After reading this section about men and women's equality (or lack thereof), it is evident that some of the authors had very different ideas on the matter of equal rights.
In some of the segments from articles, the way women are described is almost demeaning. If I were to be referenced to as only being property belonging to my spouse, I would surely be offended. Women are also referred to as having no place in society, in terms of social or economical involvement once married. This sounds like it prevents them from being recognized except through their husband, and that they wouldn't be able to get a job in most cases. If i were a woman at the time when these articles/laws were published, the way these sentences are worded would have made me reconsider ever marrying. However, I also that marrying was the complete norm for any woman at the time, and they would likely have been frowned upon if they never married. So, it was a lose lose situation either way.
I'm sure that the world today is quite different in understanding equal rights. One prime example of this is that I am one of only two guys in my English class, which is comprised of about 20 people. We are all attending the same class and learning from the same teacher. I'm sure if any school like this had ever existed, especially with such a low ratio of men to women, it would not have been highly regarded back then. However, today, I feel blessed to have the chance to have an education, and that everyone is protected equally under the law. I cannot imagine my school, let alone my life, being remotely the same if the world was as it were hundreds of years ago.
The article also mentioned something very interesting with regards to the custody of children. Custody, back then, was normally given preference to the father. I can onyl guess this is because he made the money and could care "financially" for the child. This is extremely different than today's world. Primary custodial consideration is almost always given to the mother of a child, today. This is because she gave birth to the child, and I also think it has something to do with the bond between a mother and a child. Also, the circumstance that juries may favor women over men in a case gives them the advantage in a custodial battle. Once again, I cannot express how interesting it is that things happen to change so quickly in society.
I'm sure that most of the bloggers in my class will be offended by the first part of this reading (referring to women not having "equal rights") , and they have every right to be. I am glad that the laws today protect each American and ensure that justice be brought into the situation if the rights of equality are not upheld.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Response to "Pre-Reading" # 1
I have read the section from 241-245 in The Scarlet Letter and it intrigues me. The laws pertaining to adultery seem so harsh in relation to today's world. Since there are no longer any laws punishing those who commit adultery here in America (that I know of), it seems almost surreal that there were ever such laws to begin with. One can hear about adultery, sometimes quite frquently, in the news today. Most people would probably even know someone who's marriage ended because of it. This is sometimes more commonly referred to as "cheating" on one's spouse.
The laws referred to from the passage suggesting brutal whippings under some circumstances, but most suggested death. Capital punishment was not uncommon according to these laws. It looks like the laws suggested in the passage are so brutal because they follow God's word so closely. In its most literal state, I am almost positive that the Bible has a passage referring to adulteres. It most likely mentioned that they are surely to be sentenced to death. It seems as though in the setting where these laws were active, the governments closely followed the word of God.
The change in there being no law against adultery today is most likely a factor because the government doesn't follow the teachings of the Bible as closely as they once did. The separation of church and state occurred some time ago. Since then, purely biblical laws like adultery are laws no more (almost certainly before then, though). However, it is still frowned upon in society even though some celebrities are known to have cheated, or have even acquired fame by doing so.
It was interesting to read this passage to see how much the laws of the world can transform in just a matter of a few generations.
The laws referred to from the passage suggesting brutal whippings under some circumstances, but most suggested death. Capital punishment was not uncommon according to these laws. It looks like the laws suggested in the passage are so brutal because they follow God's word so closely. In its most literal state, I am almost positive that the Bible has a passage referring to adulteres. It most likely mentioned that they are surely to be sentenced to death. It seems as though in the setting where these laws were active, the governments closely followed the word of God.
The change in there being no law against adultery today is most likely a factor because the government doesn't follow the teachings of the Bible as closely as they once did. The separation of church and state occurred some time ago. Since then, purely biblical laws like adultery are laws no more (almost certainly before then, though). However, it is still frowned upon in society even though some celebrities are known to have cheated, or have even acquired fame by doing so.
