Disclaimer: I will be in China over vacation, but will post your comments as soon as I can. Don’t fret if your posts do not appear right away!
Current Event Directions: Read the following directions below for your section. We are doing this in segments, but ALL classes will have to do this at some point during the term. Pay attention to the due dates.
All posts are due by the start of school!
Put your name and section on your post!!!
Find a Current Event: Sections E and F ONLY
Due: Wednesday 2/15
Directions (Sections E and F):
- Research the following websites for local, national and international news. You need to find an article that discusses the role of feminism: THINK ABOUT: is this oppressive to woman, does this limit her right to equality, individuality, normality, free will? Or in what ways is you article an example of free will, individuality, and equality? Is this positive or negative for women? Explain…
- This article should be within the past month or so.
- In the comments section of this assignment: Cut/paste the link as part of the post. DO NOT PUT IT IN THE SPACE THAT SAYS WEBSITE. If you do, your comment will go to spam and you will NOT get credit.
- Cite a least ONE line
- Do NOT repeat articles!!
- Remember, current events and celebrity news do not count! You need credible news sources (see below)!
- Your responses should be insightful and each bullet point below with at least 5 sentences!!!! Analyze the connection!
- Then, along with the link, answer the following questions
- What is this about? Where does it take place?
- What is your opinion about this article? Be sure to respond to some of the prompting questions below.
- Think about: is this oppressive to woman, does this limit her right to equality, individuality, normality, free will? Or in what ways is you article an example of free will, individuality, and equality? Is this positive or negative for women?
- HELPFUL WEBSITES: CNN, MSNBC, FOX NEWS, BBC
Respond to the current event: SECTIONS A and C ONLY!
DUE: Friday 2/17
Directions (Section C and A):
- Choose any article posted by your classmates
- Read the article, quote specific form from the article AND your peers
- You need ONE from each (So TWO specific references in your response)
- No more than TWO people per post
- You must read the article!
- Your responses should be at least 200 words. Be sure to WORD SLAP!
- Read it and respond to it as a “reply”.
- Do you agree/disagree and why?
- Use debate language: “You said…., but I disagree because…” or “Good point about…and I agree because…”
- Think about your own views about woman’s right, Jane Eyre and how it connects to the post.
- Totally ok if you fight and argue. I think a discussion back and forth is amazing!!!
- WORD SLAP!!
Respond to the current event: SECTION D ONLY
DUE: Monday 2/27 BY THE START OF SCHOOL ! You have allllll vacation to respond to the responses!
Directions (Section D):
- Choose any COMMENT posted by your classmates in sections C and A
- Read the article, quote specific form from the article AND your peer
- You need ONE from each (So TWO specific references in your response)
- No more than TWO people per post
- You must read the article!
- Your responses should be at least 200 words. Be sure to WORD SLAP!
- Read it and respond to it as a “reply”.
- Do you agree/disagree and why?
- Use debate language: “You said…., but I disagree because…” or “Good point about…and I agree because…”
- Think about your own views about woman’s rights, Jane Eyre and how it connects to the postt.
- Totally ok if you fight and argue. I think a discussion back and forth is amazing!!!
- WORD SLAP!
Tags: Current Events, Feminism, Grade 9, Jane Eyre
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/02/12/dont-buy-me-valentines-day-gift-please/
What is this about? Where does it take place?
This article is about what women want as their Valentine’s Day gift. This article takes place in the whole United States because most couples celebrate this so-called ‘special’ day. This article is also about how they did a survey on what women really want as their gift for Valentine’s Day. It also talks about how they would have to ask for what they want, so they could get it as their gift.
What is your opinion about this article? Be sure to respond to some of the prompting questions below.
Think about: is this oppressive to woman, does this limit her right to equality, individuality, normality, free will? Or in what ways is you article an example of free will, individuality, and equality? Is this positive or negative for women?
My opinion of this article is that it shows a lot of evidence of feminism because in the article it states, “Our results show that what most women (ages 30-49) want for Valentine’s Day this year is rest and relaxation – a one day pass to put their feet up – while their man does the chores and/or childcare. Let’s call it “Queen for a Day.” ” This can show feminism because it shows an example of free will and equality. This can show free will because you have the choice to relax and rest. This can also show equality because a woman don’t have to necessarily have to take care of the kids and do chores because males can do the same too. This can also show individuality because it takes the individual to ask for rest and relaxation. This is positive for women because they don’t have to always do what society tells them to do, so this can mean that they can hand over their duties to the guys every once in a while.
Happy Valentines day. I agree with the feminism because its totally means women do all the work and wants a day off. ” one day pass to put their feet up – while their man does the chores and/or childcare”. I think the women really means that they do all the work and men just sit back. This contributes to the feminism because it indirectly states that women stay home, do chores, and take care of their childs. This kind of relates to conformity because people agrees with women staying home, take care of their kids, and do house-hold chores. ” Let’s call it “Queen for a Day.” ” Does this mean they were always hardworkers and man are the king? Or does it mean men don’t do work and let women do everything?
I agree that this shows feminism. Letting the males do all the work for a day while the females relax is showing that the woman is a feminist. Although that it may be that way, women shouldn’t only have one day to relax. They should not be doing all the housework. It is not fair that women should be stuck at home doing all the boring chores while males sit back and relax. This article may show feminism, but only to a certain extent. Jane would be considered a feminist because she doesn’t need a man in her life. She can do everything and support herself by herself. When a female wants rights and fights for her right; that is called being a true feminist. For example, when Jane leaves Rochester because she believes that she doesn’t need a male to support her; Jane is being a feminist. Jane feels like Rochester has disrespected her for not telling her about Bertha. Therefore, Jane leaves Thornfield. True that this article shows feminism but it is a gift that a male is giving a female. Males are giving the female a chance to be a “Queen”, to be the one in charge. These women in the article are not a feminist every day. They only get to be a feminist for ONE day. Therefore, this article only shows a certain amount of feminism.
I disagree that the article shows feminism. I say this because no rights have been violated. “When a female wants rights and fights for her right; this is called being a true feminist.” The article is simply stating that it would be wise to consult the woman (or man, depending on the situation) about what they want on Valentine’s Day. The article states that “if you don’t ask, you don’t get. Don’t you think?” The article is telling people that they just have to ask for what they want from their companion. It’s not like they are saying no to the person, they just didn’t ask for anything. The point may be that the spouse is acknowledging the others feelings, if that is the relation to feminism.
I agree with your statement regarding the unfairness of women doing work while men relax. However, this is not always the case. Sure, there are many households where men act lazy and irresponsible, but the roles of the man and the woman constantly flip depending on their life situations. It’s unfair for you to accuse all men of being lazy, since the majority of them work just as hard as their wives.
In Jane’s case, you can say that the whole decision of leaving Rochester as being a feminist. With that being said, you can also say that she was just conforming to her morals. She didn’t believe that it would be right to be involved with a married man. It may have hurt her to leave someone she cared for, but Jane felt it would be in both of their best interests if they went their separate ways.
I disagree with you on how this is feminism. This news article was about a survey on what woman want on Valentines Day, not on bias opinions on what they want. In the first paragraph it says “The answers came from our new survey…” You said “It is not fair that women should be stuck at home doing all the boring chores while males sit back and relax.” I disagree men aren’t just sitting back and enjoying their leisure time their out working hard so they can support their family. Women can’t have it both ways it’s either one or the other. You’re suggesting that men should do all the work while women do nothing. It is true to some extent that men in today’s society have more privileges than woman but you can’t just demand for such a drastic change that women should be treated better than men even though in today’s society women aren’t even treated the same as men. Your arguments make no sense “Jane would be considered a feminist because she doesn’t need a man in her life. She can do everything and support herself by herself.” When she didn’t have any money left after leaving Rochester basically destroys your statement.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/14/woman-jumped-to-death-trying-to-avoid-angry-pro-wrestler-husband-police-say/
This article is about how a woman fell off the second floor window in her house just to avoid her angry and dangerous 40 year old husband. Lisa Stilkey, the 44 year old woman that fell off and died, was very scared and wanted to avoid her husband Allen Stilkey. It takes place in Massachusetts. My opinion is that its obviously sad about her death but its even more sad that a single man can have that much mental power over a woman. I understand how Lisa was scared physically that her husband was going to beat her, saying he was a champion arm wrestler. Allen tells screams out when Lisa and her son was on the phone ” When you get off the phone, I’m going to kill you.”. Lisa tells her son if she dies, it was him who did it. The way she died though, had me thinking for a little bit. He probably gave her so much mental and physically pain before, and she probably never said a word. Its not like this just happened overnight, there must have been issues going on before in there marriage that led to this depressing end. This connects to feminism because it shows the power a man can have more mentally than physical pain to a woman. This defiantly shows how in most cases,woman do not have their right to equality. Nobody deserves to be put in that amount of pain, even if your a bad or good person. To have jump out a window to avoid her own husband is beyond jaw dropping for me. You could point to how Lisa has free will to jump out the window, but she really did not have free will because to her, that was her only option. She did think jumping out was the best option, in fact she even threw a pillow to desperately save her life ” Authorities say Lisa Stilkey threw a pillow out a second-floor window of their Douglas home ” . This is exactly how Jane feels about St John about how he is basically controlling her and making her do things she would not want to do. Jane feels cold and depressed that he has all this power over her, he even tells Jane that if she rejects his proposal it is like rejecting God. Men feel like they power and the control over the woman, so this decreases a woman’s individuality and free will because she can not be herself or her individual around him, nor do the the things she wants to do with her free will. This is clearly negative for woman because its pressuring them to be so right and perfect so that they do not have to be in the mental and physical pain Lisa went through. When they try hard to make the man happy, they step away from who they really are, and forget to realize that there loosing their individuality and their free will while there at it.
