A Harmful Myth of Asian Superiority
Ronald Takaki
After reading Ronald Takaki's essay of The Harmful Myth of Asain Superiority, I believe the thesis statement is, "Asian Americans have increasingly come to be viewed as a "model minority" which has caused reality to become obscured. Takaki mentions how some of the statistics are misleading, which makes Asian Americans as a group seem more successful than they really are.
Some evidence that Takaki uses for his argument on why reality is obscured for Asian Americans is that figures on the their high earnings relative to Caucasians are "misleading because most Asian Americans live in California, Hawaii, and New York. These states have higher incomes because of the higher cost of living." (101). He also mentions how the comparable income of Japanese Americans to Caucasians is misleading because the "Japanese Americans only made as much money from more education and working more hours. " (101). Takaki goes on to say that comparing family incomes is also deceptive because there are more people in a family, which leads to more workers per family. Some more evidence points out that while the small population of successful Asian Americans is congradulated, their differences are hidden. "While thousands of Vietnamese American young people attend universities, others are on the streets. 25 percent of the people in Chinatown lived below poverty level compared with 17 percent of the city's population." (101). The people living in these conditions can't go outside their confined area in Chinatown because of language barrier. Finally, he mentions that many
"Koreans came to America with a college education and occupations of teachers, engineers and administrators only to find themselves as shopkeepers after they arrived, which is a step downward in status because most shopkeepers only earn $17,000 to $35,000 a year." (101).
I find Takaki's argument convincing. While some of his argument seems like an opinon, he gives very convincing evidence and statistics which helps to sway an audience. I hear a lot about how Asians are very smart and very successful. They go to America's most prestigous universities, which lead to very good jobs after school. However, I never really hear any of those unfortunate statistics of the other side of the Asian American population. I believe this is why they are considered the model minority. Also, since Takaki is Asian, it makes his argument seem a little more credible.
When looking at Takaki's view on if Asian Americans are more successful compared to Caucasians than the African Americans are, I would say that he doesn't think Asian Americans are more successful. He states that the comparisons of African Americans to Asian Americans cause problems between the two groups and "makes African American workers become superfluous." (100). He also mentions how the "celebration of Asian Americans being a model minority perpetuates their inequality and exacerbates relations between them and African Americans." (102). From these statements he makes it sound like Asian Americans should not be considered the only model minority, because in reality, the success of Asian Americans is misleading and only causes problems between them and other minority groups.
Brittany Lake
Friday, June 1, 2007
In response to questions 6 of June Brady's "I Want a Wife."
In June Brady’s essay, “I Want a Wife”, she discusses her fanatical views on men, women, and roles in a marriage. Picking the book off the floor after throwing it and narrowly missing a small child, I said to my wife, “You have to read this!” I was so worked up all I could see were dryer sheets and dishwashing liquid. I was completely agitated and slightly emasculated. It wasn’t until I was finished repairing the hole in the wall where the book hit that I realized it was written in 1971. Even with this information I was still trying to calm down and think rationally.
Mrs. Brady effectively conveyed her message to me even though it is slightly asqued. Her message is that women are the glue that holds the household, society, and the world together. Ok, I may be reading too much into it but her statements do lead one to think that men are lazy, selfish and uncaring. I must stop and state that I do realize there are men like that. I am not sexist, racist, or stylish (I’m not sure what that has to do with anything). I believe that it is important for the husband and wife to share responsibilities. Take up the slack and help in each others weakness. Just like my wife’s weakness in taking out the garbage and my weakness in cooking and doing dishes. It is however, important to see all sides.
When I finished and realized that she had written this essay in the seventies, I thought that she sure was brave to start shedding light on the societal norm that has existed since the Ice Age. All this written not to far after June Cleaver showed us all what a “Real” woman is like. I’m sure that it caused as violent of a reaction then, as it did with me, minus the hole in the wall and the hospital bill for my son.
Her views of the “perfect” wife may be slightly out dated. We as a society have started switching to the opposite view. We are starting to look down our noses at the stay at home mom. I have seen people’s reaction when I tell them that my wife does stay at home. It is automatically assumed that she must not be educated or her controlling husband makes her. That is just as far off base as Mrs. Brady’s views.
Where do we go from here? Is there a happy middle? Will we ever be content with our roles? I know that I will be happy just as long as my wife puts a lot of frosting and a dab of cinnamon on it. Oh and has it ready when I get home to watch my shows.
In June Brady’s essay, “I Want a Wife”, she discusses her fanatical views on men, women, and roles in a marriage. Picking the book off the floor after throwing it and narrowly missing a small child, I said to my wife, “You have to read this!” I was so worked up all I could see were dryer sheets and dishwashing liquid. I was completely agitated and slightly emasculated. It wasn’t until I was finished repairing the hole in the wall where the book hit that I realized it was written in 1971. Even with this information I was still trying to calm down and think rationally.
Mrs. Brady effectively conveyed her message to me even though it is slightly asqued. Her message is that women are the glue that holds the household, society, and the world together. Ok, I may be reading too much into it but her statements do lead one to think that men are lazy, selfish and uncaring. I must stop and state that I do realize there are men like that. I am not sexist, racist, or stylish (I’m not sure what that has to do with anything). I believe that it is important for the husband and wife to share responsibilities. Take up the slack and help in each others weakness. Just like my wife’s weakness in taking out the garbage and my weakness in cooking and doing dishes. It is however, important to see all sides.
When I finished and realized that she had written this essay in the seventies, I thought that she sure was brave to start shedding light on the societal norm that has existed since the Ice Age. All this written not to far after June Cleaver showed us all what a “Real” woman is like. I’m sure that it caused as violent of a reaction then, as it did with me, minus the hole in the wall and the hospital bill for my son.
Her views of the “perfect” wife may be slightly out dated. We as a society have started switching to the opposite view. We are starting to look down our noses at the stay at home mom. I have seen people’s reaction when I tell them that my wife does stay at home. It is automatically assumed that she must not be educated or her controlling husband makes her. That is just as far off base as Mrs. Brady’s views.
Where do we go from here? Is there a happy middle? Will we ever be content with our roles? I know that I will be happy just as long as my wife puts a lot of frosting and a dab of cinnamon on it. Oh and has it ready when I get home to watch my shows.
Takaki's Essay
Matt Pepin
ENGL 201
WEEK 3
The thesis of Takaki’s essay is the perception of “success” and a paragon of a “model society” which is not in conformity with the statistics that actually portray Asian Americans.
His comparison of Asians to African Americans shows only some of the statistics for Asians but none for African Americans. Other minorities such as Mexicans, American Indians, and Cubans weren’t even mentioned. Does this animosity and resentment towards Asians reflect in the attitudes of other minorities also?
Takaki says Asian Americans have been described as “excessively, even provocatively” successful in gaining admission to universities, but he gives no data to support the allegation one way or the other. He also mentions Japanese American men in California in 1980 earned an average income comparable to Caucasians only after acquiring more education and working more hours. Does he mean that they acquired more education and worked more hours than they previously did or did they have more education and work more hours than Caucasian men? No mention is made of other minorities, including Caucasian women, in his mention of the “glass ceiling”.
When Takaki does mention that some American Asian groups do have higher incomes than Caucasians he adds that this is due to more workers per family. This could also be construed as they might have a business that employs family members, which the majority of Caucasians or minority groups are unable to do. This is a popular practice because it makes immigration easier for people wanting to come to the United States form the business owner’s home country. That aspect alone can make a business more lucrative for the owners as often something such as working at a lower wage is given up by the immigrant for the opportunity to enter the United States.
Takaki’s data that Korean shopkeepers and green grocers earn only $17,000 to $35,000 a year for an entire family doesn’t take into account that particularly a business such as green grocers have a considerable amount of their income as cash which is relatively simple not to report as income.
“The model minority image homogenizes Asian Americans and hides their differences,” states Takaki. He only mentions Vietnamese as the minority that hang out in pool halls and join gangs. Immigrants that have not learned our language and thus have limited success in finding a decent job is not just limited to Asians, any race that enters the U.S. without knowledge of the language faces the same problems.
If I were to take the position that Asian Americans are economically more successful in America today relative to white Americans it is clear form Takaki’s essay that he disagrees. Concerning the same subject in regard to African Americans, Takaki believes that the myth of Asian success not only creates resentment between the two races, but also that racism and the U.S. economy are biased against African Americans. He presents no data for comparison of Asians and African Americans; in fact his entire thesis ignores the statistics and plights of other minorities, and in my opinion only gives a one-dimensional depiction of Asian Americans. I found it hard to find validity in Takaki’s essay, because although he gave some statistics as evidence, it seemed skewered towards his opinion and offered little comparison statistically with any other group of people. His evidence wasn’t persuasive enough to convince me of his thesis.
ENGL 201
WEEK 3
The thesis of Takaki’s essay is the perception of “success” and a paragon of a “model society” which is not in conformity with the statistics that actually portray Asian Americans.
His comparison of Asians to African Americans shows only some of the statistics for Asians but none for African Americans. Other minorities such as Mexicans, American Indians, and Cubans weren’t even mentioned. Does this animosity and resentment towards Asians reflect in the attitudes of other minorities also?
Takaki says Asian Americans have been described as “excessively, even provocatively” successful in gaining admission to universities, but he gives no data to support the allegation one way or the other. He also mentions Japanese American men in California in 1980 earned an average income comparable to Caucasians only after acquiring more education and working more hours. Does he mean that they acquired more education and worked more hours than they previously did or did they have more education and work more hours than Caucasian men? No mention is made of other minorities, including Caucasian women, in his mention of the “glass ceiling”.
When Takaki does mention that some American Asian groups do have higher incomes than Caucasians he adds that this is due to more workers per family. This could also be construed as they might have a business that employs family members, which the majority of Caucasians or minority groups are unable to do. This is a popular practice because it makes immigration easier for people wanting to come to the United States form the business owner’s home country. That aspect alone can make a business more lucrative for the owners as often something such as working at a lower wage is given up by the immigrant for the opportunity to enter the United States.
Takaki’s data that Korean shopkeepers and green grocers earn only $17,000 to $35,000 a year for an entire family doesn’t take into account that particularly a business such as green grocers have a considerable amount of their income as cash which is relatively simple not to report as income.
“The model minority image homogenizes Asian Americans and hides their differences,” states Takaki. He only mentions Vietnamese as the minority that hang out in pool halls and join gangs. Immigrants that have not learned our language and thus have limited success in finding a decent job is not just limited to Asians, any race that enters the U.S. without knowledge of the language faces the same problems.
