Since its formation, the United States has been viewed as the land of opportunity. Many people have flocked to the U.S. with an aspiration to experience the American Dream. In the beginning, the hope for many immigrants was very much still alive, but as time went on many of them realized the journey to financial success would be very long and difficult. Just like the immigrants of early America, many people in the U.S.today also realize that social mobility may not be as apparent as they had hoped. After reading the multiple sources provided, I have come to the conclusion that the idea of the American Dream is starting to become more of a figment of our imagination and less of a reality.
The United States has always been known for its American Dream as a result of its less prominent social classes when compared to other countries. Even though there may not be a clear line separating the social classes in America, we are ranked as one of the lowest for social mobility. One of the main reasons for the lack of social mobility in the U.S. is the increasing need for a high level of education in order to be economically successful. The article "No Rich Child Left Behind" also attributes the lack of social mobility to the emphasis on education. In the article they also emphasize the facts that in recent years children that come from rich families perform better in school, have higher test scores, are more likely to attend graduate school, and are more likely to enroll in a highly selective university compared to children that come from middle-class or poor families. I feel that there are many possible reasons and explanations for this data. The first reason for this gap is that students from rich families have more pressure to do well and live up to the expectations of their families. If their parents were hard-working and successful, then they will expect their children to use the tools they give them and also be hard-working and successful. When it comes to college, I think the reason for higher completion and attendance of graduate school for children from rich families is the affordability. With every generation, college is becoming even more competitive and expensive. A student who is from a poor family will have to work multiple jobs throughout college in order to pay for the tuition. Working so many hours and studying at the same time can become very difficult and stressful. On the other hand, a student whose family can afford to send them to college has much less to worry about and can simply focus on their grades and doing well in college. For this reason, students who come from rich families in a way have a head start and an advantage over students from poor or middle-class families.
In some ways, people may argue that the American Dream still exists because most of the people who are rich did not inherit their economic status, but achieved it through hard work or intelligence. This may be true, but it does not mean that the social mobility is equal for everyone. The article "Social Mobility in America: Repairing the Rungs" makes this point. One of the lines that I think properly explains how the definition of a rich person has changed is, "An aristocracy that gambled its money away on 'wine, women and song' has been replaced by a business-school-educated elite whose members marry one another and spend their money wisely on Mandarin lessons and Economist subscriptions for their children." This line shows that the smart and educated elite are becoming even richer by investing so much in their own children's education and only marrying other smart people. On the flip side, many of the people from poor families are marrying less and less, becoming single mothers, and continuing the cycle of endless work with little pay. It is a very difficult situation because receiving a good education has never been more important for success, but a good education also has never been more expensive. In many ways these poor families can't afford to help provide their children with the tools they need to succeed. Sadly, this may mean that the gap between the rich and poor will only increase as we look into the future.
While the majority of the United States may be experiencing a lack of social mobility, there are still a few people who have been able to have the opportunity to succeed or are able to look at a different perspective. I thought the woman from the article "Gatsby's Green Light Beckons a New Set of Strivers" had a very interesting and optimistic perspective on the American Dream. According to the woman in this article, the U.S. is a place where people strive to achieve something beyond their reach in life. From her viewpoint, the story "The Great Gatsby" speaks of possibility and aspiration. She realized that everyone might not meet the American Dream, but it is their interpretation that counts. In America, she feels that she can achieve her goal of receiving an education and living a comfortable life. I like her positive point of view, because living the American Dream doesn't necessarily mean you have to be rich, as long as you have reached your goals. The author of "This I Believe: The American Dream Lives On" also had an optimistic view of America, and believes that America is still a land of opportunity. The author pointed out the many famous people in America who were once immigrants or very poor and rose up to be very rich and economically successful. He feels that simply being born in America is an opportunity and a gift in itself. I appreciate the author's optimism, but I also feel that the stories of the few famous and successful people only represent a small portion of society. It may be true that a few people in the United States have been able to surpass the social mobility barrier, but the majority of the country does not have the ability to overcome this barrier. It is my hope that achieving a high level of education would become available to everyone and not just the rich; I know this will be very difficult but we can at least try.