I totally agree with you on this article. This really shows how screwed up men can be in society. The woman jumped out a second story window for crying out loud, just to get away from her god awfull husband. I like how you compared it to Jane and St. John and their relationship with one another. What i questioned is at what point did Lisa first realize he was like this and why didn’t she leave him a while ago. These kinds of story really get me angry because why does the man have to be so abusive of his wife. This makes me think more of Mr. Rochester and Bertha and how Rochester was abusive in his relationship. I mean Mr. Rochester locked up her in his attic and last time i herd that isn’t right at all. Another thing you said that i like and that alot of people dont realize is that some woman in relationships try their hardest to be the perfect woman that they lose their selfs, they lose their individuality and even free will. One thing that i dont agree with is that you said she only had one choice, at the time yes she might have only had one choice but she could have left or called the police on him before this happened. She could have had a divorce or even taken him to court. But overall i agree with you.
I completely disagree with you I understand how this is sad and wht not but how is this feminism. Your talking about equality and how they have to be equal. What does him beating her have to do with equality? Also how is him saying I am going to kill you when you get off the phone mental power? You falsely claimed things that were irrelevant in my eyes at least. You may think this is showing feminism but I don’t. When she jumped out the window how does that show feminism? How does it show free will? It doesn’t because she was compromised to jump out the window. She in my eyes reacted and did not think or hours to jump out the window. She was thinking I’m tired of this might as well my life. And she is not pressured into being perfect, it’s the man because he is just unstable. She can’t control with what he does. I think your concluding statement was just stupid (sorry) but I don’t think this event correlates to what you were conveying to me.
Careful…use your words to disagree Nd debate. No need to call someone’s opinion stupid
I agree with Rayshawn, I think that the women’s death was due to the husbands physical strength and temper rather than a woman’s lack of free will. If the man did something that the woman could not or wasn’t allowed to than this article would relate to feminism. This is something that could happen either way and both outcomes would be the same: both would be sent to jail. Even though I agree with Rayshawn, I think its possible that this article does relate somewhat to feminism. The mans power over the woman was what lead her to kill herself. Although, this could also just be about how physical strength and amount of testosterone can lead to easily triggered tempers and impulsive and dangerous behaviors. In the article it says:”Alan Stilkey could be heard in the background, yelling, “When you get off the phone, I’m going to kill you.” The woman would have died either way, because the man threatened to kill her so she just decided to jump out of the window instead of being murdered. Since this could happen to either a man or a woman I think that this article does not relate to feminism. The only thing I disagreed with you on was when you said “he in my eyes reacted and did not think or hours to jump out the window. She was thinking I’m tired of this might as well my life.” I think she jumped because she had no choice and not because she was tired of her life, although I think that has something to do with it. Overall I agree with Rayshawn, because I think this is not inequality amongst men and women, because its not something that effects multiple women, it only happened once.
I agree with your post a lot. You stated,”This defiantly shows how in most cases,woman do not have their right to equality.” I agree because men think there so great at everything, like basketball, and think that a women cant be equal, or better, than man in a one on one situation. I like when you said, “Men feel like they power and the control over the woman, so this decreases a woman’s individuality and free will because she can not be herself or her individual around him, nor do the the things she wants to do with her free will.” since Jane feels overpowered by a man, she feels inferior to him. Hence why she can’t find the words to speak up and say what she wants. Women often hold their tounges when dealing with men that are superior to them because they are frightened by what his reaction may be. The media has portrayed men as this strong, “powerful” character that supposedly is better at everything in the world. When In reality, they can’t do things half as better as a women. It’s unfortunate that some young women today will prolong there dreams of holding positions of power and being succeful in usally male-dominant fields because of the media. Your closing statement is very real. When a women loves a man, she will do anything to try and make him happy. She will forget who she really is, lose her individuality, and do all this crazy stupid stuff, just so that man will be happy. And after all her trying, the man still won’t be happy and will just drop her, and she ends up looking like a fool. This storyline is often portrayed in the media, which says to young girls that this how it’s supposed to be when it’s really not. R.I.P to Lisa… Life is cray. Good article T
Section C
I disagree with you Alfredo when you say, “This makes me think more of Mr. Rochester and Bertha and how Rochester was abusive in his relationship.” He wasn’t abusive to her. If anything, she abused him. He locked her up because she was crazy and had potential to kill him. Therefore he was just protecting himself. And I understand what you’re saying when T said she had basically one choice, but she could of done other things. I don’t neccesarily agree though because you have to imagine that it would be quite difficult for her to try to divorce him or take him to court when he had so much mental power of her. She probably would be scared that he would kill her if she ever tried to do something like that.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/31/world/asia/afghanistan-strangulation/index.html?iref=allsearch
In my article a 22 year old Afghanistan woman, Storay, was strangled to death for not giving birth to a son. Her husband 29 years old Sher Mohammed committed this crime. They had three children including the newborn and Mohammed blamed her for having no sons. When the police arrested his mother, she defended in saying that Storay committed suicide when realizing she had given birth to another daughter, she figured she could no longer live with the shame. I thought this was a negative view of women. How can woman feel equal to men if their lives are being thrown away because of giving birth to another gender? Storay was probably oppressed way before all that happened and she should have gotten to the police before she died. No one just kills there wife for that reason, Mohammed must have been an abusive husband. Another aspect that got me upset was that he blamed his wife for not having a son. Maybe if Mohammed was smart and focused more on school than on killing innocent people like his wife, he would realize that men determine the gender of babies. If anything, Mohammed should have killed himself for the baby not being a boy. In this quote, “If the situation of Afghan women is to improve, Mosadiq said, a strong political will is needed at the government level, backed up by strong pressure from the international community.” So women in Afghanistan need to speak up on the abuse there facing, not just them, all women should because if you don’t you end up like Storay. A person that is now dead for something that was not her fault. If you can take that first step then the government can at least attempt to protect you.
James Doherty Sec C
Handy I completely agree that is a problem in the world today. In countries like Afghanistan it is a big problem. Men there think that women are not people and that they have complete power over them. Men in those countries do have power over women and that Storray was probably beaten way before she was killed. She was killed because of her women are not treated as equals; she even bore three daughters and was killed because there was not a son also showing problems with the gender. However, in Afghanistan the people definitely don’t get the education we get in the United States, so he would have probably thought that his wife was cursed for not having boy children. And I do not agree with you saying they need to speak up. If that thought even crossed their mind they would be killed. The United States was even more developed than Afghanistan when the Women Civil Rights movement happened. For women to get rights in Afghanistan it would be revolutionary and the United States would need a hand in it.
