Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Hw 22- The evolution of the Patriarchy

The definition of Patriarchy is a society in which fathers are powerful responsible heads of their families and households, and by extension, a society in which men hold a disproportionately large share of power. Chapter two in “A room of ones own” proves this statement very well. The paper proved that England is a patriarchy because it demoralized women. It was all about how women were in divorce court and how a female actress was being lowered from a peak. Virginia Woolf says it best when she states “Nobody in their senses could fail to detect the dominance of the professor. His was the power and the money and the influence(Woolf 33). She goes on to state more about the professors power but her point is that the paper shows that men hold everything and women have nothing. They are only something to write about but hold no actual status. After reading this chapter I visited the New York Times online. I believe that a foreign visitor to our country would not think this is a patriarchy. The times looked at many issues like the election, world issues, and pollution but did not demean women. However if you were to take a look at a magazine like US weekly I believe you would have a different perspective. To me the United States holds some factors of a patriarchy but overall is not. We have come so far since the times of this book. Women no longer have to be escorted by a man everywhere they are slowly gaining there independence and freedom. Sadly, today in some situations women and men are still unequal but I believe that in the future this will all change. In short, there will be a day where patriarchy’s do not exist.

1 comment:

Tracy Mendham said...

Noreen, that women are something to write about but hold no status is a good way to put it.
Woolf says about the paper that man's dominance is seen in that he was "the proprietor of the paper and its editor and subeditor. He was the Foreign Secretary and the Judge. He was the cricketer...He was director of the company...he suspended the film actress..." (Woolf 33-34). Did you look to see what gender the heads of state and ambassadors and company owners and athletes mentioned in the New York Times were? Do the representations of men still outnumber those of women in powerful, non-domestic roles? I think this would be the way to make a more in-depth comparison.