Problem

Read posted reflections and respond to at least one of them (100-150 word comment:

The main argument in Redstocking Manifesto is women from all different backgrounds, culture, ethnicity, and status coming together as one to win their freedom. In this article, the author lists several reasons why men should give up their male privileges and support women's liberation in order for the sake of humanity. Additionally, in this fight for women's liberation, they will always take the side of the oppressors which in this case is women and not what "reformist" think is good for women. I find the main arguments convincing because the author is claiming that women should not follow what the society has put in place or follow male supremacy. It is an encouraging article as it empowers women to unite together as one and fight for a common cause and not bear any sort of oppression.

The main argument in Introduction to Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation by Nancy Cott is that there are certain reasons for having a marriage rather than just having it in a church. It is also necessary to have a witness as that makes it official to the public and guarantees their commitment.

These two texts are similar in the sense they both discuss marriage and the roles of both men and women in marriage however it is different in the sense that both of the articles have different outlooks towards marriage. For example, in the second text by Nancy Cott, discusses how marriage represents personal love and commitment as well as duties and privileges. While on the other hand in Redstocking Manifesto , the author discusses how women are not submissive to their husbands and views marriage in the sense of entrapment.

Question: Looking at the viewpoints of marriage back then, do you think marriage now shares similar feelings and views as it did in the past or is marriage something now totally different than what is was in the past?