I totally agreed with you that this article was relevant to feminism. It was absurd for anyone killing their wife just because the wife had given birth to daughters and not sons. And I also agreed with your statement that “Mohammed must have been an abusive husband,” since, in the husband’s perspective, Storay’s existence was a trifle: she was but nothing more than a birth machine. She was like something of the husband’s possession, in which he could do to her whatever he pleased–including killing her. Storay was lack of validation and as the result she was being treated inhumanly. This idea of women as possession related to the relationship between Jane and St. John. Alike Mohammed, St John was cold and relentless towards Jane, to whom St. John did not validate or concern about. Thus he treated her as if she was the subject of his authority–that she had to do whatever was being asked of her. And on the other hand, St. John believed he could order any task to Jane regardless of her will–to him, it was impermissible for her to deny his indifferent proposal despite she did not like him. By the way, I utterly supported when you said “Maybe if Mohammed was smart and focused more on school” that if the husband was educated, he would treat his wife differently. In addition to that, I also disagreed when you quoted that ” If the situation of Afghan women is to improve, a strong political will is needed at the government level,” because anti-feminism could not be dismissed with law coercion. It had became a segment of the culture– just like racism, even though nowadays it was illegal, but not everyone was sure that nobody view each other without applying racial prejudice. So the degradation of women could not be simply resolved by legal enforcement. It could, however, be resolved with the application of education, because like I said before, anti-feminism existed within one’s culture–it was part of what a person believed. And education was the most effective and the most efficient way to alter one’s beliefs, including the belief of women degradation
I agree with your point that there was definitely violence involved before the crime was committed and that Mohammed only saw his wife as a machine to receive a son so he could carry on the families honor. When he realized that she was “broken” he took matters into his own hands. I also agree with how you related the possessive attitude of Mohammed towards his wife to how St.John acts towards Jane, in the book. He thought that she ought to do what he says and not question his authority, the same way Mohammed though killing his wife was a just punishment for her not doing what he wanted her to do. It’s a little bit different though, because Storay, Mohammeds wife, had no choice over the sex of the child. And like Handy said, it is the sperm that the man produces which determines the sex of the offspring, but I’m sure even if Mohammed knew that, he still wouldn’t care and would go on and kill his wife. In the quote, “And there is a heavy cultural pressure to bear sons, who are viewed as the breadwinners, she said, with the birth of a daughter seen as a burden rather than something to celebrate.” there is a huge problem. It shows that when a girl is born, it is seen as a problem because they believe she is unable to benefit the family in any way. This is a huge misconception because even if you look back at the days of the Native Americans, the woman did very important work and held a very vital role in the society. They were respected. It surprises me that men in these societies today don’t see that if you were to take away all the women in society it would collapse almost immediately. Woman hold an extremely vital role in society and it’s horrible that their vitality is not recognized. I also like how you wrote that sexism is something that is embedded into your society and it cannot be taken away simply by law enforcement and how it is very similar to racism. I can relate this to what Morgan Freeman said when asked “How are we gonna get rid of racism?”, he simply said “Stop talking about it.”. I found this to be a very powerful statement, and it can be applied to sexism. Of course you can’t not differentiate between the sexes, but you can choose to not automatically apply a certain image to each race, and I think that is what we all need to learn to do.
but you can choose to not automatically apply a certain image to each sex*
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/14/10405617-those-who-expect-sexual-assault-in-the-military
*please watch the video before reading the article
This article/video talks about the Liz Trotta comments on the frequency with which U.S. military women are the victims of sexual assault. “…we have women once more, the feminist, going, wanting to be warriors and victims at the same time..” She comments on the fact that women are bringing these issues to themselves because they want to be more dominant. But, is dominance really a factor as of now?
We have women who are risking their lives to defend our country-in a brave and noble effort-the same brave and noble effort that men provide. Are men being assaulted, manipulated, raped? No one “wants” to be a victim-but, if a woman is raped, she is a victim of rape. The blame is not on her because she made the brave choice to serve our country, the blame is on the rapist. If a woman were to rape a man, it would be the most talked about thing; but here we see women being raped and assaulted against their will , and we do nothing because it is what is ‘expected’. How is it to be ‘expected’ that one is a victim? Women try to do their best in society, to help, but yet we are still objectified and not treated with the respect that we have tried for decades to earn?
“..feminist..wanting to be warriors…” What exactly is that supposed to mean? Only feminist want to help our nation? Only FEMINIST WOMEN, want to play ‘pretend’ and be warriors? How does this give us an expectant to be raped? How does this lead to us-women-crave to be a victim? Who would want to be a victim? Why aren’t the male soldiers being held accountable for what they have done? Women put themselves in positions to show that we are capable, but if we still do not receive good treatment, how can we better peoples opinions on what we are? Just this article itself tell us that even other women simply don’t care. who can support women better then other women? Trotta should have put herself in the position and mind-set of the assaulted women, how would she have felt?
I completely agree with you Janeille, especially where you stated “The blame is not on her because she made the brave choice to serve our country, the blame is on the rapist.” The fact that women decide to become heroes does not necessarily mean that they set out to become victims. A woman should NEVER expect to be raped especially when a woman is risking her life to defend our country. Men risk their lives for our country as well and in return are they victims? No, women do not receive the same amount of respect as men do because to society women are seen below men which is unjust. I believe that women work just as hard and in some cases even harder than men do so why are women still being put below men?
“To hear this Fox News contributor tell it, American women in the armed forces should expect sexual assaults; American men in the armed forces are likely to become sexual predators; and the American military shouldn’t bother to take any of this seriously” I also found it shocking that a woman well a human being found it “alright” that men in armed forces are likely to become sexual predators and that this matter shouldn’t be taken seriously which is completely wrong because the “act of rape” is illegal just because one person thinks that when women are acting like warriors rape should be expected does NOT mean that it is okay. Trotta should put herself in those women’s shoes and see if it is easy to run in them.
I completely agree with you Janeille especially when you said “We have women who are risking their lives to defend our country-in a brave and noble effort-the same brave and noble effort that men provide” I especially liked your point of view and I totally agree with you that the men should be held responsible for it and I disagree with the armies quote saying “we have women once more, the feminist, going, wanting to be warriors and victims at the same time,” adding that feminists “have also directed them, really, to spend a lot of money” I disagree with what the military had to say which meant that women were more of a liability in the army than a helping force. I think that it’s offensive to all the women which have been shipped out oversea and which are currently fighting for our Nation and defending the rights for which America stands for. But these women have their rights taken away from them even though America is one of few Countries in the World that has freedom of speech and rights for EVERYONE no matter what gender, race or nationality. But these Women which have left their families behind to fight for what is right and to risk their lives the Army expects them to just deal with it. And Liz Trotta who has never been to War or has ever seen or ever will know what it is like is judging. I think this shows oppression for women because they are being told they have the same rights as men even though the military doesn’t see it that way. I’m a guy so I probably wouldn’t know much but I think that the military should change some rules and make it safer for women. If they protected women’s rights and gave more power there wouldn’t be as much crimes being committed on women and I think that the military should apologize for its comments and I think they should appreciate that there are more than a couple of thousand women already serving.
Amber Riggs section C
I completely agree, Janeille, when you said “Women try to do their best in society, to help, but yet we are still objectified and not treated with the respect that we have tried for decades to earn?” Women decide to be heroes just like men but why do they have to be a victim to make a difference? They shouldn’t have to. For a woman to say that it should be “expected” because of close quarters is utterly repulsive. A politician at that who should know the fruit of her labor, to get where she is today; to be respected as a human being is utterly repulsive to read. It amazes me that today when people are supposed to be equal that women are degraded by men, society, and by other WOMEN. Fox News’ Liz Trotta commented “I thought the mission of the Army, and the Navy, and four services was to defend and protect us, not the people who were fighting the war.” ‘”Us,” in this context, apparently doesn’t include Americans who wear the uniform.’ We are all Americans and to say one of us disserves mistreatment is completely flabbergasting and ridiculous. I one hundred percent disagree with Trotta statements and if this is what US Americans present as OUR COUNTRY’S spokesperson then I’m sorry but I as a women and a individual who believes in fair is fair dose not want anything to do with that kind of message. The message that some people don’t matter because of their life choices is wrong. So I say a hero will always be a hero, a rapist will always be a rapist but WHO ARE WE not to help the victims?
Why is it that the roles can’t be reversed? Why can’t we all be equal? I’ll tell you because it’s a man’s world. We try to fight it and yet here we are today with even women not standing up for other women. Fox News’ Liz Trotta commented “I thought the mission of the Army, and the Navy, and four services was to defend and protect us, not the people who were fighting the war.” ‘”Us,” in this context, apparently doesn’t include Americans who wear the uniform.’ I agree with what Amber is saying because to say that some people do not need help is foolish. Even in the face of it all you have to remember people are people no matter what gender they are and what they do. I really liked when Amber said “The message that some people don’t matter because of their life choices is wrong. So I say a hero will always be a hero, a rapist will always be a rapist but WHO ARE WE not to help the victims?”. The truth of the matter is people are different and if someone needs help then we should be able to give it to them not disregard them as nothing. All people matter.
Danny Sellers Section 9 2/12/12 1. My topic is about Dr. Pepper 10, and how the commercials and advertisements show lack of respect for women. It degrades women and their activities/occupations. This article was written for USA Today, New York.
2. My opinion on this article is that it’s embarrassing. Being a male myself, I feel like this article is making us look like something we’re not. It makes look like they think women cannot participate in any activities that require the least amount of athletic talent. I feel like this is urging on men to poke fun at the fact that there are still people that believe that women are only good for cooking and cleaning.
