# data[].attributes.body
This was one of the most interesting articles i have read in awhile. Whatever your opinions are regarding the authors take i think we all have to appreciate at least a little bit the amount of work and source citation that went into this article. Now onto some specific. "Beauvoir taught women to seek independence or autonomy. These are fine-sounding words, but in practice they mean independence of one’s husband and children." this is a really key excerpt for me that i felt i somewhat agreed with. Although i think the freedom of independence and equality are super important, it's a little misguided to say that women should abandon the family unit. Men or women shouldn't be forced into a family unit or anything, but discouraging the unit itself is a little unrealistic as it's such a key concept in society and throughout history. "We need to go back toward the sex roles of the past but not all the way. What we need are expectations—as I would call them—for women and for men, social conventions that give guidance in general but permit exceptions and encourage negotiation for different circumstances."  I think this is pretty evident relation between the article and politics. Social issues are extremely highlighted in the current climate and gender issues specifically are super important. Overall interesting article and i'm impressed by the research

# data[].attributes.body
As a daughter of a person who has been a career woman as well as a stay at home mom, reading some of the excerpts of the article was really shocking to me. The connection between violence and being a house wife to me is absurd. The connection between violent mothers being the fault of the husband to me is absurd. I can definitely see how mothers can be overwhelmed and exhausted. You hear about it all the time but it's also one of those things you just expect as motherhood comes along. I would argue with any person who's parents are married that my mom has had an exceptionally stressful life.  She worked as a television producer nearly 12 hours a day, for a long time she was the breadwinner, she became a stay at home mom as my health issues worsened in elementary school, she has taken care of all financial responsibilities in the family. You would think she was a single parent. So when the article mentions that the lack of support from husbands leads to the violence of a mother,  I think that's a stretch. It definitely leads to a more stressful  and unfair life  for a woman but I don't believe that the overwhelming stress and murderous nature should overcome the love a mother has for her child. It never did with my mom.  There are so many accusations and topics touched on in this article that I could speak about but one thing I did agree with was Mimi Gladstein and her views on Individualist feminism. In this day and age MOST women have this freedom of option. My mom did and she tried to choose what was best for her kids at all times.  Being a mother will always be a stressful job, whether you have the support of your husband or not. I think if a mother wants to literally 🤬 her children and not the "I'm so angry I say stuff I don't mean" 🤬 then that mother should seek help immediately. Why did the woman from Texas who drowned her kids have FIVE kids in the first place.  Who said five kids wasn't stressful? That's more than the average family. Plus, you can usually tell after have a couple if you can handle any more than that. Being a mother may not be for everyone. And I absolutely agree that not have a husband who will share responsibilities or support a woman as either a career woman or stay at home mom can leave to excess stress. Usually that means a divorce, not a 🤬. I think that the feminist speech in this article was actually just putting stay at home moms down and their capability just as much as any "white man culture" as they say have. It's a gross misrepresentation of the freedoms that women currently have in America.  Women have a choice now to do one or the other or both and women successfully do all without killing their children. It's really funny to me that there is anti-family feminists. So much for standing up for women's rights... one of those rights being the option for the role of mother or wife. Apparently they only support women if they decide to go along with their agenda.

# data[].attributes.body
I had very mixed feelings about this article. When the author stated that " In sum, women have shown themselves capable in careers formerly closed to them, but seem no longer to enjoy the pleasures of being a woman " I had to disagree because, if a woman chooses the path of being a feminist, she is enjoying the pleasure of being a woman as a feminist. The idea of a woman not enjoying beinga woman because the supports feminism is ridiculous. These are womens rights. If anything, it would make a woman enjoy her womanhood more. The author creates a very negative preception on the idea of independence. He talks about "lonley husbands and children" and tires to reach through an emotional path by trying to convince readers that being a feminsit will make the family unhappy. Through out centuries women have fought for their rights. They were held at low standards and viwed as baby making machines and house wives so it is only right that now women fight to get a title better than that.

# data[].attributes.body
This article really pulled on my heart strings! This is such a well written narrative that struck me in all the right ways. I agree with Ward Cornnerly about everything he said. I loved how Corneerly chose to include the excerpt about the bus driver whose "act of kindness was color-blind." As a society in general, we are so concerned with color that we fail to realize that before the people we encounter every day are Asian, African American, or Hispanic, they are humans. We should treat each other as humans rather than merely seeing a person only skin deep. This directly relates back to American politics because the whole article was written in regards to the Civil Rights movement and how it has stretched its reach to California to form the California Civil Rights Initiative. I am so proud to live in a country that fought for colored people's freedoms. Although we still have a long way to go, I hope that someday we can recognize people for more than just the color of their skin.

# data[].attributes.body
In his 1852 speech, Frederick Douglass outlines an important issue that I believe is still relevant in today's society. Hypocrisy. Douglass states that "the existence of slavery in this country brands your republicanism a sham, your humanity as a base pretense, and your Christianity as a lie". Douglass is outlining the fact that America contradicts the very values it stands for in the way that its government treats African Americans. In Douglass's time, slavery was legal and allowed, so it sent the message that America was 'the Land of the Free' but only for those that fit the bill. As time passed, slavery became illegal but new forms of discrimination and oppression rose up. Legalizing certain requirements to be able to vote that would exclude African Americans was one method. This too was outlawed, however, again as time passes, the corrupt number in government positions finds new ways to oppress Blacks. In this day it is in the form of police brutality and over sentencing in prison. To this day the American government continues to show hypocrisy in its treatment of Blacks.

# data[].attributes.body
I love this article so much! It gives me a sense of closure that I am not the only one who hold this view. Yes, understanding our ethic background is important. However, I am proud to be an American. One thing I agree with in the article is that color should have no place in one's judgment. Judge based on character instead of what someone looks like. One thing I do not agree with is how the reporter questioned Mr. Connerly. The reporter could not accept Mr. Connerly's answer of being American as valid. The reporter had to make it about race get Mr. Connerly to say he was black. He does not need to remind anyone what he is. Anyone can see Mr. Connerly skin color. Also, just because he does not identify as black means he is ashamed of his background. What Mr. Connerly was trying to get the reporter to understand it is not about race. It is about understanding for the greater good and insuring a positive future for our children. Americans do not have a race or different group because we are all equal. They way this applies to politics is when someone pulls at their race card to receive special treatment. I am not saying there is no injustice to certain groups. However, to assume all people from former oppressor ancestry are evil and pass laws or regulations to insure they get into certain schools is anti-American.

