Works Cited
Hooks, Bell. “The Significance of Feminist Movement.” A World of Ideas: Essential Reading for College Writers. Ed. Lee A Jacobus. 7th Ed. New York; Bedford St. Martins, 2006. Pp 821-831
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Blog 17 Bell Hooks
The Significance Of Feminist Movement pg 821
What does Hooks see as the mistakes of the early feminists?
-Bell Hooks did a very great job for women and men to understand the feminist movement. She mainly discussed “exploitation and oppression of women”, basically women struggles. Hooks make a good point that “ some feminist efforts actually pushed people away who might have had a stake in the movement”(pg822), which to me mean that women had opportunities and goals that could have been pushed away. Hooks said it defiantly happened to women of color than privileged white women, but white women as Hooks explained, there lives was still based on limited opportunity. I think that women in the modern society were afraid to express how they felt about never being equally to men. Women did want to go out and work in stead of being home all the time, but now in today’s society there are working independent women who do both work and take care of their household. I appreciate the women in the modern society because they went through so much that women today couldn’t even survive through some of the issues that women fought for or went through. Most women and men I think don’t appreciate the struggles the women had to come across so women in the next generation won’t suffer from the same causes. There is still a controversy between both sexes and I believe that there will always continue to be a major issue because men will still think they have control over everything and treat women as if they was below them and women will continue to be strong and speak up for what’s right.
What does Hooks see as the mistakes of the early feminists?
-Bell Hooks did a very great job for women and men to understand the feminist movement. She mainly discussed “exploitation and oppression of women”, basically women struggles. Hooks make a good point that “ some feminist efforts actually pushed people away who might have had a stake in the movement”(pg822), which to me mean that women had opportunities and goals that could have been pushed away. Hooks said it defiantly happened to women of color than privileged white women, but white women as Hooks explained, there lives was still based on limited opportunity. I think that women in the modern society were afraid to express how they felt about never being equally to men. Women did want to go out and work in stead of being home all the time, but now in today’s society there are working independent women who do both work and take care of their household. I appreciate the women in the modern society because they went through so much that women today couldn’t even survive through some of the issues that women fought for or went through. Most women and men I think don’t appreciate the struggles the women had to come across so women in the next generation won’t suffer from the same causes. There is still a controversy between both sexes and I believe that there will always continue to be a major issue because men will still think they have control over everything and treat women as if they was below them and women will continue to be strong and speak up for what’s right.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Blog 16 Carol Gilligan
Woman’s Place In Man’s life cycle pg 797
What are the difference between man and women in terms of the way they regard relationships?
-Gilligan reading I thought was a very easy and understandable reading. Gillian discussed issues regarding boys and girls of how people have these boy games that prepare boys for competition later in life and girls probably tend to be more girly and not having to do anything. Gilligan stated that “fair treatment of the sexes they thought demanded that the sexes be more alike than different.”(pg 798). I think that fair treatment would emphasis equality between both sexes , because men and women are always going to be different, however society sets it up as men are suppose to be dominant and competitive and women are suppose to be just housewives. Personally I think women would make a better president because a woman can handle situations better than a man because a man, not all are more likely to put the state a risk. Men always judge women like they think we don’t have any capabilities0 of doing anything. In Beauvoir view men tend to judge women as the “other” rather than a woman with than with their own nature and identities”. Gilligan stated growing up girls would prefer to be more like their mothers and boys like their fathers. I highly agree because boys do tend to want to be like their father while the girls want to be more like their mother because that’s how it always been. Even though they look up to both parents the boy may see his father being the man of the house going to work and having control of the relationship while the girl see’s her mother being a loving mother, raising children, cleaning, cooking, and being the best mother and wife there is. This shows how Gilligan explained how society separates people and made deviant in society.
What are the difference between man and women in terms of the way they regard relationships?
-Gilligan reading I thought was a very easy and understandable reading. Gillian discussed issues regarding boys and girls of how people have these boy games that prepare boys for competition later in life and girls probably tend to be more girly and not having to do anything. Gilligan stated that “fair treatment of the sexes they thought demanded that the sexes be more alike than different.”(pg 798). I think that fair treatment would emphasis equality between both sexes , because men and women are always going to be different, however society sets it up as men are suppose to be dominant and competitive and women are suppose to be just housewives. Personally I think women would make a better president because a woman can handle situations better than a man because a man, not all are more likely to put the state a risk. Men always judge women like they think we don’t have any capabilities0 of doing anything. In Beauvoir view men tend to judge women as the “other” rather than a woman with than with their own nature and identities”. Gilligan stated growing up girls would prefer to be more like their mothers and boys like their fathers. I highly agree because boys do tend to want to be like their father while the girls want to be more like their mother because that’s how it always been. Even though they look up to both parents the boy may see his father being the man of the house going to work and having control of the relationship while the girl see’s her mother being a loving mother, raising children, cleaning, cooking, and being the best mother and wife there is. This shows how Gilligan explained how society separates people and made deviant in society.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Works Cited
De Beauvoir, Simone. "Woman: Myth and Reality." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus.
