling did not last more than 24 hours. We decided to survey students who went to CSUN, some of who few close friends of ours, and family. When I surveyed the 5 I chose, I had asked them follow up questions from what they said, and brought to their attention feminism and traditions from as early as the 1950’s. The idea was to get opinions of people who were not all the same age, and examine the differences and opinions and perspectives. But also the similarities of our surveyors were unified on the aspect of an equal share, but I had also noticed that regardless of this, a few of them were specific in what both sexes should regulate and be in charge of or tend to.

Because of convenience, the first person I surveyed was my older brother, Joseph. I thought that interviewing him was actually pretty interesting, considering the fact that I had never wondered if our views clashed or intertwined with one another. But I had never wanted to challenge his views, if they did clash. Considering his personality, his answer blended harmoniously with his character, which was what I had expected. He answered my question with, “We still do hold these values, but they’re slowly transcending gender roles. Similar to people’s opinion on tradition and whether they chose to uphold it or not.” He went on explaining the need of a balance between the man and woman in a household, and gave me any analogy: “When people look at trees they only see the leaves never the roots.”

Following after my brother, I went to my 59 year old father, and asked him the same question. I was surprised, but not shocked with my fathers’ response. “I believe in the 20th century beliefs. Back then, one persons’ income was sufficient because it was enough to support a family with two children. In the real world, men earn more than women.” My discussion with my father also included his religious views, as they are the basis of most of his perspectives on life. This survey made me think about the economic differences between the 20th and the 21st century.

I then consulted one of my closest friends, who also attends CSUN, Pratanporn Endinjok. I interviewed her as I know that she is Thai, and they have different traditions in her culture as opposed to American views. She answered my question with a straightforward, yet vague answer, “I believe so, but it’s not as out there like back then. Since women are speaking up more and fighting for equal rights, in a way we’re slowly throwing away that belief.” Although American raised, I realized from her response that her culture did not play much part in her views. Whether they were established or not, unfortunately I could not tell.

Following suit, I asked my other friend, Ryan Fernandez, who similar to Prat, attends CSUN. As a young adult male, I was fascinated by his answer. Of course, I had my presumptions about what the common guy thought, but it was nothing compared to what Ryan’s response was.  In our brief discussion, he answered, “Yes this belief is still held, but it may be altered in some ways. It’s in our culture. In reality, females can bring home more money and can earn just as much, or the husband can be the cook or clean. I guess it’s a part of our culture, our tradition. I suppose it was made the mans’ job to support and sustain a family and a woman’s job to care for the baby and work inside the household. It’s changed a little in our society but that’s how it still is, and still applies today. It gives a man something to do.” His last thought, resonated in my mind.

Finally came Marie Arjona, a friend I had gone to high school with, but did not attend college. I had not had communication with Marie for a while, which made me feel like a real surveyor. Her response was distinct from the others, as she had mentioned something that had not come to mind. She began to answer the question with, “Yes, I do still believe that he majority of Americans, and most of other cultures expect for the man to be the main source of income. I feel that it is, in some extraordinary cases, is an unspoken rule the men should already take on the role of provider, and that women should tend to homes and children. For my preference, I do feel that the men should take on the role of ‘leader of the household’ but I also believe that women can also take lead, if the husband is absent.”

Jasmine Glover

Professor Beiber

ENG 115

8 October, 2014

Progression 2: Exercise 1

Jasmine Glover

Professor Beiber

ENG 115

7 October, 2014

Summary 5: “FATHERING; It’s Time We said Goodbye to “Mr.Mom”

Jasmine Glover

ENG 115

Stacey Beiber

9/30/14

 “The Year of Domesticity”

                 “The Year of Domesticity” discusses the importance and need of the role of women at home that proves their strength and credibility. Brooks uses Linda Hirshman’s “Homeward Bound” as an example of the wrong perspective of “re-radicaliz[ing] feminism.” Brooks argues that a financially stable job is not the meaning of “human flourishing.” Rather, human flourishing is a result of a domain than just successful careers. Brooks feels that establishing power does not come from working, power lies truly within homemaking. If the job of child rearing, and homemaking is done improperly, this results in neglect. Brooks uses music from Everclear, Pearl Jam, and Snoop Dog as the outcome from an absence of parental power at their home environment. Lastly, Brooks explains that the physicality’s of men and women are entirely different, such as interests.

                                Citation

Brooks, David. “The Year of Domesticity.” The New York Times

                1 January 2006. Web. 9 September 2014

Hirshman, Linda. “Homeward Bound.” The American Prospect

Jasmine Glover

Professor Beiber

ENG 115

14 October, 2014

--Delete extra breaks between paragraphs: Word, Format, Paragraphs, check off delete extra breaks between paragraphs of the same style.  Clear thesis statement.  Make sure every paragraph has a topic sentence, which relates to your thesis statement.  You need THREE outside sources.