3. This ad is very oppressive to women, and it limits there right to equality. With a slogan like, “Dr. Pepper 10, it’s not for women!” I prove my point valid. In one line, the main character says “ You can keep the romantic comedies and lady drinks. We’re good.” This is assuming women are all the same, girly, dramatic figures, when in reality, they are just as equal to men in every way. A couple hundred years ago, women were not allowed to vote. They couldn’t get decent jobs, and they took care of the house and the man of the house. Times have changed very much. Women are serving in the military and armed forces, politics, police forces, firefighters, construction jobs, and they are very equal to men. With rights like these, women should not be demeaned in any way at all, and sexism should be, one hundred percent, non-existent today.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/story/2011-10-10/dr-pepper-for-men/50717788/1
Hi Danny
I completely agree with you on this! Women can not have a stupid drink just because were WOMEN!! Are you kidding me that is not right. It is just a drink; it’s not like it’s something that only men can have or use. Do men want to be seen as jerks and not want a girl in there life because if the agree with this article they Will never get one, I hope they know that now!
By the way Danny you have the right to feel embarrassed, I feel embarrassed for you guys. Not all guys think that way about women.
When you say that women are equal to men too make me feel like your not like other men and how you said that girls can be an athlete and not a ” girly, dramatic, figure” just made my day because not all girls are like that , I know I am certainly not and neither is Jane Eyre.
But I love how you said men and women are equal. They can have the same jobs, they can live the same lives, they can both be in the arm forces, military and males and females can BOTH DRINK THE SAME DRINK!!! Also know as Dr. pepper 10.
I absolutely agree with everything Danny and Julianne had said. I love Dr. Pepper and it is in fact my favorite soda, but I hate the way they portrayed women in society on their commercials and ads for Dr. Pepper 10. Saying that “all” women are girly and don’t have the power to do anything that men can is absolutely false. I am pretty sure that I am stronger than most of the guys in my gym class, due to the amount of push ups I am able to do and the laps that I am able to run. I agree when Julianne said: “I know I am certainly not and neither is Jane Eyre.” Because you really aren’t Julianne and Jane Eyre isn’t either. Actually a lot of women and girls these days are able to stand up for themselves probably better than most men can. I am glad and happy that Danny said that he is embarrassed as a male due to this article, because it portrays men as non-feminist cowards. The article states how the vice-president of the company is one of them. “Jim Trebilcock, executive vice president of marketing for Dr Pepper, said he’s not worried that they’ll be offended by the campaign.” I don’t think that Mr. Trebilcock should be assuming anything, because I AM offended by this. I’m glad that Danny is a feminist and knows this is wrong, because it is. Women can do anything that men can and we do not deserve to be descriminated like this.
I agree with you SO much julianne. Its weird how they would campaign a drink JUST TO MEN?! I dont see how thats right.
In the article it says : “The soft drink was developed after the company’s research found that men shy away from diet drinks that aren’t perceived as “manly” enough.”. Thats mens problem to deal with if they dont want diet drinks but its not womens fault that they dont like diet drinks. They shouldnt market something out there like that, it makes me feel as though i cant drink they drink and trust me i wont because apprently its only for men. Julianne when you said “They can have the same jobs, they can live the same lives, they can both be in the arm forces, military and males and females can BOTH DRINK THE SAME DRINK!!! Also know as Dr. pepper 10.” I completely fel the same way. Us as women can do the same things as men and we do, do the same things as men. We are equal people and for doctor pepper to make a drink just for men and not for women is RIDCIOULOUS. It scares me to think men are THAT much better then women. Im not saying that i think this isnt right just because im women im saying this as a person in this world that this isnt right and it shouldnt be happening. Men shouldnt have a drink souly for them. I cant drink a drink just because imma women, what is this non sense?! I feel lilke im living back in the 1700′s when women had no rights and couldnt do anything but be a mans dog. Jane eyre for sure would not like this because shes her own women and believes in womens right all the way. Jane knows that she can do the same thing as a man like be rich, which did happen for her..she became rich and she didnt need to be some high powerful man.I dont really agree with you on the part where you said “” girly, dramatic, figure” just made my day because not all girls are like that , I know I am certainly not and neither is Jane Eyre. I dont agree with you here because when rochester breaks her heart she is dramtic and she freaks out about it when she knows that she can be a strong women.
Danny, I agree with you when you said that the article makes men look like they think women are subordinates and that they cannot handle this diet drink because its for men. I think that the reason that Dr. Pepper focused their campain on men was becuase they think that men are the most bashful and embaressed to buy or drink diet sodas. So, to to get rid of the inscurities they make the drink seem manly so that it appeals to men. Also, by saying it is not for women and its not a women’s drink it becomes more appealing to men. It gives men the idea that they have one more thing over women. This makes the soda more macho and men are more apt and less insecure about buying the drink. Plus, I do not think that the campain was ment to keep women from dirnking “a man’s soda” or to degrade them, it is just to increase sales. Women buy diet drinks all the time to loose weight. That makes diet sodas a “women” thing, and it drives away men. By making the soda “manly” Dr. Pepper can increase their sales and that is the purpose of the campaign. I do not agree with ou when you say that this is very opressive to women. What the man says about the the drink in the commercial is not oppressing women, its just encouraging men with words that make men seem more powerful and confident; basically making them feel more of a “man”. All this so men can feel confortable buying a diet drink which is sterotypically a “women” thing.
1) I agree with you because women are being degraded by men, just because their women. Like in the article it says, “You can keep the romantic comedies and lady drinks. We’re good.” For all women we have the stereotype that we cry all the time, watch romantic movies and stay home doing house cleaning but we have more to us than just being known as “housewives.” We have multiple talents not just staying home cooking and cleaning all day. Women are very intelligent, successful and strong. And if women drink Diet Dr Pepper, what makes men think that they can’t handle a drink with more sugar in it.
2) Good point about “This ad is very oppressive to women, and it limits there right to equality.” I agree with this because even though we are in the present, women are still not treated equally just like in the past. But even though this may not be, women have the chance to vote and get good jobs today like a nurse or lawyer. As a result women are very equal to men today, as you said, and is considered a “person” today because they have the same rights as men do and not a “servant” for men or anyone else.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/14/woman-jumped-to-death-trying-to-avoid-angry-pro-wrestler-husband-police-say/
This is about a women killing herself when she jumped out of a building to avoid her husband. This shows oppression because the husband said “when you get off the phone, I’m going to kill you”. As a result, he was threatening his wife that she would get beaten up when she was done with the phone. This is negative towards women because it shows that they are being controlled by their husbands. Since they are being controlled, their future would be decided by a much powerful being, in this case their husbands.
In my opinion, I think that everybody should be treated equally. Between the husband and the woman, they got into an argument and the husband overpowered her. As a result, she had to make an escape and resulted in killing herself by jumping out a window. Therefore, I think that woman should have the right to be equal and not be controlled and oppressed like the relationship between the husband and the woman.
Section E
I agree with you that the wife, Lisa, was opressed by her husband. From the article it was surprising to hear she jumped out the window to try to escape, but ended up dying. The focus term you choose, oppression does show in this article about anti feminism. As you said “As a result, he was threatening his wife that she would get beaten up when she was done on the phone. This is negative towards women because it shows that they are being controlled by their husband.”
I agreed with your statement expect the last part about the women being controlled by the husband. Under the article was a video of the news report about this and there is evidence that the husband was drunk as there was wine on the walls. The wife was trying to run away, and wasn’t being forced in anyway until she was threatened. That was only the begining though later on violence played a part in it as the articles states,” Assistant District Attorney Brett Dillon said in court that broken furniture and wine bottles were found in the couple’s home following the alleged fight, according to the newspaper.”
I liked how you said in a relationship both wife and husband should be equal, but equal in what ways. Like for the husband to cook, clean, and watch over the kids. These are the typical stereotypes about married women and women in general. The husband in the article was oppressing his wife and it did sounded from the article as if the husband was more power powerful in terms of status and physical strength because he is an arm wrestling champion. My overall thoughts is that I agree with you that it is oppression and your explaintion was well done.
I agree that this article represents oppression for the wife because her husband has power over her and influences her decisions which eventually leads to her death.However, I disagree that this article shows feminism because you quoted, “this is negative towards women because it shows that they are being controlled by their husbands.” While,in the article it states that, “A champion arm wrestler has been ordered held without bail after pleading not guilty to manslaughter and other charges in connection with the death of his wife,who authorities say jumped out a second-floor window in an attempt to flee from him.” When I read this article and this specific quote I felt that it didn’t represent feminism but instead injustice.Feminism has to do with something that limits how women are seen in their society in terms of being in command and not just being seen as a sex symbol.In this article it shows how Lisa Stilkey let her husband take power over her and instead of trying to protect herself and call the police she tried to avoid him and escape,but instead ended up killing herself.The article doesn’t show how all women are oppressed by their husbands or how their husbands show their wives as sex symbols or objects instead of human beings.This article suggests that some husbands are abusive and when women don’t stick up for themselves and decide to either leave their husband or call the authorities.
