تعبير انجليزي عن دور المرأة في المجتمع

تعبير انجليزي عن دور المرأة في المجتمع

دور المرأة في المجتمع بحث بالانجليزية  Role of Women

حمل موضوع تعبير عن المرأة باللغة الانجليزية

 role in society

موضوع انشائي جاهز باللغة الانجليزيه

موضوع تعبير عن دور المرأة فى المجتمع وأهمية ذلك الدور

برجراف عن دور المراة فى المجتمع

برجراف عن عمل المرأه بالانجليزي

المرأة نصف المجتمع بالانجليزي

مقدمة عن المرأة

دور المرأة في المجتمع والأسرة

حقوق المرأة في الاسلام بالانجليزي

سلبيات وايجابيات عمل المرأة بالانجليزي

أهمية دور المرأة في تنمية المجتمع

موضوع عن عمل المرأة

دور المرأة في تنمية المجتمع

المرأة نصف المجتمع

موضوع تعبير عن المرأة نصف المجتمع ودورها في المجتمع

 تعبير انجليزي عن دور المرأة في المجتمع

موضوع عن دور المرأة في المجتمع

سلبيات وايجابيات عمل المرأة بالانجليزي

موضوع عن عمل المرأة

المرأة نصف المجتمع بالانجليزي

حقوق المرأة في الاسلام بالانجليزي

الفرق بين الرجل والمراه باللغه الانجليزيه

paragraph about women's role in society

woman work

The role of women in modern society

When attempting to analyze the outcome of women's "advocacy" efforts undertaken by feminist (feminist) lobbies and associations in modern society, it is generally believed that even if there has been Certain excesses, these efforts have been "generally beneficial". We will try to show that this is not the case, and that this strategy has been a failure for the modern woman, if not a real disaster.

Is it possible to say, in fact, on a "political" level, that "feminine power", whether hierarchical (of status) or charismatic (of influence) has globally increased For about fifty years?

In economic terms, at least in the enterprise, many women are still confined to secondary jobs. Notwithstanding education, to which, it is true, they now have free access, efforts, competence and dynamism, on a certain level, we find almost only men.

Is it due to certain blockages, to a masculine "clan" spirit, to "machismo"? While these effects can not be denied, we do not believe that they constitute the only reason for the female "desert" in high positions. There is another, very important one: from a certain level, one must be "taperable and corveable to thank you". You have to be able to jump on an airplane at any time, react to any situation at any time, invest yourself fully.

For a man whose physical ties to the family remain relatively loose, this does not pose undue problems. As long as he is "morally present," by the example of life he gives, his courage and devotion to his family, and he can compensate for his absences by sufficiently marking his presence when he is physically present , The couple and the children do not suffer undue. In traditional societies, man can return to the village once a year, without destroying family structures. Historically, men have been hunters, sailors, travelers. Even if, it is quite obvious, the absence of man is never easy to live, the balance of the family is seriously altered. The father is for the child a "superego". It does not need, it is not even necessarily beneficial that it is permanently "in touch. A certain distance can even strengthen its authority. And when it is present, what marks the child is the image it carries (sporting example, teaching to work, to craft) as much as the presence itself.

For the woman, it is not the same: her bond with the child is not a hierarchical link, strongly marked by status and image, but a bond that is initially charismatic, visceral, physical and emotional . He does not suffice with his example; he wants his presence near him and even against him, especially when he is small.

Unlike man, therefore, woman is not, by its very nature, "taperable and mercilessly betrayed" in the economic system. Even if it can be exploited in frameworks of work "against its nature" (factory, travel), it has a faculty of saying "no" radically: who can prevent it from being pregnant?

For this reason it is the child who forbids women a free and total investment in the modern capitalist economic system, except to radically alter the structure of it, or to change the philosophy of work as we know it in the West.

Another aspect is that recent years have seen a real women's tide invade the world of work. If the "liberation of women through labor" had not been an untouchable dogma, who would have dared to say that it was a good thing?

In a context of economic crisis and unemployment, it is clear that the woman has served mainly to feed the Moloch of the economic machine. One must tell the truth: its massive and brutal movement outside the "family nest" to invest the "battlefield" of the labor market encumbered by men is not a conquest, it is a flight, to find by a Wage independence any relative security to counterbalance the loss of protection due to the fragility of the couple, and it is a slave trade, of which she is the slave.

Even if, at a certain level of responsibility, professional work obviously brings a blossoming, relative, let us say it well (the company is not precisely a bed of roses) compared to a life in the home seen as very impoverishing, This is due rather to the fact that the family societal environment is not poor in itself but generally ill-organized for the housewife. The proof ; When the social environment is relatively high, allowing for many cultural or associative activities, life in the home can be very pleasant. Nevertheless, for the majority of women, working life is not fulfilling; It is enough to see the insane daily marathon of corporate secretaries and women executives, lifted very early and lying very late, always on the edge of nervous resistance, torn between the orders of the boss and calls for help for children alone or sick, To understand it.

Why did the generals of the women's armies throw them out of their "square meadow" so imprudently? Why have you taken such risks? There was everything to lose. A military leader proposing such a strategy would have been immediately dismissed.

At the family level, has the "power" of status or influence of women increased?

At the domestic level, even if there are a few positive changes in the sense of sharing tasks, it is always the main one. If "primary machismo" is no doubt less present, has it not often turned into a kind of "secondary machismo"? And after all, is it so amazing? Like the company, the service of the house is not only a set of tasks, but a personal investment, a "domestic enterprise", with its tasks more or less noble or rewarding. Man is not attached in an atavistic way to his domestic environment, it is even good that he is not so too ... Why, he thinks, to dispute his wife's initiative in the universe of the House ? Why, in this field, want to take the place of the "boss"? The problem, if the woman is "in the oven and the mill", is that, according to her male vision, "domestic command" is not assured. What does he do then? As a poorly framed soldier, he runs ...

On the genito-educational level, has the woman "increased her power"?

Certain movements of "liberation" of women have undoubtedly justified themselves in reaction against a "too maternal" female model, that of a woman confined to the house, submissive, uncultivated, a "maternal slave, "Just good to make children", to "torch the kids". Against this, they advocated a model of a "free woman", cultivated, "outside", "liberated by work", "managing her sexuality". A certain sexual behavior, coupled with the "advances" of contraception and abortion, thus represented the symbol of this freedom.

In this vision, the child was first a choice, then an embarrassment. We have gone from one extreme to the other. If, in the past, women were certainly pressured to have children, today the opposite is true: they are being pressured not to have children.