He makes it his first task in extensively describing marriage because it is the central theme in his argument. We learned about that one type of argument in class where defining your X was how you had to write the argument. If your audience doesn't understand exactly what you're talking about, you won't convince them of anything because they will argue with you about what you are doing and not about what you meant to say.
He defines marriage today (key point-TODAY) as a legal union of those who love each other, regardless of gender/sex. I think this definition is slanted to his point of view. I agree with him, but I still think it is slanted. Many people would define marriage as sacred or as a convenient arrangement. Take for example other cultures. I think Wolfson's definition of marriage is what the definition of marriage should be, but just using the words 'should be' makes it automatically slanted. Not incomplete or illogical, just not taking into account other's views because he believes they're wrong.
Showing posts with label rereading america. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rereading america. Show all posts
Friday, 25 April 2008
Santorum
This means that marriages work, say 99% of the time, whereas single-family households work only, say, 80% of the time. I disagree with this, but that's not what we have to do, we have to analyze it. I really don't know what to say about the metaphor, the meaning of it is slightly obvious. I do think, though, that one can't quantify the amount of marriages that work (for the kids, as is his point). You can't count every single marriage and you can't objectively decide how good it is for kids. This is also a value judgement in black and white that you can't make. If the kids turn out bad, it might not be the fault of the family situation. So his stats, while numerous, don't make sense. Although, I've digressed from the metaphor. I still think the metaphor is based on opinion and not fact.
Appearances
She waits because it gives it more effect. It's like a surprise, a shock, and gives her tale more impact. She discloses it because it shows how antigay violence affects more than just gays and leads her to her explanation of gender betrayal. It affects more than just gays, which makes her argument to stop it stronger because if this type of violence hurts more than just the target (however unjust the violence is) it is more than just wrong to participate in/allow it; doing so is dumb. Why foster prejudice when you could be the one to get hurt? This leads her to the term gender betrayal because she has to explain that gays aren't the 'gender betraying' 'menaces' prejudiced people think they are. Heterosexuals can look 'gay' and vice versa. So this changes the issue of antigay violence for those people who were for or sort of for it originally. (People originally against it would be against it no matter what). Realising that stereotypes are wrong and can affect you would change your thinking a lot.
Girl: #7
keep your room clean; keep your bathroom clean; don't leave papers lying around; don't leave books where they can get wet; don't smack your gum; don't chew with your mouth open; be nice to your sister; do your homework; eat all the food on your plate; remember what you have to bring; take your dishes to the sink; tie your shoe; brush your teeth; don't pick your nose; don't stay up late; this is how you make noodles; this is how you make eggs; this is how you do the laundry; this is how you wash the table; sweep the floor; be polite to people you don't know; tie your other shoe; keep up, don't wander off; don't lose your temper even when the other person deserves it; bring your dirty clothes up, don't leave them on the floor; don't talk back; this is how you sit at a fancy restaurant; speak clearly; get up on time; keep your shower clean; don't tell secrets; don't pick fights; don't give in to peer pressure; don't buy things you don't need; this is how you use the oven; this is how you braid your hair; write legibly; don't smoke; don't do drugs; listen when I talk to you; don't spend all day on the computer; wash the cheese off the bowls; respect others; don't draw on yourself; wear your bands; wear your retainer; just kill the spider, it won't hurt you
Wednesday, 16 April 2008
''Manliness''
Even according to Mansfield's definition of manliness, then no, it and sensitivity are not incompatible. Mansfield defines manliness as 'gallant', 'protective', 'courageous', 'aggressive', 'confident', 'frank'. He defines sensitivity as understanding and sympathizing with other's mindsets. The two definitions are not mutually exclusive. Nowhere does it say that you can't be both, say, sympathetic and courageous, or understanding and confident. The word aggressive might be a little more difficult to be along with sensitive. Of course, that doesn't mean all men are both 'manly' and sensitive. Look at Eustace Conway. He fits the definition of manly. He can be gallant (charming, courteous) if he chooses. He's protective of the environment and of his land and ideas. He's courageous-you don't go fighting with wild animals unless you are. He's definitely confident and aggressive, and he's also direct and honest- frank. However, he's not sensitive. He doesn't understand people, especially women, and how to understand and get along with them. He can't sympathize with anyone- he think if everyone acts like him, then all will be well and doesn't understand that not everyone is like him. So, while manliness and sensitivity according to Mansfield can be traits of the same person, they don't have to be.