If I were to take the position that Asian Americans are economically more successful in America today relative to white Americans it is clear form Takaki’s essay that he disagrees. Concerning the same subject in regard to African Americans, Takaki believes that the myth of Asian success not only creates resentment between the two races, but also that racism and the U.S. economy are biased against African Americans. He presents no data for comparison of Asians and African Americans; in fact his entire thesis ignores the statistics and plights of other minorities, and in my opinion only gives a one-dimensional depiction of Asian Americans. I found it hard to find validity in Takaki’s essay, because although he gave some statistics as evidence, it seemed skewered towards his opinion and offered little comparison statistically with any other group of people. His evidence wasn’t persuasive enough to convince me of his thesis.
June Brady's "I Want A Wife"
In response to questions 6 of June Brady's "I Want a Wife."
June Brady has some very good ideas about how much a wife does for a household. There are so many things that a wife does that is just expected of them and they don’t get recognition for doing it. When I stop and think about my own mother, I can’t believe how much she actually does, and most of the time without complaining.
It is generally expected that the wife does the cooking and the cleaning, the organizing and taking care of getting the kids to where they need to be. The wife usually des the planning for activities for the children to do to keep them entertained, or if they want to go someplace with their friends. However sometimes she might also volunteer her husband to be able to actually do the activity with them. If a person is in charge of the planning, than she has the right to volunteer others not involved. Generally speaking, after a divorce, the mother does end up with the children. This may or may not be because the husband wants to put his whole past behind him, and start off with a clean life like Brady suggests in the third to last paragraph.
I stated that the wife generally acted in these various ways. This is because I do not believe and I know that the wife does not always do these activities by herself. The husband does in fact step in to help some of the time. He can help with the cooking and the cleaning, he may also have more of the outdoor jobs like mowing and other types of yard care. I also know that not all husbands take their wives for granted and pick up some of her jobs occasionally to make her day a little easier and better. The wife may also recruit her children to help with her many “chores.” While this may limit the physical work she has to do, the planning and coordinating what her children will do may take more “thinking” time. It may also take more time to make sure her children are doing what they are asked to do.
In the end of the day I’m just glad I’m not June Brady’s wife because I don’t know if I could handle all the demands or qualities she is looking for in a wife. Even though most of them a wife already does, there is a line where a person can not do everything. But Brady’s essay does bring to light many things that a wife does do and put a humorous spin on it placing all these “duties” together and adding a couple facts that may not be true to every day life.
June Brady has some very good ideas about how much a wife does for a household. There are so many things that a wife does that is just expected of them and they don’t get recognition for doing it. When I stop and think about my own mother, I can’t believe how much she actually does, and most of the time without complaining.
It is generally expected that the wife does the cooking and the cleaning, the organizing and taking care of getting the kids to where they need to be. The wife usually des the planning for activities for the children to do to keep them entertained, or if they want to go someplace with their friends. However sometimes she might also volunteer her husband to be able to actually do the activity with them. If a person is in charge of the planning, than she has the right to volunteer others not involved. Generally speaking, after a divorce, the mother does end up with the children. This may or may not be because the husband wants to put his whole past behind him, and start off with a clean life like Brady suggests in the third to last paragraph.
I stated that the wife generally acted in these various ways. This is because I do not believe and I know that the wife does not always do these activities by herself. The husband does in fact step in to help some of the time. He can help with the cooking and the cleaning, he may also have more of the outdoor jobs like mowing and other types of yard care. I also know that not all husbands take their wives for granted and pick up some of her jobs occasionally to make her day a little easier and better. The wife may also recruit her children to help with her many “chores.” While this may limit the physical work she has to do, the planning and coordinating what her children will do may take more “thinking” time. It may also take more time to make sure her children are doing what they are asked to do.
In the end of the day I’m just glad I’m not June Brady’s wife because I don’t know if I could handle all the demands or qualities she is looking for in a wife. Even though most of them a wife already does, there is a line where a person can not do everything. But Brady’s essay does bring to light many things that a wife does do and put a humorous spin on it placing all these “duties” together and adding a couple facts that may not be true to every day life.
Laura Lukes
June 1, 2007
Judy Brady
Question # 7
I want a Husband
Judy Brady made it clear that women do play a major role in the household, but to me, what she really wants is a slave with benefits. She really wants someone that she can push around and tell what to do and when to do it. In our society now, that would not have gone very far. Women are more versatile now. Women do more than just stay at home and cook for their families. Women are more independent upon themselves now. They have their own careers and their own lives outside of their homes. What women need are good husbands.
I want a husband that has a successful career. I want a husband that does bring in some profit, but I still want to contribute with my own career. I want a husband that understands what a woman wants. I want a husband that will be romantic every once in awhile without me telling him that is what I want. I want a husband to give me a gift not because it is a special occasion, but an “I appreciate Everything You Do” gift. I want a husband that can remember special events without being told: Wedding Anniversary, Birthday, Christmas, Valentines Day, and ect. I want a husband that understands that he can be wrong sometimes. I want him to say, “Oh honey, you are right.” I want a husband that is not afraid to ask for directions. He would be able to pull off the road at a gas station and admit he is lost. I want a husband that would give a day of Monday Night Football a rest just to be with me. My husband would be able to talk to me about anything, even if it was something that would make him cry. I want a husband that would pick out “Gone with the Wind,” even though it is not one of his favorites, he would pick it out for me.
I want a husband that would take the children for a day just so I could go have a relaxing day at the spa. He would take care of the kids and all of their appointments and clean the house. After I come back, he would have a meal ready for me light up with candles. I want a husband that cares about my sexual needs. He does not always push for sexual favors when I am not in the mood. He would also like to try new things. I want a husband that was the way I first met him. He was always romantic and trying to impress me every day. It would be as if we were just still starting to date.
I want a husband that would be the “perfect” husband!
As perfect as this essay sounds, life is not always perfect. I think that both of the essays are a little out there, but I think mine is more realistic. There are some men out there that are as romantic and are just as I described them. I think Brady was writing about the women back in her era. As I said before, times have changed from then to where women have become now.
June 1, 2007
Judy Brady
Question # 7
I want a Husband
Judy Brady made it clear that women do play a major role in the household, but to me, what she really wants is a slave with benefits. She really wants someone that she can push around and tell what to do and when to do it. In our society now, that would not have gone very far. Women are more versatile now. Women do more than just stay at home and cook for their families. Women are more independent upon themselves now. They have their own careers and their own lives outside of their homes. What women need are good husbands.
I want a husband that has a successful career. I want a husband that does bring in some profit, but I still want to contribute with my own career. I want a husband that understands what a woman wants. I want a husband that will be romantic every once in awhile without me telling him that is what I want. I want a husband to give me a gift not because it is a special occasion, but an “I appreciate Everything You Do” gift. I want a husband that can remember special events without being told: Wedding Anniversary, Birthday, Christmas, Valentines Day, and ect. I want a husband that understands that he can be wrong sometimes. I want him to say, “Oh honey, you are right.” I want a husband that is not afraid to ask for directions. He would be able to pull off the road at a gas station and admit he is lost. I want a husband that would give a day of Monday Night Football a rest just to be with me. My husband would be able to talk to me about anything, even if it was something that would make him cry. I want a husband that would pick out “Gone with the Wind,” even though it is not one of his favorites, he would pick it out for me.
I want a husband that would take the children for a day just so I could go have a relaxing day at the spa. He would take care of the kids and all of their appointments and clean the house. After I come back, he would have a meal ready for me light up with candles. I want a husband that cares about my sexual needs. He does not always push for sexual favors when I am not in the mood. He would also like to try new things. I want a husband that was the way I first met him. He was always romantic and trying to impress me every day. It would be as if we were just still starting to date.
I want a husband that would be the “perfect” husband!
As perfect as this essay sounds, life is not always perfect. I think that both of the essays are a little out there, but I think mine is more realistic. There are some men out there that are as romantic and are just as I described them. I think Brady was writing about the women back in her era. As I said before, times have changed from then to where women have become now.
Epstein
Suzannah Bryan: Week 3 blog
Richard Epstein addresses the shortage of donated organs in his Boston Globe article from 2003 "Thinking the Unthinkable: Organ Sales". The shortage of organ donors and the lengthening waiting lists of patients in need of organs has long been recognized as a serious problem. Jesse White, the former State Secretary of Illinois, has been campaigning in Illinois for over 15 years to increase the number of donors. Epstein believes that this reliance on only donations has led to innumerable unnecessary deaths. His solution is to compensate organ donors.
Epstein realizes that the concept of organ sales is distasteful to the general public so Epstein uses an argument/rebuttal format. He begins his essay by lauding those who do selflessly donate their loved one's organs or donate their own. His first major argument is an examination of the foundation of voluntary exchange or "contract of sale" (pg. 103). The second argument states that organ sales would benefit the greater good and therefore are moral (pg. 103). The third part of his argument is the actual argument/rebuttal which lasts through to the end of the essay.
Epstein addresses the argument "...the current ban prevents unfair exploitation of the most vulnerable...those who are desperate enough to sell their organs for cash" (pg. 104). Epstein refutes that argument saying that "organized markets would keep those people out of the system by concentrating on the segment of population that is in excellent health but which has some powerful financial reason to take the extreme step of selling organs" (pg. 104). He makes the point that those who would be most tempted to sell organs for cash often have poverty related health problems such as alcoholism, AIDS or simply poor nutrition.
Epstein addresses the argument that people will not be able to make rational decisions in times of stress about the risks by demonstrating that people already donate organs irrationally. Epstein points out that often donors are pressured into donating an organ to a loved one by other family members. Epstein says, "Confusion and pressure in combination rarely justify banning a practice with lifesaving potential" (pg. 104).
Opponents say that the extreme demand will force the price of organs sky high. Epstein counters saying that already organs are being sold in a manner of speaking as the cost of competing for donated organs can run upwards of about 100,000 dollars (pg 105). Epstein says that in a regulated market the prices will be reasonable and the cost spread throughout the health care system in the form of reduced waste and fewer patients on dialysis (pg. 105).
I find this form of argument very effective when advocating a controversial solution to a complex problem. After reading Epstein's thesis the reader automatically jumps to the vary same arguments that he addresses in the essay. Simply outlining the benefits of this solution would not be effective. Epstein rightly counters the common arguments to demonstrate more subtlety the logic of his unique position.
Richard Epstein addresses the shortage of donated organs in his Boston Globe article from 2003 "Thinking the Unthinkable: Organ Sales". The shortage of organ donors and the lengthening waiting lists of patients in need of organs has long been recognized as a serious problem. Jesse White, the former State Secretary of Illinois, has been campaigning in Illinois for over 15 years to increase the number of donors. Epstein believes that this reliance on only donations has led to innumerable unnecessary deaths. His solution is to compensate organ donors.
