Womanizer!

Charlotte Guilman was a theorist ahead of her time. She advocated for equality and freedom for women. Although her ideas were at times radical and seemed that she was a little conforminst to the idea that men needed to run the world in order for society to survive. Even when she understood that men were in that dominant place because women allowed them to be there, but women at one time or another lost control of this and became submisive not by choice but because society needed it. Do you agree with this notion that Women should be submissive and men rule even in today's society? how could you defend or attack your point using Guilman's works?

Morbid sex distinction and evolution

Perkins Gilman argues that the morbid sex distinction is a result of a woman's economic dependence on attracting a male. However, I would suggest that this idea ignores the basic biological and evolutionary effects that have taken place that serve to enhance female sexuality. The incredibly quick growth of the skull of the human baby, evolutionarily speaking, has placed an enormous pressure upon the development of female hips and a high importance on the mere ability to successfully bear a child. As recently as a few hundred years ago dying during childbirth was a common occurence. As such, while men continued to be evolutionarily favored to be strong and powerful, the single most powerful evolutionary pressure on women was to be able to have children. As a result of this, gender distinctions became much greater between male and female humans than in other species.

Will we ever come to a point where men and women are physically equal in terms of strength, speed, and size, given the basic evolutionary and biological differences which distinguish men and women?

From Du Bois to Obama

W. E. B. Du Bois and Martin Luther King, Jr. shared many key characteristics. Both were influential men in achieving racial equality. Unfortunately, neither Du Bois nor King lived to see the gains they strived for African Americans come to fruition. Du Bois handed off his legacy to King to carry on where he had left off. Du Bois died the day before Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his “I Have A Dream” speech, which some herald as the greatest speech ever given. Although neither King nor Du Bois lived to see the equality of all people of color, King believed this equality would happen in time. Just as Du Bois wrote powerfully about the racial inequalities and injustices of African Americans, King spoke powerfully. King and Du Bois also had similar writing styles; both wrote in prose. They used biblical language and powerful imagery. Du Bois wanted changes “now,” and was not satisfied with sitting patiently and waiting, like other contemporaries, namely Booker T. Washington. In similar fashion, neither was King satisfied with waiting patiently for changes, as he called for immediate action with the infamous phrase “now is the time” in his legendary “I Have a Dream” speech (King, 1968). King accomplished what Du Bois was not able to. Du Bois paved the path for King’s civil rights revolution that changed the course of history for racial minorities. Changes in civil rights for minorities did not occur immediately, as Du Bois and King wanted. The journey is still not over; the path continues to be paved by others. However, in the 21st century, Barak Hussein Obama biblically proclaimed “The time is now” in his inaugural speech as the first African American President of the United States (New York Times, 2009). As President Obama declared in his inaugural speech, “A man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath (New York Times, 2009).”
What similarities do you see between W. E. B. Du Bois and President Barak Obama?


King, M. L. (1968). “I have a dream” address delivered at the march on Washington for jobs and Freedom. (August 28, 1963). http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/speeches/address_at_march_on_washington.pdf. Accessed: February 22, 2009.

New York Times. 2009. Barak Obama’s Inaugural Address. (January 20, 2009). http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/us/politics/20text-obama.html. Accessed: February 22, 2009.

Mead's and the formation of the self

Although Mead considers that individual and society establish a dialectical relationship (Appelrouth & Edles, 2008), he is not taking into consideration structural and social constrains that manipulate the formation of self and the individual relationships. Mead emphasizes a predominant role of individuals in society,
“The individual possesses a self only in relation to the selves of the other members of his social group; and the structure of his self expresses or reflects the general behavior pattern of his social group to which he belongs, just as does the structure of the self of every other individual belonging to this social group.” (Mead, 1934 as cited in Appelrouth & Edles, 2008, p. 343)
Thus, Mead’s theory suggests that structural conditions are not directly involved with the formation of self; on the contrary, that the self only is formed through the continuous relationship within individuals who do not suffer the influence of the social structure they live in. This vision makes it difficult to analyze the pressure that the social structures, such as government systems or religious beliefs, play in the formation of the self. Furthermore, his assumptions would lead one to consider that structural social factors and global political interests are not relevant in the construction of societies.

Have religion, politic, or media a role to play in the formation of the self?

Now you See It, Now it Exist

A central theme behind both Simmel and Mead seems to be the idea of social forms, interaction and social objects and symbols. Simmel explains that social forms are nothing but society's interactions visible to humans. Mead explains that social objects and symbols are nothing but the meaning we give them. So in essence, society is the interaction we have among each other and what that means is that which we want it to mean. So, I ask only one question, is it possible to look for society so much that if we forget to remember what society is on the first place (meaning) it will cease to exist (form)?

What's My Calling?

A topic of great interest for me is the work Weber did on religion and its influences on modern social structures. In his text The Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism (Appelrouth & Edles, pp 154-165), he outlines the characteristics of Protestant Christianity and its direct relation to capitalism in contemporary society. He does not say that Protestantism is the cause of capitalism, but rather offered a breeding ground in which capitalism flourished (Appelrouth & Edles, pp 158; Allan, pp 51). Weber makes this point by offering that Protestantism presented the concept of a calling for all men, not just those of the clergy (Appelrouth & Eddles, pp158). For the time, the concept of a calling, in my belief was a marketing campaign aimed at the poor to affirm their status as workers and give them hope of entering the Kingdom of Heaven by continuing their work. Thus perpetuating the system and maintaining the status quo. Protestantism gives no indication that one must be good at their calling nor like what they are doing. So, if Protestant dogma preached , from the outset, that one was allowed to alter their own calling at any given time, how would that have effected Weber's theory of Protestantism and the Spirit of Capitalism?

Social "Pseudo Science"

Among Weber’s arguments as to why it would be quite an impossibility for the existence of a true social “science” was the idea that in order for the researcher to even perceive a problem in which a study could be conducted the very labeling of the issue at hand as a “problem” would require a cultural (subjective) interpretation of it as such (Allan, 2008). This in effect goes contrary to the beliefs of science in which objectivity is a required basis thus “disqualifying” a discipline (eg sociology) that needs culture (a value-laden concept) for its existence. Every situation must be interpreted in its own unique context and to try and generalize across society would rationalize every thing that makes us uniquely human. We cannot escape what made us who we are. Our upbringing, the way we have been oriented influences (whether we perceive or not) everything we do especially our perception of society. Is it possible to disassociate ourselves from ourselves, from our very being, so as to be able to be objective in our study of humanity? Is it possible for social science to come up with knowledge (nonevaluative) that can be generalized across society and across time?

Allan,K. 2007. The Social Lens: An Invitation to Social and Sociological Theory.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.