Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique created a social revolution in the 1960s by addressing women's role in society and its effects on their emotional and mental health. His words opened the eyes of many American housewives who felt incomplete and lost. Friedan helped these women empathize and associate with what she called “the problem that has no name,” and the only way to solve it was to work or live a “meaningful” life. Often this problem stems from a desire for something more than being a mother or wife. For some women, this means pursuing a career with purpose or making a mark in this world: women at the time felt trapped and suffocated by domesticity. This problem is in many ways similar to the conditions diagnosed in Gwendolyn Brooks' Kitchenette Building in that the realities of life contradict the dream of finding something more fulfilling. Brooks' poem relates to this issue as it too addresses the struggle of carrying forward an empty dream, particularly among those stuck in the domestic or social system. However, the specific audience each text addresses within domestic life is different, so that although the concepts raised are similar, the reality of the desire for something more complicates the relationship between these two works. These authors' two audiences face different living conditions and have different backgrounds which prove important in understanding the depth and meaning of their dreams. Although similar in ideology, the “dizzying, not loud sound” of a dream evokes more of a feeling of helplessness while, in contrast, “the problem that has no name” offers tangible solutions that evoke a sense of real control and optimism. to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Friedan's book The Feminine Mystique addresses the internal conflict between the everyday reality of the typical white woman and the dream of a more purposeful and meaningful life. She calls this phenomenon “the problem that has no name” and interviews many women who feel this type of emotional emptiness. This famous phrase recalls Brooks' ideas on the plight of people living in self-catering buildings; they too are trapped, just like the suburban women in Friedan's book. The theme of dreaming of something more is consistent between these two texts, as Brooks' people desire a vision of better living conditions. Even if they have accepted their state of life, there is always that lingering feeling of hope that something better will come along. One woman Friedan interviewed said, “The problem is always being the mother of the children, or the wife of the minister, and never being myself” (Friedan 28). This ties back to Brooks' poem in that specific women are stuck in a system that society has placed them in and have difficulty breaking out of it and overcoming major social or economic barriers. The construction of the kitchenette of Brooks' poem brings to mind some of the concepts presented in The Feminine Mystique as the poem is about people who do not have a clear path in life or have little control over their lives. Brooks' poem begins with the words, "We are things of dry hours and of an involuntary plan, in gray and grey" (Brooks 1). The use of the word “we” sets a more inclusive tone and makes the reader wonder why Brooks is saying that these humans are things and not people. It gives the reader a hint that these people must be underestimated in society. This narrative voice further lends a dark and disturbing tone to the poem. The use of "hoursgray,” “dry hours,” and “involuntary plan” imply that Brooks' people feel tired of their lives and perhaps even their potential dreams, an idea that ties directly into Friedan's perspective on the problem that has no name. . Friedan writes: "We can no longer ignore that voice inside women that says, 'I want more than my husband, my children, and my home.'" (Friedan32) Here, Friedan also talks about people who feel trapped in domestic life. The difference is that Brooks talks about kitchenettes, which were cramped sets of small rooms, while Friedan talks about the typical suburban white house. This brings us to the question of whether these two texts can be further compared because of their audiences completely different and distinct perspectives on the dangers of domestic life. Arguably, the realities of everyday life cannot really be compared between African-Americans living in corners and privileged upper-middle-class white women in the American suburbs. Brooks writes, “Dream” produces a dizzying sound, not a loud one” (Brooks 2). He suggests that dreams for the people he writes about are far-fetched and distant, not strong enough to create anything real. The dream state is fruitless because living in such adverse real conditions is complicated, as there are more crucial things to overcome and think about than passing dreams. Instead of dreams, the smell of “yesterday's trash ripening in the hall” pervades the air (Brooks 6). Brooks implies that dreams cannot easily be realized in a self-catering building, or even survive amidst racism, poverty, and unsanitary living conditions. Yet Friedan's tone is much more optimistic. She gives a solution to the problem and is sure that women can overcome it if they do certain things. His solution, for example, is to get out of the "housewife's domestic routine". (Friedan 30). The act of being a wife, mother, caregiver puts a strain on these women and creates tiredness. His solutions are somewhat absolute in nature. Women should focus on their careers, put marriage and children second and feel empowered. Brooks, by contrast, offers no resolution or happy ending. The events of Brooks' poem are much vaguer in this regard, and its tone can be described as one of desperation. There is no other solution than to live roughly the same day over and over again. He even ends the poem by depicting a haunting image of person number five hoping to enter “the warm water of the communal bath” (Brooks 13). The feminine mystique, therefore, has many racist and classist undertones and refuses to acknowledge the future and difficulties of non-white women living in “kitchenette buildings.” Friedan addresses a completely different, less marginalized audience. She writes about the dreams of women who live in pleasant homes and who, above all, have the ability and free time to dream. For these women, social and creative dreams are much more realistic, much easier to achieve. The people in Brooks' poem are too busy worrying about paying bills and keeping their children clothed and fed to spend time nurturing their dreams and thinking about all that is missing from their lives. Their attention is needed elsewhere due to their economic situation and role in society. Friedan's solution to the “nameless problem” is practically unique. It focuses only on the conditions of white, college-educated, middle- and upper-class married American women living in suburban homes, completely ignoring those who are not as privileged. Friedan, therefore, fails to defend all women. Avoid discussing the consequences of his.