Epstein realizes that the concept of organ sales is distasteful to the general public so Epstein uses an argument/rebuttal format. He begins his essay by lauding those who do selflessly donate their loved one's organs or donate their own. His first major argument is an examination of the foundation of voluntary exchange or "contract of sale" (pg. 103). The second argument states that organ sales would benefit the greater good and therefore are moral (pg. 103). The third part of his argument is the actual argument/rebuttal which lasts through to the end of the essay.
Epstein addresses the argument "...the current ban prevents unfair exploitation of the most vulnerable...those who are desperate enough to sell their organs for cash" (pg. 104). Epstein refutes that argument saying that "organized markets would keep those people out of the system by concentrating on the segment of population that is in excellent health but which has some powerful financial reason to take the extreme step of selling organs" (pg. 104). He makes the point that those who would be most tempted to sell organs for cash often have poverty related health problems such as alcoholism, AIDS or simply poor nutrition.
Epstein addresses the argument that people will not be able to make rational decisions in times of stress about the risks by demonstrating that people already donate organs irrationally. Epstein points out that often donors are pressured into donating an organ to a loved one by other family members. Epstein says, "Confusion and pressure in combination rarely justify banning a practice with lifesaving potential" (pg. 104).
Opponents say that the extreme demand will force the price of organs sky high. Epstein counters saying that already organs are being sold in a manner of speaking as the cost of competing for donated organs can run upwards of about 100,000 dollars (pg 105). Epstein says that in a regulated market the prices will be reasonable and the cost spread throughout the health care system in the form of reduced waste and fewer patients on dialysis (pg. 105).
I find this form of argument very effective when advocating a controversial solution to a complex problem. After reading Epstein's thesis the reader automatically jumps to the vary same arguments that he addresses in the essay. Simply outlining the benefits of this solution would not be effective. Epstein rightly counters the common arguments to demonstrate more subtlety the logic of his unique position.
I want a wife like that!!!!!! Just kidding.
Week 3 Blog
In response to question 6 regarding Judy Brady’s “I Want a Wife” essay,
I feel that the picture that Judy Brady paints as a wife’s role is greatly exaggerated for the present day. If you consider the fact that our country has become one where divorce is just as common as marriage and blended families and single mothers are the norm, the once “ideal” identity of spousal role has been long lost to the past. For example, my current family (I say current because I am divorced and remarried) consists of myself, my wife, two children from a previous relationship and our son. An arrangement such as this has become all too common a sight in our country and has quite different dynamics than your traditional nuclear family. As a result, traditional role of husband and wife have been blended. Whereas in the recent past, discipline was traditionally a role of the husband with the children, my wife is the key disciplinarian in the house. Why you might ask? It is quite simple, two of the children in our family spent the first four and five years of their lives with my wife as their primary disciplinarian and as a result, she has better a better response from them than I do in discipline. On the other hand, I generally put the kids to bed, get them up and ready for school in the mornings and handle a great majority of the cooking.
Another contributing factor to the blending of husband and wife role is the necessity for dual incomes to sustain a family. With a federal minimum wage for nonexempt employees of $5.15 an hour, it would be impossible to raise a child on one income. Gasoline in Rapid City costs $3.29 a gallon and the average car has a 12 gallon tank, if you do the math that equates out to almost $40 a tank or 7 hours and 45 minutes of work. So looking at numbers like this and assuming that you use a tank of gas a week just to go to work, get groceries, take the kids to school and what not, you have invested an entire day a week of work just to put gas in the car. Here is another shocking cost, the cost of housing. A two bedroom apartment will run between $650 and $1000 a month not including utilities. Plan on owning your home? $200,000 or better will get you a 3 bedroom with unfinished basement in an okay neighborhood, but this won’t guarantee that your neighbors won’t have a meth lab in their garage. I won’t even get in to the cost of food and clothing and medical expenses.
I don’t necessarily think that this essay is meaningless but I do think that it reflects a different time in our society that has been lost to time and inflation. The world is a considerably different place than it was in 1971. Roles of the husband and wife have been blended and the fiber of our country is woven from a different thread and it all costs a lot more than it once did.
In response to question 6 regarding Judy Brady’s “I Want a Wife” essay,
I feel that the picture that Judy Brady paints as a wife’s role is greatly exaggerated for the present day. If you consider the fact that our country has become one where divorce is just as common as marriage and blended families and single mothers are the norm, the once “ideal” identity of spousal role has been long lost to the past. For example, my current family (I say current because I am divorced and remarried) consists of myself, my wife, two children from a previous relationship and our son. An arrangement such as this has become all too common a sight in our country and has quite different dynamics than your traditional nuclear family. As a result, traditional role of husband and wife have been blended. Whereas in the recent past, discipline was traditionally a role of the husband with the children, my wife is the key disciplinarian in the house. Why you might ask? It is quite simple, two of the children in our family spent the first four and five years of their lives with my wife as their primary disciplinarian and as a result, she has better a better response from them than I do in discipline. On the other hand, I generally put the kids to bed, get them up and ready for school in the mornings and handle a great majority of the cooking.
Another contributing factor to the blending of husband and wife role is the necessity for dual incomes to sustain a family. With a federal minimum wage for nonexempt employees of $5.15 an hour, it would be impossible to raise a child on one income. Gasoline in Rapid City costs $3.29 a gallon and the average car has a 12 gallon tank, if you do the math that equates out to almost $40 a tank or 7 hours and 45 minutes of work. So looking at numbers like this and assuming that you use a tank of gas a week just to go to work, get groceries, take the kids to school and what not, you have invested an entire day a week of work just to put gas in the car. Here is another shocking cost, the cost of housing. A two bedroom apartment will run between $650 and $1000 a month not including utilities. Plan on owning your home? $200,000 or better will get you a 3 bedroom with unfinished basement in an okay neighborhood, but this won’t guarantee that your neighbors won’t have a meth lab in their garage. I won’t even get in to the cost of food and clothing and medical expenses.
I don’t necessarily think that this essay is meaningless but I do think that it reflects a different time in our society that has been lost to time and inflation. The world is a considerably different place than it was in 1971. Roles of the husband and wife have been blended and the fiber of our country is woven from a different thread and it all costs a lot more than it once did.
Judy Brady's, "I Want a Wife."
Katie Rupp
6/1/07
#6
After reading Judy Brady's, "I want a Wife" i had mixed emotions. While reading through the paragraphs I felt Brady was exaggerating. She made it seem like women do everything. A wife cooks, cleans, is a host to guests, and makes sure the children are taken care of. I was thinking that this was obviously written a long time ago. I thought that until a couple of nights ago when I was cooking and doing the dishes. I was folding the laundry that I washed. I was cleaning the bathroom and kitchen floor. I do everything around the house, my husbands only 'duty' is to take the garbage out.
I realized that Brady was fairly accurate with her portrayal of a wife. My husband will cook or do laundry only once in a great while. That is usually only when I refuse to do it. Most of the time it is just easier and faster if I do it. Unfortunately I think that roles for a wife and for a husband are still the same as in the 70's.
6/1/07
#6
After reading Judy Brady's, "I want a Wife" i had mixed emotions. While reading through the paragraphs I felt Brady was exaggerating. She made it seem like women do everything. A wife cooks, cleans, is a host to guests, and makes sure the children are taken care of. I was thinking that this was obviously written a long time ago. I thought that until a couple of nights ago when I was cooking and doing the dishes. I was folding the laundry that I washed. I was cleaning the bathroom and kitchen floor. I do everything around the house, my husbands only 'duty' is to take the garbage out.
I realized that Brady was fairly accurate with her portrayal of a wife. My husband will cook or do laundry only once in a great while. That is usually only when I refuse to do it. Most of the time it is just easier and faster if I do it. Unfortunately I think that roles for a wife and for a husband are still the same as in the 70's.
A look at Judy Brady's essay " I Want a Wife"
After reading Judy Brady’s essay, “I want a wife”, from Ms. Magazine in 1971, I don’t think that you can truly compare the wife from 1971 to the wife of today.
While yes, in 1971 the role of the wife was probably closer to what Brady portrays then today, I believe that Brady embellished as to how the wife is the SOLE provider of care to the children and is solely responsible for all upkeep of the house. Judy Brady’s writing gives me the sense that she was a very bitter ex-wife and did not have a very happy marriage. As a Husband, Father, and former single parent (yes, I am the custodial parent of my children from my first marriage.) I believe that I can paint a more accurate picture of both roles today.
I am currently 33 years old and am finishing my college degree; second to my wife who has already completed hers, but that does not take away from any of my family duties. I am just as active in all 4 of my children’s lives as my wife is. I give baths, do laundry for them, go to parent-teacher conferences, take time off from work for Doctor Appointments, and get up with little ones in the middle of the night. I definitely don’t feel like I am the minority for husbands either. I know of several other husbands/fathers who are just as involved. In fact a close friend of mine is a stay at home dad, something of which is becoming a lot more common. I also do almost all of the cooking for our family along with doing a fair share of the grocery shopping and meal planning.. Along with helping to keep the house clean, I take care of all the yard work and make sure vehicle maintenance is kept up. If something goes wrong with a major appliance, I fix it or make the arrangements for it to be fixed.
The brief picture I just gave you I am sure is not the same in every household today, but I do believe that it is more common than not. Husbands of today are a lot more versatile then of 1971. Part of this I’m sure is do in part to the large women’s movements that were taking place at that time. Today more and more husbands are becoming stay at home dads in part due to wives having a stronger presence in the workforce. The number of men who are raising children on their own is also growing; mother’s always getting custody after a divorce is not the standard today.
When reading Judy Brady’s essay, I also believe that it is important to not only keep that era in mind, but to also keep demographics in mind. What is acceptable or the norm in the Midwest or the south is not always the same for the east or west coast. Different parts of our country have different values and beliefs and we past those values and beliefs down to our children. Without trying to stereotype, noticing that Brady was born in San Francisco, I would be curious to know if that is where she grew up as well. I would venture to say that women activists are stronger on the Coast then they are in the Midwest. If that statement sounds sexist, I apologize. The point I’m getting at is that the Midwest has traditionally always been a few steps behind the Coast in everything from technology and music to fashion and political movements.
I don’t think that Brady’s essay is at all meaningless, if anything I think it serves as a reminder to how much the role of husband/wife has evolved over the past thirty years.
Matthew Smith
Blog Assignment 3
While yes, in 1971 the role of the wife was probably closer to what Brady portrays then today, I believe that Brady embellished as to how the wife is the SOLE provider of care to the children and is solely responsible for all upkeep of the house. Judy Brady’s writing gives me the sense that she was a very bitter ex-wife and did not have a very happy marriage. As a Husband, Father, and former single parent (yes, I am the custodial parent of my children from my first marriage.) I believe that I can paint a more accurate picture of both roles today.