# data[].attributes.body
This article ties into the very essence of women and their ability to handle roles that are different than the home one and those that make the choice to keep that role. Women make a stand to create a life that they are willing to live in based on their decisions. They stay home and have children and make the lifestyle that they want to be based on that decision. They put their kids in daycares. They go back to work. They make the change necessary to adapt to their environment and make the most of the life that they are leading. It is exemplary to watch some women tackle it all and more, but there comes a time when the bottom must be where the woman is based on how much energy is being used to maintain it. It is hard to make some other choices that are not so choosey based on what is needed. The payment for daycare, the car note, the groceries, picking up the kids, etc. There is a lot that comes with being a parent and it is necessary for others to be aware, but also to offer some form of human adaptation to visualize the needs that may not be met. Some women 🤬 their five children and become the festival of motherhood, while some are not. The skills that are learned, says Gladstein, helped her to tackle catering an event that celebrated football. The many skills of multi-tasking can create a monster, but also create skills that are valued above all others. The choice is that they used it and harnessed it for something that was useful. My favorite phrase was how it turned into a positive note about motherhood when Gladstein shared that she “learned the necessary skills while juggling her children’s schedules, planning the family budget, and being a hostess at her husband’s business events.” The first view in Feminism is whether or not being a housewife is damaging to the women or not. The state should have no role in the decision that a mother makes about staying home because, in the end, it is her decision. My wife made the decision to stay home for some time and I supported her in that decision. The scariest part is the realization that these situations such as Andrea Yates are far from uncommon and many individuals and children are left to deal with this alone. There needs to be a step to increase the support the community provides for children that are living with stay at home moms.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ideas on Liberty, November 2001
by Wendy McElroy

What it means to be a housewife is being revised ideologically in order to impugn the choice some mothers make to stay at home.

The revisionism has been fueled by the recent case of Andrea Yates, the Texas mother who drowned her five young children in a bathtub. The murders were allegedly committed because Yates suffered from postpartum depression aggravated by being a stay-at-home mom.

Cheryl L. Meyer, coauthor of the forthcoming book Mothers Who Kill Their Children and an associate professor of psychology at Wright State University, expressed a new feminist line on stay-at-home moms in an article at Womens Enews (June 27), a popular feminist Web site. Meyer wrote, The reality is that the mother who kills her child is every mother, any mother. In positing Yates as an Every Woman, Meyer continues, Most mothers just seem to understand how a woman could kill her child. When we target certain cases and try to ascertain how this particular mother could have killed her child, we mask the more important question, why dont more mothers do this?

Marcia Wilkie, coauthor of Marie Osmonds autobiographical account of postpartum depression, intimately linked Americas sweetheart to the murderous Yates in a Newsweek article (July 2). In a column in the same issue, Playing God on No Sleep, the Pulitzerprize-winning Anna Quindlen argued that every mother secretly identified with killing her own children. She described the typical stay-at-home housewife this way: Shes tired, shes hot and shes been up all night throwing sheets into the washer because the smaller of her two boys has projectile vomiting so severe it looks like a special effect from The Exorcist. Oh, and shes nauseated, too, because since she already has two kids under the age of 5 it made perfect sense to have another, and shes four months pregnant. With housework added to the unsavory mix, this Every Woman lives on the verge of snapping and committing infanticide.

A myth created by PC feminism is dying and a new one is being created to replace it. The dying myth is that women do not commit acts of domestic violence: men do.

It has been well documented that wives assault husbands at approximately the same rate as husbands assault wives. The statistics regarding fatal child abuse are even more alarming. A Bureau of Justice report titled Murder in Families (NCJ 143498) surveyed murder cases tried in 1988 and discovered that 55 percent of defendants charged with killing their own children were women. The Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-3, 1996) from the Department of Health and Human Services reported that mothers perpetrate 78 percent of fatal child abuse. Even granting that women are usually the primary caregivers and thus have much more opportunity and motive to snap, these figures are alarmingly high. They are so high and the subject of so much attention that it is no longer credible to claim that women are nonviolent in the home.

To preserve the image of women as victims of oppressive male society, however, PC feminists find it necessary to explain how the murder of a child by his or her mother is still the fault of men. The first step is to remove responsibility from the mother by blaming her acts on postpartum depression or some other insanity with which most women can identify. The second step is to castigate the traditional family with its stay-at-home mom as a breeding ground of pathology for women. Since PC feminists already decry the traditional family as a bastion of white male culture and a barrier to womens actualizing their potential, the next leap of logic is easy. Murdering moms are driven to violence by the men who impregnate them and trap them in the psychologically devastating role of housewife. Thus many voices in the media blame Andrea Yatess husbanda man whom no one has suggested was ever violenteven while they express sympathy for Andrea herself. They blame society for not recognizing Andreas plight.

Friedan Called into Question

Interestingly, the current debate about housewifery comes at the same time as the validity of the book that sparked the original debate is being severely questioned. In 1963 Betty Friedans book The Feminine Mystique, spoke of the problem that has no name. Stated simply, domesticity denied housewives their humanity and potential, making them suffer both physically and mentally. Friedan described the typical 50s family as a comfortable concentration camp. Like camp inmates, suburban housewives had adjusted psychologically and become dependent, passive, childlike and lived at a lower human level.

Selling millions of copies, The Feminine Mystique became a powerful force in shaping American culture and has been credited with inspiring Second Wave feminism. Certainly it led to Friedans co-founding of the National Organization for Women (1966). The book has taken its rightful place as an icon of the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s and 70s during which women flooded out of the home into the university and the workplace. As women continued to read Friedans book, the idea of housewifery as a pathology was cemented to feminism.