Thursday, 3 April 2008
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.
*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.
Thursday, 31 January 2008
Thoughts on Wednesday's Class Discussion
This is what we're supposed to blog about, right?
I thought everybody had some really good points about this. Most people basically were in agreement that the article's main idea- that the objectification of women in ads happens and is bad- was true. Not everyone agreed on whether Kilbourne wrote well or not, among other things. It's my opinion that she did write a good article. It's funny, that her essay-thing was like the ads she rails against. Her writing is up on a soapbox, borderline offensive, exaggerated and over-analyzing. However, it has great shock value (especially seeing the pictures, most of which were definitely disturbing), and it made you remember and think about the article. Just like the ads were shocking and made people remember the product. (And those ads do work- otherwise it would be a waste of money to air them, so the producers wouldn't if they didn't work, so since they're there, they work. Did that make sense?) So while the article was good rhetorical writing, I don't agree with all of it and can see why others don't as well. It sort of reminds me of that torture essay earlier this year, which was good writing but in my opinion idiotic.
I also just thought of something. We talked about billboards, signposts and TV. What about the Internet? Popup ads sometimes have weird pictures on them, too. Especially those weird ones for dating services. What would the role of Internet ads be in objectifying people?
I thought everybody had some really good points about this. Most people basically were in agreement that the article's main idea- that the objectification of women in ads happens and is bad- was true. Not everyone agreed on whether Kilbourne wrote well or not, among other things. It's my opinion that she did write a good article. It's funny, that her essay-thing was like the ads she rails against. Her writing is up on a soapbox, borderline offensive, exaggerated and over-analyzing. However, it has great shock value (especially seeing the pictures, most of which were definitely disturbing), and it made you remember and think about the article. Just like the ads were shocking and made people remember the product. (And those ads do work- otherwise it would be a waste of money to air them, so the producers wouldn't if they didn't work, so since they're there, they work. Did that make sense?) So while the article was good rhetorical writing, I don't agree with all of it and can see why others don't as well. It sort of reminds me of that torture essay earlier this year, which was good writing but in my opinion idiotic.
I also just thought of something. We talked about billboards, signposts and TV. What about the Internet? Popup ads sometimes have weird pictures on them, too. Especially those weird ones for dating services. What would the role of Internet ads be in objectifying people?
Wednesday, 30 January 2008
Kilbourne
Do you agree or disagree with Kilbourne’s argument?
I agree with her general idea- that the ads help to objectify women and men (in different ways). I do think, though, that she's reading too much into the subject. She picked the most drastic ads possible, in my opinion. Maybe those are common on TV, which I don't watch, but in normal life, on billboards and the Internet and signposts and some magazines and thing, ads aren't quite that overtly sexual and offensive. And she makes too much of some of the less intense ads, such as the one that shows a man (heartbreaker) and a product (a razor, I think?). Looking at that ad, I would never have thought it offensive in the way she makes it out to be. I think she says something like 'it makes desirable men seem bad' or something. I suppose that's how you could look at it, but most people don't analyze ads like that. They'd just maybe be amused by the ad, and move on. Not all ads are offensive, and I don't think she gets that.
However, I do agree that there are ads that objectify women (and men). The fact that there even are ads like some of the ones she shows is disturbing. I can see how people could come to think that that attitude is normal, if they are exposed to so much of it. Her later points about women being more at risk than men are true, I think. Of course, I'm not male, so I don't know how much men think about protecting themselves from sexual attack. But generally, it's women who are warned to be careful and not walk around alone. And anything that promotes that type of behaviour is certainly not a good thing.
So, yes, I agree with her argument. I also think, as lamags said in class, that she gets up on her soapbox a little too much.
