History 102
Taking Sides Ch. 10
Both of the historians Richard Stites and Lesley A. Rimmel have views on how the lives of the soviet women were affected after the Bolshevik revolution. Richard Stites argues that the early years of the Bolshevik Revolution helped many working women take the first steps toward emancipation. While reading his argument you see that he uses some key evidence to support his theses. He explains how the church called for a conservative order and how this put more pressure on the women adding additional weight of the male power (Mitchell & Mitchell 176). The Russian feminist movement (1860-1917) and how feminist woman were working for the right of women and not the rights of the peasants or the workers (Mitchell & Mitchell 176). He tells us about the dawn of the twentieth century and how the attention was being focused on the national suffrage issue; this lead for the continued need of a win for women in obtaining property rights, divorce and freedom of movement (Mitchell & Mitchell 177). Stites introduces us to key women such as Alexandra Kollontai, who went against her feminist competitors and the prevailing opinion of the conservative society, which led to the Proletarian Women’s Movement (Mitchell & Mitchell 178). The separation of church and state invalidated all canonical and theological restrictions on the role of women in modern life (180). Stites goes on to support his theses by explaining the life of children and how the role of housekeeping has changed and how men have learned to take on these responsibilities as well and it is no longer solely on the women.
On the other hand Lesley A. Rimmel argues that after the Russian Revolution things remain unfinished for women who were mobilized as producers and reproducers for a mal political agenda. To support her theses Rimmel talks about her personal experience and being a longtime student of the USSR and Russia (Mitchell & Mitchell 184). She tells us how these “books” indicate that women
Both of the historians Richard Stites and Lesley A. Rimmel have views on how the lives of the soviet women were affected after the Bolshevik revolution. Richard Stites argues that the early years of the Bolshevik Revolution helped many working women take the first steps toward emancipation. While reading his argument you see that he uses some key evidence to support his theses. He explains how the church called for a conservative order and how this put more pressure on the women adding additional weight of the male power (Mitchell & Mitchell 176). The Russian feminist movement (1860-1917) and how feminist woman were working for the right of women and not the rights of the peasants or the workers (Mitchell & Mitchell 176). He tells us about the dawn of the twentieth century and how the attention was being focused on the national suffrage issue; this lead for the continued need of a win for women in obtaining property rights, divorce and freedom of movement (Mitchell & Mitchell 177). Stites introduces us to key women such as Alexandra Kollontai, who went against her feminist competitors and the prevailing opinion of the conservative society, which led to the Proletarian Women’s Movement (Mitchell & Mitchell 178). The separation of church and state invalidated all canonical and theological restrictions on the role of women in modern life (180). Stites goes on to support his theses by explaining the life of children and how the role of housekeeping has changed and how men have learned to take on these responsibilities as well and it is no longer solely on the women.
On the other hand Lesley A. Rimmel argues that after the Russian Revolution things remain unfinished for women who were mobilized as producers and reproducers for a mal political agenda. To support her theses Rimmel talks about her personal experience and being a longtime student of the USSR and Russia (Mitchell & Mitchell 184). She tells us how these “books” indicate that women