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
Saturday, April 19, 2014
Social Class
My own experiences with social class are in many ways both similar and different to the social class experiences of the rest of the U.S. Just like the majority of Americans who describe themselves as middle class Americans, I also associate myself as someone who is in the middle class. I don't feel as if I am scraping by or worrying about my next meal, but I also don't feel as if I can freely buy extravagant items without any worry.
According to the article "Shadowy Lines That Still Divide", the U.S. has supposedly become a society that is moving toward classlessness. I think this is true in the sense that it is increasingly difficult to tell what class someone is from, but I think that below the surface social classes are still a powerful force in the U.S. One reason that it may be more difficult to tell classes apart is because people are willing to go into debt in order to be accepted. They may have a nice car or a nice phone, but in reality they are not actually able to afford these items. On the flip side, the place where I see social class affecting Americans more than ever is in education. The article "Shadowy Lines That Still Divide" also raises this point by saying, "At a time when education matters more than ever, success in school remains tightly linked to social class." Throughout my experiences, I have realized the importance of parent involvement and having the proper resources in order to get into college. With the number of students furthering their education at its highest, it is harder than ever to get into college. In my own life I have seen that the students who do not have college resources, active parent involvement, or access to good education seem to be left behind in the race to college. I know that without my parents guidance with finding scholarships, or getting financial aid, I would not be able to afford the expense of college. This is where I see the largest gap in social class.
The documentary "People Like Us" also opened my eyes to many different aspects of social class. I did not realize how different the way of life is on the opposite ends of the social class spectrum. It was very interesting and surprising to hear that the "Silver Spoon" Americans even have certain phrases they use or topics of conversation that associate them with their class. They also emphasized the idea that you can't become one of them or learn how to be like them; you are simply born that way. This made me question if it really is possible to move up the social economic ladder, or if everyone is constricted to their previous way of life. The documentary "People Like Us" and the article "Shadowy Lines That Still Divide" both said that it is very difficult for someone to move up or down the economic ladder. They also pointed out that the only place where you see movement is in the middle class. As someone who is a part of the middle class, I feel that I would be able to move up the economic ladder, but it would be through education and hard work. I am very thankful that I have had the opportunities that I do, and I hope that these opportunities would one day be available to everyone no matter the social class in which they are born.
According to the article "Shadowy Lines That Still Divide", the U.S. has supposedly become a society that is moving toward classlessness. I think this is true in the sense that it is increasingly difficult to tell what class someone is from, but I think that below the surface social classes are still a powerful force in the U.S. One reason that it may be more difficult to tell classes apart is because people are willing to go into debt in order to be accepted. They may have a nice car or a nice phone, but in reality they are not actually able to afford these items. On the flip side, the place where I see social class affecting Americans more than ever is in education. The article "Shadowy Lines That Still Divide" also raises this point by saying, "At a time when education matters more than ever, success in school remains tightly linked to social class." Throughout my experiences, I have realized the importance of parent involvement and having the proper resources in order to get into college. With the number of students furthering their education at its highest, it is harder than ever to get into college. In my own life I have seen that the students who do not have college resources, active parent involvement, or access to good education seem to be left behind in the race to college. I know that without my parents guidance with finding scholarships, or getting financial aid, I would not be able to afford the expense of college. This is where I see the largest gap in social class.
The documentary "People Like Us" also opened my eyes to many different aspects of social class. I did not realize how different the way of life is on the opposite ends of the social class spectrum. It was very interesting and surprising to hear that the "Silver Spoon" Americans even have certain phrases they use or topics of conversation that associate them with their class. They also emphasized the idea that you can't become one of them or learn how to be like them; you are simply born that way. This made me question if it really is possible to move up the social economic ladder, or if everyone is constricted to their previous way of life. The documentary "People Like Us" and the article "Shadowy Lines That Still Divide" both said that it is very difficult for someone to move up or down the economic ladder. They also pointed out that the only place where you see movement is in the middle class. As someone who is a part of the middle class, I feel that I would be able to move up the economic ladder, but it would be through education and hard work. I am very thankful that I have had the opportunities that I do, and I hope that these opportunities would one day be available to everyone no matter the social class in which they are born.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Sound and Fury
The two arguments presented in this documentary were very different but both very interesting. I have had brief interaction in my life with people who are deaf, but not enough to fully understand the discourse. It was eye opening to see people who are deaf describe how they have their own culture. I always pictured it as, we are all human and just some of us can hear while others of us aren't able to. The documentary helped me understand that they consider it a culture because they communicate through their own language of sign language. There were two arguments presented in this documentary. These arguments consisted of whether it should be considered right or considered wrong for a deaf person to get a cochlear implant.