I am currently 33 years old and am finishing my college degree; second to my wife who has already completed hers, but that does not take away from any of my family duties. I am just as active in all 4 of my children’s lives as my wife is. I give baths, do laundry for them, go to parent-teacher conferences, take time off from work for Doctor Appointments, and get up with little ones in the middle of the night. I definitely don’t feel like I am the minority for husbands either. I know of several other husbands/fathers who are just as involved. In fact a close friend of mine is a stay at home dad, something of which is becoming a lot more common. I also do almost all of the cooking for our family along with doing a fair share of the grocery shopping and meal planning.. Along with helping to keep the house clean, I take care of all the yard work and make sure vehicle maintenance is kept up. If something goes wrong with a major appliance, I fix it or make the arrangements for it to be fixed.
The brief picture I just gave you I am sure is not the same in every household today, but I do believe that it is more common than not. Husbands of today are a lot more versatile then of 1971. Part of this I’m sure is do in part to the large women’s movements that were taking place at that time. Today more and more husbands are becoming stay at home dads in part due to wives having a stronger presence in the workforce. The number of men who are raising children on their own is also growing; mother’s always getting custody after a divorce is not the standard today.
When reading Judy Brady’s essay, I also believe that it is important to not only keep that era in mind, but to also keep demographics in mind. What is acceptable or the norm in the Midwest or the south is not always the same for the east or west coast. Different parts of our country have different values and beliefs and we past those values and beliefs down to our children. Without trying to stereotype, noticing that Brady was born in San Francisco, I would be curious to know if that is where she grew up as well. I would venture to say that women activists are stronger on the Coast then they are in the Midwest. If that statement sounds sexist, I apologize. The point I’m getting at is that the Midwest has traditionally always been a few steps behind the Coast in everything from technology and music to fashion and political movements.
I don’t think that Brady’s essay is at all meaningless, if anything I think it serves as a reminder to how much the role of husband/wife has evolved over the past thirty years.
Matthew Smith
Blog Assignment 3
I Want a Wife
Brady's essay, I Want a Wife, is more of a rant than an essay. In the beginning of the essay, everything seems feasible for a wife. Holding a part-time job and cleaning and cooking the house and taking care of the kids sounds like a wife's duties in the early 70's. Near the end of the essay, however, she starts going on about sexual needs and infidelity. A wife and a mother are two jobs that many women have had for centuries. The introduction of a part-time job has seemed to turn into too much for a wife and mother to handle. I notice the lazy husband role in my father and father-in-law. Brady's essay is exaggerated, but it conveys the feelings and attitudes of the overworked mother very accurately.
My father has recently started part-time work. On his days off, he reads, shoots trap, and goes on the occasional hunting trip. Most of the time I see him sitting down reading and watching TV. He doesn't do the laundry, feed the dogs, cook, or clean the house. He will occasionally load the dishwasher. He does do outside work, but very little. My mother works full-time and feeds and walks the three dogs. She cleans the house, does the dishes, and cooks the meals. She always complains about my father not doing housework, but she does it anyway.
My mother and father-in-law have recently retired. So neither of them work anymore. When they worked on a farm, I noticed the habits they had. Bill sits at the dinnertable and watches TV and surfs the net. He gets up from his chair to use the restroom or to move into the lazyboy. He does not clean, cook, or do chores. Miki does everything. She cooks his meals and cleans the table and dishes and cleans the house.
My father, Leo, is a little less lazy than my father-in-law, Bill. There roles as the breadwinners early in life has gone on for too long. They both need to appreciate their wives more and help with the housework. However, it is not entirely their fault. Miki and Jackie have waited on them hand and foot for the last 30 years. They are used to it and they believe it is their role as a good wife.
My wife and I are both in college at the time. She is getting her Ed.D and I am going for my Bachelors. She will obviously be the breadwinner and that is fine with me. I am a chef, and therefore do the cooking and cleaning in the kitchen. She will heat up a meal or put some dishes in the dishwasher, but I'd say I am more of the housewife. Our roles as husband-wife are much more mutually respectful than those in the past.
In the 70's, women had gained equal rights. What that seemed to mean is that it's okay for them to get a job. They still did not have the same rights as men. Today, we're finally reaching the plateau where women and men are equal in the workforce and at home. Women can pursue well paying jobs and men can be stay at home dads.
Brady's essay represents the role of women as mothers, wives, and workers converging at the same time. Brady may have overexaggerated her roles, but not by much. And the last part of the essay, where her husband can rightfully cheat on her, seems to represent more problems than one in their marriage. Brady had had enough, and she used this essay to truly tell what she put up with on a daily basis.
My father has recently started part-time work. On his days off, he reads, shoots trap, and goes on the occasional hunting trip. Most of the time I see him sitting down reading and watching TV. He doesn't do the laundry, feed the dogs, cook, or clean the house. He will occasionally load the dishwasher. He does do outside work, but very little. My mother works full-time and feeds and walks the three dogs. She cleans the house, does the dishes, and cooks the meals. She always complains about my father not doing housework, but she does it anyway.
My mother and father-in-law have recently retired. So neither of them work anymore. When they worked on a farm, I noticed the habits they had. Bill sits at the dinnertable and watches TV and surfs the net. He gets up from his chair to use the restroom or to move into the lazyboy. He does not clean, cook, or do chores. Miki does everything. She cooks his meals and cleans the table and dishes and cleans the house.
My father, Leo, is a little less lazy than my father-in-law, Bill. There roles as the breadwinners early in life has gone on for too long. They both need to appreciate their wives more and help with the housework. However, it is not entirely their fault. Miki and Jackie have waited on them hand and foot for the last 30 years. They are used to it and they believe it is their role as a good wife.
My wife and I are both in college at the time. She is getting her Ed.D and I am going for my Bachelors. She will obviously be the breadwinner and that is fine with me. I am a chef, and therefore do the cooking and cleaning in the kitchen. She will heat up a meal or put some dishes in the dishwasher, but I'd say I am more of the housewife. Our roles as husband-wife are much more mutually respectful than those in the past.
In the 70's, women had gained equal rights. What that seemed to mean is that it's okay for them to get a job. They still did not have the same rights as men. Today, we're finally reaching the plateau where women and men are equal in the workforce and at home. Women can pursue well paying jobs and men can be stay at home dads.
Brady's essay represents the role of women as mothers, wives, and workers converging at the same time. Brady may have overexaggerated her roles, but not by much. And the last part of the essay, where her husband can rightfully cheat on her, seems to represent more problems than one in their marriage. Brady had had enough, and she used this essay to truly tell what she put up with on a daily basis.
Takaki Essay Questions Concerning Asian American Success
Kelsey Webb
May 31, 2007
Ronald Takaki discusses Asian American success in “The Harmful Myth of Asian Superiority,” first appearing in the New York Times on June 16, 1990 and has since then been reprinted several times. Takaki’s thesis stems from his title and holds a bit of irony, exactly how successful is the Asian American population? Takaki opens his article by distinctly stating that “Asian Americans have increasingly come to be viewed as a 'model minority.'" However, he refutes his statement by questioning how successful the minority actually is and to whom it should serve as a model for. Takaki’s thesis is that Asian Americans may be considered successful in certain statistical analysis, but in general, they are still a minority and do not compare to Caucasian statistics.
Takaki presents evidence to defend his position throughout the entire essay. Although the media has considered Asian Americans as successful when it comes to university admissions and becoming effective shopkeepers, this is not always the case. When looking at earning figures for Asian Americans, this particular minority has been congratulated for achieving “high” earnings relative to Caucasians. However, this fact is misleading because most Asian Americans live in states with “higher incomes and higher costs of living than the national average,” states like California, New York, and Hawaii. Another misleading fact involves family income. Asian Americans have been noted for having higher family incomes than Caucasians but this is due to the fact that most Asian Americans have a larger family which can then in turn produce a higher income, relative to the amount of members bringing in an income.
Takaki refers to other minority struggles as well, alluding to the large percentage of Vietnamese Americans that live in motels or join gangs. He discusses that although a painter in Hong Kong may be highly qualified; in America, he will become a “dishwasher, janitor, or cook.” When an Asian American does land a successful position, most often he/she will reach the “glass ceiling” barrier, “the barrier through which high management positions can be seen but not reached.”
Perhaps if I believed that “Asian Americans are economically more successful in America today, relative to white Americans, than African Americans are,” Takaki would most likely agree but with disclaim. Takaki refers to the African American minority when discussing the model portion of his thesis. If politicians and pundits believe that the Asian American group should serve as a role model for others, specifically the African American minority, this belief creates resentment between the two groups. “The victims are blamed for their plight, rather than racism and an economy that has made many young African American workers superfluous.”
I believe that Takaki’s argument is convincing because he proposes evidence to defend it and proves the alternative wrong. If I read that Asian Americans tend to have higher family incomes than Caucasians, I would disagree with Takaki. However, since he refutes this position by stating that most Asian Americans also tend to have more workers per family and therefore the higher family income statistic takes on an entirely different meaning. Takaki does an excellent job in proving the misleading evidence wrong, and in doing so, convinces me of his thesis; the perception that Asian Americans are a successfully model for other minorities to follow isn’t entirely true.
May 31, 2007
Ronald Takaki discusses Asian American success in “The Harmful Myth of Asian Superiority,” first appearing in the New York Times on June 16, 1990 and has since then been reprinted several times. Takaki’s thesis stems from his title and holds a bit of irony, exactly how successful is the Asian American population? Takaki opens his article by distinctly stating that “Asian Americans have increasingly come to be viewed as a 'model minority.'" However, he refutes his statement by questioning how successful the minority actually is and to whom it should serve as a model for. Takaki’s thesis is that Asian Americans may be considered successful in certain statistical analysis, but in general, they are still a minority and do not compare to Caucasian statistics.
Takaki presents evidence to defend his position throughout the entire essay. Although the media has considered Asian Americans as successful when it comes to university admissions and becoming effective shopkeepers, this is not always the case. When looking at earning figures for Asian Americans, this particular minority has been congratulated for achieving “high” earnings relative to Caucasians. However, this fact is misleading because most Asian Americans live in states with “higher incomes and higher costs of living than the national average,” states like California, New York, and Hawaii. Another misleading fact involves family income. Asian Americans have been noted for having higher family incomes than Caucasians but this is due to the fact that most Asian Americans have a larger family which can then in turn produce a higher income, relative to the amount of members bringing in an income.
Takaki refers to other minority struggles as well, alluding to the large percentage of Vietnamese Americans that live in motels or join gangs. He discusses that although a painter in Hong Kong may be highly qualified; in America, he will become a “dishwasher, janitor, or cook.” When an Asian American does land a successful position, most often he/she will reach the “glass ceiling” barrier, “the barrier through which high management positions can be seen but not reached.”