I agree with her general idea- that the ads help to objectify women and men (in different ways). I do think, though, that she's reading too much into the subject. She picked the most drastic ads possible, in my opinion. Maybe those are common on TV, which I don't watch, but in normal life, on billboards and the Internet and signposts and some magazines and thing, ads aren't quite that overtly sexual and offensive. And she makes too much of some of the less intense ads, such as the one that shows a man (heartbreaker) and a product (a razor, I think?). Looking at that ad, I would never have thought it offensive in the way she makes it out to be. I think she says something like 'it makes desirable men seem bad' or something. I suppose that's how you could look at it, but most people don't analyze ads like that. They'd just maybe be amused by the ad, and move on. Not all ads are offensive, and I don't think she gets that.
However, I do agree that there are ads that objectify women (and men). The fact that there even are ads like some of the ones she shows is disturbing. I can see how people could come to think that that attitude is normal, if they are exposed to so much of it. Her later points about women being more at risk than men are true, I think. Of course, I'm not male, so I don't know how much men think about protecting themselves from sexual attack. But generally, it's women who are warned to be careful and not walk around alone. And anything that promotes that type of behaviour is certainly not a good thing.
So, yes, I agree with her argument. I also think, as lamags said in class, that she gets up on her soapbox a little too much.
Monday, 19 November 2007
C.P. Ellis by Studs Terkel
Yes, Ellis shows that his story offers a credible way of removing prejudice. No, it's not workable on a large scale.
Ellis overcame his prejudice. He came to view minorities- blacks, Jews, Catholics- as human being. So of course it's credible. It worked, after all. He sat down and talked with black people. He came to understand that they had the same problems he did- the same worries. He realized they were all human.
If overcoming prejudice was that easy- just set some people up in a room and tell 'em to spill their problems to each other- we wouldn't have any prejudice at all. The problem is that many people aren't willing to sit down and talk; they don't want to realize they were wrong in being biased; they don't think they can be convinced, and some people are just so darn stubborn that you could make them talk person-to-person with as many different people as you wanted, and they'd still think they're right. People have a tendency to be that way. They also make excuses to protect their beliefs- warping their thinking- saying that "Oh, they're just acting human in order to get their way..." if not as directly diabolical as that.
I think it's amazing that Ellis was able to overcome his prejudices. It's not something many people can do. Often, prejudice is too deeply instilled for any amount of interaction to remove it. There's no easy way of getting rid of prejudice, though it's lucky that there are people like Ellis who can overcome it.
After all, how many people are willing to sit down, have a chat and think about the people they hate as people just like them? Not many. It's difficult to be convinced. It's difficult to want to be convinced.
Ellis overcame his prejudice. He came to view minorities- blacks, Jews, Catholics- as human being. So of course it's credible. It worked, after all. He sat down and talked with black people. He came to understand that they had the same problems he did- the same worries. He realized they were all human.
If overcoming prejudice was that easy- just set some people up in a room and tell 'em to spill their problems to each other- we wouldn't have any prejudice at all. The problem is that many people aren't willing to sit down and talk; they don't want to realize they were wrong in being biased; they don't think they can be convinced, and some people are just so darn stubborn that you could make them talk person-to-person with as many different people as you wanted, and they'd still think they're right. People have a tendency to be that way. They also make excuses to protect their beliefs- warping their thinking- saying that "Oh, they're just acting human in order to get their way..." if not as directly diabolical as that.
I think it's amazing that Ellis was able to overcome his prejudices. It's not something many people can do. Often, prejudice is too deeply instilled for any amount of interaction to remove it. There's no easy way of getting rid of prejudice, though it's lucky that there are people like Ellis who can overcome it.
After all, how many people are willing to sit down, have a chat and think about the people they hate as people just like them? Not many. It's difficult to be convinced. It's difficult to want to be convinced.
Friday, 16 November 2007
The Pressure to Cover
When Yoshino says that 'the mainstream is a mth' he means that because everyone is different, there can't be a main theme among us because we can't have a majority of people who ware the same. Since he spends barely a paragraph on it, it's not very convincing. Then again, it's not his major point, so that makes sense.
I would define mainstream as the general cultural ideas that the majority thinks they ascribe to/the people that most fit those ideas. I.e. now the mainstream would probably (because I'm a teenager and know nothing about people in jobs and things) be white straight males who watch lots of TV. I've come to this conclusion because that's what people say is the mainstream. It may not actually be that the majority actually is white straight males (it's probably not) and they are the top of 'society', but that's generally what people think. And they base their judgment and actions off what they think, not what's true. So what's not true is true, in a way.