Recent works have thoroughly discredited Friedans arguments, the power of which was derived from claims of personal experience and the authorities she cited to support her claims. In his book Betty Friedan and the Making of the Feminine Mystique (1998), Daniel Horowitz explored Friedans background and debunked the myth that she ever represented the typical suburban housewife as she has persistently claimed. Friedan had been a staunch political activist on the communist left for decades before her first book appeared. Horowitzs analysis is all the more damning because as a leftist he is sympathetic to her politics. He argues that she hid her past because she was afraid of being persecuted during the McCarthy witch hunts. Whatever Friedans motives may have been, they make The Feminine Mystique appear disingenuous.

In a 1973 article in the New York Times Magazine titled Up From the Kitchen Floor, Friedan claimed that when she wrote her book in the early 60s, I wasnt even conscious of the woman problem. Yet in 1951 Betty Goldstein (Friedans maiden name) wrote an article titled UE [the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America] Drive on Wage, Job Discrimination Wins Cheers from Women Members (UE News, April 16) in which she reported on a labor meeting. Goldstein described the women as fighters who refuse any longer to be paid or treated as some inferior species by their bosses, or by any male workers who have swallowed the bosses thinking.

The fact that readers of Friedans book identified with her as a sister-housewife who had navely bought into the domesticity myth was one reason for The Feminist Mystiques huge success. The same readership would never have identified with the real Friedan: a left-wing labor journalist; a member of Marxist discussion groups; author of the union pamphlet UE Fights for Women Workers (June 1952), which critiqued wage discrimination based on sex; a rent striker; and a career woman who hired a really good mother-substitutea housekeeper-nurse ( Charm, April 1955).

In an article titled Rethinking Betty Friedan and The Feminine Mystique: Labor Union Radicalism and Feminism in Cold War America ( American Quarterly, March 1996), Horowitz argued that an examination of Friedans communist past and her subsequent shift toward respectability illustrates a significant turn within the ideology of the left in the 1950s. It is a microcosm of how the Old Left has evolved into the politically correct New Left. The ideology expanded from economic analysis, which was based on Marxism, to include humanistic psychology and a focus on the effect of consumption on the middle class. In his analysis, contemporary feminism is merely a subset of the New Left.

In addition to questions about Friedans credentials as a housewife, grave doubt has been cast both on her interpretation of the experts on which The Feminine Mystique was based and the facts presented by the experts themselves. In the Atlantic Monthly (September 1999), Alan Wolfe, director of the Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College, raised the question of whether a book can arrive at the larger truths if the bricks on which it is built wont stand up to time.

This question is particularly relevant to The Feminine Mystique, which relies heavily on appeals to authority, from psychologists such as Freud and Abraham Maslow to the anthropologist Margaret Mead and the sex researcher Alfred Kinsey.

In using these experts, Friedan dips in and out of their work, citing the evidence that supports her position and ignoring whatever contradicts it. Even the supporting evidence no longer provides a real prop. In the years following publication of Friedans book, much of the selectively cited research has been discredited. For example, Derek Freemans book The Fateful Hoaxing of Margaret Mead: A Historical Analysis of Her Samoan Research (1999) effectively countered the claims made in Meads work Coming of Age in Samoaa book highly touted in The Feminine Mystique. The credibility of Kinsey has fared even worse as rampant bias in his methodology has been revealed.

Wolfe concludes, To make her case that women required freedom, Friedan felt it necessary to exaggerate the degree to which they lived in slavery. Unfortunately for her argument, the treatment of a serious social problem which relies on the authority of experts appears far less persuasive if the experts turn out to be telling just-so stories. Without the backing of solid statistics and research, Friedans work does nothing more than offer anecdotal evidence of the unhappiness of some housewives and then proceeds to define the reality of most on that basis.

Friedans credibility has fallen on hard times. Even the admiring biographer Judith Hennessee is strangely critical of her subject in the book Betty Friedan: Her Life (1999). In the introduction she admits being disappointed in Friedan the person as opposed to Friedan the thinker. Hennessee speaks of a feminist who was often rude and nasty and who . . . did not even like women; of a wife who inflicted and received so much violence in her marriage that her three children required therapy to distance themselves from the emotional fallout.

Despite the criticism, however, it is undeniably true that The Feminine Mystique spoke to many women whose lives were changed as a result of reading the book. For them, being a housewife was a negation of their potential as human beings, and they discovered the courage to reach out to make a different choice. But voices within feminism were not content to view domesticity simply as a choice that appealed to some women and not to others. So a new political mythology of housewifery was born.

The Myth of the Housewife

In the 60s the mainstream of feminism was liberal and contained a strong bias toward reforming marriage to make it more equal. For example, men were exhorted to do more of the housework and to share greater responsibility for child rearing. In short, The Feminist Mystique did not call for the abolition of marriage, merely for a transformation. Years later, when politically correct gender feminism built on Friedans work to argue for the abolition of marriage, she objected. In her book The Second Stage (1981) she explained that gender feminists were misinterpreting her meaning.

She pleaded with them to move away from antifamily rhetoric and back to a dialogue with men about how to improve the institution of marriage.

What is the substance of the antifamily rhetoric to which Friedan objected?

The gender feminist assault on the traditional family, including stay-at-home moms, can be dated from Kate Milletts influential book Sexual Politics (1970). Milletts views were extreme and her presentation radical. For example, in dealing with male-female relations (sexual politics), Millett dwelt almost obsessively on pornography and sado-masochistic literature. In attacking sexual politics she assaulted the entire structure of power in societythat is, the white male culture known as patriarchy. Marriage was posited as the agency that maintained the traditional pattern of mans power over woman.

Milletts work was followed up and fleshed out by other extreme voices. Consider a small sampling of some books that quickly ensued: Ellen Pecks The Baby Trap (1971) argued that babies block liberation; Kathrin Perutzs Marriage is Hell (1972) defined heterosexual sex as a political power struggle; Jill Johnstons Lesbian Nation (1973) called heterosexual females traitors. The popular anthology Sisterhood is Powerful (1970) contained 74 essays; only one of them had anything to do with motherhood.