7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. pp. 784-794
7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. pp. 784-794
Blog 15
Woman: Myth and Reality
Simone De Beauvoir
When reading Simone De Beauvoir essay Woman: Myth and Reality I thought the reading was a little difficult to understand. I read important facts that she discussed about women, mysterious, and equality. Beauvoir points out that “a woman like man is being rooted in nature she is more enslaved to the species than is the male”(Beauvoir 787). I thin she proves a very interesting point that in reality a woman is more like a man, she cooks, clean, take care of the children, and take care of her husband at the same time. She also stated in her rhetoric that mysteriousness does not serve men or woman well. That means that a woman defines or calls herself a mystery she will always be lower than the man. In paragraph 11 Beauvoir explains a woman who is mystery “that she is no t silent, her language is not understood she is hidden behind appearance”(Beauvoir 188). A woman who is mystery can mean all of thee above she can be silent, a housewife, crazy, wild because she’s just a woman with different appearances who can be flexible no matter what the situation may be. I believe women are very dominant and powerful, and men really didn’t see the inner beauty of a woman they always looked at the outside. Women are beautiful inside and out. Women should be mysterious sometimes because women aren’t really hard to understand they just want to be talked about also. It still in today’s society that women have to still prove to men that they can do what they do. For example I think that women would be a better president than a man, because women can set rules and be a dominant as a man.
Simone De Beauvoir
When reading Simone De Beauvoir essay Woman: Myth and Reality I thought the reading was a little difficult to understand. I read important facts that she discussed about women, mysterious, and equality. Beauvoir points out that “a woman like man is being rooted in nature she is more enslaved to the species than is the male”(Beauvoir 787). I thin she proves a very interesting point that in reality a woman is more like a man, she cooks, clean, take care of the children, and take care of her husband at the same time. She also stated in her rhetoric that mysteriousness does not serve men or woman well. That means that a woman defines or calls herself a mystery she will always be lower than the man. In paragraph 11 Beauvoir explains a woman who is mystery “that she is no t silent, her language is not understood she is hidden behind appearance”(Beauvoir 188). A woman who is mystery can mean all of thee above she can be silent, a housewife, crazy, wild because she’s just a woman with different appearances who can be flexible no matter what the situation may be. I believe women are very dominant and powerful, and men really didn’t see the inner beauty of a woman they always looked at the outside. Women are beautiful inside and out. Women should be mysterious sometimes because women aren’t really hard to understand they just want to be talked about also. It still in today’s society that women have to still prove to men that they can do what they do. For example I think that women would be a better president than a man, because women can set rules and be a dominant as a man.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Blog 13 Mary Wollstonecraft
Pernicious Effects Which Arise From The Unnatural Distinctions Established In Society
What kind of wok are women fit for, in Wollstonecraft view?
Wollstonecraft reading was a little difficult, even though I can relate to some issues. First I kind of had to break down the title because how would I know what the story is about when I don’t understand the title. From my perspective the title meant to me that Bad Effects Which Arise From The Strange Discrimination Established In Society. that she discussed far as women’s rights, and women equality because it’s going on today. She felt that it was unnecessary to live with a man in order to be happy, I agree because women basically do more than men, because more women are beginning to find it out that they can be independent, and make as much money as a man. “There must be equality established in society”(748), she felt it was vain to except virtue from women till they are in some degree independent to men. In paragraph 7 she talks about issues that a woman who is nursing her children, keeping the house in order, and having a husband to do the same because rarely I see or hear a husband and wife who treat each other equally. There has always been a stereotype that women are suppose to be the stay at home wife and men are suppose to control the money and property. Rousseau has claimed that “How can women leave nursery for a campaign “(753). I believe that women can leave a nursery for a camp” in other words “going to war” because women have a say so on what’s fair to them and what’s not, so the women felt that they were treated unfairly to an certain extent.
-What happen to people who are born to wealth and have nothing to do?
-Wollstonecraft stated that the upper class spent much of their time gambling. She referred to the British heroes like Fabricius as one of the wealthy generals who gambled, that did not care about the country. Wollstonecraft made a point that “multiplying dependent and contriving taxes, which grind the poor and pamper the rich”. When she stated that I think she meant that what can’t help the poor makes the wealthy richer, because the wealthy people really don’t have much to worry about while the poor suffer. I do believe that men are dominant, but women have to be dominant also. Women are victorious soldiers, because to be so independent, and I think that Wollstonecraft is very independent and dominate to speak up for all the women in the world who has bee treated unfairly.
Works Cited
Wollstonecraft, Mary. “Pernicious Effects Which Arise from the Unnatural Distinction Established in Society.” A World of Ideas: Essential Reading for College Writers. Lee A. Jacobs. 7th Ed. New York; Bedford St. Martins, 2006. pp 748-758.
What kind of wok are women fit for, in Wollstonecraft view?
