The students fought for meaningful changes in the 1960-1970s. Notably, those changes were to improve educational system of the country. Nonetheless, they were also to change considerably the very basis of the society.
In the first place, students demanded improvement of the tuition. Young people claimed that professors were absolutely indifferent to their subjects, students and their development. However, the youth believed it was professors’ task to inspire new generations to develop and grow.
Students were tired of the boring lectures that did not give anything to them. They longed for discussions and real interaction with their professors. Students argued that discussions would let them think critically and self-develop.
Another way to make students truly gain knowledge was to change the form of examination. Students demanded to change the very way students were assessed. They argued that tests could only check students’ memory.
However, it was more critical to check whether students are capable of analyzing and evaluating. Young people understood it was more important to learn to think, than to memorise mere facts.
Finally, students also touched upon wider issues. They argued that the very system of education was to be changed as it was meant to provide the system with proper tools. In other words, students understood that education was not accessible for everyone, though politicians claimed it was.
Young people argued that it was the right time for students and workers to unite as those two social strata were closely connected. Students did not want to become isolated from the social reality.
They wanted to make the society better. Therefore, it is possible to state that students wanted to change educational system along with the basis of the society of that period.
What Are the Similarities and Differences between How Women’s Movements and Gay/Lesbian Movements Are Talking about “Liberation” in the United States and Latin America?
One of the major similarities between liberation of women’s and gay/lesbian movements was the desire to change people’s mindset. Women as well as gay people argued that the society was built on false preaching and people’s mindsets were being changed.
They claimed that from the very childhood boys and girls were taught to behave in a particular way and see things in a specific way. In the USA and Latin America, women and gay people saw that they were oppressed and they wanted to diminish that oppression.
Women and gay people saw their liberation as something revolutionary and positive for the development of the society. They argued that they tried to make the right choices and those choices would lead to a better and more progressive world.
As far as differences are concerned, the oppressed strata in the US and Latin America focused on rather different things. One of the central things for US women was the image of a good wife.
The US women claimed that an image of a young and posh girl was the creation of males, which insulted womanhood. They also tried to object and to make males share house chores.
The US women tried to claim that females as well as males had their right to devote their lives to something bigger than cleaning the house and bringing up children. At the same time, women in Latin America focused on their right to terminate pregnancy.
They claimed that preventing women from birth control was beneficial for white oppressors who could feel safe as black women were buried under their children upbringing.
Black women claimed that liberation meant their ability to make their choices and devote their lives to the struggle, rather than to bringing up lots of children.
What Do Pat Mainardi and Alexandra Kollantai Share in Their Critique of Housework and Women’s Oppression? How Do Their Solutions Differ?
Both feminists agree that women are overwhelmed by housework as females have to clean, wash, iron, cook and look after children as well as their husbands. Both women also believe that women should not have all those ‘responsibilities’ as they should focus on more meaningful things.
The two feminists stress that meaningful things are important for the society as females can help develop the world which has been led by men to a disaster. Mainardi and Kollantai argue that women should be liberated from the chores for the sake of the future.
Nonetheless, the two feminists have different views on the way liberation can be achieved. Mainardi claims that men should share women’s chores.
The feminist stresses that there should be no difference between the genders in this respect. She states that men should also do their lot and this should become common.
When it comes to Kollantai’s views, she is more radical. This can be explained by her mindset as she was a communist. According to Kollantai, the state should share household chores. Thus, the feminist claims that cooking can be fulfilled by state kitchens and canteens.
Washing and even cleaning is also subjected to such a change. The feminist state that a working woman will not be distracted by the house chores.
More so, taking care of children will also be fulfilled by the state. Therefore, it is clear that Kollantai claims that the state should share household chores, while Mainardi believes males should take up these responsibilities.