A new theory of the housewife was evolving in which the role had the political status of chattel. To gender feminists, marriage and the family became inextricably bound up with private property, the class structure, and the mode of production. In other words, the family was an aspect of capitalism.

The seeds of their analysis are to be found in Friedrich Engels, coauthor of the Communist Manifesto and an author much quoted by Millett. In his book The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State (1884) Engels argued that the oppression of women sprang from the nuclear family, but he did not believe that this oppression had occurred throughout history. It had emerged with the dawn of capitalism before which, he claimed, the work of men and of women was valued equally. In the nineteenth century, however, industrialization supposedly brought a separation between home and productive work and caused a transfer of mens labor from the home or farm to the factories. Women remained at the hearth. Thus men came to dominate the public realm and women were confined to the private one. Although some women ventured into the factories as well, they received lower pay and their independence was illusory.

With the emergence of wide-scale capitalism, women were said to be relegated to the roles of breeding, maintaining men, and buying consumer goods. Mothers provided the next and appropriately indoctrinated generation of laborers for the capitalists; housewives maintained the male workforce by cleaning and cooking; housekeepers enriched the capitalist structure by consuming the products it produced.

As the early gender feminists Nicole Cox and Silvia Federici explained in their pamphlet Counter-Planning from the Kitchen: Wages for Housework, Housework . . . is servicing the wage earner physically, emotionally, sexually, getting him ready to work day after day for the wage. It is taking care of our children . . . and ensuring that they too perform in ways expected of them under capitalism.

To gender feminists housework is a direct expression of mans oppression of women and capitalisms exploitation. As such, housework is surplus labor. To restate the feminist concept: Capitalism is a process by which those who own the means of production pay wages to workers who produce goods worth more than the wages paid. The worth in excess of the wages paid is called the surplus value of labor and it is absorbed by capitalists as unearned profit. The surplus value of housework is that it enables mens labor. Mens labor is the unearned profit that capitalism absorbs.

Thrown into this economic condemnation of housework and the traditional family as bastions of capitalism are other accusations. For example, housewives are said to be kept in an isolation that encourages domestic violence.

From such analysis sprang the popular feminist slogan The personal is political. Susan Moller Okin explained the origins in her book Justice, Gender, and the Family (1991). Okin wrote, The earliest claims that the personal is political came from those gender feminists of the 1960s and 1970s who argued that, since the family was at the root of womens oppression, it must be smashed. She disputes the assumption that family arrangements should be treated as personal, private matters rather than as political ones: the state can and should enter the domestic scene.

To those who object, Okin replies that the state already intervenes by establishing the social and political background in which the family functions. Expanding the intervention by, for example, requiring payment for housework is a matter of degree, not of kind.

Whether or not Friedan is comfortable with the manner in which her theories have been spun out, this is the logical conclusion to her calling the suburban household a concentration camp for women. And so the new myth appears: stay-at-home moms are oppressed women who are so psychologically damaged by being trapped that they are likely to snap under the pressure. As isolated victims of male society, it is understandable if they experience psychotic episodes in which they kill their own children. Indeed, in doing so, they are expressing their victimhood, which has gone unrecognized by society at large.

A New/Old View of Housewifery

Fortunately, voices of sanity remain. One of them belongs to Mimi Gladstein who speaks out in the individualist feminist anthology Woman and Liberty (Ivan R. Dee, spring 2002). Individualist feminism views staying at home to raise a family as a choice every bit as valid as entering the work force. Gladsteins essay begins, We dont hire housewives, because that is the response she received when she asked about joining the faculty of the University of Texas at El Paso, where she is now associate dean of liberal arts. Gladstein refused to be devalued as a human being because she was a housewife. That jobno less than teaching university Englishexpressed her worth and her competence. Even more, being a housewife was the training ground where she learned skills such as setting priorities and budgeting time. Gladstein writes, All I really needed to know about chairing a department, I learned by being a Jewish Mother.

Gladstein describes how being a suburban housewife trained her to handle taking over as executive director of her universitys Diamond Jubilee celebration. She writes, That job allowed me to use my housewifery skills to create and manage events as diverse as football half-times, city-wide street festivals, physics fairs, student retention programs, Vietnam Memorial dedications, city and university planning commissions and a year-long program of national and internally renowned speakers. She learned the necessary skills while juggling her childrens schedules, planning the family budget, and being a hostess at her husbands business events.

Choice is the key to individualist feminism and to whether or not housework is damaging to women. To those women who choose to stay home and raise a family, it can be not only the most fulfilling use of their time, but it can also teach management skills that translate well into the workplace afterwards. In approaching marriage and the family, the feminist slogan should be: the personal is personal. Individuals should choose, and the state should have no role.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ideas on Liberty, November 2001 What it means to be a housewife is being revised ideologically in order to impugn the choice some mothers make to stay at home. The revisionism has been fueled by the recent case of Andrea Yates, the Texas mother who drowned her five young children in a bathtub.

# data[].attributes.headline
How to Understand Slavery and the American Founding by Matthew Spalding

# data[].attributes.subject
How to Understand Slavery and the American Founding by Matthew Spalding

# data[].attributes.body
After reading and analyzing this article, I have agreed with many points made by the author and with founding fathers from the past and how they viewed slavery.  As he brought a quote from James Madison on slavery, "the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man". No other humans should be treated that way and to know that our country had that in place long ago, and it being a normal thing makes it difficult to understand. I'm glad we have made immense progress, although there's still progress to be made. It relates to our government today because of the fact that it is still brought up and many blacks still deal with oppression. Many of our leaders from the past opposed slavery and began movements to try and abolish them. It is a shame that it took a war with our own people to get past it. It's something human kind should never deal with again.

