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
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)