Perhaps if I believed that “Asian Americans are economically more successful in America today, relative to white Americans, than African Americans are,” Takaki would most likely agree but with disclaim. Takaki refers to the African American minority when discussing the model portion of his thesis. If politicians and pundits believe that the Asian American group should serve as a role model for others, specifically the African American minority, this belief creates resentment between the two groups. “The victims are blamed for their plight, rather than racism and an economy that has made many young African American workers superfluous.”
I believe that Takaki’s argument is convincing because he proposes evidence to defend it and proves the alternative wrong. If I read that Asian Americans tend to have higher family incomes than Caucasians, I would disagree with Takaki. However, since he refutes this position by stating that most Asian Americans also tend to have more workers per family and therefore the higher family income statistic takes on an entirely different meaning. Takaki does an excellent job in proving the misleading evidence wrong, and in doing so, convinces me of his thesis; the perception that Asian Americans are a successfully model for other minorities to follow isn’t entirely true.
Richard Epstein
Nicole Hunter
Week 3 Blog
Week 3 Blog
Richard Epstein's essay Thinking the Unthinkable: Organ Sales allows readers to indulge into a new way of thinking. I personally have never given thought to the freewill sale of organs but Epstein provokes the reader into seeing both sides of the issue and ultimately, tries to persuade them into his way of thinking, which is for organ sales.
There are times when the author contradicts himself such as when he states "Cash (or any other form of compensation, such as insurance) might be the engine to move us to the preferred outcome of more lives saved." and then later states "But the poor and disadvantaged will not be sought after, let alone exploited, because they do not make ideal candidates for organ transfers. Quite the opposite." These two statements combined left me pondering: The people who do have money are less likely to be hungry to sell organs than those who don't, and those who don't have money and need it, are not wanted. Later Epstein clarifies his statements by adding "Organized markets would keep these people out of the system by concentrating on that smaller sliver of the population in excellent health but which has some powerful financial reason to take the quite extreme step of selling organs...".
I agreed with the statements Epstein made about organ donor cards. If they are more often then not ignored or vetoed by family members then what is the point of having them? There should be some legality in the cards because it is obvious that the owner wanted to donate organs. I belive it is of the greater good to the human race for everyone to participate in cadaveric organ donations and maybe thats where we should start looking before we open the sale of organs worlwide.
Epstein also made a good point when he questioned where the money would come from. Obviously the rich are the ones who could afford them but I doubt the government or insurance companies would be thrilled to become financial backers for organ sales. There is obviously a shortfall when it comes to organ donations but I belive other avenues need to be explored before resorting to bribery to sell one's organs.
Epstein wrote a powerful essay that left me wrestling many new ideas in my mind and his method of persuasion shows that he understands both sides and by doing this he allows the reader to make up their own mind about the issue. I am not sure if the essay was persuasive to me but it did leave me with many questions that I have never had before.
Organ Sales Summary
Richard Epstein's Thinking the Unthinkable: Organ Sales is a strong essay that points out both viewpoints of the pros and cons of organ sales. As an outstanding writer, Epstein allows the reader to see both sides of an important issue, while at the same time establishing a strong thesis that is supported throughout his entire essay.
Epstein does a fantastic job of getting his point across right away. He starts his essay out by pointing out important facts such as, "Put simply, a world in which 100 individuals each have one kidney is a world with higher expected benefits than a world in which 50 people each have two kidneys and the other 50, with failing kidneys, face dialysis or death". He also establishes his thesis right from the begininng stating that, "Although the culture holds that buying and selling of organs is highly distasteful, a good argument for such sales is beginning to be made, albeit tentatively, in this country". From there Epstein supports his thesis with several strong supportive points.
Epstein's first point is this: organ donations sales should be looked at in the same way of a donation to a stranger as the same as a donation to a loved one or family member. By implementing a sale of organs for say cash, people will more likely be inclined to donate their organs to a stranger if they are going to be making a profit off of it, rather than just simply dontating their organs for the sake of a good cause. Those in opposition to this point believe that organ sales should be banned because those donating are not completely aware of the risks being taken when they take on such a position as a donation.
Opposers also believe and feel that organ sales single out those who are in desperate need of cash and would therefore do anything to get it, even if it means selling their organs. However, Epstein states that those who are poor and disadvantaged woudl not be the ones that would be looked upon for donations because they are not the type of candidates that would qualify for donations.
One last strong point that opposers make is that by implementing the sale of organs, the number of volunteers would decrease and therefore would not help in decreasing the shortage of organ donations that are already at hand. In contradiction to opposers' argument, Epstein points out that even if there was a change and sales were legalized, it would be hard to establish whether or not there would be a change in the number of donations. He also states that organ sales are already taking place, but its sales are being hidden and secretly concealed from the public eye.
Organ donation sales should be legalized, according to Epstein because of the many benefits that it would allow for those in need of organizations, while at the same time supporting the belief that if organ sales were legalized many more people would be more likely to do it especially for a profit. It's important to recognize the value of life and especially the value of giving, whether it be for a profit or not. In the end, it's one more life that's saved that's important.
I really like the way that Epstein went about his argument. I feel that it strongly points out his knowledge of thhe situation and the subject and shows that he knows what he's talking about. After reading his essay I would definitely agree with legalizing the sale of organs because of the benefits that it would pose for those in need and those who donate. By implementing the sale of organs I am strongly convinced that it would better ensure a healthier and longer life for someone in need, regardless of the risks or concerns that would be at hand.
Epstein does a fantastic job of getting his point across right away. He starts his essay out by pointing out important facts such as, "Put simply, a world in which 100 individuals each have one kidney is a world with higher expected benefits than a world in which 50 people each have two kidneys and the other 50, with failing kidneys, face dialysis or death". He also establishes his thesis right from the begininng stating that, "Although the culture holds that buying and selling of organs is highly distasteful, a good argument for such sales is beginning to be made, albeit tentatively, in this country". From there Epstein supports his thesis with several strong supportive points.
Epstein's first point is this: organ donations sales should be looked at in the same way of a donation to a stranger as the same as a donation to a loved one or family member. By implementing a sale of organs for say cash, people will more likely be inclined to donate their organs to a stranger if they are going to be making a profit off of it, rather than just simply dontating their organs for the sake of a good cause. Those in opposition to this point believe that organ sales should be banned because those donating are not completely aware of the risks being taken when they take on such a position as a donation.
Opposers also believe and feel that organ sales single out those who are in desperate need of cash and would therefore do anything to get it, even if it means selling their organs. However, Epstein states that those who are poor and disadvantaged woudl not be the ones that would be looked upon for donations because they are not the type of candidates that would qualify for donations.
One last strong point that opposers make is that by implementing the sale of organs, the number of volunteers would decrease and therefore would not help in decreasing the shortage of organ donations that are already at hand. In contradiction to opposers' argument, Epstein points out that even if there was a change and sales were legalized, it would be hard to establish whether or not there would be a change in the number of donations. He also states that organ sales are already taking place, but its sales are being hidden and secretly concealed from the public eye.
Organ donation sales should be legalized, according to Epstein because of the many benefits that it would allow for those in need of organizations, while at the same time supporting the belief that if organ sales were legalized many more people would be more likely to do it especially for a profit. It's important to recognize the value of life and especially the value of giving, whether it be for a profit or not. In the end, it's one more life that's saved that's important.
I really like the way that Epstein went about his argument. I feel that it strongly points out his knowledge of thhe situation and the subject and shows that he knows what he's talking about. After reading his essay I would definitely agree with legalizing the sale of organs because of the benefits that it would pose for those in need and those who donate. By implementing the sale of organs I am strongly convinced that it would better ensure a healthier and longer life for someone in need, regardless of the risks or concerns that would be at hand.
Response to "The Harmful Myth of Asian Superiority"
Sara Tillman
June 1, 2007
In Ronald Takaki's argument "The Harmful Myth of Asian Superiority" he writes about the perception of Asian Americans. He makes his argument convinicing by adding persuasive facts about the Asian American population here in the United States; this tactic is quite convincing. However, questions are still left answered after reading this piece. For example, why is the perception of Asian Americans as the "model minority", as Takaki states. Is the media to blame for this misconception, or are American simply not seeing (or looking for) the Asian Americans who are struggling finacially in the United States. Finally, Takaki uses the African American population and briefly compares them to the Asian American people. Takaki raises many interesting thoughts in this piece, but his thesis is that the perception of Asian American as the "model minority" is incorrect. I agree with Takaki's argument that Asian Americans may not be the "model minority", but I disagree with how Takaki twists his facts to make his points.
The facts that Takaki uses in the work is very convincing and he makes it perfectly clear that there are several Asian Americans living in urban America that are struggling. Takaki gives statistics referring to New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, but what about America as a whole. These three cities make a large portion of the United States population, but these are not the only cities that Asian American immigrate to.
Takaki also tells how African Americans may be resenting Asian Americans for there alleged success integrating into America. This is another attempt of Takaki to make Asian Americans to look like the victims of America. I don't think that this is necessarily a fair statement. Takaki is working so hard in this essay to make Asians look innocent and troubled, but at the same time he portrays another minority group, the African Americas, as bullies and unneeded members of society. He does this by saying, "the victims (Asians) are blamed for their plight, rather than racism and an economy that has made many young African Americans workers superfluous". Takaki put down one minority while standing up for another.
Why is it that Asian Americans are portrayed as the "model minority"? This is a question that Takaki fails to address in his essay. This isn't something that just happens, something helped Americans to associate Asians as this way. The media is very convincing and may be the culprit in this case. Many times Asians are given roles in the media as the smart people, maybe even the "nerds". A nerd is not a desirable role for many, but their intelligence is. These roles given to Asians may be the reason why America associates success with Asian minorities. Whether it is the media or not that is influencing Americans to think this way, Takaki could have pointed this out in his essay to help clear up why there is this misconception about Asian Americans.
Takaki seems to really care about what he is writing about, but he left some questions unanswered. For example, how did Asian ever get this misconception about them. Also, Takaki puts down the African American minority while arguing for Asian Americans. He makes a point, but the argument would most likely be successful with out it. He also only used certain demographic area for several of his statistics. In the end Takaki still gets his message out that Asian American are not the "model minority", but he leaves his reader with unanswered questions and mixed emotions.