# data[].attributes.body
The article showed me deeper thoughts after reading it then before I read it. The narrative shared his stories about equality and discrimination and seeing that this is all true. As a country or society, we are set assured that discrimination is one of the main topics/issues that will not go away. While reading the article, most professors were chosen because of the box they had checked for the ethnicity of themselves. Which is not at all should be the only focus. We fail to see the inside of someones personality and their goods of flaws that will help others learn. An individual is just like any other around themselves. Slavery and discrimination should be passed as something that does not to be happened to as being in this world. The main thing I will agree with is that, in the society today they choose who is actually smart and better then back then being because of their color. But what I do not agree with is that some people still can get away with it and so it interferes with certain peoples lives and careers. All discrimination does is bring back slavery which became illegal in this world. So why even try to bring it back. Everyone would particularly be the same, but were just adding color.

# data[].attributes.body
Throughout this article, Ward Connerly said many things that I agreed with, in fact, there was not much that I disagreed with. Racism is still alive in our society. Over 50 years ago, we read and became more aware of the awful things people had to go through just because of their color. I can't imagine how hard it was to have someone tell you they cant serve you food or give you a place to use the bathroom just because of the color of your skin or having to get up and leave a class that wasn't "right for them." Overall, the ideas of how bad it was 50 years ago should open up the minds of more people to see that we need to overcome this. I agreed with Connerly when he said "We are citizens of a great land founded on the glorious principle of freedom for all." It shouldn't matter what race or relgion or gender we are, what matters is that we all have freedom and the ability to be friends with who we chose and be able to attend any school we want. I did not agree with Connerly when he said "The passage of CCRI makes me optimistic that someday soon we will be a nation in which our children are judged, as Reverend Martin Luther King envisioned, “not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” I don't agree with this simple because racism is still an issue on our society. It is not as awful and severe as it was 50 years ago, but we have people everyday blaming cops for putting a black man in jail for disobeying the law "because he's black" or people making derogatory jokes when a white girl drinks a Starbucks or when you see a black person in line at Popeyes fried chicken. Although these jokes may be funny to some, they are unaware about how serious it gets, especially when you think back to 50 years ago. Overall, this article really opened my eyes to how far racism has come, but even though we have come far, it is not completely gone.

# data[].attributes.body
After reading this article, I agree with Ward Connerly’s view on equality. His entire article was very interesting to read and to hear someone else’s side of what they went through regarding discrimination. There were a lot of points through out the article that I truly agree with but on that really caught my attention was when he said “It is high time that those who are obsessed with color develop a little colorblindness. We have to stop dwelling on past injustices like slavery and segregation. And we have to accept this fact: We can’t use race to get beyond race.” This is so true in so many ways we really need to stop worrying about the color of people’s skin and worry about more important issues going on in this world. How this relates to American politics/government it relates with it because we have always made race a reason for something like when wanting to own property, having the right to marry whomever you want and the right to vote and many more things.

# data[].attributes.body
This article written by notable Harvey C.Mansfield shared interesting perspective I believe is worth considering when speaking on Feminism. Feminism has came a long from ever since the sixties and seventies when Simone De Beauvoir wrote the book, Simone de Beauvoir’sThe Second Sex (1949). I agree and disagree with quite a few points that Mansfield made when he was sharing his ideas on how feminism needs to be reformed. Before I state these Ideas I do respect him first acknowledging that every gender tends to be biased when speaking on issues pertaining to topics such as feminism. I personally believe that is true, a woman will most likely agree with a statement that is widely accepted by other women unlike agreeing with a statement commonly agreed by men. I do not see this as wrong or right, it's just a natural tendency that I myself do unconsciously. The Ideas that Mansfield presented that I stand in agreement with are stating, the double standards of women compared to their male counterparts, creating a new form of feminism that acknowledges the roles and function of each gender in society, and, the idea that women have to act in a manly way in order to be respected in their workplace . The reason why I believe that there is a double-standard that exists for women, pertaining to sexual morality, is because women are oftentimes criticized and persecuted in society for having known for sleeping with multiple men outside of their home, however men are praised for their manliness in doing the same. Generally, I believe sleeping outside of marriage is wrong; men's faults should be equally weighed as incorrect, immoral in the same manner society reprimands women. Mansfield posed an interesting question when he asked " Why do both sexes have to be ambitious for conquest?.". He believes men and women should not compete when it comes to sexual morality, instead they should redefine their roles to make sure that they both are satisfied with. Though he goes on to mention that most women's happiness is being the manager of her home, I do not agree that establishing a well-balanced home is the only role a woman can be placed into. The same goes for men, their contributions to the home go beyond being the "bread-winner" of the family, other ways a man can make contributions to the stability of his home is by helping his wife out with house-chores, taking care of his children while the mom takes and break and etc. Harvey Mansfield mentioned the need for a new form of feminism that acknowledge the conventional roles of men and women however with exceptions in place. I believe these exceptions give women the liberty to choose occupations outside their homes, be placed in leadership positions without having to jeopardize their femininity and equally represented in their positions as men. I also agree with Mansfield when he mentions that the similarities of men and women are not the only thing that must be highlighted when discussing issues such as feminism, but also their differences. Identifying the differences of both gender will help in situating roles that each personal is satisfied with; this does not mean that a man's role must be outweighed as more significant than the role of a woman. Whether a woman is a mother, a leader in her work-field, I believe eliminating her femininity to act manly in order to be viewed as serious is downright wrong. Mansfield classifies it well by saying "Manliness is the character of men that makes them insist on being men, on distinguishing themselves from women and also from unmanly men.". This means that this particular character trait of a man is not a means for everyone in a workplace to possess, it simply means classifies its belonging to a man and not a woman. A female should not be required to act out of her role as a woman to be well respected in and outside of her home, for her feminine characteristics is what makes mer perspectives, judgements unique and different!