It was interesting to read this passage to see how much the laws of the world can transform in just a matter of a few generations.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Response to "Employers Have a Lot to Lose," by Barry Newman
The article "Employers Have a Lot to Lose," by Barry Newman, is about fields of major employment that employ substantial amounts of illegal immigrants. New laws against employers make it hard for them to keep all of their workers, because of raids, and fines make it hard to stay financially stable. This article argues that employers shouldn't be the ones who have to decide whether someone is really an American or not. They don't want to face jail time for something they can't tell for sure. Also, how is an employer supposed to know if a document is forged or not? it just doesn't seem fair to hold the honest ones accountable. However, there is a side of unhonesty to this equation.
Some employers take advantage of the lower wages they can offer to illegal citizens. They don't always turn them away for economic reasons, even when thy know something is fishy. However, in times like these where racism is such an issue, even a simple speculation of a legal Mexican-American could lead to some kind of lawsuit. It's ridiculous, even in its purest form. Now that laws have been proposed (at the time of this article) regarding amnesty, or making these workers legal, this gives a sense of security to the workers. However, the employers would face harsher sanctions for the future employment of illegal immigrants (including long periods of jail time).
Although I believe so strongly against illegal immigration, I pity the employers from this article because of their situations. I think this situation is much like that of homeowners versus roofing/private construction workers. There are so few laws protecting the homeowner, however there are plenty of laws that help the contractor get paid in full, even if he/she does his/her job wrong or fails to finish a project. The homeowner is at a disadvantage, while the worker (immigrant) has laws protecting them, even if they are violating a law in the first place. I don't like what is being done to protect the employers, because they are legal citizens unlike the illegal immigrants. In no instance should an illegal alien have more of a right to be protected than an American citizen.
Some employers take advantage of the lower wages they can offer to illegal citizens. They don't always turn them away for economic reasons, even when thy know something is fishy. However, in times like these where racism is such an issue, even a simple speculation of a legal Mexican-American could lead to some kind of lawsuit. It's ridiculous, even in its purest form. Now that laws have been proposed (at the time of this article) regarding amnesty, or making these workers legal, this gives a sense of security to the workers. However, the employers would face harsher sanctions for the future employment of illegal immigrants (including long periods of jail time).
Although I believe so strongly against illegal immigration, I pity the employers from this article because of their situations. I think this situation is much like that of homeowners versus roofing/private construction workers. There are so few laws protecting the homeowner, however there are plenty of laws that help the contractor get paid in full, even if he/she does his/her job wrong or fails to finish a project. The homeowner is at a disadvantage, while the worker (immigrant) has laws protecting them, even if they are violating a law in the first place. I don't like what is being done to protect the employers, because they are legal citizens unlike the illegal immigrants. In no instance should an illegal alien have more of a right to be protected than an American citizen.
Response to "Death and Justice," by Edward Koch
This is an article written by a liberal who supports the death penalty. It starts out by quoting what convicted murderer said in their final words before they were executed. They all stated that "Killing was wrong, no matter who does it," including the government. This seems like a last stitch effort on the criminal's part to save their life. Murder is wrong, but words weren't going to separate these murderers from their heinous past. They were all put to death.
Mr. Koch argues seven main points, all of which I can relate to, and most of with which I agree entirely. Not only does he "debunkify" the myths associated with capital punishment, but he makes claims as well. He objects to statements like "no other democracy allows the death penalty." He claims that if other countries had the amount of crime (in comparison) and support from the general public on the topic, then they would. I agree, that in some of our largets cities the rates can be large in comparison (at least to smaller ones). Also, he raised the point that not many people are found innocent after death. In fact, those who make it off death row sometimes kill again, multiple times.
Mr. Koch is an extremely courageous man for backing his support of the death penalty as a liberal. (He supports most liberal causes, but it does not describe his stances on other things but as liberal) . It shows that party lines need to be drawn more vaguely, because no person in one party should take criticism for a believe they hold themselves. I do support the death penalty because I think of it as a deterrent, but Mr. Koch provided some other excellent examples, and he argued against some of the adjacent points.
The death penalty is a deterrent because it reinforces the morals of Americans. Most Americans wouldnt be able to commit murder, or don't endorse it because it goes against their religion, or for other reasons. When you add the fact that the government could have the right to execute someone for doing so, the average American would likely never attempt such a dangerous, immoral to their own morals) crime.
Mr. Koch supports the death penalty, much like I do. I am glad that he is not a political figures who holds his value according to basic party lines.