June 1, 2007
In Ronald Takaki's argument "The Harmful Myth of Asian Superiority" he writes about the perception of Asian Americans. He makes his argument convinicing by adding persuasive facts about the Asian American population here in the United States; this tactic is quite convincing. However, questions are still left answered after reading this piece. For example, why is the perception of Asian Americans as the "model minority", as Takaki states. Is the media to blame for this misconception, or are American simply not seeing (or looking for) the Asian Americans who are struggling finacially in the United States. Finally, Takaki uses the African American population and briefly compares them to the Asian American people. Takaki raises many interesting thoughts in this piece, but his thesis is that the perception of Asian American as the "model minority" is incorrect. I agree with Takaki's argument that Asian Americans may not be the "model minority", but I disagree with how Takaki twists his facts to make his points.
The facts that Takaki uses in the work is very convincing and he makes it perfectly clear that there are several Asian Americans living in urban America that are struggling. Takaki gives statistics referring to New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, but what about America as a whole. These three cities make a large portion of the United States population, but these are not the only cities that Asian American immigrate to.
Takaki also tells how African Americans may be resenting Asian Americans for there alleged success integrating into America. This is another attempt of Takaki to make Asian Americans to look like the victims of America. I don't think that this is necessarily a fair statement. Takaki is working so hard in this essay to make Asians look innocent and troubled, but at the same time he portrays another minority group, the African Americas, as bullies and unneeded members of society. He does this by saying, "the victims (Asians) are blamed for their plight, rather than racism and an economy that has made many young African Americans workers superfluous". Takaki put down one minority while standing up for another.
Why is it that Asian Americans are portrayed as the "model minority"? This is a question that Takaki fails to address in his essay. This isn't something that just happens, something helped Americans to associate Asians as this way. The media is very convincing and may be the culprit in this case. Many times Asians are given roles in the media as the smart people, maybe even the "nerds". A nerd is not a desirable role for many, but their intelligence is. These roles given to Asians may be the reason why America associates success with Asian minorities. Whether it is the media or not that is influencing Americans to think this way, Takaki could have pointed this out in his essay to help clear up why there is this misconception about Asian Americans.
Takaki seems to really care about what he is writing about, but he left some questions unanswered. For example, how did Asian ever get this misconception about them. Also, Takaki puts down the African American minority while arguing for Asian Americans. He makes a point, but the argument would most likely be successful with out it. He also only used certain demographic area for several of his statistics. In the end Takaki still gets his message out that Asian American are not the "model minority", but he leaves his reader with unanswered questions and mixed emotions.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Response to "I Want a Wife"
In Judy Brady's "I Want a Wife", she clearly states her belief that the wife is the one in the home who keeps the household running. Not only is she responsible for the children, she is also responsible for her husband, almost as if he is another child in the home. I would have to agree with Brady and that her essay holds more truth to it than many people realize. Although the essay was written in 1971, the role of the wife has accumulated even more jobs in the twenty-first century. Many wives are now holding down full-time jobs or multiple part-time jobs. With the evolution of the Internet and cable television, wives also have to find time to surf the Internet for whatever their husband is looking for. Wives also have to make time to accompany their husband on the couch, at his request, to watch his favorite television show, and stay awake (even if he doesn't).
As a single mom who is a full-time student and holds two part-time jobs, I can relate to a having a husband who does nothing. I am the sole person responsible for everything in my home. I believe Brady's essay teaches women to be strong and independent, but it also teaches them to be submissive to their husband. It also teaches women that if they don't do things correctly for their husband they can easily be replaced. It's almost as if the role of the women has never changed from the early 1900's. I may change my mind and decide I want a wife as well instead of a husband!
As a single mom who is a full-time student and holds two part-time jobs, I can relate to a having a husband who does nothing. I am the sole person responsible for everything in my home. I believe Brady's essay teaches women to be strong and independent, but it also teaches them to be submissive to their husband. It also teaches women that if they don't do things correctly for their husband they can easily be replaced. It's almost as if the role of the women has never changed from the early 1900's. I may change my mind and decide I want a wife as well instead of a husband!
Response to Epstein's Essay of Organ Donations
Melanie E. Woldt
May 31, 2007
Blog for week three
Response to Epstein’s Essay of Organ Sales
Richard A. Epstein’s essay “Thinking the Unthinkable: Organ Sales” is briefly about whether donating organs voluntarily or donating organs for a cash is a better way to come by the necessary organs. Epstein supports the organ sales. He believes this will help alleviate the tremendous strain on the waiting list for organs.
Epstein first states that a live donation requires tremendous sacrifice, such as the loss of a kidney, or the pain of surgery. He then rebuts this by saying that although volunteering one’s organs is honorable, selling one’s organs is a better method of treating a patient. His reason for this is that as Americans are more apt to do something for monetary reimbursements, the patient is more likely to receive an organ in a timely manner, and therefore more likely to recover quicker than average.
Epstein’s next opposition statement mentions that a cadaveric donation while helpful, more often than not goes to the next of kin of the grieving family over a more needed patient elsewhere. He rebuts the statement by saying that by selling the organs, the next of kin will be more willing to give the more needed patient the necessary organs sooner.
Epstein makes the point that the waiting list went from 13,000 in 1988 to nearly 40,000 in need of an organ today, the need for monetary rewards for organs has increased dramatically. He follows that up by suggesting the legalization of the sale of organs as an alternative to the ever growing waiting list for organs.
Epstein states the fact that many potential sellers would decline to offer an organ for sale, even if it were legal. He rebuts this by saying that universal participation is not necessary, but that having the monetary reward will increase the chances of organ donations.
Epstein’s essay with this method of argument was not effective. I am not persuaded towards his way of thinking. I think that because he used the back and forth method of arguing, has made me think that he almost does not know what he wants.
Epstein uses the method of argument that states the opposition, and then rebuts it. This is not a very affective method of persuasion. As I read through Epstein’s article, I found it confusing as to which side he was opting for. His essay jumped from one side of the opposition to the other side of the argument, which made it unclear for me to follow his proposition. In order to capture and persuade the most amounts of readers, he should consider changing his method of argument. It is unclear as to what side he is for or against. I read a few of the other blogs in order for me to better understand his take on the whole ordeal. He needs to be a bit more clear if he is wanting to persuade me to his way of thinking.
May 31, 2007
Blog for week three
Response to Epstein’s Essay of Organ Sales
Richard A. Epstein’s essay “Thinking the Unthinkable: Organ Sales” is briefly about whether donating organs voluntarily or donating organs for a cash is a better way to come by the necessary organs. Epstein supports the organ sales. He believes this will help alleviate the tremendous strain on the waiting list for organs.
Epstein first states that a live donation requires tremendous sacrifice, such as the loss of a kidney, or the pain of surgery. He then rebuts this by saying that although volunteering one’s organs is honorable, selling one’s organs is a better method of treating a patient. His reason for this is that as Americans are more apt to do something for monetary reimbursements, the patient is more likely to receive an organ in a timely manner, and therefore more likely to recover quicker than average.
Epstein’s next opposition statement mentions that a cadaveric donation while helpful, more often than not goes to the next of kin of the grieving family over a more needed patient elsewhere. He rebuts the statement by saying that by selling the organs, the next of kin will be more willing to give the more needed patient the necessary organs sooner.
Epstein makes the point that the waiting list went from 13,000 in 1988 to nearly 40,000 in need of an organ today, the need for monetary rewards for organs has increased dramatically. He follows that up by suggesting the legalization of the sale of organs as an alternative to the ever growing waiting list for organs.
Epstein states the fact that many potential sellers would decline to offer an organ for sale, even if it were legal. He rebuts this by saying that universal participation is not necessary, but that having the monetary reward will increase the chances of organ donations.
Epstein’s essay with this method of argument was not effective. I am not persuaded towards his way of thinking. I think that because he used the back and forth method of arguing, has made me think that he almost does not know what he wants.
Epstein uses the method of argument that states the opposition, and then rebuts it. This is not a very affective method of persuasion. As I read through Epstein’s article, I found it confusing as to which side he was opting for. His essay jumped from one side of the opposition to the other side of the argument, which made it unclear for me to follow his proposition. In order to capture and persuade the most amounts of readers, he should consider changing his method of argument. It is unclear as to what side he is for or against. I read a few of the other blogs in order for me to better understand his take on the whole ordeal. He needs to be a bit more clear if he is wanting to persuade me to his way of thinking.
Takaki: The Harmful Myth of Asian Superiority
Asian Americans have been given the label of "model minority" because of their seemingly superior intelligence and work ethic. They are viewed as being more productive and achieving higher job status than other minorities. In Ronald Takaki’s essay, The Harmful Myth of Asian Superiority, he offers facts to dispel the myth of Asian superiority and its harmful claims.
If I held the viewpoint that Asian Americans are more economically successful than Americans or African Americans, Takaki would strongly disagree with me. Takaki offers many statistics to support his claim that Asian Americans are not achieving the status that they are being credited for. Takaki's essay, that originally appeared in the New York Times, included the following statistics. The article stated that twenty-five percent of the people in New York City’s Chinatown lived below the poverty level in 1980, compared with 17 percent of the city’s population. Refugees from from Laos have unemployment rates that reach as high as 80 percent. Also in 1988, only 8 percent of Asian Americans were "officials" and "managers," compared with 12 percent for all other groups. He also states that, in 1988, Koreans in the New York metropolitan area earned only 69% of the median income of non-Asians.
A fact that I found surprising was that more than three-quarters of Korean greengrocers came to America with a college education. Many had been engineers, teachers, or administrators in Korea. This fact made me question if Americans were not willing to give them opportunities because of their Korean ancestry. Further more, some Americans may hold prejudices against Koreans because of events that occurred during the Korean Conflict. Perhaps Korean immigrants may have if found it easier to start their own businesses than to try to enter the work force in an unfamiliar and different culture.
My first thought when reading Takaki's essay was that he may be bias because of his own Asian background. I wondered if he held any prejudices because of personal experiences or those of his family and friends. As I read Takaki's supporting facts, his claim that Asian Americans are no more successful than the other minorities began to have merit. I realized that I have been guilty of assuming the "myth of Asian superiority." The media, especially television programs, portray Asians as very intelligent and focused on education. There have been many articles written about how American students are falling behind in academic performance when compared to Asian students. Stories about a few Asians attaining economic success leads Americans to assume success is occurring for all Asians.
Ronald Takaki does an adequate job of supporting all of his claims with solid facts throughout his essay. He convinces his readers to share his views and to feel the same way he does after reading his facts. By the end of the essay you have a sense that Asians as a whole are not as successful as Americans perceive them to be.
If I held the viewpoint that Asian Americans are more economically successful than Americans or African Americans, Takaki would strongly disagree with me. Takaki offers many statistics to support his claim that Asian Americans are not achieving the status that they are being credited for. Takaki's essay, that originally appeared in the New York Times, included the following statistics. The article stated that twenty-five percent of the people in New York City’s Chinatown lived below the poverty level in 1980, compared with 17 percent of the city’s population. Refugees from from Laos have unemployment rates that reach as high as 80 percent. Also in 1988, only 8 percent of Asian Americans were "officials" and "managers," compared with 12 percent for all other groups. He also states that, in 1988, Koreans in the New York metropolitan area earned only 69% of the median income of non-Asians.