The father of Heather named Peter was strongly against the cochlear implant. He thought that getting an implant meant you were looking down on deaf culture and not being happy with who you are. He also believed that being deaf was a blessing instead of an impairment. This was in some ways difficult for me to grasp, because I am not part of that discourse and I can't imagine life without hearing. It is great that he is happy with who he is, but I think if you have the opportunity to gain hearing and communicate with the hearing world, then you should take it. In some parts of the documentary the father Peter contradicted himself about being successful in his career. It is true that he has a great job but he also admitted that he would not be able to go up any higher in the company because of his deafness. My question is why he wouldn't want his daughter to have all the oppportunities in the hearing world along with being part of deaf culture.
The other family in the documentary was the brother of Peter who's newborn son was also deaf. I think that the brother Chris made the right decision in getting their son Peter the cochlear implant at a young age. This way he would be able to learn how to speak and not have to deal with all of the pain and lonliness that can come with being deaf. He could have the same opportunities as his twin brother who is not deaf. Mari, the wife of Chris shared that in some cases children who go to a deaf school may only be able to read at a 4th grade level when they graduate high school. As a parent I would not want this to be my child, and I would want to give them as many opportunities to be successful as possible.
Even though I feel that the cochlear implant is a great advancement in our technology, the mother of Mari did bring up a good point. She was worried that in the future the cochlear implant would cause deaf culture to slowly die. I agree that this may be a sad thing because sign language and their way of communication is so important to them. Since it is very important, I think that children who recieve the cochlear implant should still be taught sign language. This way they can understand their roots, but have the chance to be part of both cultures. The other thing that I think about is how ridding the world of deafness could actually be a good thing. I think that hearing is wonderful and an amazing part of our bodies, just like sight. Would someone who is blind really say that they would never want to see, because they are part of blind culture?
There will probably always be deaf people born into this world for as long as the world exists. I think the best solution is to implant children who are born deaf with the cochlear implant so they can have every possible opportunity. I believe it is also important to teach them about the history of deaf culture and the language of sign language. In a way this will give them the best of both worlds.
The father of Heather named Peter was strongly against the cochlear implant. He thought that getting an implant meant you were looking down on deaf culture and not being happy with who you are. He also believed that being deaf was a blessing instead of an impairment. This was in some ways difficult for me to grasp, because I am not part of that discourse and I can't imagine life without hearing. It is great that he is happy with who he is, but I think if you have the opportunity to gain hearing and communicate with the hearing world, then you should take it. In some parts of the documentary the father Peter contradicted himself about being successful in his career. It is true that he has a great job but he also admitted that he would not be able to go up any higher in the company because of his deafness. My question is why he wouldn't want his daughter to have all the oppportunities in the hearing world along with being part of deaf culture.
The other family in the documentary was the brother of Peter who's newborn son was also deaf. I think that the brother Chris made the right decision in getting their son Peter the cochlear implant at a young age. This way he would be able to learn how to speak and not have to deal with all of the pain and lonliness that can come with being deaf. He could have the same opportunities as his twin brother who is not deaf. Mari, the wife of Chris shared that in some cases children who go to a deaf school may only be able to read at a 4th grade level when they graduate high school. As a parent I would not want this to be my child, and I would want to give them as many opportunities to be successful as possible.
