(no subject)
The study of feminism is an intricate process which has become a large focus of historians of all types over the past two centuries. Historian Hsinchao Wu who wrote Whose State? The Discourse of Nation-State in European Feminist Perspectives in the Late Ninetieth and Early Twentieth Centuries, observes the feminist movements around the world, how they differ in contrast to how they’re alike. Wu’s perspective on Feminism appears to be that of a Marxist view in that women have had a long history of oppression and struggle living in primarily male dominant societies. Mary Beth Norton, author of Perspectives on Twentieth-Century Women’s International Activism: Peace, Feminism, and Foreign Policy, reviews women’s roles in war and peace, mainly focusing on the changing ideals within America. Norton, like Hsinchao Wu, appears to have a Marxist view on this topic in that she makes constant reference to America being a plutocracy rather then a democracy. Finally a combination between Lee Ann Banaszak and Erik Plutzer in writing The Social Bases of Feminism in the European Community shed light upon the feminist revolution that occurred in Europe which is often over-looked. >>>>Thesis Here<<<<
Historian Hsinchao Wu who wrote Whose State? The Discourse of Nation-State in European Feminist Perspectives in the Late Ninetieth and Early Twentieth Centuries, observes the feminist movements around the world, how they differ in contrast to how they’re alike. Wu begins with the argument that international and national feminism can co-exist but not be equal in that for the most part European feminism consists of mostly upper or middle class well educated women as opposed to the lower class women around the world. He makes a good point in that for years women have been attempting to become equal to men in many senses instead of attempting bring to light the difference and strengths of women. “…they rarely contend that women could overthrow the existing regime when the government fails to be concerned about women’s rights.” Wu often brings focus to feminists fault lies in that they disregard the political and social change that could occur if they brought to light that women are different from men, instead of trying to equalize with men. One of the faults which Wu points out is in the late nineteenth century women of many European countries gave themselves the title “mothers of the nation-state.” Though this title brought awareness to women as powerful, it also re-enforced the traditional roles of women as mothers.
Historian Hsinchao Wu who wrote Whose State? The Discourse of Nation-State in European Feminist Perspectives in the Late Ninetieth and Early Twentieth Centuries, observes the feminist movements around the world, how they differ in contrast to how they’re alike. Wu begins with the argument that international and national feminism can co-exist but not be equal in that for the most part European feminism consists of mostly upper or middle class well educated women as opposed to the lower class women around the world. He makes a good point in that for years women have been attempting to become equal to men in many senses instead of attempting bring to light the difference and strengths of women. “…they rarely contend that women could overthrow the existing regime when the government fails to be concerned about women’s rights.” Wu often brings focus to feminists fault lies in that they disregard the political and social change that could occur if they brought to light that women are different from men, instead of trying to equalize with men. One of the faults which Wu points out is in the late nineteenth century women of many European countries gave themselves the title “mothers of the nation-state.” Though this title brought awareness to women as powerful, it also re-enforced the traditional roles of women as mothers.