In Sir William Beveridge’s piece he discusses a variety of topics relevant to his ideal “New Britain.” One part in particular that I found interesting was his thoughts under his section titled, “Freedom From Five Giant Evils.” Here, there are parallels to both Stalin’s Soviet Union. In comparison to Stalin, Beveridge provides the quote that “Its a means of taking some of the National Income – the income of all the men and women of this country, when they are earning – and keep it for when they are not earning” (Beveridge 507). Here it provides a similar idea of what Stalin did for the Soviet Union to provide social programs and healthcare for those who needed. All though it was not as successful as it intended to be in the Soviet Union, the effort and thought was there. And Beveridge wanted to use this money to help pay for children to be born. So families can get compensation if they have multiple children and the children will remain healthy, very similar to Stalin again. So the questions, I have would be, is this a fair comparison to make? And in the end, who’s plan was more successful or had the more potential for success?
A Room of One’s Own
In Victoria Woolf’s novel, “A Room of One’s Own” she addressed the conflict with women and their presence, more so their lack of presence, in writing, particularly fiction. Woolf addresses many reasons and circumstances as to why women have been withheld from complete engagement in the field. She states the lack of education at higher institutions, as women were often barred from these places. The lack of financial freedom they held and the lack of privacy they also had. She stated how they were restricted by the ownership their family held over them by providing the case of “Judith Shakespeare.” However, one of the more interesting subjects Woolf brings forth is the topics men often write about. In Chapter Two, page 27, the following question is posed, “Why are women, judging from this catalogue, so much more interesting to men than men are to women?” This quote is relevant historically in a wide range of topics. From various forms of art, women are often the subject matter for men. And in the instances, women are used quite superficially and portrayed as objects. However, if women were given the rare opportunity at artistic expression, they rarely wasted it to investigate the male sex. Woolf stated the presence of novels on males by women is nonexistent. The question that arrises from this is, why is there such a keen interest for men to write about and objectify women in this capacity but keep them from their own attempts to write? Is it because they recognize the privilege and exploitation they are exhibiting and do not wish for it to be reversed?
