Tocqueville

According to Tocqueville, the Americans make their women 'equal' by protecting and assuming they (women) are virtuous and give them separate roles in life*. He says that men should be heads of households and do physical labor and politics and business, but women are equal because they do housework and nothing else. He also describes in detail how American women are equal because they are virtuous and American men keep them that way because it makes them morally equal. He says that on the contrary, Europeans don't respect women's virtue (he talks about rape cases here) and that in Europe men easily are influenced by women while women like to pretend to be weak. (At least, I think that's what he says. That whole paragraph confused me).

*Something odd I thought of while writing this- when I was writing that sentence, I almost wrote and so they make them separate but equal and then I realized that that was the reasoning stated behind segregation practices way back when. So. I just found that interesting.

Fairy Tale

The story I chose is the real, not Disneyfied version of the Little Mermaid. The value I got out of it while thinking about it wasn't exactly gender-specific in my mind, but I suppose it might be to others.

Anyway, the real version is not at all like the Disney version. The mermaid has to marry the prince to achieve an immortal soul or die. Then at the last moment, she gets an option- to kill the prince and live for 3 hundred years without such a soul. She chooses to die and because of her good deeds becomes a 'daughter of the air' and has to serve 3 hundred years doing good deeds. Then she will get a soul.

The value, or sort of value, I got from this was - be a good person and all will turn out (mostly) all right in the end, even if not completely, or not the way you thought it would. It turned out all right for her- after 3 hundred years she gets half her deepest wish- to get a soul. The story is sad, but it doesn't have a completely sad ending. I didn't think that when I was a little kid and read it, but I see it now. I think that sentiment applies to all fairy tales and so forth, though. We discussed this in class, too. When you are a little kid, you don't analyze anything. You just read/watch/listen to whatever story it is and are usually entertained by it. Anyway, I sort of disagree with what I learned from it. Things don't turn out all right just because you are a good person. But that's what the story is saying.

Emerson on Nature

I know we were only supposed to do 2 lines, but I have sort of a lot, because Emerson writes the longest, most drawn-out flowery phrases for the simplest things. Anyway:

As fast as you conform your life to the pure idea in your mind, that will unfold its great proportions. A correspondent revolution in things will attend the influx of the spirit. So fast will disagreeable appearances, swine, spiders, snakes, pests, madhouses, prisons, enemies, vanish; they are temporary and shall be no more seen. The sordor and filths of nature, the sun shall dry up, and the wind exhale. As when the summer comes from the south; the snow-banks melt, and the face of the earth becomes green before it, so shall the advancing spirit create its ornaments along its path, and carry with it the beauty it visits, and the song which enchants it; it shall draw beautiful faces, warm hearts, wise discourse, and heroic acts, around its way, until evil is no more seen. The kingdom of man over nature, which cometh not with observation, -- a dominion such as now is beyond his dream of God,-- he shall enter without more wonder than the blind man feels who is gradually restored to perfect sight.'

So. Basically Emerson is saying that you should remake the world the way you want it- rid it of bad things and eveil things- and rule nature (because you are nature, if one takes into account what he says before in the essay.) in a good way. Now, what first struck me about this is the bolded part. It reminds me of global warming and how different Emerson sees the warming and 'greening' of the world than (some) people do today. This is most likely because of science and so forth, but I still found it interesting. He thinks when snow melts and bad things recede (odd how he says swine- doesn't that mean pigs?-don't people eat pigs?-is he a vegetarian?) then good things will fill in everything. Now, we are more scientifically savvy and know that when you remove or alter part of a system (eco or otherwise) it alters good things as well- we all have niches we must fill. Most specifically, this applies to his statement of 'swine, spiders, snakes, pests'. Also, he assumes that if man desires and achieves a certain amount of control (or coexistence) with nature and thus himself, he'll get rid of crime. This makes it seem as if he believes in the innate goodness of human nature. Something I disagree with.Anyway, this whole passage is about man fixing things to make it better- it is my opinion that he should just leave it as it is- it is better that way.