Wollstonecraft reading was a little difficult, even though I can relate to some issues. First I kind of had to break down the title because how would I know what the story is about when I don’t understand the title. From my perspective the title meant to me that Bad Effects Which Arise From The Strange Discrimination Established In Society. that she discussed far as women’s rights, and women equality because it’s going on today. She felt that it was unnecessary to live with a man in order to be happy, I agree because women basically do more than men, because more women are beginning to find it out that they can be independent, and make as much money as a man. “There must be equality established in society”(748), she felt it was vain to except virtue from women till they are in some degree independent to men. In paragraph 7 she talks about issues that a woman who is nursing her children, keeping the house in order, and having a husband to do the same because rarely I see or hear a husband and wife who treat each other equally. There has always been a stereotype that women are suppose to be the stay at home wife and men are suppose to control the money and property. Rousseau has claimed that “How can women leave nursery for a campaign “(753). I believe that women can leave a nursery for a camp” in other words “going to war” because women have a say so on what’s fair to them and what’s not, so the women felt that they were treated unfairly to an certain extent.
-What happen to people who are born to wealth and have nothing to do?
-Wollstonecraft stated that the upper class spent much of their time gambling. She referred to the British heroes like Fabricius as one of the wealthy generals who gambled, that did not care about the country. Wollstonecraft made a point that “multiplying dependent and contriving taxes, which grind the poor and pamper the rich”. When she stated that I think she meant that what can’t help the poor makes the wealthy richer, because the wealthy people really don’t have much to worry about while the poor suffer. I do believe that men are dominant, but women have to be dominant also. Women are victorious soldiers, because to be so independent, and I think that Wollstonecraft is very independent and dominate to speak up for all the women in the world who has bee treated unfairly.
Works Cited
Wollstonecraft, Mary. “Pernicious Effects Which Arise from the Unnatural Distinction Established in Society.” A World of Ideas: Essential Reading for College Writers. Lee A. Jacobs. 7th Ed. New York; Bedford St. Martins, 2006. pp 748-758.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Blog 12
Robert B. Reich Why the Rich are Getting And The Poor Are Getting Poorer
-What are the “routine producers? What will be their fate in the future?
Well, when I think of the title of why the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer first thing come to mind is that there is no hope for the poor people, well I will refer to them as the lower class people. The lower class will stay lower class while the rich people or the middle class people will get richer. This is what I don’t understand as far as the routine producers and their fate in the future, well they really don’t have a future far as money is concerned. Reich describes the “the fortunes of routine producers are declining”(Reich 420). I think that he means that there are not many jobs people due to the fact that companies are going out of business and people are losing their jobs. This reading can be compared to the Galbraith reading bourgeois and the proletariat. There will not be a future for the proletariat, as Reich describes in his reading that we are all in different boats that’s sinking rapidly. I think he means that the people who are making a lot of money are in one boat who have the businesses and wealthy, the other boat are the poor people/lower class people who don’t have nothing but each other and welfare in another boat. This is a major issue that needs to be solved, because it’s not fair how segregated everyone is or the way people are categorized I think it’s enough money in this world for everyone to have. Even though that the U.S is in debt, but that shouldn't stop anyone from working because there's enough jobs that are out here, it's just that the jobs problably don't have enough money to pay their employees and it could be numerous of other reasons.
-What are the “routine producers? What will be their fate in the future?
Well, when I think of the title of why the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer first thing come to mind is that there is no hope for the poor people, well I will refer to them as the lower class people. The lower class will stay lower class while the rich people or the middle class people will get richer. This is what I don’t understand as far as the routine producers and their fate in the future, well they really don’t have a future far as money is concerned. Reich describes the “the fortunes of routine producers are declining”(Reich 420). I think that he means that there are not many jobs people due to the fact that companies are going out of business and people are losing their jobs. This reading can be compared to the Galbraith reading bourgeois and the proletariat. There will not be a future for the proletariat, as Reich describes in his reading that we are all in different boats that’s sinking rapidly. I think he means that the people who are making a lot of money are in one boat who have the businesses and wealthy, the other boat are the poor people/lower class people who don’t have nothing but each other and welfare in another boat. This is a major issue that needs to be solved, because it’s not fair how segregated everyone is or the way people are categorized I think it’s enough money in this world for everyone to have. Even though that the U.S is in debt, but that shouldn't stop anyone from working because there's enough jobs that are out here, it's just that the jobs problably don't have enough money to pay their employees and it could be numerous of other reasons.
Blog 12
Robert B. Reich Why the Rich are Getting And The Poor Are Getting Poorer
-What are the “routine producers? What will be their fate in the future?
Well, when I think of the title of why the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer first thing come to mind is that there is no hope for the poor people, well I will refer to them as the lower class people. The lower class will stay lower class while the rich people or the middle class people will get richer. This is what I don’t understand as far as the routine producers and their fate in the future, well they really don’t have a future far as money is concerned. Reich describes the “the fortunes of routine producers are declining”(Reich 420). I think that he means that there are not many jobs people due to the fact that companies are going out of business and people are losing their jobs. This reading can be compared to the Galbraith reading bourgeois and the proletariat. There will not be a future for the proletariat, as Reich describes in his reading that we are all in different boats that’s sinking rapidly. I think he means that the people who are making a lot of money are in one boat who have the businesses and wealthy, the other boat are the poor people/lower class people who don’t have nothing but each other and welfare in another boat. This is a major issue that needs to be solved, because it’s not fair how segregated everyone is or the way people are categorized I think it’s enough money in this world for everyone to have
-What are the “routine producers? What will be their fate in the future?