A fact that I found surprising was that more than three-quarters of Korean greengrocers came to America with a college education. Many had been engineers, teachers, or administrators in Korea. This fact made me question if Americans were not willing to give them opportunities because of their Korean ancestry. Further more, some Americans may hold prejudices against Koreans because of events that occurred during the Korean Conflict. Perhaps Korean immigrants may have if found it easier to start their own businesses than to try to enter the work force in an unfamiliar and different culture.
My first thought when reading Takaki's essay was that he may be bias because of his own Asian background. I wondered if he held any prejudices because of personal experiences or those of his family and friends. As I read Takaki's supporting facts, his claim that Asian Americans are no more successful than the other minorities began to have merit. I realized that I have been guilty of assuming the "myth of Asian superiority." The media, especially television programs, portray Asians as very intelligent and focused on education. There have been many articles written about how American students are falling behind in academic performance when compared to Asian students. Stories about a few Asians attaining economic success leads Americans to assume success is occurring for all Asians.
Ronald Takaki does an adequate job of supporting all of his claims with solid facts throughout his essay. He convinces his readers to share his views and to feel the same way he does after reading his facts. By the end of the essay you have a sense that Asians as a whole are not as successful as Americans perceive them to be.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Epstein: Organ Sales Should be Legalized
Richard A. Epstein views potential legal organ sales as a way to end the huge organ waiting lists. He believes that our country should legalize organ sales so people can be given a second chance to live. Epstein explains how the government should take action due to the increasing organ waiting lists. He supports his argument of legalizing organ sales by explaining how we give praise to those donate organs, but then, “Why condemn sales?” He is basically saying that if sales were made legal, it would be almost the same idea of donating because the person still has to recover from surgery and take huge health risks. He also supports his argument through expressing it is better to have 100 people with one functioning kidney than 50 people with two kidneys and 50 people with kidney failure. That is such a concrete statement by almost stating the obvious that organ sales will simply save lives. Another way he supports his claim is organ donations are never a done deal. When someone dies, their family members can veto the donation card and then the organs will not be taken out for donation. Epstein is saying that there are plenty of organ donors, but there are sometimes family members who just can not handle the corpse being taken apart for organ donations. That is why he states an excellent point that the organ waiting lists are always increasing. He sees that as such a sad fact and the only way would be to legalize organ sales.
Epstein does give a few good points that maybe it is okay that organ sales are illegal. He allows for the concerns of the opposing side to be acknowledged. Epstein writes about the risks that come with live donors, such as they have to recover from surgery and risk their own life to give to another. The risks Epstein names off are alcoholism, hepatitis, and AIDS when it comes to organ donation, just like blood donation. Maybe the people who would sell organs would just be desperate, and that is basically saying the poor would be the ones who would donate the most. Epstein sees this as favoring the rich and not the poor; he does not want the poor to have to sell their own body just because that is all they have left, yet it would still benefit people who are dying. This explaining of dangerous risks does not outweigh the benefits.
Epstein’s argument of legal organ sales is quite persuasive in how he gives excellent examples of how society would benefit. The statement that was most persuasive was, “We need to get past our own squeamishness and give those who need it another chance to live.” Epstein believes that with the growing waiting lists for organs, something needs to happen. He wants the government to do something and that is why he points out so many more benefits than downfalls of legalizing organ sales. Epstein’s style with expressing benefits, while at the same time expressing risks, gives the reader a way to think for themselves. He wants society to believe organ sales will help so many people, which is why he supports his argument with just how it will help people who only want to live and get their life back.
Epstein does give a few good points that maybe it is okay that organ sales are illegal. He allows for the concerns of the opposing side to be acknowledged. Epstein writes about the risks that come with live donors, such as they have to recover from surgery and risk their own life to give to another. The risks Epstein names off are alcoholism, hepatitis, and AIDS when it comes to organ donation, just like blood donation. Maybe the people who would sell organs would just be desperate, and that is basically saying the poor would be the ones who would donate the most. Epstein sees this as favoring the rich and not the poor; he does not want the poor to have to sell their own body just because that is all they have left, yet it would still benefit people who are dying. This explaining of dangerous risks does not outweigh the benefits.
Epstein’s argument of legal organ sales is quite persuasive in how he gives excellent examples of how society would benefit. The statement that was most persuasive was, “We need to get past our own squeamishness and give those who need it another chance to live.” Epstein believes that with the growing waiting lists for organs, something needs to happen. He wants the government to do something and that is why he points out so many more benefits than downfalls of legalizing organ sales. Epstein’s style with expressing benefits, while at the same time expressing risks, gives the reader a way to think for themselves. He wants society to believe organ sales will help so many people, which is why he supports his argument with just how it will help people who only want to live and get their life back.
Richard A. Epstein's Persuasion Methods
Throughout Epstein's column he continually states his idea that sales of organs should be legalized. While understanding others' points of view, he believes that to decrease the number of people on waiting lists, the government should allow others willing to sell their organs. With his position stated and supported by the many beliefs of others proved wrong, Epstein tries to prove to his readers that selling organs will be a positive outcome.
In the beginning of Epstein's column he starts off asking the most important question, "Why condemn sales?". Right away he states his opinion that there are many people out there that are in desperate need of organ transplants and few people are able to help. By selling organs, Epstein believes that the number of needed organs will go down as the number of people wanting to help goes up. He then goes on to include voluntary exchange. Here he is encouraging people to donate there organs, but is simply stating that although some are willing to donate, the number of people are still not enough to make an impact. Epstein makes a very good point when he says that a "mother might well give her kidney to her son. But when asked to donate to a stranger, she would probably recoil at the obvious costs"(103). Donating to family no one stops to think about the costs. They are family so it is expected of you. But when asked to help a stranger, people begin to worry about the costs because then their health or life seems to be more precious.
Epstein is good about taking the opposing side's concerns and turning them around to state the obvious or the better side of the problem. An example of this is when Epstein states, "we are told that organ sales must be banned because individuals verge on irrationality, unable to make informed judgments about the risks they assume" (104). With this said Epstein turns around and asks why complex surgeries also test rational decision making and why we do not ban experimental treatments even though patients are easily confused then too. He makes a good point. The opposing side states that we are doing things without the patient’s knowledge of the risks, but at the same time we are already doing this in other situations. Experimental treatments are dangerous and can sometimes cause death. How is it any different when we transplant an organ with similar risks as being dangerous and may cause death?
Another example of Epstein twisting the opposing side’s concerns is when they introduced the idea that if people were allowed to sell organs then the rich people would be favored over the poor. Just as Epstein says, the rich are already favored in today’s society. He has a good point when he says that nothing is preventing the government from helping the poor purchase organs with tax dollars. It seems that no matter what the opposing side throws toward Epstein as an excuse for banning organ sales, he always has another come back that will benefit from sales.
By using examples of opposition/rebuttal, Epstein can clearly persuade his readers. Being able to take others’ questions and concerns and answering them with little hesitation causes others to be further persuaded. In my own personal perspective, I am most persuaded by people who take action and believe in what they are trying to get across to others. If they know their facts and are able to answer questions of others without hesitation, it has a stronger hold on people.
As Epstein states his opinion and further supports himself by answering the opposing side’s questions, he further draws in his audience. He holds strong in his beliefs and does not hesitate when opinions or concern rise up. He simply turns the problems around and finds the better side to focus on. Throughout this column I believe Epstein did a great job persuading me in believing that organ selling should be legalized.
In the beginning of Epstein's column he starts off asking the most important question, "Why condemn sales?". Right away he states his opinion that there are many people out there that are in desperate need of organ transplants and few people are able to help. By selling organs, Epstein believes that the number of needed organs will go down as the number of people wanting to help goes up. He then goes on to include voluntary exchange. Here he is encouraging people to donate there organs, but is simply stating that although some are willing to donate, the number of people are still not enough to make an impact. Epstein makes a very good point when he says that a "mother might well give her kidney to her son. But when asked to donate to a stranger, she would probably recoil at the obvious costs"(103). Donating to family no one stops to think about the costs. They are family so it is expected of you. But when asked to help a stranger, people begin to worry about the costs because then their health or life seems to be more precious.
Epstein is good about taking the opposing side's concerns and turning them around to state the obvious or the better side of the problem. An example of this is when Epstein states, "we are told that organ sales must be banned because individuals verge on irrationality, unable to make informed judgments about the risks they assume" (104). With this said Epstein turns around and asks why complex surgeries also test rational decision making and why we do not ban experimental treatments even though patients are easily confused then too. He makes a good point. The opposing side states that we are doing things without the patient’s knowledge of the risks, but at the same time we are already doing this in other situations. Experimental treatments are dangerous and can sometimes cause death. How is it any different when we transplant an organ with similar risks as being dangerous and may cause death?
Another example of Epstein twisting the opposing side’s concerns is when they introduced the idea that if people were allowed to sell organs then the rich people would be favored over the poor. Just as Epstein says, the rich are already favored in today’s society. He has a good point when he says that nothing is preventing the government from helping the poor purchase organs with tax dollars. It seems that no matter what the opposing side throws toward Epstein as an excuse for banning organ sales, he always has another come back that will benefit from sales.
By using examples of opposition/rebuttal, Epstein can clearly persuade his readers. Being able to take others’ questions and concerns and answering them with little hesitation causes others to be further persuaded. In my own personal perspective, I am most persuaded by people who take action and believe in what they are trying to get across to others. If they know their facts and are able to answer questions of others without hesitation, it has a stronger hold on people.
As Epstein states his opinion and further supports himself by answering the opposing side’s questions, he further draws in his audience. He holds strong in his beliefs and does not hesitate when opinions or concern rise up. He simply turns the problems around and finds the better side to focus on. Throughout this column I believe Epstein did a great job persuading me in believing that organ selling should be legalized.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Final Summary on Bok
Derek Bok wrote in the Boston Globe an essay about First Amendment rights. My understanding is as follows:
When I read Bok’s essay, I was trying to figure out for myself if I would have been offended either by the Confederate flag or by the swastika. This became an argument on First Amendment rights, and who decides how it should be interpreted. I would like to share my opinion.
Bok was the president of Harvard University before he wrote this essay and the issue had come up. I think there are a lot of people around today who expect others to walk carefully around them. They do not expect anyone to offend them and they will surely make it known when others cross the line.
