This is Why I Am Angry

“Men actually have it worse than women, Goldberg argued, because the male role is far more rigid than the female role, and women have created a movement through which they can now transcend the limits of culturally imposed femininity”

This quote, let alone the entire article, exemplifies a mentality that I have come to find extremely frustrating. This quote addresses the idea that because women have had a more established movement to address the oppressions they face, that men actually have a worse situation because they do not have an equivalent movement. The only idea in this theory I agree with is that men do have forms of oppression they face, but simply put, from everything I have learned of oppressions, the idea that men have it worse off than women is just false. I am not going to address the differing ways that men and women face oppression, as that is too big of a topic to discuss. What is so angering about this quote, and a lot of the ideals within the article, is it destroys the idea that men and women can both address the oppressions and issues together, or at least without opposition. Unfortunately however, the opposite is usually the reality; “But when nobody would accept his perspective, he laments, “I began to consciously hate women’” – in my opinion this is probably the worst consequence imaginable. One groups oppressions does not lessen the validity of different groups oppression, even if one group legitimately is more oppressed. The issues are not mutually exclusive. In my opinion, it is clear that there are simply more factors working against women than men, and actually the biggest issue men have is that the oppressions working against men are not addressed. I understand the frustration felt by the men discussed in the article, because repeatedly it is treated as men are the cause of the problems other groups face, and do not have any right to complain, which only leads to men feeling bitter. However, this does not mean they should retaliate by denying the existence of other groups oppressive situations.

In closing, do men have oppressions that should be addressed in greater publicity? If so, what are they? What do you think the current state of male involvement in acting against patriarchy, or is there any?

This is Why I Am Angry.

“Men actually have it worse than women, Goldberg argued, because the male role is far more rigid than the female role, and women have created a movement through which they can now transcend the limits of culturally imposed femininity”

This quote, let alone the entire article, exemplifies a mentality that I have come to find extremely frustrating. This quote addresses the idea that because women have had a more established movement to address the oppressions they face, that men actually have a worse situation because they do not have an equivalent movement. The only idea in this theory I agree with is that men do have forms of oppression they face, but simply put, from everything I have learned of oppressions, the idea that men have it worse off than women is just false. I am not going to address the differing ways that men and women face oppression, as that is too big of a topic to discuss. What is so angering about this quote, and a lot of the ideals within the article, is it destroys the idea that men and women can both address the oppressions and issues together, or at least without opposition. Unfortunately however, the opposite is usually the reality; “But when nobody would accept his perspective, he laments, “I began to consciously hate women'” – in my opinion this is probably the worst consequence imaginable. One groups oppressions does not lessen the validity of different groups oppression, even if one group legitimately is more oppressed. The issues are not mutually exclusive. In my opinion, it is clear that there are simply more factors working against women than men, and actually the biggest issue men have is that the oppressions working against men are not addressed. I understand the frustration felt by the men discussed in the article, because repeatedly it is treated as men are the cause of the problems other groups face, and do not have any right to complain, which only leads to men feeling bitter. However, this does not mean they should retaliate by denying the existence of other groups oppressive situations.

In closing, do men have oppressions that should be addressed in greater publicity? If so, what are they? What do you think the current state of male involvement in acting against patriarchy, or is there any?

Baumgardner QCQ

A Second Wave friend of mine, Rosalyn Baxandall, notes that the First and Second Waves were part of larger social movements—abolition and civil rights—and were thus different than the trickles of activity she sees as having come later.”

This idea, that later (or our) generation do not have a focus or a common drive, is not a new idea. A primary example of this is the occupy wallstreet movement, which one of the biggest arguments in opposition of the movement was that they did not have a common goal or purpose. As Baumgardner writes in the above quote, this is also attributed to the later wave feminists.

My question is, to put it simply, is this true of our generation? And if so, what does this mean for accomplishing social change? Does a broader view of social justice issues help or hinder the process of accomplishing change?

The Ten Point Program

“We believe in an educational system that will give to our people a knowledge of the self. If you do not have knowledge of yourself and your position in the society and in the world, then you will have little chance to know anything else. ”

The Black Panthers wanted an education system that would provide an honest and accurate account of history of their people. This is a absolutely an important faction of society and education, its not an uncommon idea that without learning from the past individuals will only repeat it.

To put it briefly, has such an education system been put into place? Do we really learn how things have progressed, or has the lack of such a system hindered progress?

Haymarket Square Riot Post

“The riot set off a national wave of xenophobia, as scores of foreign-born radicals and labor organizers were rounded up by the police in Chicago and elsewhere. . . . For some people, the events led to a heightened anti-labor sentiment, while others (including labor organizers around the world) believed the men had been convicted unfairly and viewed them as martyrs.”

The synopsis of the Haymarket Riot given provides a blunt and factual account of an event that led to the confirmed deaths of 8 individuals. In the first section of this quote, the most important part is the word ‘xenophobia’ which is defined as the irrational fear of foreigners. This led to 8 men being sentenced and convicted of crimes. Likewise, as with any prejudice, there was little to no proof or evidence that these men had been involved.  This of course also led to the other article we read a speech was given which greatly reminded me of Frederick Douglas’ speech in it’s indignation and over all call to action. However, as seen in the second part of the quote, these actions are of course not always have popular reactions.

Do actions such as this riot and the corresponding speech in general help or hinder these types of causes? Is there a better form of public speaking to communicate the goals and or indignation of a social cause?

Stages of Social Movements

“Co-optation occurs when movement leaders come to associate with authorities or movement targets more than with the social movement constituents. For example, a leader could be asked to work for the organization that is the target of a movement with offers of being able to change things from the inside.” (Christiansen, Pg. 4.)

Co-optation at first sounds almost melodramatic, but I would imagine it’s usually brought about by circumstances that make it seem like a good option. I’m sure, or at least I hope, there have been times where leaders within social movements have worked together with opposing organizations and it has gone successfully. However, co-optation of course is not a process that is successful for the movement. To be honest, my first thought when I read about co-optation was of the movie Newsies, when the protagonist Jack Kelly, agrees to work for the corporation oppressing the strike he himself started. (Sorry, I like movies). A slightly more relevant reference is The Human Rights Campaign, which we talked about briefly as being initially an organization that publicized and worked for LGBT rights, but has now lost some of it’s priorities.

Can social movements every work successfully with their opposition? If so, how? Can it be based solely on the movements leaders? Or would it have to be a full collaboration from the organization as a whole?