Well, when I think of the title of why the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer first thing come to mind is that there is no hope for the poor people, well I will refer to them as the lower class people. The lower class will stay lower class while the rich people or the middle class people will get richer. This is what I don’t understand as far as the routine producers and their fate in the future, well they really don’t have a future far as money is concerned. Reich describes the “the fortunes of routine producers are declining”(Reich 420). I think that he means that there are not many jobs people due to the fact that companies are going out of business and people are losing their jobs. This reading can be compared to the Galbraith reading bourgeois and the proletariat. There will not be a future for the proletariat, as Reich describes in his reading that we are all in different boats that’s sinking rapidly. I think he means that the people who are making a lot of money are in one boat who have the businesses and wealthy, the other boat are the poor people/lower class people who don’t have nothing but each other and welfare in another boat. This is a major issue that needs to be solved, because it’s not fair how segregated everyone is or the way people are categorized I think it’s enough money in this world for everyone to have
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Galbraith/The Posotion of Poverty
1.why is modern poverty different from what of a century ago?
The modern poverty is different from a century age, because now more people are living in poverty. Galbraith points out there are two kinds of poverty which are case poverty, and insular poverty. Vase poverty is when an individual is poor and live in poverty due to many defects that he/she may have for example no education, mental issues, and as Galbraith mentions alcoholism or discrimination. Insular poverty is when a group, island, or majority live in poverty. In today’s society(modern poverty) I think it’s a major issue on insular poverty because a city like Detroit for example is an insular poverty which leads the country of unemployment. These are the people who don’t have a job, live off social security, and welfare. The people who do have a job get paid minimum wage living paycheck by paycheck to feed themselves and their children. I would say a century age everyone was pretty much living off the same income, it didn’t matter how much education you had, you just had to learn how to read, write, and count. But it did matter whether you were black or white. It seems like a century ago or doing slavery the white’s were the bourgeoisie and the black’s were the proletariat. Now ,any race can either be described as case poverty or insular poverty as Galbraith said “Race which acts to locate people by their color rather than the proximity to employment”(Galbraith 408). Galbraith mentioned in the reading that there can be certain steps that can eradicate(erase: abolish) poverty which I disagree. I think that there will always be poverty, like their will always be wealth. Poverty and wealth is not a choice it’s the way society is. People are not born rich their parents may be but the child is not, same with poor or low income people who live off welfare. These people or children live in poverty because that’s the way they grew up so its not chosen. I understand what Galbraith tries to say but in order to eliminate poverty everyone has to have a job that pays well, and live in urban cities.
The modern poverty is different from a century age, because now more people are living in poverty. Galbraith points out there are two kinds of poverty which are case poverty, and insular poverty. Vase poverty is when an individual is poor and live in poverty due to many defects that he/she may have for example no education, mental issues, and as Galbraith mentions alcoholism or discrimination. Insular poverty is when a group, island, or majority live in poverty. In today’s society(modern poverty) I think it’s a major issue on insular poverty because a city like Detroit for example is an insular poverty which leads the country of unemployment. These are the people who don’t have a job, live off social security, and welfare. The people who do have a job get paid minimum wage living paycheck by paycheck to feed themselves and their children. I would say a century age everyone was pretty much living off the same income, it didn’t matter how much education you had, you just had to learn how to read, write, and count. But it did matter whether you were black or white. It seems like a century ago or doing slavery the white’s were the bourgeoisie and the black’s were the proletariat. Now ,any race can either be described as case poverty or insular poverty as Galbraith said “Race which acts to locate people by their color rather than the proximity to employment”(Galbraith 408). Galbraith mentioned in the reading that there can be certain steps that can eradicate(erase: abolish) poverty which I disagree. I think that there will always be poverty, like their will always be wealth. Poverty and wealth is not a choice it’s the way society is. People are not born rich their parents may be but the child is not, same with poor or low income people who live off welfare. These people or children live in poverty because that’s the way they grew up so its not chosen. I understand what Galbraith tries to say but in order to eliminate poverty everyone has to have a job that pays well, and live in urban cities.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Blog 10/The Communist Manifesto by:Karl Marx
What benefits does Karl Marx expect communism to provide the proletariat?
- According to the reading and what I understand Karl Marx believed that the “communist should provide abolition of property”(Marx 368). From what I understand about the reading is that the proletarians was treated unfairly. The bourgeoisie was the who owned property, and the proletarians owned nothing but their work produced wealth”(Marx 334). Marx believed that people aren’t doing anything in the society, and discussed issues such as child exploitation shows how society are not protecting children or not doing anything about how children are getting raped and the men are not getting prosecuted. He discuss the women in society are exploiting themselves” the communist have no need to introduce community of women”(Marx 372). My idea of everything regarding wealth and poverty is somebody has to be wealthy(bourgeoisie) and somebody has to be poor or live in a low income community. But the proletarians have much more to worry about such as not being able to find because of no education, and as Marx the antagonism between capital and wage labor. Marx is on the proletarian side because his family experienced living on the rough side when he was growing one of the issues he brought up was starvation. The government should be more concerned about the people who are living in low poverty. He discuss and address issues like wealth, production, agriculture, and machinery. In today’s society these issues still in effect as of today, there are many people of all races who live in low income communities and no one is taking the chance to do anything about it.