Even though I feel that the cochlear implant is a great advancement in our technology, the mother of Mari did bring up a good point. She was worried that in the future the cochlear implant would cause deaf culture to slowly die. I agree that this may be a sad thing because sign language and their way of communication is so important to them. Since it is very important, I think that children who recieve the cochlear implant should still be taught sign language. This way they can understand their roots, but have the chance to be part of both cultures. The other thing that I think about is how ridding the world of deafness could actually be a good thing. I think that hearing is wonderful and an amazing part of our bodies, just like sight. Would someone who is blind really say that they would never want to see, because they are part of blind culture?
There will probably always be deaf people born into this world for as long as the world exists. I think the best solution is to implant children who are born deaf with the cochlear implant so they can have every possible opportunity. I believe it is also important to teach them about the history of deaf culture and the language of sign language. In a way this will give them the best of both worlds.
Monday, September 23, 2013
My hidden phobia
When most people describe their phobia or fear, it is common to hear people talk about their fear of heights or the occasional spider. Send me on a huge roller coaster and I will be delighted. Put a spider on my head and I won't even jump. However, there is one thing that will raise the hair on my arms.This item is a couch with a cover. Maybe it is the unknown piece of moldy food that lays hidden between the cushions, or the crazy texture of that old jean material cover. I do not know the exact reason as to why this strikes so much fear into me, but the fear is definitely apparent.
I think my fear began when I was about seven years old. For our Christmas celebration, my dad's side of the family decided to rent a cabin on an island in the middle of a lake somewhere in Minnesota. The outside of the cabin was very fun and exciting. One of my cousin's even brought a dog sled accompanied by her four huskies. It was the best feeling in the world to ride on the ice, while pretending to be a professional sled dog owner. Although, the outside of the cabin offered lots of fun and amazing adventure, the inside was a different strory. There was a pretty good chance that no one had lived in the cabin for many decades. The floor inside the cabin and the floor of the woods ouside the cabin bore a very close resemblance to each other. The furniture in the cabin had also seen its better days, and every couch or chair had a covering on it. Even my childhood curiosity didn't dare to have a peak at what lay underneath those couch covers. It was here on this family vacation where my phobia of couch covers began.
Although I have not been to another old cabin in the middle of a lake, my family has visited a few cabins since. I am not sure why, but the common theme at every cabin I go to seems to be couch covers. As you might imagine, this is a very scary moment for me. I have decided that whenever I go to places like this, I will just try to avoid the couches altogether. This usually means I end up sitting on the floor, but this is okay by me. My family finds it a bit odd, but I just tell them it is more comfortable being close to the ground. Not very many people knew about my fear of couch covers, but I guess you could say that now my secret phobia is uncovered. No pun intended!
I think my fear began when I was about seven years old. For our Christmas celebration, my dad's side of the family decided to rent a cabin on an island in the middle of a lake somewhere in Minnesota. The outside of the cabin was very fun and exciting. One of my cousin's even brought a dog sled accompanied by her four huskies. It was the best feeling in the world to ride on the ice, while pretending to be a professional sled dog owner. Although, the outside of the cabin offered lots of fun and amazing adventure, the inside was a different strory. There was a pretty good chance that no one had lived in the cabin for many decades. The floor inside the cabin and the floor of the woods ouside the cabin bore a very close resemblance to each other. The furniture in the cabin had also seen its better days, and every couch or chair had a covering on it. Even my childhood curiosity didn't dare to have a peak at what lay underneath those couch covers. It was here on this family vacation where my phobia of couch covers began.
Although I have not been to another old cabin in the middle of a lake, my family has visited a few cabins since. I am not sure why, but the common theme at every cabin I go to seems to be couch covers. As you might imagine, this is a very scary moment for me. I have decided that whenever I go to places like this, I will just try to avoid the couches altogether. This usually means I end up sitting on the floor, but this is okay by me. My family finds it a bit odd, but I just tell them it is more comfortable being close to the ground. Not very many people knew about my fear of couch covers, but I guess you could say that now my secret phobia is uncovered. No pun intended!
