Joe #1

Joe has lost his arms, legs, nose, mouth, eyes and ears. It matters a lot (to him). It makes him think of himself as a spokesperson for the dead because he can understand what they feel like because he can't interact with the world- just lie there. It changes his entire outlook on life. He no longer believes in 'fighting for a word' because he doesn't believe it was worth it, compared to what happened to him. His mind also becomes more active (after briefly losing his grip on reality). To him, it feels like he is someone else now.

To everyone else, it mostly doesn't matter. His friends and family and girlfriend will grieve for him, the doctors who helped him live will be proud of their medical accomplishment (he talks about that at one point) but everyone else doesn't care that one American in a war where millions have died is still alive, though mostly insensate. He's less than a statistic to them. (Did they have statistics back then? Did anyone care? As much as now?)

Wolfson

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.

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

''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.

The Last American Man

Gilbert believes that Eustace is the last American man because he lives in the way that traditionally is defined as the true role of American men. He lives in the wild, carving his way to what he wants through strength, self-sufficiency and guile. In the past, that's what defined an American man- when he went out west and built a log house and ate deer and fought off bandits. Literally, men don't do that anymore. Figuratively, some still do- their strength is in maybe athletics, their self-sufficiency isn't literal but motivational or financial (they rely on themselves to find their way in life and pay for it) and their intelligence is in a college degree or a career skill. But not everyone does this and not everyone thinks of it as similar to the pioneer man.

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.