“But we don’t believe in keeping girls safe anymore. We believe that their independence is more important” (Shalit,78).
While I was reading this chapter, the quote above really stood out to me, but I’m not sure if I support or oppose it. I was talking to my friend the other day about women, equality, and etiquettes. We argued about how society has changed women and men. I, being the woman, argued with a hit of Shalit saying that much etiquette has been abandoned because of our changing society; etiquettes such as giving up a sit for lady, not swearing in the presence of a lady, holding a door for lady (men still do these things, but many etiquettes have gone untaught or they have become outdated). He argued that “many of the etiquettes on how men treat women have become outdated because society today teaches women to be strong and independent. There are single moms working jobs and taking care of their kids. There is a woman who has the potential to become the next president. More and more women are getting degrees and working better jobs than men. Women don't 'need' to be taken care of anymore; they can take care of themselves now. Society is very different today than it was when men would give up their seats and open doors for ladies. Society is constantly changing and it always will.” What he said related a lot to the quote above. In this chapter Shalit gives an account of a girl named Kristin that was brutally murdered because of her strong independent nature... that made me question even more, “Are we (women) giving up our safety for independence?”
-Joy Jen
6 comments:
In this scenario I think both of you hit on some very valuable points while still incorporating Shalit's arguments. It's true that, for the most part, chivalry nowadays is dead. But, do women want men to me chivalrous? The independent women of the world and the feminists wanting women to be treaty equally have created a society where men might be yelled at because women can open a door by themselves and don't need a man to do anything for them. Shalit asks the question are women giving up safety for independence, but again that goes back to a changing society. I don't feel like women being independent has anything to do with them being scared to walk the streets or being scared of stalkers. The incident she uses to help explain the issue is an extreme case of injustice and a failure of the judicial system. It has nothing to do with her being a women and being independent. Crime is everywhere and a women can be attacked as easily as a man or child. I'm not sure if Shalit is attacking men or society in general in her arguments throughout the book. It seems like shes excited women are able to become independent yet she still feels like they need a mans protection. I don't believe her questioning society will change what it has become today, though.
Brandon Kinlein
I think this issue goes hand in hand with are today's women destroying womanhood? It is nice that women can do all of the things they are doing today and recieving many of the same opportunities as men, but should we throw out old fashioned manners as well? Feminists fight for men and women to be equal. As a woman of course I want all the priveleges that men have, but I also do not want to give up my perks of being a woman. Maybe women today are being greedy, but who isn't?
But back to Shalit's question: Are women giving up safety for independance? I don't believe this should even have to be a trade-off. Men are independent and safe, why can't women be?
-Chelle Dean
I've actually run into women that didn't enjoy etiquette at all. I've opened doors for them and paid for dinners and they told me, in a nice way, that I shouldn't. At the same time there have been others that love it and sometimes demand it. It seems to me it has something to do with their upbringing.
Society is changing for the better or worse. I don't see why chivalry has to die. It can just adapt and grow with society.
-John Johnson
I completely agree with you Chelle. Women should be able to be independent while at the same have a man be chivalrous.Having a man be chivalrous does not make a woman less independant in anyway.
As for Shalit's claim that girls are ashamed to be shy, I have to disagree. I see nothing wrong with being shy, everyone's personality is different. Just because someone is shy, does not make them stupid or lame...that is how they choose to live their life. I think a lot of Shalit's claim in this chapter could be argued on the fact that everyone has a right to make their own choices.
-Lindsey W
Ok. Ok. It is a good debate about mesure forces between men and women! But in my opinion men should preserve the value of respect with women. Why not give a seat to a woman? What is wrong on that? I am old fashion style, and I am sure give my seat to whoever woman. Of course all women like to be treated with affection, even if she is a feminist.
Jose Luis Iglesias
[url=http://www.supra-mexico.org]http://www.supra-mexico.org[/url]
[url=http://www.suprashoes9uk.net]http://www.suprashoes9uk.net[/url]
[url=http://www.supra4shoes-canada.net]supra shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.supra-mexico.org]supra shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.sportshoesaustralia.com]supra shoes[/url]
Post a Comment