Monday, September 9, 2013
Are There Limitis To Free Speech Blog
Every day the press releases information and secrets that citizens of the U.S. soak up can't seem to get enough of. Many of these secrets are about politicians or celebrities and often published for means of entertainment only. I don't think that it is necessary information to know about every detail of Kim Kardashian's life. Although most information and secrets are ones like these that don't jeapordize our nations security, I think that some secrets are much better kept. In the case of WikiLeaks, most of the information they release to the public is very classified information. Some may say that as citizens of the United States we have the right to know this information. I think that this is true to some extent. For example, if the government knew we were going to be attacked by another countries nuclear weapon, this information must be shared with the rest of the country. In other words if the information directly affects our safety we should know about it. There are some cases where information that is meant to be classified is better off not being shared. A moment in our countries history where classified information should not have been shared was during World War II. Gabriel Schoenfeld brought up this point in his article Can U.S. Bring Assange to Justice? The press announced that the U.S. may have broken Japanese naval codes. Thankfully the Japanese did not notice the newspapers and did not alter their codes. If the Japanese had noticed the newspaper, the course of the war could have been drastically different. This information was also not necessary for everyone in the U.S. to know and could have affected our national security.
According to Julian Assange, the man in charge of WikiLeaks, they do filter through and carefully choose which pieces of classified information they are going to release. Even though this may be true, most of this information is not directly related to the safety of U.S. citizens; therefore if it is meant to be classified it should probably stay classified. In some ways Assange did break the Espionage Act of 1917, because he knew by releasing the information that it had the potential to harm the U.S. In other ways he may have been trying to exercise and be an activist for free speech, which is a good thing. He is riding on a very fine line, making it understandable why it is so difficult for the Judges in his trial to come to a verdict. If Assange is accused of breaking the law, many could say that it goes against our free speech amendment. If Assange isn't accused then people who actually do leak information with the purpose of injuring the U.S. could argue that what Assange did is no different. You can't exactly pick and choose who you want to convict based on the degree of their intentions to injure the U.S.
I think that the best idea would be to not convict Assange as long as he agrees to discontinue WikiLeaks. I think that in the end this would please people on both sides of the argument.
According to Julian Assange, the man in charge of WikiLeaks, they do filter through and carefully choose which pieces of classified information they are going to release. Even though this may be true, most of this information is not directly related to the safety of U.S. citizens; therefore if it is meant to be classified it should probably stay classified. In some ways Assange did break the Espionage Act of 1917, because he knew by releasing the information that it had the potential to harm the U.S. In other ways he may have been trying to exercise and be an activist for free speech, which is a good thing. He is riding on a very fine line, making it understandable why it is so difficult for the Judges in his trial to come to a verdict. If Assange is accused of breaking the law, many could say that it goes against our free speech amendment. If Assange isn't accused then people who actually do leak information with the purpose of injuring the U.S. could argue that what Assange did is no different. You can't exactly pick and choose who you want to convict based on the degree of their intentions to injure the U.S.
I think that the best idea would be to not convict Assange as long as he agrees to discontinue WikiLeaks. I think that in the end this would please people on both sides of the argument.
Thursday, August 15, 2013
Eric Liddell: Pure Gold
For my non-fiction book, I chose to read Eric Liddell: Pure Gold. After seeing the movie Chariot's of Fire, I was curious to learn more about the life of Olympian Eric Liddell. I enjoy running, so I thought it would be interesting to read a book about someone who also loved running.
Liddell was an Olympic distance runner, whose running career was at its prime in the 1920's. It was fascinating to learn how he trained for the Olympics, earned a college degree, and spoke at thousands of assemblies all at the same time. Even though it must have been very difficult, Liddell was able to excel at all three of these commitments. The book often mentions how Liddell had a difficult time saying when asked to add something else into his busy life.
Liddell's hardworking attitude and his devotion to everything in life is most likely attributed to his upbringing. His parents were missionaries in China who loved their children very much and always wanted the best for them. At the time, it would have been difficult for Eric and his brothers to receive a proper education in China, so they attended a private school in England. It is there that Eric Liddell discovered his love for running, rugby, working hard in school, and God. Although Liddell is best known for his amazing Olympic achievements, running is only a fragment of his life.