I would define mainstream as the general cultural ideas that the majority thinks they ascribe to/the people that most fit those ideas. I.e. now the mainstream would probably (because I'm a teenager and know nothing about people in jobs and things) be white straight males who watch lots of TV. I've come to this conclusion because that's what people say is the mainstream. It may not actually be that the majority actually is white straight males (it's probably not) and they are the top of 'society', but that's generally what people think. And they base their judgment and actions off what they think, not what's true. So what's not true is true, in a way.
Wednesday, 31 October 2007
Socialization
What is the “socialization process” according to Parrillo? Do you agree that prejudices – or really any beliefs – are instilled in this way?
~~~
According to Parillo, the socialization process is when "...individuals acquire the values, attitudes, beliefs and perceptions of their culture or subculture, including religion, nationality and social class." Later on in this article/excerpt/thing, Parillo also says that prejudice has a number of complex causes. I agree with him, there. Socialization is definitely a major factor in instilling prejudice, though. Let's take an extreme example. Children in parts of the extremist Muslim world are brought up to hate Jews. Their prejudice is caused by everybody telling them that Jews are bad all the time. Whereas here, people are not (for the most part) brought up to hate anyone in that extreme. So fewer people do. What your parents believe is definitely a major factor in determining what you believe. And then, at a point, depending on how well instilled said beliefs are, you might change your mind and disagree with what you've been brought up to believe. I think the first time you are away from your parents, college for example, would help to adjust your beliefs.
~~~
According to Parillo, the socialization process is when "...individuals acquire the values, attitudes, beliefs and perceptions of their culture or subculture, including religion, nationality and social class." Later on in this article/excerpt/thing, Parillo also says that prejudice has a number of complex causes. I agree with him, there. Socialization is definitely a major factor in instilling prejudice, though. Let's take an extreme example. Children in parts of the extremist Muslim world are brought up to hate Jews. Their prejudice is caused by everybody telling them that Jews are bad all the time. Whereas here, people are not (for the most part) brought up to hate anyone in that extreme. So fewer people do. What your parents believe is definitely a major factor in determining what you believe. And then, at a point, depending on how well instilled said beliefs are, you might change your mind and disagree with what you've been brought up to believe. I think the first time you are away from your parents, college for example, would help to adjust your beliefs.
Monday, 29 October 2007
Jefferson Views
Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia show him to be a different person than what other sources have told me he is. In history classes (not just this year) and books about history, people have talked about how no one was really what they seemed. This year in history class we read about him and got a more realistic picture of him. However, apart from history class, everything and everyone seems to portray him as some great hero- writer of the Declaration of Independence and purchaser of Louisiana. I'd read that he might have supposedly fathered a child by a slave. Looking at his descendents and the general record of him, everyone or almost everyone seems to think of him as an almost perfect being who absolutely supported equality. That picture of his descendents shows white and black people, equal.
To me, that's a little silly. Most of the founding fathers and people of their generation and around it said that they were against slavery, yet did little about it. It wasn't just blacks they were prejudiced against. Indians, women, immigrants, foreigners, Northeners, Southeners, nobody liked each other. So what we read wasn't really surprising. Thomas Jefferson thought the same things, generally, as the rest of the people around him. So it is a little disturbing to see it written so clearly his thoughts on others, but it isn't unexpected.
For the Declaration of Independence, he (and the others who wrote it) weren't trying to cover every situation. They weren't trying to draft a carefully scripted record of who deserves what, for why, and the circumstances of being equal and who should be equal. They weren't trying to write the fine script. They needed a provoking, defiant speech against the British. That's all. They had to be as general as possible so that as many people as possible would help fight against the British. They couldn't outright condemn people who were different (except the British, obviously), for they needed all the fighters, black and white, they could get. They couldn't condemn racism, or slavery, or else the wealthy plantation owners would withold their aid. They couldn't do anything in fact, except state that everyone's equal and ignore the fact that no, they didn't really mean that. Jefferson wasn't racist. Even reading Notes I didn't feel that he was. He felt superior, certainly, but he reasoned through the fact. (Even if his reasoning was incredibly flawed. He based intelligence on musical ability? Well, then, I'm certainly not intelligent, then!) He didn't hate blacks.