- According to the reading and what I understand Karl Marx believed that the “communist should provide abolition of property”(Marx 368). From what I understand about the reading is that the proletarians was treated unfairly. The bourgeoisie was the who owned property, and the proletarians owned nothing but their work produced wealth”(Marx 334). Marx believed that people aren’t doing anything in the society, and discussed issues such as child exploitation shows how society are not protecting children or not doing anything about how children are getting raped and the men are not getting prosecuted. He discuss the women in society are exploiting themselves” the communist have no need to introduce community of women”(Marx 372). My idea of everything regarding wealth and poverty is somebody has to be wealthy(bourgeoisie) and somebody has to be poor or live in a low income community. But the proletarians have much more to worry about such as not being able to find because of no education, and as Marx the antagonism between capital and wage labor. Marx is on the proletarian side because his family experienced living on the rough side when he was growing one of the issues he brought up was starvation. The government should be more concerned about the people who are living in low poverty. He discuss and address issues like wealth, production, agriculture, and machinery. In today’s society these issues still in effect as of today, there are many people of all races who live in low income communities and no one is taking the chance to do anything about it.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Blog 9
Martha C. Nussbaum- The Central Human Functional Capabilities
-What are the central human capabilities?
The central human capability to Nussbaum means what a person should be doing “she sees justice in what a person does as much as in what a person should be capable of doing(Nussbaum pg 210)”. To me central human capabilities means that humans have rights and freedom to do what they want as citizens, defiantly the one’s who pay taxes. Individuals have the capability to protest and say what they feel is right, because we are the ones who have to live in this country so we should have a say so on what goes on. Nussbaum discussed that’s its not enough just to have the right to vote, but making a clear choice to vote or not. I agree because it’s a choice that individuals have the right to vote or not , and a choice for individuals to have primary goods, such as wealth, opportunity, powers, freedom, income, and health, so I believe it’s a choice that we all have to make in this just society and its part of human life. She also discuss that primary goods is what the citizens need are from the point of view of political justice (Nussbaum 221). I agree because the primary goods that’s listed are needed by citizens and how would we be able to survive without it, even though they are all primary issues in today’s society. I think that everything is based on a choice, and Nussbaum argues that everything such a s voting, health, and income is based on choice then there wouldn’t be anyone starving of hunger or homeless. I believe it’s the way society is and people are loosing their jobs and women having children that that they can’t afford to feed. I hope that society change, because I wouldn’t want the next generation to grow up the way society id now.
-What are the central human capabilities?
The central human capability to Nussbaum means what a person should be doing “she sees justice in what a person does as much as in what a person should be capable of doing(Nussbaum pg 210)”. To me central human capabilities means that humans have rights and freedom to do what they want as citizens, defiantly the one’s who pay taxes. Individuals have the capability to protest and say what they feel is right, because we are the ones who have to live in this country so we should have a say so on what goes on. Nussbaum discussed that’s its not enough just to have the right to vote, but making a clear choice to vote or not. I agree because it’s a choice that individuals have the right to vote or not , and a choice for individuals to have primary goods, such as wealth, opportunity, powers, freedom, income, and health, so I believe it’s a choice that we all have to make in this just society and its part of human life. She also discuss that primary goods is what the citizens need are from the point of view of political justice (Nussbaum 221). I agree because the primary goods that’s listed are needed by citizens and how would we be able to survive without it, even though they are all primary issues in today’s society. I think that everything is based on a choice, and Nussbaum argues that everything such a s voting, health, and income is based on choice then there wouldn’t be anyone starving of hunger or homeless. I believe it’s the way society is and people are loosing their jobs and women having children that that they can’t afford to feed. I hope that society change, because I wouldn’t want the next generation to grow up the way society id now.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Blog 8
What are the “primary goods” that people in a society need?
- The John Rawls reading, I thought was a little difficult but interesting to read. Rawls describe the primary goods that individuals must and should have which are “freedom, equality, opportunity, wealth, powers and income (Rawls 196)”. Rawls has the personality like King, and Rousseau’s because both authors and many other previous authors cared about the primary goods of individuals rights and believed justice and government should be fair. I agree with Rawls because I believe that people should be treated fairly in our society. I really agree with Rousseau’s statement when he discussed that people are not being outspoken in today’s society and if more people want equality they stand up for what they believe in, and fight for their fights. “Justice should equal fairness to everyone ( Rawls 197)”. Fairness to me means the government and state being fair to individuals and individuals doing what’s right to keep government fair to them. John Rawls issue relates to the issues in today’s society because far as income the government and state taking out more money to me its not fair because it seems that the people who are working can’t support their household because we’re working to pay the government. The people who don’t have a job its hard for them to get one because of the low budget, and companies are moving out the city and more people are moving. Far as wealth issues those are the people who have to pay more taxes because there’s no jobs and the people who are not working have to get on aid. I think that’s unfair because those people are paying more taxes for someone else to live off the money that they make. Rawls understand the way the government work and the primary goods that people should have is a must.
