While reading the women liberation speech what strikes me the most is the comparison between women with privilege and I assume regular women. But the quote says ” When these privileged women have children they are then forced into a pattern of behavior which they thought they had already overcome, thanks to their emancipation. Their studies are suspended or put off; intellectual growth stops or is sharply reduced due to the demands of husband and child.” My question to the class is do you think women with privilege have an excuse for doing this or is it because society during that time enforced them to do this?
On pg. 63 the author describes the difference between the young workers and the immigrant workers “Some of the young ones party: they go out together, they dance or go to the movies. Or they just get drunk. But most of the workers, especially among the immigrants, enter into a type of lethargy: they walk slowly, they talk together, they stay for ages in the cafés. My question to the class is why does the author makes this comparison and makes the claim that the young ones have more of a free spirit while the immigrant workers dread going to work and only look forward to work. Also, what does it mean when the author says “In the past I hardly paid them any attention. Now I do. In their expressions I recognize the anxiety about passing time, with which they can’t do anything…” Also, does the author think that the young workers will become like the immigrant workers and dream away in front of their beers? What do you think?
The use of Pamphlets are very prevalent in first pages of the book by Chon-Bendit. It was a way to spread information out to the public but also to let the voices of the students to be known, that they were oppressed in society as well. On pg. 28 “Other papers were far less friendly and objective, the more so as the pamphlet brought student discontent into the open”. My question to the class would be, do you think the goal of the Pamphlets were achieved?
While reading Fraser in the chapter of The French May, 1968. There tends to be this pattern that when students prepare to protest, not many leaders of the protest are present. This leaves the students in a disadvantage because some are still in their teens and they still do not know what to do. For example, In the night of the barricades there also was not a leader present to help them. Instead the students themselves had to make a plan to make the barricades and try to fend off the police, which is really amazing considering all the times the students and the police met, there were always casualties and people badly hurt. My question to the class would be: why is it that the leaders, when the protest are happening, are not present. Also, why do you think the government does not want France to hear that the protest are going on. In the instance when the soccer commentator got turned off. On page 212-214 “Radio reports were spot on, transmitting live news of the events all over France… A well known soccer commentator was reporting the events from one station… his voice went dead- they had cut him off”
In today’s reading , I found it really interesting on how far the student would go to make their point heard. While, I suppose they are risking getting a bad grade or even expelled, it is very interesting to see them not care because they know what they are doing is right and is needed to be done. You can also see how they progress in numbers. “On Friday, March 29th, while a considerable force of police surrounded the campus, five hundred students took part in the opening meeting” (The student revolt pg. 130) to “Tuesday, April 22nd, was a success: the administration could not prevent fifteen hundred people occupying the Bx
lecture theatre for the opening meeting..”(The student revolt pg 130). My question to the class would be, why did the students need to group in mass numbers? But, what if they did not group in large numbers, would they have succeeded?