In the excerpt
from her 1963 book, The Feminine Mystique, feminist Betty Friedan addressed American
women, specifically those who remained quiet in the face of growing
discontentment. At the time, women were expected to maintain the household,
raise children, and please their husbands. Friedan’s audience, therefore, would
not necessarily believe that their discontentment was a legitimate problem in
American society since every other woman was seemingly satisfied with her life.
Furthermore, American women were taught to pity “unhappy” women who wanted to
become poets or presidents. Friedan attempted to expel the belief that the
average woman was happy to be at home, repetitively referencing the idea of
this “ideal” woman—someone who made the beds and shopped for groceries, someone
relatable to her audience—struggling with frustration and self-doubt. This
excerpt from her book was a call-to-action for American women to recognize and
speak out against the fact that they were being kept “from growing to their
full capacities.”
Friedan’s words
were as much a confrontation of the American public, including men, as a plea for women to
stretch beyond their biological functions. The public, she argued, was responsible
for shaping a culture that would free women from the societal expectations that
prevented them from developing identities. Although this broader audience may
have initially gravitated towards the traditional order, their enthusiasm for
American values such as freedom and success may have also allowed them to
connect with Friedan’s feminist cause.
- Anjali Ravi
- Anjali Ravi
I think you did a thorough job by giving quality background on the subject and setting at the time. However I think it would be beneficial to expand the audience, even more so, to say that it could even include some men. This would allow you to further show that the main idea of the excerpt was to spur a call-to-action, in that men can encourage women around them to be goal-orientated with a strong purpose in life . And don't forget to include your name at the end of the post.
ReplyDelete-Jason Recht
My second paragraph was meant to expand the audience to not only American women trapped in the household, but to the entire American public, including men. Perhaps I should edit my post and make that clearer. Thanks for your comment!
DeleteAnjali, I think you did a very good job explaining how Friedan's text was both targeted at women who Friedan believed should stretch beyond the boundaries put on them by men and at the general public, who at the time would be torn between traditional gender roles and the desire for freedom. This is definitely beyond the scope of this post, but I think it would be interesting to see how different social groups responded to Friedan's groundbreaking text. Also, and this is very small, there are some times where you use "woman" instead of "women". Great job overall!
ReplyDelete-Joseph Saliunas
Anjali, I think you did a very good job explaining how Friedan's text was both targeted at women who Friedan believed should stretch beyond the boundaries put on them by men and at the general public, who at the time would be torn between traditional gender roles and the desire for freedom. This is definitely beyond the scope of this post, but I think it would be interesting to see how different social groups responded to Friedan's groundbreaking text. Also, and this is very small, there are some times where you use "woman" instead of "women". Great job overall!
ReplyDelete-Joseph Saliunas
Anjali, I think your post was very informative and did a great job at explaining how Friedan's text focused on women. I agree with the above comments that expanding the audience to the general public, including men would be very beneficial. Included in this, it might be helpful to hyperlink out some information as to how it affected men. Overall, really nice work!!
ReplyDelete-Marielle Gerber
Dear all, I agree with Daniel (Joseph!) on this. I would be really interested to see the reception of this text by audience who'd be opposed to its rhetorical bent. What do you think about that opposing reception as a category for the next time I teach this assignment?
ReplyDelete(Also, glad to know I'm not the only one with duplicate posts, but it's rather frustrating.)
I think that would be an interesting category for next year. (By category, do you mean in addition to audience, pathos, etc.?) It would definitely reflect the complexity of the movement more. Rather than just looking at feminism through one lens, it might be more rewarding to study the responses from various social groups (as Daniel/Joseph mentioned). Since the opposing reception could still be associated with audience, maybe that could be a required aspect to discuss in the audience post, similar to how students discuss extrinsic ethos (background) and intrinsic ethos in one post.
DeleteDear all, I agree with Daniel (Joseph!) on this. I would be really interested to see the reception of this text by audience who'd be opposed to its rhetorical bent. What do you think about that opposing reception as a category for the next time I teach this assignment?
ReplyDelete(Also, glad to know I'm not the only one with duplicate posts, but it's rather frustrating.)