Both Eric and his brother Rob decided to follow in their parents' footsteps by becoming missionaries in China. Eric Liddell felt that his running career was only a platform that gave him opportunities to share his love for God with both athletes and non-athletes. Being a missionary in China during the 1930's and 1940's was also very dangerous due to the war between China and Japan. Despite this, Liddell chose to persevere knowing that he was called to bring the love of God and hope to the Chinese people. My favorite part of this biography was how encouraged I felt each time I opened the book. Even in moments when Liddell went months without seeing his family and even being confined to an internment camp, he viewed every situation with a positive outlook. He brought joy, laughter and hope to people during difficult times.
When I first checked out the book, I had no idea what to expect. I can honestly say that I was pleasantly surprised, and did not anticipate the emotion I would feel while reading the book. On the final pages of the book when Eric Liddell's life comes to a close, I felt a sense of loss in my own heart. It was amazing to read how his life touched so many others in wonderful ways. I would recommend this book to anyone, and believe that the world is a better place because of Eric Liddell.
Liddell was an Olympic distance runner, whose running career was at its prime in the 1920's. It was fascinating to learn how he trained for the Olympics, earned a college degree, and spoke at thousands of assemblies all at the same time. Even though it must have been very difficult, Liddell was able to excel at all three of these commitments. The book often mentions how Liddell had a difficult time saying when asked to add something else into his busy life.
Liddell's hardworking attitude and his devotion to everything in life is most likely attributed to his upbringing. His parents were missionaries in China who loved their children very much and always wanted the best for them. At the time, it would have been difficult for Eric and his brothers to receive a proper education in China, so they attended a private school in England. It is there that Eric Liddell discovered his love for running, rugby, working hard in school, and God. Although Liddell is best known for his amazing Olympic achievements, running is only a fragment of his life.
Both Eric and his brother Rob decided to follow in their parents' footsteps by becoming missionaries in China. Eric Liddell felt that his running career was only a platform that gave him opportunities to share his love for God with both athletes and non-athletes. Being a missionary in China during the 1930's and 1940's was also very dangerous due to the war between China and Japan. Despite this, Liddell chose to persevere knowing that he was called to bring the love of God and hope to the Chinese people. My favorite part of this biography was how encouraged I felt each time I opened the book. Even in moments when Liddell went months without seeing his family and even being confined to an internment camp, he viewed every situation with a positive outlook. He brought joy, laughter and hope to people during difficult times.
When I first checked out the book, I had no idea what to expect. I can honestly say that I was pleasantly surprised, and did not anticipate the emotion I would feel while reading the book. On the final pages of the book when Eric Liddell's life comes to a close, I felt a sense of loss in my own heart. It was amazing to read how his life touched so many others in wonderful ways. I would recommend this book to anyone, and believe that the world is a better place because of Eric Liddell.
Sunday, July 28, 2013
Mary Wollstonecraft, Margaret Fuller, and Gloria Steinem
Before reading these essays, I had not put much thought into the rights of women, other than briefly covering it in history class. I realized that the rights women possess today are often taken for granted. These authors are just three examples of people I should thank for their efforts toward bringing equality between men and women in society.
Margaret Wollstonecraft's essay was at times very difficult to read. Her writing style may have been very fitting for women reading it in the 1700's, but not quite as fitting for women reading it today. I can appreciate the sophisticated vocabulary used by Wollstonecraft in her essay, but it required me to look up the meaning of many of the words. Having to reread many of the lines and constantly look up words disrupted the flow of the essay and made it less enjoyable to read. It took me a while to piece things together, but in the end I was finally able to decipher many of the valid points she made in her essay. I would agree that women are more than just caretakers who desire to wear fancy clothes and look pretty. Just like men, women deserve the right to receive an education. At the time this essay was written, women were not allowed to receive the same level of education as men. As a high school student with dreams of continuing my education and becoming a doctor, I am very appreciative that modern women now have the right to an education just like men.