# data[].attributes.body
I think that this topic is developing still to this day. I think that race gets worse due to rumors and speculations. I think that feminism is also a big deal in our society and I think that people make it worse when they talk about it.I really enjoyed the subject and learned a lot

# data[].attributes.headline
Slavery and The American Founding overview by Destiny Barber

# data[].attributes.subject
Slavery and The American Founding overview by Destiny Barber

# data[].attributes.body
American freedom from the British only meant freedom for the colonist of white men. This meant nothing for those of color, for slavery still held grips on "40% of the southern population." Along with many others, I also would only think of Independence from the British to be a great accomplishment...but when looking at the original foundation and motivation to breakaway...this included the freedom of slavery and domination under one power. Although the colonists found their freedom in independence, they too were holding the same power of colored men and women. This article made me question the original foundation for independence and was very informative as well as thought provoking.
I think this relates to our current look at the race problem in America because although there is no physical obtaining of a person, there is still much of a discriminating factor which in turn is emotional slavery.

# data[].attributes.body
This article mainly discusses articles and books that emphasize on how the roles of women should change in the household or how having children or being married is a sort of great oppression. These books were written in the 60s and 70s when the ideas of feminism exhibited a very broad range, many of the authors being extremists. One thing that the article said that really caught my attention was "housework is a direct expression of man’s oppression of women and capitalism’s exploitation."  I strongly agree with the description of how capitalism has played a role in helping men oppress women, and how their oppression reflects the mechanisms of capitalism. Women are essentially the employees of men and they make a good home for the husband, even though he puts little effort into making it a good home himself. But he gains from the labor of his wife since he is able to go out and do things like work and socialize. He is able to do this while his wife is isolated in her own home, chained by the weight of her responsibility to make a good home.
One point that the author made that I disagree with is how shoe says that saying all of these points somehow devalues the job of a housewife. Even though the idea of being a housewife is met with reluctance and hesitance, I do not see it as a form of degradation like it used to be where women did not have a choice as to whether they wanted to be a housewife or not. In fact I personally see being a housewife as a daunting task and I admire any woman that has the courage to be up to the challenge.
This relates to politics because early in the feminist movement, some women called for political action to the role of women in the household. They had pointed out in ceraspects, government had already restricted some parts of a person's personal life. So why can they not intervene to help women step out of the traditional role of being a housewife?

# data[].attributes.body
Overall, I agree with Ward Connerly’s point of view in the article Back to Equality. Throughout his article, Connerly shares a few aspects of his life with us regarding racial discrimination. When reading these stories, I suddenly felt even more aware of the tough situations that colored people had gone through and still go through today. Although the author shares a story that happened over fifty years ago, I feel like discrimination based on race is still evident in our society. I, myself, am considered a minority and I have experienced racial discrimination a countless amount of times. However, I understand that we have come a long way from then (which doesn't change the fact that it is still evident). What stood out to me in this article is when Connerly stated: “We can’t use race to get beyond race.” I think that this is such an important concept for us to embrace, especially in a country like ours. We are surrounded by people of so many different racial backgrounds and ethnicities, discriminating against them will prevent us from moving forward as a nation. We should all come together and strive for equality and acceptance.

# data[].attributes.body
I can relate to this article in many ways because I am also a full-time housewife. This article touches me and brings many memories back to me. About a little more than three years ago after being married for eight years my husband and I decided to have a child. Everything was planned, and we were so happy to welcome this beautiful baby. I had the most beautiful pregnancy, and I thought that after my baby was born everything would continue as wonderful as it was. My husband and I decided that a month before I had the baby I would quit my job for at least until he was old enough to go to school and dedicate myself as a full-time mom. Finally, the day came, and I had my baby. But as the days went by, I started feeling different about everything. I started feeling lonely, sad and scared. I found myself crying every day for no reason. It was the worst feeling ever; I had never felt like that in my entire life. A time, where I was extremely happy to have my baby in my life, turn out to also be the most depressing and saddest time of my life. Little did I know was that I was going through postpartum depression.
I don't know why this happened to me. It was not that I lacked any support. My husband was always there except when he would have to go to work, but I also had my mom, family, and friends come over a few time during the week to come and help me. Maybe it was just how everything changed from having a life with no baby and being used to work in a regular job to become a stay at home mom with a new baby. I also went through a C-section recovery which made it even worst for me. And then you had the physical changes in my body, the emotional changes and then all the mommy duties I had to do was just so much. The good news what that my postpartum depression only lasted three to four months and then it went away.
But I can now imagine a mom that has to go through this for a longer period. The effects can be alarming. Women have to receive the most support as possible, physically and emotionally during the entire parenting time. Not only for moms that decide to stay at home but also the moms that do end up going back to work. All type of work can be overwhelming especially for women because they go through the majority of the changes than men. I am not saying that men don't also go through changes because they also have to add more stuff on their plate, but for women, it is just inevitable to go through the majority of the changes. I do think that women deserve to be valued  and supported more for what they do and allowed to choose what she thinks is best for her without any criticism or judgments.
(A picture of my two year old and I... He is my sweetheart!)

# data[].attributes.body
Reading this article by Ward Connerly was very interesting and informative about racism that still is alive till this very day. I agreed with the part where he states what John F. Kennedy declared that "Race has no place in american life or law. Every time we use race, ethnicity, or sex as basis for conferring a public benefit, we inject a dose of poison into our body politic. We widen the divide that separates people of different races, beliefs, and cultures. We create a fault line potentially more destructive than any earthquake." I agree that every American that was born and raised here is an American no matter what the race, ethnicity, or culture. If you love your country and are proud to be an American, why should it matter what race you are to determine if you are a true American. Race has always played a big role in American politics and governments to the times when a certain race was denied the right to own their own property, and the right to marry or vote. Hence why the Declaration of Independence, was created to fulfill equality to every one on American soil.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Double Blind of Race and Guilt- Divya Vashist

# data[].attributes.subject
The Double Blind of Race and Guilt- Divya Vashist

# data[].attributes.body
Although, we fought the civil war more than a century ago, racism is a pivotal part of American society even today. There is a clear sense of awkwardness and fear when the term racism or when people are told to talk about racism. Prior to analyzing this article, I agree with majority of Steele’s argument, that people aren’t born racist, they are taught racism, which is why they don’t feel guilt when committing certain actions. In many parts of the United States, it is common or even normal to perform racist acts and you are excluded when you don’t. I believe that when a child is bred racism, it becomes very difficult to be able to change their beliefs. This is the main reason that even today, in most sectors, powerful positions are held by mostly whites. Other minorities consist of very small population, as many people are psychologically conditioned to believe that white skin is more reliable and better fit for the position. Also, many companies don’t accept black employees if they wear their hair natural. These constrains force minorities to conceal their culture and their cultural identity and adopt a more white way of life, to be able to survive. I hope that in the incoming future we can accept the differences between races and cultures and accept each other for who they are not for what the color of their skin loos like.

