Here you will find an extract from essay on sociology written by our professional writer. The project was posted online to give our customers a general idea of what kind of services we offer.

»»» remember: Please remember that all essays posted on this website belong EssayWriting.net and can be used for educational purposes only.

TITLE (supplied by the customer): "Gloria Steinem & The Feminist Movement"

DESCRIPTION (supplied by the customer): Discuss the effects that "Outrageous Acts" and "Everyday Rebellion" by Gloria Steinem had on the feminist movement. Incorporate literary criticism among other background research on the movement.

PROJECT DEVELOPED:

Introduction. 

The feminist movement has gained a considerable momentum over the past century, while it did emerge as an initiative long yet to remain in complete social isolation. In a sense, all major reforms and transforming processes occur far ahead of their time, and for that matter by definition have to confront heavy public resistance. The latter has may have to do with the perceived comfort attributed to the conventions and satisfying patterns the society has followed and grown addicted to as a result. These very reforms are in fact aimed at eradicating and healing this kind of addiction, in order to possibly correct the society's vision or rationality to be able to make better and fairer choices. Gloria Steinem has been an integral and major part of the Third Generation feminist motion over the past thirty years, and has held her own with credit. 

Discussion.

In fact, one aspect of her own intrinsic integrity as a thinker is the fact that she follows closely, and subjects herself to, the insights (and implicated moral obligations) she arrives at. In particular, one of the focal points as spotlighted in her above-mentioned monograph is the need for conscious rethinking and continual revising of the different social constraints, systems, and assumptions that shape and structure our lives. Accordingly, everyday rebellion and outrageous acts refer to the means with which this challenge is to be made effective and thereby have a constructive impact on the societal set of institutions. However, this very resistance inevitably comes to faces counter-resistance, which stems from the premises we discussed earlier. The social immunity might more appropriately be viewed as a pseudo immunity of the intoxicated organism that derives a short-term relief by erecting these barriers, much in a manner that the patient indulges his whim and aggravates his condition by refusing to accept a medicine prescribed. 

One caveat she suggest, however, that it's not nearly so much about the act per se as it is about what the person thinks about the way he or she acts. It's largely about the connotation one attributes to that, as well as the specific intention underlying such behavior. Indeed, there can potentially exist an entire spectrum to be mapped into a specific act. And it really is this intention tat either condemns the act as outrageous and socially destructive or as outrageous and socially conducive. Furthermore, there is no single and precise definition suggested that would encompass the whole spectrum of connotation and effect of 'rebellion' and 'act.' It is left for everyone to define resistance and challenge their own way. On the one hand, the underlying rationale would be that the overly ambitious and idealistic qualifying definition could discourage many a daring soul who might perceive their own effort as less than worthy of making. An overly routine definition might act to reduce the scope of ambition in the first place, thus questioning the time horizon over which, if ever, a transformation is to be accomplished. Every effort counts as long as it represents an act of "everyday rebellion," i.e. challenge that occurs continually, on all levels, and is characteristic of the person's integrity and commitment. In a sense, being active in a conscious attempt to effect societal change amounts to being politically active. Merely making choice within the given institutional frontier could be thought of as passively supporting the existing state of affairs. If most women were to accept the feminist viewpoint, in its broader interpretation to be dwelled upon later on, they could all reasonably qualify as feminist. However, such rather passive sympathy amounts to little, compared to the status as a "radical feminist" that public figures like Steinem attribute to themselves. We have already pointed out that the definition of 'rebellion' and 'outrageous act' or resistance for that matter are person-specific. And yet, individual definitions could be revealed-compared by their fruit, or de-facto contribution to social processes which readily distinguishes between 'feminist' and 'radical feminist,' a passive enjoyer or sufferer (but anyway somewhat of a free-rider) and a major exerciser of political and social control. When it comes to challenging assumptions and constraints, the utmost impact could be viewed as actually affecting others assumptions, which goes beyond internal willingness to spot the Matrix-style 'conspiracy' of older forces at work.

Gloria Steinem has been best known for stressing every woman's right to control her body. Her main point is that the society's whole principle of hierarchy (distributing power, roles, or bargaining capacity) in an utterly asymmetric way--whether it be the racial, sexual, or caste type prejudices--largely trace back to the ancient appropriation of the woman's body by the society. The latter has thus maximized its own interest at its discretion in defining woman's 'property rights,' most notably in terms of reproductive functions. Female sexuality has long been interpreted in ways that catered to the public comfort, much the way various other prejudices have. In fact, any idea, political or even scientific alike, could be made a tool of ideology serving some political purposes or the best interests of particular stakeholders. In this light, to question the idea, a set of assumptions or values would amount to political incorrectness possibly resulting in one's status as social outcast. Woman's reproductive function perceived has restricted her 'property rights' over her body, by turning it into a vehicle of childbearing. By denying her right to abortion, according to the feminist view, the society has reduced her discretion. I would say, that may be viewed as a major historical expropriation or indeed nationalization of private property rights. 