My conclusions from all this are two: that people's real personality gets filtered out through the ages, and that Thomas Jefferson was more ordinary than anyone thinks. He was not the true advocate of absolute equality, but he wasn't a horrible person, either. You have to take him in context of his times. And whether he meant to or not, he did lead to a better America.
To me, that's a little silly. Most of the founding fathers and people of their generation and around it said that they were against slavery, yet did little about it. It wasn't just blacks they were prejudiced against. Indians, women, immigrants, foreigners, Northeners, Southeners, nobody liked each other. So what we read wasn't really surprising. Thomas Jefferson thought the same things, generally, as the rest of the people around him. So it is a little disturbing to see it written so clearly his thoughts on others, but it isn't unexpected.
For the Declaration of Independence, he (and the others who wrote it) weren't trying to cover every situation. They weren't trying to draft a carefully scripted record of who deserves what, for why, and the circumstances of being equal and who should be equal. They weren't trying to write the fine script. They needed a provoking, defiant speech against the British. That's all. They had to be as general as possible so that as many people as possible would help fight against the British. They couldn't outright condemn people who were different (except the British, obviously), for they needed all the fighters, black and white, they could get. They couldn't condemn racism, or slavery, or else the wealthy plantation owners would withold their aid. They couldn't do anything in fact, except state that everyone's equal and ignore the fact that no, they didn't really mean that. Jefferson wasn't racist. Even reading Notes I didn't feel that he was. He felt superior, certainly, but he reasoned through the fact. (Even if his reasoning was incredibly flawed. He based intelligence on musical ability? Well, then, I'm certainly not intelligent, then!) He didn't hate blacks.
My conclusions from all this are two: that people's real personality gets filtered out through the ages, and that Thomas Jefferson was more ordinary than anyone thinks. He was not the true advocate of absolute equality, but he wasn't a horrible person, either. You have to take him in context of his times. And whether he meant to or not, he did lead to a better America.
Tuesday, 16 October 2007
Willy vs Cora Tucker
Compare Cora Tucker to Willy Loman. Where does one succeed where the other fails?
Their definitions of success are different. Cora Tucker sees success as making a difference in one's community for the better. Willy Loman sees success as having a good, steady job because one is well-liked. Willy is not well-liked (or a good worker) so he gets fired. He loses his success. Cora Tucker doesn't have the best job, nor is she well-like by everyone. Yet she makes a difference for the better in people's lives so she has achieved her version of success. She is also happy, as well. If you switched their definitions of success, they both fail. Willy doesn't make a difference in the community- he is preoccupied by himself and his sons alone. Mainly Biff. Cora Tucker isn't the most well-liked person, nor does she have a well-paying, good job as Willy defines it. But success is measured by one's own definition, so she is successful. Kind of interesting, that.
Their definitions of success are different. Cora Tucker sees success as making a difference in one's community for the better. Willy Loman sees success as having a good, steady job because one is well-liked. Willy is not well-liked (or a good worker) so he gets fired. He loses his success. Cora Tucker doesn't have the best job, nor is she well-like by everyone. Yet she makes a difference for the better in people's lives so she has achieved her version of success. She is also happy, as well. If you switched their definitions of success, they both fail. Willy doesn't make a difference in the community- he is preoccupied by himself and his sons alone. Mainly Biff. Cora Tucker isn't the most well-liked person, nor does she have a well-paying, good job as Willy defines it. But success is measured by one's own definition, so she is successful. Kind of interesting, that.
Monday, 8 October 2007
What is Emerson saying it takes to be successful? Do you agree? Is it that easy?
Emerson is saying that to be successful, one has to trust only in himself, reject as much authority over yourself as you can, assume that you and only you are brilliant and think of everything in a new way. He goes into a lot of detail about all this- explaining how people have become the unthinking sheep of great thinkers- always accepting others' views on things. He says that if you accept authority from above- from a government, God, or whoever- you cease to think for yourself and acquiese to their ideas on everything. He says that people have the ability to be absolutely individual and not allow others to influence them at all. He explains this in far more detail than I can summarize here- but that's basically his idea.