- The John Rawls reading, I thought was a little difficult but interesting to read. Rawls describe the primary goods that individuals must and should have which are “freedom, equality, opportunity, wealth, powers and income (Rawls 196)”. Rawls has the personality like King, and Rousseau’s because both authors and many other previous authors cared about the primary goods of individuals rights and believed justice and government should be fair. I agree with Rawls because I believe that people should be treated fairly in our society. I really agree with Rousseau’s statement when he discussed that people are not being outspoken in today’s society and if more people want equality they stand up for what they believe in, and fight for their fights. “Justice should equal fairness to everyone ( Rawls 197)”. Fairness to me means the government and state being fair to individuals and individuals doing what’s right to keep government fair to them. John Rawls issue relates to the issues in today’s society because far as income the government and state taking out more money to me its not fair because it seems that the people who are working can’t support their household because we’re working to pay the government. The people who don’t have a job its hard for them to get one because of the low budget, and companies are moving out the city and more people are moving. Far as wealth issues those are the people who have to pay more taxes because there’s no jobs and the people who are not working have to get on aid. I think that’s unfair because those people are paying more taxes for someone else to live off the money that they make. Rawls understand the way the government work and the primary goods that people should have is a must.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Blog 7
What power has man had over women, according to Stanton?
- The power that man had over women according to Stanton was women didn’t have the right to vote, they couldn’t file for divorce no matter how bad the relationship my be if they were to get married they couldn’t own their own property. Stanton made some very good arguments she got tired of women being treated as houeslaves sitting around and not doing anything she just wanted equal rights for both men and women. When she had the convention men and women wanted to hear what she had to say about the rights of women to vote she made a good statement according the Declaration of Independence by saying” without women voting in legislation, women couldn’t be able to change the status quo” which I highly agree. I kind of think it was harsh what her father told her that he wish she was born a boy, what he said didn’t stop her from still trying to fight for women rights even though she was the only girl in her local secondary school she knew that women education was very low. I know for sure that backing the 40s and 50s men didn’t want their wife to go to school and some of the men wouldn’t even go pick their wife up from school if they did attend school the men would rather for her to walk home , because back then there wasn’t even many females attending school or college because they were profound to be stay at home moms and wives. I think that Stanton was a very powerful woman and she reminds me of a female Martin Luther King Jr. and Henry Thoreau because all of them had to struggle to try to fight for citizens needs and wants which was to give the people rights and freedom so everyone wouldn’t be so segregated with each other. King, Stanton, and Thoreau all had to discover from bumps and bruises but they made it and in the end they all was respected by state, government, and citizens.
- The power that man had over women according to Stanton was women didn’t have the right to vote, they couldn’t file for divorce no matter how bad the relationship my be if they were to get married they couldn’t own their own property. Stanton made some very good arguments she got tired of women being treated as houeslaves sitting around and not doing anything she just wanted equal rights for both men and women. When she had the convention men and women wanted to hear what she had to say about the rights of women to vote she made a good statement according the Declaration of Independence by saying” without women voting in legislation, women couldn’t be able to change the status quo” which I highly agree. I kind of think it was harsh what her father told her that he wish she was born a boy, what he said didn’t stop her from still trying to fight for women rights even though she was the only girl in her local secondary school she knew that women education was very low. I know for sure that backing the 40s and 50s men didn’t want their wife to go to school and some of the men wouldn’t even go pick their wife up from school if they did attend school the men would rather for her to walk home , because back then there wasn’t even many females attending school or college because they were profound to be stay at home moms and wives. I think that Stanton was a very powerful woman and she reminds me of a female Martin Luther King Jr. and Henry Thoreau because all of them had to struggle to try to fight for citizens needs and wants which was to give the people rights and freedom so everyone wouldn’t be so segregated with each other. King, Stanton, and Thoreau all had to discover from bumps and bruises but they made it and in the end they all was respected by state, government, and citizens.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Blog 6
Why was King disappointed in white churches?
King has been disappointed in the white churches and their leadership. A reverend at a Christian church by the name of reverend Stallings wanted African Americans to come his church and worship, when people wasn’t even segregated it was on a “nonsegerated basis”. I believe that King thought that, since black churches really didn’t have any money they would be supported by the leadership of the white churches. He was disappointed because they didn’t even take stand to help, I would have been very disappointed also because living in Birmingham mostly there are churches there, and to come there thinking since everyone is equal regarding religion wise they would have better understanding since King was a Christian. King stated that “there was a time when church was very powerful, and worthy to suffer for what they believe “(King 186). I agree with King because majority of people who are Christians always come together and try to help other communities regarding what ethnicity, age, or gender people come from. I understand what King was thinking that a white church would be able to help him not, but he got turned but he got turned down. King also stated that people should “obey God rather than man it will lose ethnicity”, which I agree because people wouldn’t be the same, no one would be accepted meaning everyone would have their own groups, and not care about others. Even though the white churched didn’t support King in leadership, he had a positive attitude which people liked about him, because he knew that Birmingham would still be a great city and showed that King will always be a great leader.