Mr. Koch argues seven main points, all of which I can relate to, and most of with which I agree entirely. Not only does he "debunkify" the myths associated with capital punishment, but he makes claims as well. He objects to statements like "no other democracy allows the death penalty." He claims that if other countries had the amount of crime (in comparison) and support from the general public on the topic, then they would. I agree, that in some of our largets cities the rates can be large in comparison (at least to smaller ones). Also, he raised the point that not many people are found innocent after death. In fact, those who make it off death row sometimes kill again, multiple times.
Mr. Koch is an extremely courageous man for backing his support of the death penalty as a liberal. (He supports most liberal causes, but it does not describe his stances on other things but as liberal) . It shows that party lines need to be drawn more vaguely, because no person in one party should take criticism for a believe they hold themselves. I do support the death penalty because I think of it as a deterrent, but Mr. Koch provided some other excellent examples, and he argued against some of the adjacent points.
The death penalty is a deterrent because it reinforces the morals of Americans. Most Americans wouldnt be able to commit murder, or don't endorse it because it goes against their religion, or for other reasons. When you add the fact that the government could have the right to execute someone for doing so, the average American would likely never attempt such a dangerous, immoral to their own morals) crime.
Mr. Koch supports the death penalty, much like I do. I am glad that he is not a political figures who holds his value according to basic party lines.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Response to "The Struggle to Be an All-American Girl," by Elizabeth Wong
This was a short essay that reflected on a young girl's past. She wanted so badly to be just like everyone else. When she was in elementary school, she would have to learn Chinese at a night school by her mother's request. Her mother wanted her to learn the foreign language associated with their Chinese heritage. However, the girl just wanted to be a kid and play. She also did not want to be affiliated with the culture. She described it as "humiliating," and referred back to her grandma's awful, "unbeautiful" voice in the supermarkets. After two years of Chinese school, she and her brother had finally convinced their mother to stop making them go there. This was a decision she clearly regretted.
At the end of this essay, the author shows how she wanted to fit in so badly at a young age. However, she reflects upon it now as saddening that she is more like a normal American, not by association, but by choice. Had she not gone the route of quitting Chinese school, perhaps she wouldn't have given up a piece of herself just to fit it. Being an American does have strong affiliations with our slurred English language, and it seems like this pushed her over the edge. She did not want to be unique, but later in life, everyone (at least I do) does.
I'm sure we can all think of a time when we did something for the wrong reasons. We may have even conformed to society's ways on something we objected to. This is what Elizabeth Wong did, and it appears that she regrets her decision everday. This story teaches us to hold on to our backgrounds and our unique habits, because they are the only thing that separate us from the neighbor next door who is your average American.
At the end of this essay, the author shows how she wanted to fit in so badly at a young age. However, she reflects upon it now as saddening that she is more like a normal American, not by association, but by choice. Had she not gone the route of quitting Chinese school, perhaps she wouldn't have given up a piece of herself just to fit it. Being an American does have strong affiliations with our slurred English language, and it seems like this pushed her over the edge. She did not want to be unique, but later in life, everyone (at least I do) does.
I'm sure we can all think of a time when we did something for the wrong reasons. We may have even conformed to society's ways on something we objected to. This is what Elizabeth Wong did, and it appears that she regrets her decision everday. This story teaches us to hold on to our backgrounds and our unique habits, because they are the only thing that separate us from the neighbor next door who is your average American.
Response to "Take This Fish and Look at It," by Samuel Scudder
The essay, 'Take This Fish and Look at It," by Samuel Scudder, is about a young man studying to be a scientist. When he meets with his professor for the first time and talks with him about his desired field of study (to study insects), he presents him with an unusual, yet daunting, task. The student had to study a fish. It seemed easy to him at first, however the professor expected him to see a lot more in the fish than that which was first visible. I think that the professor was trying to teach him a valuable lesson that goes deeper than what the eye can see. Observation is not always with your eyes.
In the beginning, the student was told to tell the professor what he observed about the fish. After a few minutes the professor came back into the room. He asked what the student had initially observed. The student answered back to him regarding its structure and body parts. The professor said, try looking deeper. Each time the student saw the professor, he would tell him all the new things he had observed, and each time the professor would say "That's good, but there's something else."