Consequently, feminists and notably Steinem, call for a major concession that would restore the privacy of these rights at least partially. However, to stress abortion and related gender issues as the defining aspect capturing Steinem's point would amount to distorting her entire social program. In fact, what she has striven for is a comprehensive revision of social institutions that would affect every aspect of our lives and not just reproductive rights. Gloria has commented that, some twenty years back, she would have been amazed at just how far along the feminist movement would advance within so relatively short a while. And yet, she is much disappointed with the progress that institutional transition at large has made. She had hoped that the social effect as per level of feminism's popularity would be more material, and she did not expect the popularity level per se to be that high anyway. She therefore spells out her concerns with the ongoing system of democratic political process, which may well sterilize and paralyze the collective rebellion effort early on (transition and its effect, according to her, builds from the bottom up). 

Ms. Steinem suggests, in a chapter on "Revaluing Economics," that a strong female economic development movement should evolve. Her intention to establish a network of businesses run by women for women (so as to purchase goods) could, in economic terms, amount to protectionism or autarky, whereby a doubling of costs of production occurs as a result of failure to specialize. She also suggests that women and men must be assigned not only equal rights, but also symmetric responsibilities, like child raising, shopping, etc. That, according to her, would correct the unfair imbalance whereby women in fact have to have two jobs, which is not possible to cope with. That, however, might also be viewed as an instance of trade protectionism, whereby the participants choose to have a full-blown and most costly economy, instead of specializing and maximizing the total benefit. I think, she realizes that even the existing order might yield some benefits in overall terms; however, it clearly fails to deliver a single most important benefit--equality and fairness. And after all, just some level of good need not imply the highest level. Finally, she reasonably advocates the aforementioned idea with female businesses by stressing the need to seize control over the employment terms and opportunity, over and above the mere struggle for adequate pay. However, that really might smell a bit Marxian, in implying in fact a need for "seizure of means of production" by one class form another. Well, we could well be comfortable with that, by recognizing that Marx probably was the ultimate father of all recipes for major reforms, transitions, and choices that could not be effected by continuous bargaining between stakeholder groups. However, in our case, the change is proceeding rather gradually, and with little if any pronounced confrontation. 

One could, however, dispute the very attitude to [property] rights as being a category in itself, if we are to stick with the economic revival in ideology. Fact is, any property rights are inherently relative, and are a result of some distribution of bargaining power among several groups. Therefore, in this accounting framework where an increment in one group's rights is tantamount to that in the other groups responsibilities makes every such decision inherently social. Likewise, any choice being made in a social context may and does spill over onto other decision makers, thus causing either a social cost or a social gain over and above those private. Consider the abortion issue. On the one hand, it affects women's rights or full discretion as to whether and when to enjoy full or partial comfort, or trade it for the benefits, if any, of having children. However, the infant faced with such unrestrained discretion has degenerate rights: it is faced with an exogenous choice and cannot possibly vote against or trade his very right to existence. Now, that aspect reaches beyond morality that's inevitably relative. In fact, it's a purely ethical--and economic--matter of no rationale behind allowing some individuals maximize their benefit by compromising other individuals minimum, critical level of benefit (existence as opposed to dependency status, which is an extra benefit). One caveat to be suggested is, here may be a benefit accruing to society at large beyond the private interest of a woman having children. But then, it is a reasonable responsibility of the society or the state (whoever controls the distribution of rights in the first place) to compensate the woman for those extra benefits, and perhaps to incur the cost of the child's benefit status over and above mere existence. Of course, we hereby assume a minimum financial independence for a woman, which assumption, if relaxed, would shift the responsibility in part back to her own. 

She views it natural that all women be feminist. However, she argues that not all feminists are necessarily women, and that men can as well contribute to the process and derive benefits. That becomes to look natural, if we recall the broader connotation of feminism as a movement calling for a comprehensive institutional shift, rather than partial and reduced reform. How would men benefit and how could they possibly contribute? Steinem points out an analogy best manifest in the race issues. She draws our attention to the fact that the anti-slavery emancipation upheavals were conceived and effectuated by white men. That pertains to the person's inner integrity and willingness to incur the righteous cost of moral choice over selfish or crony type short-run interest. Of course, the two camps will not likely benefit equally. Men and women have been at a rather asymmetric disadvantage, and so their relative prior losses determine their relative potential gains (much as black and whites have suffered from racism in very different ways). 

Concluding Remarks. 

Gloria Steinem may be regarded as a key figure who contributed to a broader definition of feminism, which made its premises and objectives more readily acceptable with the public at large. Her ideas and personal example have set the agenda for each socially responsible and responsive individual to make a conscious effort toward challenging the irrationality of the system that dominates his or her life, and tat of his children. The notion of "outrageous acts" or "everyday rebellion" might appear somewhat provocative, yet its underlying message is more thought-provoking in a constructive way than socially disturbing. Because of the sheer complexity and controversy of most issues she has addressed, her ideas took a long time to gain partial acceptance, but that process has been exponential. The complexity of her agenda pertains to the many conflicting facets; however, she seems to have come up with a better and more general outlook that may render the conflict less of a clash ...
  
  

»»» I want to order right now! If you are ready to order your very own, professionally written essay, just click on this custom writing link to submit the request form. Make your academic life a pleasure by ordering an essay from EssayWriting.net!

»»» any questions? contact us now! For more information regarding our writing services please visit our absolutely free 24-hour live support. Our friendly online representatives are always glad to help you.