.
I agree with the point that you made about this article being about oppression. This is about oppression because the husband is telling his wife that he is going to kill her if she doesn’t get off the phone. He is oppressing her by making her do what he wants her to do. This woman in my opinion is not a feminist because if she was she would have stood up for herself and not just run away by committing suicide. But on the other hand her husband is also not a feminist because feminists think that woman and men are both equal, but her husband obviously thinks that he is more powerful than she was. The article states that “His lawyer said Monday his client was not responsible for his wife’s death.” I have to dis agree with this statement because like my class mate said “…Everybody should be treated equally. Between the husband and the woman, they got into an argument and the husband overpowered her. As a result, she had to make an escape…” The reason Lisa Stilkey killed herself was because she wanted to escape her awful husband. She wanted to be free and felt death was the only way. As a feminist I think that Lisa Stilkey should have stood up for herself and let her husband know that she also had a say in the relationship.
Stephanie Su
Section: F
Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16958852
This article is positive to women. David Cameron is the prime minister for the UK (United Kingdom) and he has suggested that more women should be involved in top executive jobs in the UK. To do this, he wants to have 30% of women in the British boards. Boards are defined as a group of people who are responsible for an organization or a company. “Earlier Mr. Cameron said the drive for more women in top business roles ‘is not simply about equal opportunity, it’s about effectiveness. The evidence is that there is a positive link between women in leadership and business performance, so if we fail to unlock the potential of women in the labour market, we’re not only failing those individuals, we’re failing our whole economy’.” Cameron believes that women have leadership in business performance which can affect a board positively and since he wants to encourage more females into the market, it makes women have an opportunity, giving them free will and power. This article is an example of free will, power and equality. This article is an example of free will because women can choose whether or not they would like to be involved in political issues since they are given the opportunity. This can lead into power. When women have a top executive job, they have the power to put their plans into action. Lastly, this article shows equality because is Cameron raises the percent of women he wants involved in executive jobs, there will be more women making it more equal. Although the ratio of women to men is 3:7, having it raised is making it more equal. I believe Cameron is making a smart choice in letting more women get a say in politics and voice their opinion on how to smoothly run things. Not only men are strong and can do what they think is right. Using the balance of females and males can help the British boards become stronger because two “objects” which are powerful in their own way, can be much more powerful combined.
I agree with you Stephanie that David Cameron the prime minister of the UK is giving the idea that there should more women in the board rooms of the exec. jobs. I also agree with you and the fact that David Cameron saying that there needs to be 30% of women on Britsh boards. This is showing that he thinks women should be in power not just because of quotas, but because when you have women in the exec. posistions more work gets down quicker. When you said “This article is an example of free-will.” I disagree with that because if the big companies in the UK didn’t have to hire women they wouldn’t. For example in the article it said the there are still “1 and 10 of the big firms still have all-male boards,” showing that this is more of the big companies conforming to rule and regulations than women having their own free-will to go get the jobs. I also feel like women might be more hesitant to apply for those jobs because they are so used to being put down and harrased for being a women. Maybe women are deterred from these jobs because she might feel alone amongst a room fiull of men. Also when it comes to men being under wome in the work ladder it is not the best feeilng coming from a man’s perspective and the man might feel like he has lost his dominance and we don’t like that feeling
of being under a women, that could be another key factor as to why women don’t have many jobs in the big boards is just because male dominance issues.
How did this get into two posts?
Hey Nick! I agree with your opinion on Stephanie’s article and her response. I really like when you say, “This is showing that he thinks women should be in power not just because of quotas, but because when you have women in the exec. positions more work gets down quicker.” The reason is because you are able to realize something that Cameron thinks that is not necessarily said in the article. I can say that I agree with your response because Cameron is is giving the idea that there should be more women in the board rooms of the exec. jobs. In the article is says, “Mr Cameron told Nordic-Baltic leaders their countries were “leading the way in Europe” on the issue of women in top executive jobs. In Sweden, women hold a quarter of boardroom posts. In Norway, where quotas came into force in 2008, it is 40%.” This shows Cameron’s motivation in the idea of having more women in the board rooms of the exec. jobs because he is using other countries and their success with women in executive jobs as a positive reason for having women in top exec. jobs.
I agree this is totally feminism. People believes that women should stay home and do chores and take care of children, but thsi suggest taht women should help with organization or company.”Earlier Mr. Cameron said the drive for more women in top business roles ” This suggest that women should help out the family by applying a job. “so if we fail to unlock the potential of women in the labour market, we’re not only failing those individuals, we’re failing our whole economy” This says women have potential in a lot fo stuff, they should go outside instead of staying home. Instead of staying home they should argue for feminism and go work outside the house. Letting women have right in political choice can increase more women to work.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/14/opinion/coontz-santorum/index.html?iref=allsearch
This article is about presidential candidate Rick Santorum’s views on childcare, and education regarding women. The article is based on comments he made in a book he wrote in 2005, and other comments he has previously made. After reading this article, I thought that Rick Santorum was close-minded, and against women trying to raise their education to benefit their families or themselves. He makes comments that make him seem ignorant and unthoughtful about his own wife, and towards other mothers who try to make the best of their lives, or try to support their families. Regardless of the situation you were in when you had your child, I don’t think it is Santorum’s right to say that it’s “wrong” when a parent decides to go back to school, in order to try and pursue a career that will benefit their child’s future. “The notion that college education is a cost-effective way to help poor, low-skill, unmarried mothers with high school diplomas or GEDs move up the economic ladder is just wrong.” This comment especially made me upset because a) you are not in the position to say whether or not their choice is right or wrong, because you don’t know how furthering their education is going to help them. It doesn’t mean they’ll become a CEO, but it at least means they don’t have to go for a degrading job because at least they’ll have a college diploma. b) I feel as though Santorum is bringing down women who had a child when they were unmarried by pretty much laughing at them for having the idea that they can better themselves with a college education. This article has a negative effect on women and is against their equality and is oppressive to their ideas. Santorum is against women who try to further their education, and doesn’t think they have the right to think about it or even attempt it.
I honestly agree with you. I personally think that the fact that Santorum actually said “poor, low-skill, unmarried mothers with high school diplomas or GEDs move up the economic ladder is just wrong” is very offensive, especially because it was due to gender. I also agreed on what you said about mothers trying to support their families. However, I disagree when you said : Santorum is against women who try to further their education, and doesn’t think they have the right to think about it or even attempt it. Although I find this negative as well, once you think about it, he is slightly correct. I’m pretty sure that worldwide, there are women who are still treated very badly. I don’t think this will stop for a very long time. What I think he is trying to say is that the poor shouldn’t waste their money on something they are not completely sure about. In the article, he states, “college education is a cost-effective way…. “.This phrase alone is saying that college is expensive. I think he is giving a warning about money. I’m positive that there are many people, including students who couldn’t afford college who use student loans. I bet there are students still trying to figure out a way to pay back their debts, but ended up wasting their time in college to get a not so great job. My cousin studied in technology and ended up back in college after 4 long years because she couldn’t find a job. This is what Santorum is referring too. There is no point in wasting money into something that will not work out. It will end up in a huge mess so you might as well not risk it at all. I’m not saying that its a huge mistake to try at all; I would take ricks myself. Its just a reminder saying things don’t go well all the time. Especially in a world like this, where people are still treated unfairly whether it is because of race or gender. Its an even bigger obstacle for women especially because many people take advantage of their gender and are always treated inferior to men. In conclusion, although I dislike the way Santorum thinks, he has a point in his say.
After reading both Stephanie’s article and your reply Kim, I agree with both points that you two brought up. Santorum is being ignorant to his own wife, Stephanie. But not just his wife, he’s ignorant in general. He’s only thinking of things through his perspective. I mean if women going to college for a college degree to help raise their families is unnecessary or pointless (I guess would be a good word for it). Then why can men do it? In the economy nowadays, you need a diploma or a college degree to do something, and I don’t get why men can go back to college and get this diploma and women can’t.
As for you Kim, I agree with you as well as he’s not AGAINST women but what you said about how “It will end up in a huge mess so you might as well not risk it at all.” That’s the thing though, there’s a very slim chance that it’s worth it. I can guarantee that not everyone who goes to college ends up failing, or dropping out, or has student loans. There ARE students that get full ride or that go through college and pay off their debts and live like they always wanted to. I think that those people are very lucky, but that’s not really all he’s saying.
We need to connect back, he says that “poor, low-skill, unmarried mothers with high school diplomas or GEDs move up the economic ladder is just wrong” right? Well what about men? There are unmarried men, with no skill, and they could go college and fail twice
bad as women. So why didn’t he mention them? Why didn’t he talk about how men with no education (or little-education) effects childcare? Why did he have to target women who don’t have the proper education. Isn’t childcare supposed to be both parents’ responsibilities?