Finally, the student became confused as to what else there was to be seen of this dead fish. He decided to draw it on a sheet of paper. To this, the professor was delighted. He said something along the lines of, "Art is one of your best pairs of eyes." After this, the professor took the fish away from him and made him study without actually observing the object. After a few days, he came up with observations he hadn't when he actually had the fish in front of him. The professor proved a point to him that day. What i gathered from the article is that observations are to be made after looking at the objects. The thought process is obviously involved and infused with making and recording observations. After all, your eyes can't think, but they can give you the necessary information required to produce a thought about something you see.
In the beginning, the student was told to tell the professor what he observed about the fish. After a few minutes the professor came back into the room. He asked what the student had initially observed. The student answered back to him regarding its structure and body parts. The professor said, try looking deeper. Each time the student saw the professor, he would tell him all the new things he had observed, and each time the professor would say "That's good, but there's something else."
Finally, the student became confused as to what else there was to be seen of this dead fish. He decided to draw it on a sheet of paper. To this, the professor was delighted. He said something along the lines of, "Art is one of your best pairs of eyes." After this, the professor took the fish away from him and made him study without actually observing the object. After a few days, he came up with observations he hadn't when he actually had the fish in front of him. The professor proved a point to him that day. What i gathered from the article is that observations are to be made after looking at the objects. The thought process is obviously involved and infused with making and recording observations. After all, your eyes can't think, but they can give you the necessary information required to produce a thought about something you see.
Response to "Cesar Chavez Saved My Life," by Daniel Alejandrez
The article "Cesar Chavez Saved My Life," is one that threw me for a curveball. Many different ideas are produced throughout the article. Some ideas are tied so deep into the article, that I had to read certain sections twice to understand the connection the author was trying to make. The article reflects on the author's life, and doesn't fail to cover any bases. It discusses how hearing a man prach about his beliefs helped shape his own. It also jumps to some conclusions about the Mexican race, but ends on a good note in which everyone had a selfless moment that failed to recognize race.
Mr. Alejandrez was just an average Mexican fieldworker who had to travel to find work. His family had done the same before he did. One day, he realized that he was being paid over four times less than the men who just sat on a machine all day (he was working by hand). He hadn't noticed that he was even being treated unfairly until a radio broadcast came on one day. Cesar Chavez was on the radio telling his ideas about seeking justice. This struck a chord with Alejandrez, and he and the workers went on strike. The employers agreed to raise their wages a little, but that wasn't the point.
After this, the article skips around to when he organized dances that unified people at prison. It ends talking about an instance where gang members of opposing gangs held hands and dances unified. He mentioned that the world was happy for one moment, and that these people put aside their differences for those few minutes of bliss.
I think Mr. Chavez's radiocast was fortunate to be on at the time it was. It influenced Mr. Alejandrez to want to help all people, for the good of mankind. Mr. Alejandrez talked about how so many of his people (Mexicans) had wound up in jail, much like he did. I believe what he meant by this article is that if you unite everyone, differences will fail to be recognized by society, and no one group can be classified by its race. To Mr. Chavez, we all owe a little thanks. He stood up for justice, and each and every one of us can too (much like Alejandrez did).
Mr. Alejandrez was just an average Mexican fieldworker who had to travel to find work. His family had done the same before he did. One day, he realized that he was being paid over four times less than the men who just sat on a machine all day (he was working by hand). He hadn't noticed that he was even being treated unfairly until a radio broadcast came on one day. Cesar Chavez was on the radio telling his ideas about seeking justice. This struck a chord with Alejandrez, and he and the workers went on strike. The employers agreed to raise their wages a little, but that wasn't the point.
After this, the article skips around to when he organized dances that unified people at prison. It ends talking about an instance where gang members of opposing gangs held hands and dances unified. He mentioned that the world was happy for one moment, and that these people put aside their differences for those few minutes of bliss.
I think Mr. Chavez's radiocast was fortunate to be on at the time it was. It influenced Mr. Alejandrez to want to help all people, for the good of mankind. Mr. Alejandrez talked about how so many of his people (Mexicans) had wound up in jail, much like he did. I believe what he meant by this article is that if you unite everyone, differences will fail to be recognized by society, and no one group can be classified by its race. To Mr. Chavez, we all owe a little thanks. He stood up for justice, and each and every one of us can too (much like Alejandrez did).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