I disagree. People cannot think only their own thoughts, unless they're a hermit living out in the middle of nowhere, and even that's debatable. We are all influenced by everything around us. We think the thoughts we're raised wiht and influenced by and even our most original thoughts are simply extensions of a disagreement with the norm. I could have been born in Outer Mongolia and thought only of camels and sandstorms. Instead, I'm typing this. Not because I'm more or less original, or independent, but because I have to be. I have no choice. I find it difficult to think of something completely my own. How is it possible to form a completely original hypothesis when one lives in a world where everything you can draw on to help form your conclusions nullifies the originality in it?
Also- I disagree with his points about authority. He explains that when people put their minds and services for the use of one (or many) person(s), then they lose the right to express themselves, and that's bad. He's right to some extent. If, say, a despot takes over and orders them to do stuff, then they will to save themselves. Sometimes, people die to fit the whims of a dictator- losing every other right as well. I agree that that's awful beyond just bad. But people can't descend into anarchy. They can't reject all authority. We need someone to look up to, to base our moral judgment on, to keep us from falling into random violence. If everyone was allowed to do whatever they wanted because everyone is right about everything there would be murder and prejudice and collapse of civilization. Serial killers believe that they are right. According to Emerson, they are. And yet I know no one who would condone a society that lets them roam unhindered.
Emerson also states somewhere in his long essay that he doesn't care about the poor, because they're not his poor. He says it takes courage to defy the societal norm of giving to those less needy. He says that charity is simply a way for people to follow authority and example and do what everyone thinks is right, not what they think is right. He says it's an immoral act. I don't think so. The poor, etc., need help. Does it matter if the help is given wrongly or grudgingly? Isn't some help, or help for wrongful reasons, better than none at all? Don't the ends justify the means in this case? Good things are done. The means hurt nothing save perhaps pride. It doesn't matter if you hate someone simply for your own reasons, or only because you feel no connection to them. If they are hurt, you should have a duty as a fellow human being to help them. Of course, I wouldn't say to help Hitler or someone like that. But denying aid to the poor simply because you are not, and never were poor is far more wrong to me than rebelling against society and harming people by omission in the process.
I was going to say something else, but I forgot so oh well. :)
Emerson is saying that to be successful, one has to trust only in himself, reject as much authority over yourself as you can, assume that you and only you are brilliant and think of everything in a new way. He goes into a lot of detail about all this- explaining how people have become the unthinking sheep of great thinkers- always accepting others' views on things. He says that if you accept authority from above- from a government, God, or whoever- you cease to think for yourself and acquiese to their ideas on everything. He says that people have the ability to be absolutely individual and not allow others to influence them at all. He explains this in far more detail than I can summarize here- but that's basically his idea.
I disagree. People cannot think only their own thoughts, unless they're a hermit living out in the middle of nowhere, and even that's debatable. We are all influenced by everything around us. We think the thoughts we're raised wiht and influenced by and even our most original thoughts are simply extensions of a disagreement with the norm. I could have been born in Outer Mongolia and thought only of camels and sandstorms. Instead, I'm typing this. Not because I'm more or less original, or independent, but because I have to be. I have no choice. I find it difficult to think of something completely my own. How is it possible to form a completely original hypothesis when one lives in a world where everything you can draw on to help form your conclusions nullifies the originality in it?
Also- I disagree with his points about authority. He explains that when people put their minds and services for the use of one (or many) person(s), then they lose the right to express themselves, and that's bad. He's right to some extent. If, say, a despot takes over and orders them to do stuff, then they will to save themselves. Sometimes, people die to fit the whims of a dictator- losing every other right as well. I agree that that's awful beyond just bad. But people can't descend into anarchy. They can't reject all authority. We need someone to look up to, to base our moral judgment on, to keep us from falling into random violence. If everyone was allowed to do whatever they wanted because everyone is right about everything there would be murder and prejudice and collapse of civilization. Serial killers believe that they are right. According to Emerson, they are. And yet I know no one who would condone a society that lets them roam unhindered.