It was very interesting how different it was to read Margaret Fuller's essay, even though it was written only 50 years after Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Women. While Wollstonecraft's style of writing was very sophisticated and full of rich vocabulary, Fuller's essay was much easier to understand. I liked how Fuller explained that it is possible for women to have a balance between becoming educated and continuing to fulfill their domestic duties. One of the lines that particularly stood out to me is when she says, "Women can express publicly the fullness of thought and emotion, without losing any of the peculiar beauty of her sex." This point she makes is very true and I feel that the balance of ideas coming from men and women today is what makes our society great. I also agree with Fuller's statement that all humans have a need for expansion and without this we will perish. The desire for freedom is shared by everyone. Today's society is a great example of men and women both having the freedoms they desire while still living in harmony.
Of these three essays, the piece written by Gloria Steinem was the most enjoyable to read. I appreciated the humor and lighthearted feeling that Steinem brought to a topic that is often very serious. I can honestly say that this is the first time I thought about how different the world would be if men were the ones who menstruated. For women, the topic of menstruation is not often discussed in public. The only time you may hear a women discussing her menstrual period is in soft whispers while talking to one of her girlfriends. According to Steinem, keeping it a secret would not be an option for men. I was surprised when she brought up the idea that men would turn it into something positive and a topic to boast about. I never realized how tough women really are because we don't make a big deal out of having our periods. I think that the point that Steinem was trying to make in this essay was that women still lack many of the rights that men enjoy. She chose to bring light to the topic of women's rights in a humorous way instead of the serious tone that many authors choose.
I think that all three essays illuminate great points about the rights of women. Women still have a long way to go in terms of being equal to men, but I am very thankful for the advances we have made in the last 400 years. With so many women out there trying to make a difference, I look forward to seeing what the future holds for the rights of women.
Margaret Wollstonecraft's essay was at times very difficult to read. Her writing style may have been very fitting for women reading it in the 1700's, but not quite as fitting for women reading it today. I can appreciate the sophisticated vocabulary used by Wollstonecraft in her essay, but it required me to look up the meaning of many of the words. Having to reread many of the lines and constantly look up words disrupted the flow of the essay and made it less enjoyable to read. It took me a while to piece things together, but in the end I was finally able to decipher many of the valid points she made in her essay. I would agree that women are more than just caretakers who desire to wear fancy clothes and look pretty. Just like men, women deserve the right to receive an education. At the time this essay was written, women were not allowed to receive the same level of education as men. As a high school student with dreams of continuing my education and becoming a doctor, I am very appreciative that modern women now have the right to an education just like men.
It was very interesting how different it was to read Margaret Fuller's essay, even though it was written only 50 years after Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Women. While Wollstonecraft's style of writing was very sophisticated and full of rich vocabulary, Fuller's essay was much easier to understand. I liked how Fuller explained that it is possible for women to have a balance between becoming educated and continuing to fulfill their domestic duties. One of the lines that particularly stood out to me is when she says, "Women can express publicly the fullness of thought and emotion, without losing any of the peculiar beauty of her sex." This point she makes is very true and I feel that the balance of ideas coming from men and women today is what makes our society great. I also agree with Fuller's statement that all humans have a need for expansion and without this we will perish. The desire for freedom is shared by everyone. Today's society is a great example of men and women both having the freedoms they desire while still living in harmony.
Of these three essays, the piece written by Gloria Steinem was the most enjoyable to read. I appreciated the humor and lighthearted feeling that Steinem brought to a topic that is often very serious. I can honestly say that this is the first time I thought about how different the world would be if men were the ones who menstruated. For women, the topic of menstruation is not often discussed in public. The only time you may hear a women discussing her menstrual period is in soft whispers while talking to one of her girlfriends. According to Steinem, keeping it a secret would not be an option for men. I was surprised when she brought up the idea that men would turn it into something positive and a topic to boast about. I never realized how tough women really are because we don't make a big deal out of having our periods. I think that the point that Steinem was trying to make in this essay was that women still lack many of the rights that men enjoy. She chose to bring light to the topic of women's rights in a humorous way instead of the serious tone that many authors choose.
I think that all three essays illuminate great points about the rights of women. Women still have a long way to go in terms of being equal to men, but I am very thankful for the advances we have made in the last 400 years. With so many women out there trying to make a difference, I look forward to seeing what the future holds for the rights of women.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)