Difference between revisions of "328--Week 7 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
(→Doris Stevens [pro] and Dr. Alice Hamilton [anti] debate the ERA, 1924 in the Forum.) |
|||
| Line 84: | Line 84: | ||
I thought it was interesting reading and comparing the arguments presented in Doris Stevens' and Alice Hamilton's essays. What I found particularly interesting was that each group seemed to have the best interests of women at their core. Stevens was promoting the equality of women and men, and Hamilton promoted protection of women. However, I think that the closing statement in Hamilton's essay demonstrates how women as well as men needed a lot of convincing to promote the idea that they are equals. She says, "I must, as a practical person, familiar with the great, inarticulate body of working women, reiterate my belief that they are largely helpless, that they ahve very special needs which unaided they cannot attain, and that it would be a crime for the country to pass legislation which would not only make it impossible to better their lot in the near future but would even deprive them of hte small measure of protection they now enjoy." (p.126). It's also interesting that she thinks that passing an equal rights legislation would make it impossible for women to better their lot, whereas Stevens thinks that equal rights is the key to improvement. --Katie Nelson | I thought it was interesting reading and comparing the arguments presented in Doris Stevens' and Alice Hamilton's essays. What I found particularly interesting was that each group seemed to have the best interests of women at their core. Stevens was promoting the equality of women and men, and Hamilton promoted protection of women. However, I think that the closing statement in Hamilton's essay demonstrates how women as well as men needed a lot of convincing to promote the idea that they are equals. She says, "I must, as a practical person, familiar with the great, inarticulate body of working women, reiterate my belief that they are largely helpless, that they ahve very special needs which unaided they cannot attain, and that it would be a crime for the country to pass legislation which would not only make it impossible to better their lot in the near future but would even deprive them of hte small measure of protection they now enjoy." (p.126). It's also interesting that she thinks that passing an equal rights legislation would make it impossible for women to better their lot, whereas Stevens thinks that equal rights is the key to improvement. --Katie Nelson | ||
| − | + | As a modern woman, I felt that I had to immediately side with Doris Stevens. Of course women should be equal to men in every respect, especially in the workplace (even though they still aren't in terms of equal pay.) But it wasn't hard to understand Alice Hamilton's argument. What the NWP was proposing was taking away the power of being women from women. It made me think about whether equality is always the right answer. While removing the issue of gender, Hamilton argues that you make women helpless in the world of men. Women are measured to the same standard as men. It seems like the question is, without considering a women as a group with separate goals from men, will they be lost in the workplace? Is that why women still don't have some of the same opportunities in professions or pay today? -Kendall Haring | |
| − | + | ||
== Nella Larsen’s Passing, 1929 == | == Nella Larsen’s Passing, 1929 == | ||