If Rochester (From Jane Eyre) wasn’t educated, then Adele would see it as rich and luxurious people don’t need to be smart and she wouldn’t bother learning. Because children, whether people know it or not, are effected by both their parents. (or in this case guardians) Jane teaches Adele so Adele can impress the higher class. If Rochester wasn’t smart then Adele would probably not bother even learning.
This article for me makes me really want to just scream, I mean yeah it’s a long-run or you might not end up to be what you want to be or there’s a great chance of failure. But you can’t limit someone chances, because oppressing them would keep them from doing something that could shock even themselves and you. Women can do whatever men can, you might not think so. But you might shocked.
Based on what Kim said, I see how Santorum is trying to make his point. I actually like the fact that he pointed this out, and Kim too, that college is a lot of money and if you can’t afford it and aren’t completely sure about it you probably shouldn’t do it, even if you are just trying to help your family. To me, the way he is conveying his point can be pretty harsh, and very offensive and insulting to women; I think his opinion when he says, “The notion that college education is a cost-effective way to help poor, low-skill, unmarried mothers with high school diplomas or GEDs move up the economic ladder is just wrong.” is incorrect because I don’t see it as wrong. They are just trying to make a living by getting a better education so that they could get a better job, thus being able to take care of their families. However, this idea could also not be the right choice for women because if they are too poor to afford college, and are unsure if they will really get a better job afterwards it really wouldn’t be a good idea for them, it sort of would be a waste of time and a big mistake, like Kim stated before. I think that this idea really has only two outcomes, it can benefit you and get you a better job, or it could break you. It really just depends on the woman and her situation.
Kim I agree when you said that you found ““poor, low-skill, unmarried mothers with high school diplomas or GEDs move up the economic ladder is just wrong” offensive because Santorum is being sexist about low class women instead of low class men. These women that the colleges are giving financial help are giving them opportunities to find better ways to raise their child. Yes, these women probably made mistakes having children early or quitting school but everybody deserves a chance at the top.
But i strongly disagree with you when you said that you disagreed with Stephanie when she said “Santorum is against women who try to further their education, and doesn’t think they have the right to think about it or even attempt it”. Santorum is totally against it. If he is saying that low class women attempting to attend college is wrong then that is saying that these women attending college should be illegal. These women are attending college for opportunities for better jobs to take care of their children. Once these women give birth, the child is the women’s responsibility. For a low class women to attend college is an excellent idea. The women used their free will for finding a better way to care for the child. No child wants to live a harsh life and Santorum has no right to say that it is wrong for low class women to attempt going back to college.
End of discussion!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-17022847
Even now, there are always some things that limit the power of women. Men think that women can’t do as much as them, that they can’t make a difference. Also, men never really think of women’s needs. In this article, it talks about how this Indian lady got what she wanted by just leaving her husband for a while. Anita Narre left her husband’s house due to the lack of toilet. She did that to get what she wanted, which was a toilet. After 8 days, Anita came back and her husband has built a toilet.
I feel like this article shows how women have power to make a difference. It does not only show how women can make a difference, but it shows how women are not treated as equal as some people portray that they are.
This article shows that there was a limit on their equality. Women are expected to have the same sources as men. Narre said: “It is not nice for women to go outside to defecate. That’s why every home should have a toilet. Those who don’t should make sure there is one.” This shows that there was no respect for women. They don’t know what the women needs are. However, this article also shows that the women have right to stand up for what they believe in. Narre believed in getting a toilet in her husband’s house, therefore she left the house and later got the toilet she wanted.
This is a positive change for women, because they finally have a toilet, but it is not positive for all. Not all women have a toilet in their homes. It takes a lot of money and some people don’t have enough for that. This article also shows that women have the freewill to stand up for what they believe in, that not all women are going to just sit there and do what you demand them to do.
I disagree with some of your thoughts. “Men think that women can’t do as much as them.” In my opinion, men used to protect the women because of the child. People have noticed how a child is an important thing. Because of this, the women who bears the child will be in charge of also taking care of it and the men would try their best to protect it. This was then passed down through generations. This can also result in conformity in how generations would conform to earlier ones. This part can also also debate in how you said “…men never really thinks of women’s needs.” This is pretty much like stereotypes. People see one group of people as such and then that stereotype would start getting everywhere. This one short article does not provide enough information to back up this statement.
This has a great connection to Jane Eyre. Jane has decided to leave Rochester because of his mistakes that he made during his youth. Because of this, Jane leaves and lets him figure out his mistakes. She does not completely leave him, he is still in her memory and Jane would always think about him. So does Rochester. Rochester then tries to solve this problem and tries to redeem himself to get rid of the mistakes he had done in his early life. Though the Indian Woman comes back at the end, it is still unknown if Jane will. This can also be foreshadowing form an entirely different event on how Jane will eventually come back to Rochester. The book of Jane Eyre must have experienced many causes like how the Indian Woman had and combined those experiences to create the book. That is a possibility on how an entirely different event can foreshadow whats happens later in the book.
You made a great point in stating how women can make a difference. This passage does emphasize this more by making it look as if the woman has more power in this situation. You stated that women can be equal to men. i totally agree with this statement.
When you wrote about this article, you failed to mention your opinion on the article. So, judging by your three paragraphs, I can safely say that you believe what the woman did was right. But, I disagree with your “opinion” on this because she could have just went to the police or something to report her husband. Also, how is there no equality if women are “expected to have the same sources as men”? Wouldn’t that make them equal because they both don’t have toilets? I do, however, agree with the fact that you said that this was a positive change for women because they have the free will to protest against their husbands’ lack of sanitation. But, I also have another disagreement because you said it was a positive change because women can have toilets. Don’t get me wrong, it is a step towards equality but I think you’re missing the big picture. This article has a double meaning. It not only serves as means of information that focuses on the poor sanitation of India but about how closer the world is to the respect and support of women and their needs.
Amanda, I concur with most points you have regarding this article. First I would like to say this article emphasizes the principal that one weakness a married man has is his wife leaving him which can give women an advantage in a married home. I agree with your point where you say “it shows how women are not treated as equal as some people portray that they are.”
Many people are aware of the limitations women have but many try to hide this reality. This is really disappointing because especially in this article we can visualize the hardships that women can face in poor areas such as India. In the article it states “The problem is acute in rural India and it is the women who suffer most.” Poor sanitation is a big issue for women because of obvious reasons.
I agree with what you said about women having power over their husbands. As stated earlier, a woman can honestly leave her husband at any point in the marriage. In this case her actions left a positive outcome: getting a toilet in the house. However I slightly disagree with your point that Narre is expressing free will because in a sense she is being forced to leave the house because there is no toilet which she cannot deal with! But she does have power over her husband Shivram: she can make him do things by leaving the house.
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/peta-controversial-tongue-in-cheek-ad-touting-vegan-diet-features-young-woman-appears-abused-article-1.1022655?localLinksEnabled=false
This article is about the new PETA advertisement whose purpose is to promote veganism, but in the bigger picture, obviously promotes violence towards women. This quote explains the purpose of the advertisement: “Rajt also says the ad is a great health message for men, pointing out that many men don’t realize that high cholesterol found in animal products can create problems for sexual performance.”
This advertisement is oppressive to women since it basically promotes that it’s fine to abuse women in such a way. The fact is that since things are easily and quickly spread through the internet, this advertisement is most likely going to be viewed by many teenagers, and the majority of them are still easily influenced. The way the girl is portrayed in the advertisement even suggests that women shouldn’t be treated as equals and it’s fine to abuse them. This is hugely negative for women as well, since its message is basically that while men should go vegan and have a good life, it’s fine to abuse women in the process.
I personally believe that this advertisement promotes domestic abuse and that the advertisement is highly focused towards a supposed good way of life specifically for men while dehumanizing women in the process.