King has been disappointed in the white churches and their leadership. A reverend at a Christian church by the name of reverend Stallings wanted African Americans to come his church and worship, when people wasn’t even segregated it was on a “nonsegerated basis”. I believe that King thought that, since black churches really didn’t have any money they would be supported by the leadership of the white churches. He was disappointed because they didn’t even take stand to help, I would have been very disappointed also because living in Birmingham mostly there are churches there, and to come there thinking since everyone is equal regarding religion wise they would have better understanding since King was a Christian. King stated that “there was a time when church was very powerful, and worthy to suffer for what they believe “(King 186). I agree with King because majority of people who are Christians always come together and try to help other communities regarding what ethnicity, age, or gender people come from. I understand what King was thinking that a white church would be able to help him not, but he got turned but he got turned down. King also stated that people should “obey God rather than man it will lose ethnicity”, which I agree because people wouldn’t be the same, no one would be accepted meaning everyone would have their own groups, and not care about others. Even though the white churched didn’t support King in leadership, he had a positive attitude which people liked about him, because he knew that Birmingham would still be a great city and showed that King will always be a great leader.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Blog 5
How does Thoreau deal with unjust laws?
-Thoreau deal with unjust laws by having lectures on how bad the government is to the citizens, and he gives lectures at the Concord Lyceum on “Civil Disobedience”. Which he “urges people of conscience which he wants people with moral goodness and fairness to actively resist a government that acted badly”(Thoreau 135). Thoreau disagree with any law or government that’s unfair to the individuals. I agree with Thoreau because why should there be a law that citizens have to pay poll-taxes just to support a war which most of the citizens don’t support or oppose against the war against Mexico. Thoreau had to make sacrifices that caused him to be in jail for a day for not paying his taxes “He oppose any government that is not totally just, totally moral, and totally respectful of the individual” (Thoreau 135). “Children of Washington and Franklin sit down with their hands in their pocket and not know what to do”(Thoreau 141). For that statement he made I believe that Thoreau had to make a stand based on opposing to slavery and the war, because no one else wasn’t. I think it was wrong how the state made Thoreau a criminal just because Civil Disobedience was published. Thoreau really didn’t think about the sacrifices that he would have to suffer from, and that’s what I liked about him because he wanted fairness from the government and if no one wouldn’t speak up who would, and it takes someone brave like Thoreau to take a stand to the government. Thoreau wasn’t selfish he just wanted himself and other citizens to be treated fairly.
-Thoreau deal with unjust laws by having lectures on how bad the government is to the citizens, and he gives lectures at the Concord Lyceum on “Civil Disobedience”. Which he “urges people of conscience which he wants people with moral goodness and fairness to actively resist a government that acted badly”(Thoreau 135). Thoreau disagree with any law or government that’s unfair to the individuals. I agree with Thoreau because why should there be a law that citizens have to pay poll-taxes just to support a war which most of the citizens don’t support or oppose against the war against Mexico. Thoreau had to make sacrifices that caused him to be in jail for a day for not paying his taxes “He oppose any government that is not totally just, totally moral, and totally respectful of the individual” (Thoreau 135). “Children of Washington and Franklin sit down with their hands in their pocket and not know what to do”(Thoreau 141). For that statement he made I believe that Thoreau had to make a stand based on opposing to slavery and the war, because no one else wasn’t. I think it was wrong how the state made Thoreau a criminal just because Civil Disobedience was published. Thoreau really didn’t think about the sacrifices that he would have to suffer from, and that’s what I liked about him because he wanted fairness from the government and if no one wouldn’t speak up who would, and it takes someone brave like Thoreau to take a stand to the government. Thoreau wasn’t selfish he just wanted himself and other citizens to be treated fairly.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Blog 4
-What is the establishment clause?
The establishment clause was used to protect religion from the state, not the state from religion (Carter pg 29). My understanding to the establishment clause is that the government trying not to interfere with religion. Carter felt that the establishment clause was unfair, and I think its unfair because we have to think about the minority in public school systems, that have certain rules involved about their religion. The government should take a major part in that because if a child goes to school and get free lunches by the government, and if their serving pizza or hamburgers they won’t be able to eat it because their fasting which is part of some people religion, so it like “what do you do”. Mrs. Welter gave an good example of when she was a child and receiving free lunches and they were serving pizza which she couldn’t eat because there was meat on it, which was part of her religion because they were fasting. So the lunch aid gave her peanut butter and jelly. My concern is do all minorities in public school systems who can’t carry bag lunches have to take a risk, or do minorities have rights that can’t be violated. I think that s what the government should consider.
- Does the first Amendment protect religion from the state or the state from religion?
I actually think it prevent religion from the state. The First Amendment has created a wall between the church and state (Carter pg 105). I agree because children (minorities) are banned from praying in schools, which I disagree because most children pray over their food. It’s kind of unfair to the child because as a child they don’t know what’s going on or what to expect, it’s like how do you suppose to explain to a child or how to tell them to be aware of such things that’s going on in our government.
