At the onset, Valerie Solana’s SCUM Manifesto is a work that was clearly addressed to male species which she regarded as accidental a “biological accident. ” The first two paragraphs of her work reveal her deep resentment on the role of men and women in the society. The last part of the first paragraph reflects her strong rejection of the male sex. Solanas identifies male in various ways but all describing the male as an undesirable species. To her, to be male is something that a man should be ashamed of and maleness is a dearth, a disease and that males are emotionally limited.
She said male is completely an “isolated unit” and everything that he has in himself is nothing but a tool that he use to fulfill his drives and needs. Her work also reflect a seemingly an almost bitter feeling towards men. She used strong and very offending sentences emphasizing on the males’ purportedly many in capabilities including relationship except of his physical sensation. However, the male according to her is capable Solano’s obvious hatred to the male sex was also expressed in the way she describes how a male expresses himself.
She described the male’s behavior as physically passive but then he does not like it. He expressed his frustration of his own passivity by screwing a woman he despises. She said the male project his passivity by projecting it onto women and by screwing. Overall, Valerie Solano’s work was an expression of her sentiments on the role between the male and the female in which she downgraded the role of the male species as concerns only of him self, but she gratifies women for her unselfish role. Solano stated that while mother cares for what is best for her children, the father only wants what is best for him.
She was a man hater. In contrast with the work of Solano, Fry’s work is more objective although she also urges that women should detach themselves from the world of males and male dominated institution. This separation according to Fry is of various sorts which must includes institutions, relationships, roles and activities that are male dominated. Fry’s work reflects a more meaningful feminist opinion as she discussed important feminist issues leading to their objective of achieving liberation from the male dominance world.
While Solano strongly reject the male describing him as incapable, emotionally weak, a disease, and so forth all maligning the male sex, Fry was more objective in a sense that she also put her feet on the other’s shoes. Though a real feminist and also a staunch advocate of the separation from male dominance, she described women’s role in the context of the traditional notion that men are the provider and the protector of women. Fry cited the notion of parasitism of the male and female in terms of family matters.
But she insists that the parasitism “goes the other way around. ” It is the male that is parasites to females’ because men are pathetic and used up by living by their own. In general, although both women were against the existing arrangement of the roles of men and women in the society, Solano was very radical in her views about the males’ role and the male as a person to the point that she appeared being a man-hater. Fry on the other hand, was more objective although she also deplored the male as weak and parasites to women.
But unlike Solano’s views of the male which is very personal and very negative, Fry’s opinion reflects a carefully weigh ideas regarding the issues involving the role of men and women which in the perspective of feminist like them are offensive and binding to women. Is having a maid morally wrong? What are BARBARA Ehrenreich’s reasons for thinking so? Is correct? Why or why not? In my own opinion, having a maid is not morally wrong as long as they are not treated fairly, are not abused, and given just compensation.
In the contexts of the employers, maids should not be viewed as slaves rather they should be considered as worker or even employees. Ong (2006) was right in her assessment that having a domestic helper or two is part of the “bargain with two-income families” (p. 201). Ong noted that a high standard of living is considered impossible “without one or even two foreign maids to take care of the household chores as well as of children or the elderly” (p. 201). Thus, having a maid at home should be considered as a social right, just like access to better schools, housing, shopping malls, and leisure.
However, in the context of the families of these maids, to be maid in a foreign country is a source of hope on their economic miseries. Most of the families these maids came from are poor and the best option for them to survive is for their daughter to get employment overseas. In other words, hiring maids meant helping those families. Unfortunately, there are always people who discriminate others. They tend to abuse their domestic servants by giving them unequal and unfair treatment.
According to the Human Rights Watch, many domestic helpers complain of abusive treatments such as not providing them enough food, longer working hours, and racist behavior. These are what is morally wrong and not the hiring of domestic helpers. Barbara Ehrenreich’s thinking about having maids at home On the other hand, Barbara Ehrenreich noted the movement of women around the world and draws a comparison that for every women executive who travels, large number of women from the third world countries leave their families to work as domestic servants in the first world countries.
For Ehrenreich, this mass exodus of women is morally wrong because it results in odd displacements. Ehrenreich cited the facts that while these women carry with them the warmth of the female energy into the wealthy country that hired them; this is usually at the expense of their families left behind. Their absent deprive their families of her care which she willingly offer to the families that need her services abroad. For Ehrenreich, having domestic helpers harm one’s moral character and she calls on her readers not hire maids to clean the house.
Ehrenreich argued having domestic servants clean the house is not good for the family especially the children. While Ehrenreich was more concern on are supposed to clean the house, which is usually done by the maids, she deplored that cleaning other people’s house is so gross and demeaning. While Ehrenreich may have a point, but this issue should not be seen as morally wrong rather it should viewed in the economic context. Having a maid is not morally wrong because it is a decent job for women who have fewer opportunities in life, especially those coming from very poor families in third world countries.
As long as they are treated fairly and justly compensated, it is never morally wrong to employ somebody to do some jobs that one cannot do anymore. It is the most practical thing because it serves in two ways, it benefits the employer because they can concentrate in their work, and it benefits the maid because she will earn dollars for her family back home. Reference Fry, M. (1983) Some Reflection on Separatism and Power http://www. feminist-reprise. org/docs/fryesep. htm Ong, A. (2006) Neoliberalism as Exception USA: Duke University Press Solano, V. & Avital, R. (2004) SCUM Manifesto USA: Verso