I agree with what you Joseph I feel like this advertisement is oppressing a women. A women should be told what they should do like fighting. They have the rights to choose what they want to do, they have a mind of their own. So no one should try to make up their minds for them like they do not have a mind of their own. In the article you said ” This advertisement promotes domestic abuse and…” I am with you all the way with this the advertiisement is kind of like a message for all men that are watching it that abusing women is alright. Which is wrong to think of sending as a message for your viewers. The reason why is because some of the men will take it seriously and start to act like that, and it only takes a hand full of men to put the whole population of women down more than they already are right now. And that’s another thing the women powers these day have grown over time but not to the point that they are really equal to men. And that’s something I feel you could of add to your arguement that you have. The power of women is not at a man level yet and to bring it down more with these kind of action I feel is really mess up. They worked very hard to reach this high in power and this one kind of action could just bring them back down. And that will cause serious problems later on in life which would affect the world in some way. ” Rajt also says the ad is a great health message…” To be honest I think that it is what the advertisement is showing from a different point of veiw. The basic message of the ad you can say. It is when you go deeper into it you find other meaning like promoting women violence
I agree with Joseph because this advertisement is showing that it is fine to abuse women and this idea spreads throughout the world and can easily influence people. The whole idea that she “suffers from BWVAKTOOM” I think that makes no sense and is getting the wrong message across, this PETA advertisement is no only inappropriate but weird. Though the commercial is meant to be funny I cannot get the humor in this. The message that is being sent is that; its okay to beat women, in the article is says that “if your partner goes vegan, they will have so much stamina that it will knock them over,” Knock them over is not really the ideal term that you would want to use to get your point across. This suggests negatively that you can literally knock them over like punch them in that face and thats not okay. I think that many people wouldn’t really understand the sexual reference. I can even think of many other ways to promote being vegan. This advertisement was poorly though out. If someone saw this I can only imagine that they would get the wrong idea. I can think of many other ways that they could have gotten their message across.
Although the grammar in this comment is hard to understand, I agree with the statement, “this advertisement is kind of like a message for all men that are watching it that abusing women is alright.” I’d go as far as to say that this ad makes it seem like women enjoy being abused, which is completely untrue. However, that’s how the woman in PETA’s ad was portrayed. In a neck brace, but still smiling over the idea of more abusive sex. This advertisement is showing a benefit for men (higher sex drive from following a vegan diet) and a cost for women (abuse, injury). The woman is also doing the shopping for the man, which is cliché, supposedly so she can have more abusive sex, which is a stereotype. It reminds me of Jane Eyre in the sense that she was abused by her male cousin, albeit not in the same manner. John Reed lived in a world where men were believed to be superior to women. I believe women should be equal to men, and free to make their own decisions and share their ideas. They aren’t though. Women are always judged on their looks above everything else. This ad isn’t the only shocking PETA action described in the article. It refers to another PETA ad, an anti-milk campaign that “showed a group of women stripping their shirts off and revealing not breasts but udders.” This demeaning animalization of women represents them as being equal to animals, to be used by men, not to stand equal with them. Fortunately, even a male dominated sport like football found this ad repulsive – it was banned from airing during the Super Bowl.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1403450&srvc=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+bostonherald%2Fnews%2Fregional+%28Local+%2F+Regional+-+News+%26+Opinion+-+BostonHerald.com%29
This story is about a Mattapan mother who is defending her son who is accused of slaughtering four people, including a toddler, and leaving their bloody bodies in a Mattapan street. The mother stated that “My prayers have always been with the victims’ families.”
My first reaction was that i was shocked by the details of the murders. i was not surprised by the mothers reaction to the allegations. she is a mother who loves her son and is probably in denial.
This article is an example of normality because i believe that her reaction would be a common one for a loving mother, she loves her son so she believes that he can do no wrong and he is a perfect person. It also shows equality because she has an equal right to her opinion of her son’s innocence. it is both positive and negative for women because she is showing that women are strong and will stand up for what they believe in. in can be viewed as negative because it could show women as foolish and in denial.
I disagree with your last statement “in can be viewed as negative because it could show women as foolish and in denial”. You make a good point when you say it is normal for the woman to support her son and she is in denial, but it cannot be said that they are “foolish”. Like you said, “This article is an example of normality because i believe that her reaction would be a common one for a loving mother” How is it foolish if it is a normal thing to do? Have you ever thought about the affect this is having on the mother right now, mentally shocked? Perfectly NORMAL. In Jane Eyre, Jane was in denial that she still loved Mr. Rochester, but didn’t marry him due to bigamy. This is an example of any woman’s choices being limited. Woman are oppressed by society which leads to normality. The Oppression of woman was normal back then, and still is now. For example The woman’s son Dwayne Moore and Edward Washington ,his partner, killed 4 people in cold blood. She is oppressed by society to support her son no matter what. When you say that “it is both positive and negative for women because she is showing that women are strong and will stand up for what they believe in”. I agree when you say that they stand up for what they believe in, but why? Society oppresses her to say that her son is innocent. No woman would say that her son is guilty for doing a crime,etc. This leads to normality now, because since every woman would “support” their son at times like this because of society oppressing them it’s a usual thing for any woman to claim their child innocent. What kind of mother wouldn’t support their child? You said that you weren’t surprised be her reaction to the allegations, and she is in denial. Then why did you say that it’s foolish when it’s clearly NORMAL to do such a thing? It’s after oppression that normality occurs in this situation. It even isn’t proved that he is guilty. There is a big chance he is, but she still supported him. If she claimed he was “guilty” than that’s another story because there would be concrete evidence right in front of her. But this scenario is rare, because any passionate mother who truly loves their child will support them and wait to see till its all said and done if he/she is guilty or not.
Deandre and Amtooj I agree with both of your understandings of normality because first the mother is completley in dinial she said this “I know that the people who are being charged are very much innocent.”.” So she obviously is dinial. (Not to mention there was 150 potiential witnesses).
Amtooj how do you disagree with Deandres last statement, because you supported everthing you said with a quote from Deandre. You also never mad a complete statement, all you did was ask questions trying to seem smarter. But his last statment “negative because it could show women as foolish and in denial.” is very true because when women are in dinial there is no way of switching there mind its like a brick wall.
Amtooj your view on Jane Eyre is also sort of wrong. “Jane Eyre, Jane was in denial that she still loved Mr. Rochester, but didn’t marry him due to bigamy. This is an example of any woman’s choices being limited. Woman are oppressed by society which leads to normality.” Back then all women could really look foward to is geting married and having a family. It wasnt a normal decision for a women back then to run away from her marriage at the last second. Plus Mr Rochester was rich, which is a bonus towards her living styles. This does support Deandres last stament because when Jane couldnt believe this, she was in dinial, she ran away which was fooloish, she almost died and she almost threw her life away. Jane just got lucky she had a rich uncle. Amtooj how was Jane oppressed by society you never really explained your points. (learn to elaborate on them) I think you just bring up things to seem smart but theres never a BECAUSE after a statement
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/02/14/indian-woman-rewarded-after-protesting-husband-over-lack-toilet/
” She was gone in a flush”
This woman left her husband 2 days after being married in Pakistan. She refused to stay in a home without a toilet. She showed free will and individuality because she took it upon herself to leave and proceed to do what she thought was best for her. I believe she also showed individuality because most woman would “grin and bare” it for the sake of their husband but instead she fought back instead of just sitting back and doing nothing and for that she was rewarded for her bravery. I think its positive to see this woman take control because it shows that woman are stronger than they’re made out to be.
I do agree with you, that this woman’s actions show free will and individuality; since cultures in certain countries, such as the one mentioned in the article, India, claim that it is correct for men to be in charge of the household, the woman standing up to her husband manages to exhibit her individuality of her country’s culture. However, not every woman can fight back and achieve the same results; women might have to face the punishments of tyrannical men if they tried, or just end up in a worse position. Many women would be able to achieve a positive outcome, though, but it won’t be as convenient as the one which the Indian woman managed to earn in the article; women won’t usually earn $10,000 simply by telling their husbands that they won’t live in a house with no toilet. They can still try though; in fact, if I was in one of their positions, I would try to fight back as well; it is difficult to live through a torturous life knowing that it could have been prevented by oneself.
I completely agree with Sarah. I think it took a lot of courage to get up and leave her husband after only 2 days of being married. I agree that it showed individuality because most women today would stay with a man because they want to feel loved. Others who have courage would get up and leave if they were not happy with the life they chose. Women just let men degrade them and walk all over them, without a fight. This women showed real courage in fighting for what she believed in. This also shows free will because she decided that this life wasn’t good enough for her and she wasn’t going to sit around and wait for it to get better. She just got up and left, and put her husband to make it right. “An NGO announced a $10,000 reward for Mrs. Narre for her “brave” decision and forcing her husband to build a toilet. ” This shows that she was very brave and she was rewarded for her actions, which is a very good thing. Many people think that her actions were courageous and deserved to be rewarded for. More women should follow in her footsteps and become more feminist.
Sara, I agree ” She showed free will and individuality because she took it upon herself to leave and proceed to do what she thought was best for her.” I agree because like you sated most women would just “grin and bare” it. Although i don’t believe they would do for their husband. I believe they would do it for the love they have for their husband.
The article states that “Anita Narre was rewarded $10,000 by an NGO for her “brave” decision to leave her home two days after being married last May, and forcing her husband to build a toilet.” Hence I believe that Mrs.Narre was being materialistic leaving her husband over a toilet. And that she would just accept the fact that she didn’t have one and “grin and bare” it, because the love her and her husband shared would get her through the adversity of living without a toilet.