Feminists Against Stay At Home Mothers

            I disagree with the view that women who choose to stay at home are often seen as contributing less to society. Women in the working field have made quite the impact on our culture today, as well as women who chose to become full time parents. Women are denigrated by other females who preach equal partnership and equality between both sexes, while losing their confidence to devote to their children and home environment. The choice of career and family is becoming less of a choice and more of an obligation (not sure what you mean).  We discussed this in class yesterday….your introduction can be clearer.  Provide a context for the reader.  I think the real argument is that women are criticized if they work if they financially don’t have to and then they are criticized if they stay at home if they are educated.  Why do women feel criticized for staying home?  Why is this problematic?  What should be done?

            Clearer topic sentence. I think that what you are arguing is that the domestic sphere should be afforded the same respect as the public sphere. Feminists fail to see that creating a nurturing environment for their child is crucial, and can be an important job for anyone. With great strives, women have achieved equality in voting, the work force, even the military fields. But the domestic sphere is often looked over, and disapproved. Ella Wurtzel’s, “1% Wives Are Helping Kill Feminism and Make the War on Women Possible”, opens with ‘’Being a mother isn’t a real job...” Focusing on creating a more superior sex, Wurtzel overlooks the feminist purpose of equality. Another excerpt from her article is, “I am going to smack the next idiot who tells me that raising her children full time -- by which she really means going to Jivamukti classes and pedicure appointments while the nanny babysits -- is her feminist choice.” At the very least, I was shocked that Wurtzel would even refer to her own peer as ‘idiot’ and throwing accusations of poor parenting, in the name of feminism.  Rather than evaluating the article…what is your argument.

Wurtzel mis-defines economic equality as independence from domestic partners and that love is a fool’s delight. Much like Linda Hirschman, Wurtzel degrades educated women who chose to be full time parents. Wurtzel claims, “I have to admit that when I meet a woman who I know is a graduate of, say, Princeton… but is still a full-time wife, I feel betrayed.” But I have to ask, who gives Wurtzel the credibility to make conclusions, when she is on the outside looking in? Not once is the mention of marriage equality, rather to hold one’s own. This lack of promotion for any type of real equality shows that Wurtzel in fact, does not support her fellow sisters, she aims to critique and reform.

Wurtzel discusses financial contribution as a means of an actual job. It is overlooked that other things without income also hold value. So doesn’t this view contradict her own view of feminism? She implies that the value of the women is solely related to the weight of her income, but feminism does not aim to measure the capabilities of women through this.

Many feminists are afraid, mostly of patriarchy, which includes opposite sex marriage, female homemaking and even child rearing. Thus creating a discouraged outlook on the domestic sphere, and shunned stay at home mothers. Feminist do not regard the development of children. Children are contributions to society. But if not nurtured, cared for, and guided, the outcome may be a negative contribution to society rather than a positive one. Creating a stable environment ensures that the future generations will thrive and flourish. Stay home mothers equate what the men and women do in their careers, for they use the same amount of time, and energy into the job. Yet these mothers are being disrespected and overlooked at what they do and sacrifice to contribute to their family and society.

In “Homeward Bound,” Linda Hirshman expresses that stay at home mothers are detrimental to society and cripples themselves as well. Hirshman says, “The family… allows fewer opportunities for full human flourishing…” Another point she makes is that women who are full time parents are weak, and need guidance to make more beneficial choices for themselves. Like Wurtzel, Hirshman encourages careers that pay. Like Wurtzel, Hirshman, over looks that strength can come from more than one source. A career does not define a woman’s value, capability, or credibility. In a counter article, David Brooks cites, “The domestic sphere… is the realm of unmatched influence.” Parental authority is needed for discipline.

One similarity I’ve noticed is that both Hirshman and Wurtzel do not comment on the place of the man in the domestic sphere. As both radical feminists who have a say on what position should be played as a woman, where do they stand when it comes to men? Brooks on the other hand, expresses that the focus should also be on where the father comes in. They do not comment on what action should be taken when there is the unfortunate situation of an absent father.

Ella Wurtzel, and Linda Hirshman both have the same views that women should not feed into stereotypes of where a woman’s place should be. They express that woman should be making their foot print in the working world, and contribute to society with their work. The stay at home mothers, chose to remain ignorant, and those who are educated, rather need to be guided and don’t contribute to human flourishing. These women, who devote to their children should be reprimanded and discouraged. But they do not see that being a stay at home parent is also an important job. Their children is their contribution to society. Wurtzel’s view that women should be earning a paycheck to be valued, objectifies women, and does the opposite of what she seeks out to do. This does not promote feminism, this promotes dogmatism. Hirshmans’ attitude of reform for women, also imposes her own views and limits opportunities for women to thrive in. Stay at home mother, should be supported by their fellow sisters and respected by feminists. They chose to devote to their child and become homemaker. Strength and independence can also come from the domestic sphere.

                                                    Works Cited

Brooks, David. "The Year of Domesticity." - Op-Ed. N.p., 01 Jan. 2006. Web. 14 Oct. 2014.

Hirshman, Linda. "Homeward Bound." The American Prospect. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Oct. 2014.