# data[].attributes.body
For me, there was nothing new presented in this article that I hadn't heard before. I agree with the fact that the average white person today doesn't feel any guilt and why should they? One doesn't get to choose the circumstance they are born into (that includes the color of their skin). In today's world, there's a new cry for white people to take responsibility for the crude history their ancestors created in this country, and be guilty for something they don't have control over. This is bizarre to me. White people today have nothing to do with the past, exactly how every person of every other race has nothing to do with what happened before their lifetime. Why do we have to keep bringing up the past? Can we please move on.
One thing I can agree with though was when the author said that white people that lived in the time of slavery and segregation didn't feel any guilt. When you're born into something, that's the lens you see the world through. So, it makes sense that white people back then saw other races as inferior, destined to be servants of whites forever (which is terrible, of course). However, when that's all you see and that's how the world that you're born into is, it becomes a permanent reality for those people. That is why when slavery ended and the fight for the end of segregation commenced, whites refused to accept this new reality because it contradicted the reality they were born into and had been living their entire lives. Thank God that kids today are being born in an age where all people are seen as equal.
This perception of "White America", that it's harder for everyone except whites to succeed in America does result in policies that try to help reverse this phenomenon. Some examples include giving Blacks and Latinos extra points on the SAT or the new cry from some politicians for a mandatory amount of racial diversity in the workplace.
In conclusion, I understand the point that the author is trying to make, but I can't make out if it's meant to make white people feel bad or not. If she's just trying to be informative, I completely understand. However, if her intention is spur more racial conflict, we already have enough racial tension in this country; we don't need anymore.

# data[].attributes.body
The first issue brought up in this article is the case of Andrea Yates who killed her five children in the bathtub. Cheryl Meyer who is a professor of psychology states “When we target certain cases and try to ascertain how this particular mother could have killed her child, we mask the more important question, why don’t more mothers do this?” (Meyer). As a mother I don’t understand how any mother would harm her children, the act of killing your child is not from restraints of being a housewife; rather an act of someone who is mentally unstable. A mother should always put her child first, this includes getting help for herself if she has thoughts of harming herself or her children as a result of the pressures of running a household. I think that the fact that Daniel Horowitz had exposed Betty Friedan as the leftist journalist she was, rather than the housewife she had claimed to be, should have opened many women’s eyes to see that Betty Friedan’s credibility as a housewife was like that of advice about children from people without children. I totally disagree with the Feminist view in this article that being a stay-at-home mom is a result of a woman being in denial of their potential of human beings (McElroy). I agree with Mimi Gladstein whose ideology that to stay at home is a choice and “every bit as valid as entering the workforce” (Gladstein). Gladstein says that her job as a housewife taught her management skills such as prioritizing and budgeting family expenses; which she used when she accepted a career as executive director of her university’s Diamond Jubilee celebration. I share the view that staying at home is an individual choice, rather than a “comfortable concentration camp” (Friedan).

This issue relates to politics today in the fact that women are not equal to men in some aspects of our current society. Women still are not making as much as men, also men get promoted much faster than women. Our society is constantly progressing, as ideas which as a society we once thought were ok end up being a mistake, we then change our ideology and advance as a human race. A few million years ago it was perfectly acceptable to club a female over the head and drag her into a cave to establish a domestic relationship, this leads me to believe that our current issues will fade as our society evolves and women become truly equal to men.

# data[].attributes.body
Reading this article was very eye-opening and so informative. Shelby Steele, the author of the article started out by saying how her white friend doesn't feel racial guilt because he was born into it. I actually agree with this statement. I feel as if many white people are born into this so they don't really see anything wrong with saying racial things. I also feel as if more older people are the ones that are okay with saying racial things. There still are young people doing and saying racial stuff but they're most likely taught it growing up in an environment where that is okay. As Steele said, it's understandable that they don't feel racial guilt, but it shouldn't be acceptable either. This also relates to politics and government because racial discrimination also happens there, and some of them don't feel guilty of saying or doing racial things because that's what they believe in.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Wall of Separation Between Church and State

# data[].attributes.subject
The Wall of Separation Between Church and State

# data[].attributes.body
Before you read- sorry for there being two of these posts! I wrote the other one before I logged in and I can't fix it so it's making me duplicate under this account

Largely, I agree with Judd W. Patton, the author of this article. The article is a compilation of events, cases, and political writing. He often references Jefferson's famous quote where he states, "

The Wall of Separation Between Church and State" throughout the story. Interestingly, that quote became quite influential in the context of future rulings and happenings. I disagree with his stance that the "tide" is turning back to our "traditional, Godly American heritage". Given the movements for the rights of gay and transgender individuals, more and more people are calling for a further distinction between church values and government policy. A common example would be: people pointing out how the Bible's views on homosexuality should be ignored through the secular eyes of our government. However, I did agree with the author that our country still has its essence in Christian values and beliefs. He spoke about the ten commandments being written in the Supreme Court and other references in legal documents. I believe that our country is still rooted in the essential values of the Christian faith- honesty, helpfulness, and goodness.  Though we may not be a strictly Christian state, our beliefs and values still largely align with those of that faith

# data[].attributes.body
The idea of racism within America is such a sensitive, and controversial, topic that is widely prevalent, which is rather ironic since America is known to be the land of freedom. After giving this insightful article a read, I can honestly agree with Steele's explanation as to why many Whites do not feel guilt when spurring racist acts. Along with the likelihood of feeling guilty if not committing these common acts, I feel that being grown up in this tense environment plays a significant role in shaping someone, especially if your parents or other older adults are committing these acts. Unfortunately, these acts of racism still widely exist within the political sphere. Most governmental positions are still attained by most Whites. Though there are some Blacks and other minorities that still are able to attain these positions, the diversity within this sector is almost little to nonexistent since many citizens still have that mindset revolving around the unfortunate superiority of Whites. I hope that this indirect, ongoing battle of racism can subside to where all races can coexist in peace with no disruption.