Emerson also states somewhere in his long essay that he doesn't care about the poor, because they're not his poor. He says it takes courage to defy the societal norm of giving to those less needy. He says that charity is simply a way for people to follow authority and example and do what everyone thinks is right, not what they think is right. He says it's an immoral act. I don't think so. The poor, etc., need help. Does it matter if the help is given wrongly or grudgingly? Isn't some help, or help for wrongful reasons, better than none at all? Don't the ends justify the means in this case? Good things are done. The means hurt nothing save perhaps pride. It doesn't matter if you hate someone simply for your own reasons, or only because you feel no connection to them. If they are hurt, you should have a duty as a fellow human being to help them. Of course, I wouldn't say to help Hitler or someone like that. But denying aid to the poor simply because you are not, and never were poor is far more wrong to me than rebelling against society and harming people by omission in the process.
I was going to say something else, but I forgot so oh well. :)
Tuesday, 2 October 2007
Cultural Myth
The first step in getting rid of a cultural myth is making sure that people know that it exists. If people don't think that there is a problem, then they won't help to fix it. And to get rid of such a vague, vast and intransigent concept as a myth lots of people need to understand what is happening.
Then you have to educate people against it. A lot of myths (this one too)exist simply because people don't know they exist. I certainly never thought about the misconception of the American Dream until when we read "Nickel and Dimed" over the summer.
Then you address what's wrong. In this case, what's wrong is that people are being discriminated against, are not getting enough payment/economic support and in general don't have the opportunities that could help them achieve success. All this is really hard to do and usually controversial.
I think why the cultural myths still exist is because people don't want to spend the energy needed to fix them. It's easier just to accept them than it is to disagree, and harder still to do something about them
Then you have to educate people against it. A lot of myths (this one too)exist simply because people don't know they exist. I certainly never thought about the misconception of the American Dream until when we read "Nickel and Dimed" over the summer.
Then you address what's wrong. In this case, what's wrong is that people are being discriminated against, are not getting enough payment/economic support and in general don't have the opportunities that could help them achieve success. All this is really hard to do and usually controversial.
I think why the cultural myths still exist is because people don't want to spend the energy needed to fix them. It's easier just to accept them than it is to disagree, and harder still to do something about them
Monday, 1 October 2007
Documentary vs Alger
Compare the reality of the documentary to the reality presented in the reading. Which is more real?
I think that the documentary is more real. Of course, we saw very little of it, but from what we did see, it wasn’t as off-the-wall as the reading.
Alger’s presentation of the world seems to me ridiculous. It’s all very perfect and excellent and unreal. Seriously, who really learns to read and write in a year as an adult, have the opportunity to save a drowning boy and have the father really do something in response? Even if Rockwell didn’t pay the 10,000 dollars he said he would, for Dick, the job he gave is just as good. The main character is just as perfect as the world he lives in. He’s brave and good enough to jump in after a drowning child without thought of reward, thankful for his success, successful and has a loyal friend. Alger’s world is extremely unrealistic. It’s the world we would all like to live in but can’t. I think the word I’m looking for here is ‘cheesy’. At least, that’s how it seemed to me.
Now, the documentary had some ridiculous stuff in it, too. On the whole, though, I think it represents reality more real that Alger does. The people in it are crazy (the rabbit-lady, the one woman who got so depressed because she was the wrong ‘colours’, etc), but they’re crazy in the way all humans are crazy. They’re not perfect. Now, there were some moments, especially in the beginning when they interviewed those singers, that it did border on cheesy. (That’s not a very good word to describe this, but it’s the best I can do). All the interviewees talked about how perfect Flint was, how anyone could drudge up from it, how there were loads of jobs and opportunities, etc., when there clearly wasn’t.
I think that the documentary is more real. Of course, we saw very little of it, but from what we did see, it wasn’t as off-the-wall as the reading.
Alger’s presentation of the world seems to me ridiculous. It’s all very perfect and excellent and unreal. Seriously, who really learns to read and write in a year as an adult, have the opportunity to save a drowning boy and have the father really do something in response? Even if Rockwell didn’t pay the 10,000 dollars he said he would, for Dick, the job he gave is just as good. The main character is just as perfect as the world he lives in. He’s brave and good enough to jump in after a drowning child without thought of reward, thankful for his success, successful and has a loyal friend. Alger’s world is extremely unrealistic. It’s the world we would all like to live in but can’t. I think the word I’m looking for here is ‘cheesy’. At least, that’s how it seemed to me.