The establishment clause was used to protect religion from the state, not the state from religion (Carter pg 29). My understanding to the establishment clause is that the government trying not to interfere with religion. Carter felt that the establishment clause was unfair, and I think its unfair because we have to think about the minority in public school systems, that have certain rules involved about their religion. The government should take a major part in that because if a child goes to school and get free lunches by the government, and if their serving pizza or hamburgers they won’t be able to eat it because their fasting which is part of some people religion, so it like “what do you do”. Mrs. Welter gave an good example of when she was a child and receiving free lunches and they were serving pizza which she couldn’t eat because there was meat on it, which was part of her religion because they were fasting. So the lunch aid gave her peanut butter and jelly. My concern is do all minorities in public school systems who can’t carry bag lunches have to take a risk, or do minorities have rights that can’t be violated. I think that s what the government should consider.
- Does the first Amendment protect religion from the state or the state from religion?
I actually think it prevent religion from the state. The First Amendment has created a wall between the church and state (Carter pg 105). I agree because children (minorities) are banned from praying in schools, which I disagree because most children pray over their food. It’s kind of unfair to the child because as a child they don’t know what’s going on or what to expect, it’s like how do you suppose to explain to a child or how to tell them to be aware of such things that’s going on in our government.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Works Cited by S.Merchant
Works Cited
Lao-Tzu.” Thoughts From The Tao-te Ching” A World of Ideas: Essential Reading For College Writers
Lee A. Jacobus. Trans.Stephen Mitchell 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins,2006. (Lao-Tzu pgs 20 & 31).
Lao-Tzu.” Thoughts From The Tao-te Ching” A World of Ideas: Essential Reading For College Writers
Lee A. Jacobus. Trans.Stephen Mitchell 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins,2006. (Lao-Tzu pgs 20 & 31).
Blog #1
Lao-Tzu Pre-Readings Question
1. What is the Master’s attitude toward action?
- While reading Thoughts From The Tao-Te Ching I found very interesting things about Lao-Tzu. Lao-Tzu has a great humble ambition, but his attitude toward action is basically he believes people should follow the Tao footsteps “to be able to accomplish good things for themselves“(Lao-Tzu pa 20). I think Lao-Tzu wants to get credit for what he has taught the people, not meaning that he’s arrogant but with all said he knew the message he was trying to put out wasn’t going to be put into action, but still believe he is a great leader to others.
Questions for Critical Reading
1. According to Lao-Tzu, what must the ruler provide the people with if they are to be happy.
-The ruler must provide the people to walk in their shoes to know what their going through, and to follow them to know where their going, and take them where they want to go. The ruler must know what the people want at all times and not put himself below them, because he wants to lead the people.
2. How would you describe Lao-Tzu attitude toward the people?
-I think Lao-Tzu attitude toward the people is very positive because he wants people to see the world the way he sees it. He also wants people to know where he’s coming from he mentioned that “what if he let go of the law, then more individuals will become honest, and letting go economics more people will become prosperous meaning advance to knowledge or success”(Lao-Tzu pg 31). Lao-Tzu just wants to be a great leader to the people so he wants them to understand the government and what he could do to change it.
3. Why does Lao-Tzu think the world cannot be improved?
-Lao-Tzu thinks the world cannot be improved because there is no improvement, meaning people (the government) has done enough damage. I personally agree because far as the war, poverty, the economics and there are many people who is unemployed and that’s why government in today’s society don’t really care about the people, and that’s why he mentioned in verse 66 that its now time to walk in other people shoes and help lead the people.
S.Merchant
1. What is the Master’s attitude toward action?
- While reading Thoughts From The Tao-Te Ching I found very interesting things about Lao-Tzu. Lao-Tzu has a great humble ambition, but his attitude toward action is basically he believes people should follow the Tao footsteps “to be able to accomplish good things for themselves“(Lao-Tzu pa 20). I think Lao-Tzu wants to get credit for what he has taught the people, not meaning that he’s arrogant but with all said he knew the message he was trying to put out wasn’t going to be put into action, but still believe he is a great leader to others.
Questions for Critical Reading
1. According to Lao-Tzu, what must the ruler provide the people with if they are to be happy.
-The ruler must provide the people to walk in their shoes to know what their going through, and to follow them to know where their going, and take them where they want to go. The ruler must know what the people want at all times and not put himself below them, because he wants to lead the people.
2. How would you describe Lao-Tzu attitude toward the people?
-I think Lao-Tzu attitude toward the people is very positive because he wants people to see the world the way he sees it. He also wants people to know where he’s coming from he mentioned that “what if he let go of the law, then more individuals will become honest, and letting go economics more people will become prosperous meaning advance to knowledge or success”(Lao-Tzu pg 31). Lao-Tzu just wants to be a great leader to the people so he wants them to understand the government and what he could do to change it.
3. Why does Lao-Tzu think the world cannot be improved?
-Lao-Tzu thinks the world cannot be improved because there is no improvement, meaning people (the government) has done enough damage. I personally agree because far as the war, poverty, the economics and there are many people who is unemployed and that’s why government in today’s society don’t really care about the people, and that’s why he mentioned in verse 66 that its now time to walk in other people shoes and help lead the people.
S.Merchant
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)