Assignment: Please choose ONE of the following paper topics. Papers should be 3-5 pages in length, due in class Thursday, Sept. 28. Rough drafts are strongly encouraged, but not mandatory. I will be accepting rough drafts no later than 11:59 pm on Monday, Sept. 25. Please keep in mind that drafts are first come, first serve. So get those drafts in asap. Final copies should be sent electronically to me at megw@email.unc.edu, saved in the following format "[first name]_[last name]_1". So, for example, Rod Flanders would send me his first paper saved as "Rod_Flanders_1". Please put only your PID on the actual paper, since they will be graded blind. Email me or talk to me if you have any questions.


Topic 1: Feminism and Equality

In Ch. 2 of Manifesta, Baumgardner and Richards claim that "...feminism is exactly what the dictionary says it is: the movement for social, political and economic equality of men and women" [my emphasis]. They later add that this also includes access to information, or educational equality among men and women. In Ch. 2 of Feminist Theory from Margin to Center, hooks claims that the mainstream definition of feminism is that it is "a movement that aims to make women the equals of men" [again, my emphasis]. Hooks quickly criticizes this definition because (i) men as a group are not equal--e.g., there are racial, economic, class inequalities, etc.--but also, (ii) she doubts that women even "share a common vision of what equality means." It is easy to say that one wants equality among the sexes, but harder to explain what this means.

With an eye towards the sample of definitions of 'feminism' that we have looked at so far (Baumgardner and Richards, hooks, and de Beauvoir), what do you think is meant by the word 'equality'? What would an ideal egalitarian society look like? Keep in mind the criticisms that we raised in light of Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron. How are we to admit of and accept differences among the sexes (or genders), while maintaining equality? In class we listed a bunch of differences and inequalities between men and women, masculinity and femininity. Which are which, and what is the distinction between a mere un-harmful difference and a harmful inequality? Discuss.


Topic 2: Existentialism

Related to the discussions we've had in class, explain the difference between Existentialism and Ancient metaphysics (and Cartesian egos). Be sure to explain what is meant by the slogans "essence precedes existence" and "existence precedes essence." What difference does it make to feminism which view one adopts? Which one do you think is more plausible and why? Explain how Simone de Beauvoir's approach to feminism in The Second Sex is particularly existentialist. If you have time, discuss the role of the concept of 'the other' and 'bad faith' in de Beauvoir's approach to feminism. What are the advantages and disadvantages of this approach to feminism? Discuss.


Topic 3: Liberation and Slave Morality

One proposed solution to sexism--one way to show that we reject certain norms or societal social structures--is to act in direct opposition to the norms or structures that are in place. What criticisms does Simone de Beauvoir make of this approach towards liberation? Is her criticism a good one or not? Explain. How does Nietzsche's idea of 'slave morality' come into play here? What alternative solution does Simone de Beauvoir propose? Do you think Nietzsche would agree? Why or why not? Discuss.


Topic 4: De Beauvoir, Nietzsche, and John Galt's Speech

In class, I suggested that John Galt's struggle in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged could be paralleled with the feminist's struggle against sexism. Explain. If the problems are similar, then how are their solutions similar? Explain whether you think that the suggestions made by Simone de Beauvoir in The Second Sex (as far as a movement towards liberation is concerned) are similar to the solution prosed by John Galt in his speech. Explain Nietzsche's position on morality, as he lays out in his On the Genealogy of Morals. Do you think he would agree with de Beauvoir's and John Galt's approach to liberation? Why or why not? Discuss.


Topic 5: Free-Wheeling

Incorporating the material that we have covered in the readings and in class the last few weeks, construct your own thesis. Make sure that you (i) you have a clear thesis, (ii) that you argue for and support your thesis adequately, and (iii) that you show mastery of the material covered both in class and out.

Note: you should come see me before picking this topic to ensure that your paper adequately satisfies (i)-(iii).


Other ideas:
Here are some themes that we discussed in class that I have not made into explicit paper topics. You may use some of these if you would like to write a free-wheeling paper.

(i) Feminism vs. Humanism: why doesn't the first just collapse into the second. In other words, what puts the 'fem' in feminism?
(ii) Why is it important that feminists call themselves feminists? Hooks, de Beauvoir, and Bumgardner and Richards each complain that people are reluctant to call themselves feminists. Why should this matter. Would a Christian be less of a Christian for not calling himself one?
(iii) If we lived in an ideal society would feminism be dead? How much is the feminist movement dependent on contingent societal circumstances? Should this matter for the movement?
(iv) Compare feminism in the past (say, in de Beauvoir's time or earlier) and now. How is it different? What has changed? Do you think feminists in the past would have the same opinions now about strategies for liberation as they did then if they were alive now? [Thanks to Elizabeth Suttles for this topic].

---