Now, the documentary had some ridiculous stuff in it, too. On the whole, though, I think it represents reality more real that Alger does. The people in it are crazy (the rabbit-lady, the one woman who got so depressed because she was the wrong ‘colours’, etc), but they’re crazy in the way all humans are crazy. They’re not perfect. Now, there were some moments, especially in the beginning when they interviewed those singers, that it did border on cheesy. (That’s not a very good word to describe this, but it’s the best I can do). All the interviewees talked about how perfect Flint was, how anyone could drudge up from it, how there were loads of jobs and opportunities, etc., when there clearly wasn’t.
Friday, 28 September 2007
American Dream- Cruz
According to Cruz, the American Dream is not ‘be successful’ but ‘don’t lose’. Being successful, according to him, means getting what you want in life. Don’t lose means that you have to get to the top, no matter what stands in your way or what you have to sacrifice to get there. His problem is that when you get to the top, or near it, you forget who helped you to get there and where you came from. In other words, the Dream is all about you, you, you. He thinks that’s wrong.
I agree with him, somewhat. If you do get to the top, if you manage to overcome the obstacles the wrong way, I think it might be possible to remember to feel thankful for those who sacrificed for you. Cruz got really far and still remembered. Of course, then he dropped out to be a farmer because he thought he couldn’t still manage to be both who he was and who the in-power people wanted him to be. But that’s just him. Near the end, he mentions people who told him that he should stay where he was, influentially, because it helps break the stereotype that the minorities are useless. His response was that he didn’t think the minorities at the top were represented as the rest of people and that he couldn’t ethically stay where he was.
I agree with him, somewhat. If you do get to the top, if you manage to overcome the obstacles the wrong way, I think it might be possible to remember to feel thankful for those who sacrificed for you. Cruz got really far and still remembered. Of course, then he dropped out to be a farmer because he thought he couldn’t still manage to be both who he was and who the in-power people wanted him to be. But that’s just him. Near the end, he mentions people who told him that he should stay where he was, influentially, because it helps break the stereotype that the minorities are useless. His response was that he didn’t think the minorities at the top were represented as the rest of people and that he couldn’t ethically stay where he was.
Wednesday, 26 September 2007
Class Distinctions
Yes, Mantsios’s essay does say that the wealthy are exploiting the poor. He says the false idea that ‘one is not rich because the other is poor’ is wrong. Therefore, according to him, one class is rich because the other is poor. Since we can assume from his argument that the poor are not poor because they caused themselves to be like that, we can assume that he means that the wealthy do exploit the poor. However, that point isn’t obvious.
I personally don’t have another interpretation of the data/a position on the argument. I don’t think that Mantsios makes a good argument- the way he presents his facts, for example is skewed towards his point of view. The people profiles seem to be deliberately made up, especially the last one, to fit his interpretation of the facts. He rushes into some things, like the gender/race inequality thing, without mentioning it before or presenting a lot of thought. Because I only have his version of the data to go on, and a little knowledge of my own, I feel like I agree with him that America’s rich and poor are very divided the way he states it. However, like I said, his argument seems a little shaky, so I’m really not sure if he’s accurate, though he doesn’t seem to be blatantly twisting things around.
EDIT: After our class discussions on this, I changed my mind a little on the subject. But I forgot what I changed my mind about so I won't edit my orginal thing. :)
I personally don’t have another interpretation of the data/a position on the argument. I don’t think that Mantsios makes a good argument- the way he presents his facts, for example is skewed towards his point of view. The people profiles seem to be deliberately made up, especially the last one, to fit his interpretation of the facts. He rushes into some things, like the gender/race inequality thing, without mentioning it before or presenting a lot of thought. Because I only have his version of the data to go on, and a little knowledge of my own, I feel like I agree with him that America’s rich and poor are very divided the way he states it. However, like I said, his argument seems a little shaky, so I’m really not sure if he’s accurate, though he doesn’t seem to be blatantly twisting things around.
EDIT: After our class discussions on this, I changed my mind a little on the subject. But I forgot what I changed my mind about so I won't edit my orginal thing. :)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
