The topic is emma goldman?

Question

i would like to know how emma goldman fits in with topic "conflict and compromise"

Answer 1

Not too good a fit. As a young lady she participated in the Haymarket Square labor riot in Chicago. Her first live-in boyfriend tried to kill Ford Frick, the CEO of U.S. Steel. Her second live-in boyfriend was the noted anarchist, Jacob Most and the both of them worked on the anarchist newspaper "Black Flag". She gave a speech at the Cooper Union on the NYU campus in New York City which so inflamed one member of the audience that he took a train to Buffalo and shot President McKinley. There were allegations she was involved in the bombing of the Preparedness Day Parade in San Francisco in 1916 and the letter bombs sent in the mail to various Federal officials, including the Attorney General.
She was arrested in the famous "Red Raids" ordered by that Attorney General (A. Mitchell Palmer) and carried out by the head of his Special Investigations Office named J.Edgar Hoover. She was brought to Ellis Island and ordered deported by an immigration panel. She left on the S.S. Buford for the Soviet-Finnish border and entered Soviet Russia. After awhile she told both Lenin and Trotsky they were "frauds" (along with communism) and she wound up in England. She later moved to Canada and passed away there.
If she fits in anywhere, she is front and center in a lot of conflicts and chilling events of the late 19th and early 20th Century. Though she was an anarchist (one who does not believe in any form of government), some historical myths mark her as a communist or socialist, including a bad portrayal of her as such in the movie "Reds".

Answer 2

Sorry, but personally, I think feminism screwed up society (based upon my own experiences). Men were traditionally the breadwinners, the women raised the family. In MOST cases prior to feminism (not all, there were a lot of controlling jerks, and there STILL are) the woman was given full days to do housekeeping, make dinner, take care of the babies, AND her husband gave her money to compensate and took pride in providing well for his family (that included clothing, updating decor, new furniture, appliances, whatever was asked for). When the feminism movement started really taking hold in the late '70's, if a woman didn't have a job outside of the house, "only" raising a good family and household, she was looked down upon by other women on the "feminism" train as being "lazy" or weak. So, women were out getting jobs and jumping on the corporate ladder (the X generation kids were left on their own because of the "take care of yourself first and your kids will be better off" mantra mothers were chanting). Most men don't have any "domestic" or "nurturing" instinct, so raising the kids, the housework, making dinner and other "domestic duties" STILL fall upon the woman's shoulders, along with now working 40 hours a week and paying her own way. It's almost expected now that the woman will work, raise the kids and take care of the house AND have dinner served while working full-time (at least 35 hours a week) shoulder to shoulder with men making (still 30 years later) at least 25% more than she does, regardless of qualifications. On that note, it's also funny to think of how the feminism movement had women who weren't qualified (some were) trying out for positions as say firefighters, when they couldn't pass the physical requirements for saving a person's life, then demanding "equality". On a one to one basis, if a woman still chooses a career, she should be given equal consideration and pay to her male counterpart based upon her qualifications. ANY consideration for any position should be based upon personal qualifications, not sex or race.