# data[].attributes.body
Just by the title, this article immediately grabbed my attention because alone, it makes the reader infer that one of the most significant controversial issues is redefining society. “A New Feminism” by Harvey Mansfield dives into one of the most controversial and debatable topics in history- the act of feminism in society. In short, the author's position on this issue is that men created this upon women; ultimately, stripping them from their voices and speaking for them. With taking the author, an older male, into consideration, this viewpoint shocked me entirely. Though this falls back on my part, I assumed before reading the article that the position the author took was going to be much more against women's rights and such; however, I was completely wrong! Throughout the article, so many statements stood out to me, but one, in particular, is, “Femininity was the feminine mystique that had been imposed on women by men to subordinate women, even enslave them.” The reason why this stood out to me is that it is not only the author's main stance, but it is quite a bold claim. This statement alone lets me, the reader, infer that men created such a concept in society to ensure their superior position to women.

Furthermore, in doing so, men become in control and dominant over women and their choices- sometimes to a wrongful extent. Ultimately, I agree very much with this statement as I witness incidents that follow this every day not only on the news but on a casual day as well. Another comment that I agree with is, “ In this new situation women do need an identity; they need feminism to replace the tradition we once lived by.” Again, yet another extraordinarily straightforward and bold statement that I appreciate very much. This author is not hesitant to tackle the most controversial issues, and I thank that very much. In short, this claim speaks for itself. Women have suffered from losing different opportunities men are served on shiny glassware. Ranging from any job opportunities to provided education, women have always had obstacles from goals- this is when it needs to come to an end. The old views on feminism and women’s rights need to be replaced with much more improved and less simple-minded beliefs. Women are no less than men- this article shines a bright light on this topic, and it should be much more enforced in today's society.

In terms of American government, the way this relates to it is simple- female political figures. In today's society, there are few female figures in office-  it is not a lot, it is much more than in the past. Though the rate is slowly increasing as generations grow, the group is still very minimal. I do not agree that this is acceptable; instead, I believe it is extremely discriminatory and inconsiderate. There have been many occasions in which a female candidate for any political position has run against a man and lost simply because of her gender- not her policies or beliefs. This is unacceptably common in our modern government and should be improved immediately. Women are capable of doing the same as men- they are no less nor are they superior. Equal treatment and opportunity should be provided to teach future generations with morally acceptable values.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Wall of Separation Between Church and State

# data[].attributes.subject
The Wall of Separation Between Church and State

# data[].attributes.body
Largely, I agree with Judd W. Patton, the author of this article. The article is a compilation of events, cases, and political writing. He often references Jefferson's famous quote where he states, "

The Wall of Separation Between Church and State" throughout the story. Interestingly, that quote became quite influential in the context of future rulings and happenings. I disagree with his stance that the "tide" is turning back to our "traditional, Godly American heritage". Given the movements for the rights of gay and transgender individuals, more and more people are calling for a further distinction between church values and government policy. A common example would be: people pointing out how the Bible's views on homosexuality should be ignored through the secular eyes of our government. However, I did agree with the author that our country still has its essence in Christian values and beliefs. He spoke about the ten commandments being written in the Supreme Court and other references in legal documents. I believe that our country is still rooted in the essential values of the Christian faith- honesty, helpfulness, and goodness. Though we may not be a strictly Christian state, our beliefs and values still largely align with those of that faith

# data[].attributes.body
I absolutely agree with the writers stance on this topic. Ward Connerly writes his article through a series of events through out his life and it really makes you think about the injustices minorities go through, even today. An excerpt from his writing that stood out to me and was beautifully said is, "We can’t use race to get beyond race." I feel like in today's day of age when you think about politics, race is sometimes linked to it and it shouldn't be that way, one person shouldn't get hate because of their political stand. Using/pinning a race against another or simply talking down on one because you feel you're right isn't going to change anything. To get past racial issues we must assert the color blindness Connerly talked about. Treating people like people out of kindness without seeing the color of their skin. This certainly still is relevant when you look at our government system because racism is very much alive to this day, we shouldn't allow certain things to get passed that affect a whole race for personal gain or because of discrimination.

# data[].attributes.body
I strongly agree with this article. From the beginning to the end Harvey C. Mansfield was right on point in my eyes. The first thing that really stood out to me was that he talked about new feminism. To me this means house wife's not just being house wife's or stay at home moms. Being a stay at home mom myself i know first hand what it feels like to be less than. I have felt that i was dependent on my husband, because he made the money. He paid the bills, he was the sole provider. My husband was actually the one that made me realize MEN become dependent on women just as much. I think women now a days are still not being treated equal to a man. For example if a women was to run for president (Like Hillary Clinton) i feel we would not take them serious as being a women, only because we have only ever seen a man be president. I love the quote he used "the battle of the sexes" i feel this is something that will never change.

# data[].attributes.body
Overall I agree with the article but the one thing that stood out to me was the section of the article named "A Little Colorblindness". This is how I believe our world should function. This section talks about the author of the articles experience as a 15 year old with a job. The author states that he is African American and his bus driver to get to work was a white male, the bus driver would fix his schedule each day to make sure the author was on the bus and to get to work on time. The author states that "His act of kindness was color-blind".
One thing in the article I disagree with, is something that author also disagrees with. It is under a section named "The New Discrimination", the author explains that when he was at University of California there was a Latina who he met. He explains that she was not allowed to take certain classes and she had also been kicked out of classes because the fact that she was a Latina. This is not right, this is kind of like the "plus factor" topic in our discussion board 3. Our race should not be used against us at any time at any point of our lives.
There is still discrimination to this day. In every aspect of a persons life, they are looked at and viewed based on their color or ethnic background. From simple bank loans to purchase a car to running for a high ranking position in government.