Symbols can have so many meanings and therefore so many more interpretations. What I think a swastika stands for and what someone twenty years younger than me thinks a swastika stands for will be two different ideas. When we live in a free society, there are so many more touchy areas or subjects that a dictatorship would clarify. In those countries they are not allowed to display a Confederate flag or a swastika, it is against the law and is not done. Being in America, we need to think a little bit what others might interpret offensive and be a little more understanding. We should learn to get along with our neighbors and even just get to know our neighbors.
We are so wrapped up in our own lives that we are blind to what is going on in our cities. People don’t need to be judged by what they look like, how they dress, or what nationality they are. We are so quick to look at someone and form an impression of them and we have not even spoken to them.
Bok is writing on how to call the shots when a controversy comes up. I don’t think that a private university should have different rules on this subject than a public university. The First Amendment rights are subject to our interpretations. Each governing body has to react when controversy arises and that is their job.
All of us as human beings need to start showing some consideration of others and their right to free speech. When we disagree with something that is displayed or written in plain view, maybe we could talk with the person who wrote or displayed this and come up with a new understanding of each other’s beliefs.
As Bok says in his last paragraph, we should try to talk with each other, come to an understanding and stop all of the fighting and offensive behavior. We could find a compromise that would at least stop us from arguing. I was in the military and these kind of things came up all of the time. Yes, there were some fights, there were some punches thrown, and lots of negative words were shouted at each other. We had to find a way to work together no matter who you shared a foxhole with. It can be done and sometimes it is just an agreement to disagree. Respect each other for who we are and try not to let personal differences create fights that last for eternity.
When I read Bok’s essay, I was trying to figure out for myself if I would have been offended either by the Confederate flag or by the swastika. This became an argument on First Amendment rights, and who decides how it should be interpreted. I would like to share my opinion.
Bok was the president of Harvard University before he wrote this essay and the issue had come up. I think there are a lot of people around today who expect others to walk carefully around them. They do not expect anyone to offend them and they will surely make it known when others cross the line.
Symbols can have so many meanings and therefore so many more interpretations. What I think a swastika stands for and what someone twenty years younger than me thinks a swastika stands for will be two different ideas. When we live in a free society, there are so many more touchy areas or subjects that a dictatorship would clarify. In those countries they are not allowed to display a Confederate flag or a swastika, it is against the law and is not done. Being in America, we need to think a little bit what others might interpret offensive and be a little more understanding. We should learn to get along with our neighbors and even just get to know our neighbors.
We are so wrapped up in our own lives that we are blind to what is going on in our cities. People don’t need to be judged by what they look like, how they dress, or what nationality they are. We are so quick to look at someone and form an impression of them and we have not even spoken to them.
Bok is writing on how to call the shots when a controversy comes up. I don’t think that a private university should have different rules on this subject than a public university. The First Amendment rights are subject to our interpretations. Each governing body has to react when controversy arises and that is their job.
All of us as human beings need to start showing some consideration of others and their right to free speech. When we disagree with something that is displayed or written in plain view, maybe we could talk with the person who wrote or displayed this and come up with a new understanding of each other’s beliefs.
As Bok says in his last paragraph, we should try to talk with each other, come to an understanding and stop all of the fighting and offensive behavior. We could find a compromise that would at least stop us from arguing. I was in the military and these kind of things came up all of the time. Yes, there were some fights, there were some punches thrown, and lots of negative words were shouted at each other. We had to find a way to work together no matter who you shared a foxhole with. It can be done and sometimes it is just an agreement to disagree. Respect each other for who we are and try not to let personal differences create fights that last for eternity.
Brownmiller Summaries Comparison
I read summaries written by Suzannah, Kaleena, and Matt. We all have the same basic idea that creating pornography is protected under the First Amendment. The differences we have is deciding who shouold be the ones to regulate where pornography is displayed.
I originally thought that the government should control where pornography is displayed, but after reading Matt's blog, I may have changed my mind. Matt said that if we let the government control where to display porn what else are they going to want to control? The domino effect of our country taking over everything in our "free country" is not a pleasing thought.
We all agree that pornography has become confused with art, but the laws need to be changed and redefined in order to clearly distinguish between the two. If that is not done this cycle will just continue on as it has for the last forty years.
It is interesting to read my classmates views on the same article. I especially find it intriguing how we can all interpret something just a little bit differently, but still end up at the same conclusion.
I originally thought that the government should control where pornography is displayed, but after reading Matt's blog, I may have changed my mind. Matt said that if we let the government control where to display porn what else are they going to want to control? The domino effect of our country taking over everything in our "free country" is not a pleasing thought.
We all agree that pornography has become confused with art, but the laws need to be changed and redefined in order to clearly distinguish between the two. If that is not done this cycle will just continue on as it has for the last forty years.
It is interesting to read my classmates views on the same article. I especially find it intriguing how we can all interpret something just a little bit differently, but still end up at the same conclusion.
Expanding Bok's Summary
Kelsey Webb
May 25th, 2007
Derek Bok served as the president of Harvard University from 1971 to 1991. During his last year of presidency in 1991, Bok published an article in the Boston Globe discussing free speech and “Expression on the Campus.” Basically, Bok describes the importance of free speech but also the importance of a mutually respected community. “We are faced with a clear example of the conflict between our commitment to free speech and our desire to foster a community founded on mutual respect.” Bok declares that this is an issue our society has had to and will continue to have to face. After completing my own summary and reading the summaries by Brenda, Taylor, and Laura; I have found similarities and differences.
All four of us agreed that the issue at hand is important and some course of action must be taken. We also agreed the best course of action was speaking with the students because setting restrictions could possibly create more problems than solutions. However, I included more references to the Supreme Court’s opinion than others did. Also, I referred to the main issue being freedom of speech/expression rather than the issues that the Harvard students’ actions caused.
Basically, all four had the same concept of Bok’s essay. We all perceived the essay in the same way; most likely the way Bok intended readers to interpret it. When writing summaries, it’s difficult to create one’s own “version” because the purpose is to regurgitate what the author actually wrote, without exactly copying it. Despite this difficulty, I believe it is possible to have a certain “spin” on a summary that would make it different than others. I might interpret a point slightly different than the next reader. These differences would make our summaries unique.
This exercise proved how affective summarizing can be. As I skim the reading for the week, I simply do just that; skim. When I actually have to summarize an article in my own words, paragraph by paragraph, I really interpret the author’s meaning. I will remember the Harvard incident and how it relates to free speech much longer than I’ll remember the checklist for critical thinking. Summarizing may be an editorial exercise, but I believe it is ethical as long as the guidelines between plagiarism and paraphrasing are understood.
It’s reassuring to read other summaries that are similar to my own. It’s also interesting to look at the differences between others’ opinions. Summarizing articles can really help a reader understand and remember the context of the message. Bok’s opinion will find a place in my brain, as will the other tools gained from this exercise.
May 25th, 2007
Derek Bok served as the president of Harvard University from 1971 to 1991. During his last year of presidency in 1991, Bok published an article in the Boston Globe discussing free speech and “Expression on the Campus.” Basically, Bok describes the importance of free speech but also the importance of a mutually respected community. “We are faced with a clear example of the conflict between our commitment to free speech and our desire to foster a community founded on mutual respect.” Bok declares that this is an issue our society has had to and will continue to have to face. After completing my own summary and reading the summaries by Brenda, Taylor, and Laura; I have found similarities and differences.
All four of us agreed that the issue at hand is important and some course of action must be taken. We also agreed the best course of action was speaking with the students because setting restrictions could possibly create more problems than solutions. However, I included more references to the Supreme Court’s opinion than others did. Also, I referred to the main issue being freedom of speech/expression rather than the issues that the Harvard students’ actions caused.
Basically, all four had the same concept of Bok’s essay. We all perceived the essay in the same way; most likely the way Bok intended readers to interpret it. When writing summaries, it’s difficult to create one’s own “version” because the purpose is to regurgitate what the author actually wrote, without exactly copying it. Despite this difficulty, I believe it is possible to have a certain “spin” on a summary that would make it different than others. I might interpret a point slightly different than the next reader. These differences would make our summaries unique.
This exercise proved how affective summarizing can be. As I skim the reading for the week, I simply do just that; skim. When I actually have to summarize an article in my own words, paragraph by paragraph, I really interpret the author’s meaning. I will remember the Harvard incident and how it relates to free speech much longer than I’ll remember the checklist for critical thinking. Summarizing may be an editorial exercise, but I believe it is ethical as long as the guidelines between plagiarism and paraphrasing are understood.
It’s reassuring to read other summaries that are similar to my own. It’s also interesting to look at the differences between others’ opinions. Summarizing articles can really help a reader understand and remember the context of the message. Bok’s opinion will find a place in my brain, as will the other tools gained from this exercise.
Monday, May 28, 2007
To Test Or Not To Test?
In Goodman's writing, he proposes getting rid of testing students altogether. Many students that have a difficult time taking tests would be all in support of this. Instead of having a big final test, have several quizzes during the sememster. Also grading daily work would be a good indicator of how the student is doing in the class. Many college classes rely on only testing for the students grade. Some students do not do well with the pressure that comes with this kind of grading. The pressure to do well on tests starts as early as first grade. A child that young does not understand the difference between an A and an F letter grade. The tests at that age level are very short. Say a student receives a grade of 8 out of 10 on a spelling test. The corresponding letter grade would be a low B. How accurate to a students ability can that really be?
In Gardner's writing, he has a good point about testing for apptitude and not for speed. A student who takes fifteen minutes longer to complete the SAT than another student does not by any means suggest that the slower student is not as smart. The slower student possibly double checked every answer while the faster student just answered the questions as fast as he could. True there are jobs out in the real world that will require an employee to be a fast thinker, but that doesn't mean they need to be tested on that before entering college.
In Ravitch's writing she defends testing, by saying it is a neccessary part of learning. She mentions testing for a driver's license. There should be more emphasis on the actual driving part of the test than whether or not the applicant knows exactly how many feet to turn on their blinker before turning in the written part of the test. Too much emphasis is put on written tests when many things should be demonstrated to a test giver that the student is competent.
In Gardner's writing, he has a good point about testing for apptitude and not for speed. A student who takes fifteen minutes longer to complete the SAT than another student does not by any means suggest that the slower student is not as smart. The slower student possibly double checked every answer while the faster student just answered the questions as fast as he could. True there are jobs out in the real world that will require an employee to be a fast thinker, but that doesn't mean they need to be tested on that before entering college.
In Ravitch's writing she defends testing, by saying it is a neccessary part of learning. She mentions testing for a driver's license. There should be more emphasis on the actual driving part of the test than whether or not the applicant knows exactly how many feet to turn on their blinker before turning in the written part of the test. Too much emphasis is put on written tests when many things should be demonstrated to a test giver that the student is competent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)