The article also states “Eight days later, Narre returned to her husband, Shivram, a daily wage worker in the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh.” To me that says she didn’t have problems with their relationship , and the only factor of their relationship she dislike was that she was deprived of a toilet. And her leaving then again reinstates my idea of Mrs.Narre being materialistic.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/11/opinion/martin-sandberg-women-confidence/index.html?iref=allsearch
the article takes place at Facebook. this article is about how Sheryl Sandberg is second inline at Facebook and how she is one of few women who has that high of a position in a company. People have asked how did Sheryl do it? she tells us that men are more considered for these higher ranked jobs and women need to have the confidence to strive for these types of jobs. the article is showing that women can do thbese high level jobs as well or even better than a man.
My opinon of the article is that if a woman is willing to work hard enough and have confidence in herself she will no problem getting a high position in the company she works for.The article is related to “if your friends were jumping of a bridge, would you?” it is like if your friends are not having confidence in themselves and try to find high position jobs, its not likely you will try either.
i dont think this article limits womens equality because the only thing limiting them is themselves. if they dont strive to get a job they will never get a job. they will be seen as equal once they work hard and earn that high position job. once they do they will do as well or even better as a man would do.
Hey Bridget,
You said “that if a woman is willing to work hard enough and have confidence in herself she will have no problem getting a high position in the company she works for,” I disagree. Although having confidence is beneficial quality, I believe that it is harder for woman to know just how much of that confidence to have. For example, if a woman walks in for her interview and acts very confident and assertive, the interviewer most likely will interpret her as a “brat” (other words may come to mind) just because she is a woman. If that same woman does not have enough confidence, she will not be taken seriously.
I agree with you on how your friends confidence may affect yours. The article states “The social norms set by our peers dominate our choices about what we value and what we expect in life.” This quote explains the relationship about how our society affects our choices and how we choose to be seen. I agree on how others standards create what we value in life, but that is only if you let it. People complain perpetually about how our society is ruining our generation, but who is society? Everyone. If we stop judging everyone else and change ourselves first, then there won’t be much to complain about. We need more outspoken woman like Sandberg.
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/6933222/ns/today/t/thirty-years-later-feminism-dead/#.TzsPmcVtrSi
This article is about how feminist views are seen today compared to the 1970s, and how strongly people see them today. I believe that this is a really strong article, and really captures how woman today see themselves as feminists or not, as well as showing the main differences to how woman are seen compared to their male counterparts and how it affects them. “If it took us a century to get identity, it’s not surprising that it will take a century to get equality,” said Steinem. Today woman are still seen as a lesser equal to man. “One of the largest issues women today face is equal pay. While nearly as many women are now in the workforce as men, they are still paid less — about 76 cents for every dollar a man makes. And that is up from 59 cents in the 1970s. For poorer women stuck in lower income jobs, the gap is even wide” says Today news. This is very oppressive to woman of any kind. Especially when it comes to woman who work very low paid jobs to begin with. They are being cheated out of their money just because they were born a woman and not a man; and are seen not only as weaker, but less hardworking. This limits a woman’s rights to equality and her individuality. Her equality is being taken away because she is being treated differently. The woman gets paid less and are sometimes not allowed to work certain jobs. Her individuality is taken away because that one job that she really wants, she cannot have because she is a woman. So instead she has to settle for a job she may have never even wanted. In society these days we need to see beyond sexes. Just because you are a woman does not mean you can’t do a mans job and vice versa.
I totally agree with Rebecca’s point of view. Feminism is a large issue that society faces today. Like she said above, “In society these days we need to see beyond sexes.” That is completely true. We can just look at a woman compared to a man then automatically think that a man is more capable of tasks than a woman is. A woman has every right to be treated the same as a man. A person can’t help what sex they were born so you have to look past that and look within the person. In some cases, a woman is more capable of certain tasks than a man is. If so, would you just look over her because of her gender? No. Yes, we have come a long way with this issue but we need to keep moving. This quote says by Goodman shows a very good point of view. ““You can believe in women’s rights, and you can dress the way you want, and you can represent yourself on all these fronts, and still feel empowered,” said Goldman. A woman should always feel empowered because her existence is just as important.
I agree when Rebecca said, “The woman gets paid less and are sometimes not allowed to work certain jobs. Her individuality is taken away because that one job that she really wants, she cannot have because she is a woman. So instead she has to settle for a job she may have never even wanted. In society these days we need to see beyond sexes”. Women are being discriminated due to their gender, not their character. A woman may be able to do a men’s job better than the “men” himself, but due to her gender (which everyone was once a female in their lifetime) she is discriminated by lowering her pay check. Women do loose there free will, for them to live they need money, so now they have to conform to the jobs in which society already made for them.
But I do disagree with what Gloria Steinem stated; “If it took us a century to get identity, it’s not surprising that it will take a century to get equality,” because looking on how women are portrayed in society, we have been degraded. We aren’t portrayed as women of character, with intelligence; we are portrayed as sexual beings, with no mind set. If we continue going down that road, it will take longer than a century for women to get equality. We want to believe that equality between genders will come soon, but we are so far from it, unless we (women and feminists) protest on how we are portrayed in the eyes of society, in the eye of the world.
You should do some research on Gloria. She is my hero
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46295417/ns/today-good_news/#.TzsAH1weP5Y
This article is about how an elderly woman named Lelia Boroughs, who lives in San Francisco, was kind enough to put in her will that after she died, her house would be turned into a place for the homeless to live in, yet people barely knew who she was except that she was a very kind women who helped the homeless with their needs. I find it sad that people in her neighborhood barely know who she is like her background or what her hobbies are, even though she is such a nice lady. Also, she has no family relatives and nobody has offered to help her. Normally, not many people like her do those kind of things especially at her age when she needs to care about her health. This makes her an individual because she wanted to help the homeless because she wanted to; not for show. She is very sympathetic with the homeless because one of her neighbors, Irinia Khokhlova, said that Mrs. Boroughs understands how it feels to be by herself. Seeing how nice this woman is, this could be a positive impact on other women because it shows people that not only people can do this, but women of any age can make a change in the community, or something even bigger.
Jacqulyn Brooks Section F
http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2012/feb/06/ballet-anorexia-la-scala?INTCMP=SRCH
This article, “The light fantastic? Ballet dancers and anorexia”, is about how ballerinas are especially feeling pressured to become thinner, by the publics expectations, and the new “trends” of being very thin. The article states, “Ballerinas used to be plump by modern standards; indeed, the Great Russian ballerina Anna Pavlova was criticized in the late 1890s for being too thin (mocked for her long, slender limbs, she was nicknamed “the broom” by fellow students).” Imagine how much this woman must have been put down and hurt by these comments. She is doing something she loves and she is being ridiculed for something she may have no control over, and something that has nothing to do with her occupation. The pressure on woman to have perfect bodies is one of the most oppressive things towards them. This limits their ability to be normal, if they cannot reach the standards that they are expected to reach, and this limits their individuality because they cannot look the way they truly want, and they are brainwashed to look a specific way. This pressure limits their equality. Just because they are built differently from one another does not mean they cannot be beautiful like others. Women these days are so determined to blend in and look the same as others that they are willing to try hard to get the same look, and this limits their free will to express themselves and convey the way they want to be seen. This is a very negative thing for women and is actually a major problem in today’s society, one that does not receive enough attention.
I completely agree with you. I believe that in today’s society, people look at a girl’s body instead of personality. I like when you said, “The pressure on woman to have perfect bodies is one of the most oppressive things towards them. This limits their ability to be normal.” This really explains how there is a lot of pressure on women to be skinny in order to fit in. If women want to be supposedly said, “normal,” do they really have to stop eating and become anorexic? The article states, “Garritano claimed her training at La Scala’s ballet school had pushed her and many of her fellow students into severe body dysmorphia and eating disorders; she argued that one in five ballerinas now suffer from anorexia.” She is being a feminist by standing up for herself and arguing that she isn’t going to hurt herself mentally or physically! These girls are basically forced to be skinny. I hate that women “have to be” skinny in today’s society just because that is what people like, especially guys. I think it is horrible that women that are not skinny are just looked right through and aren’t judged by personality but by looks. The way a person looks is not by choice, its genetics and they can’t control it. I can connect personally. I try everyday to get closer to my task of being thinner. My weight and shape have effected me a lot, yet these girls that are already skinny are asked to be even skinnier and that they are ugly because they aren’t skinny enough. When I hear a skinny girl that says, “i’m fat,” or “ew she’s fat” (even though that person is much skinnier than me), i think to myself, what do they think of me? I get upset and i say that i will never be skinny like that and i will be thankful if i even lose a couple pounds. That’s what society does to me. It’s disgusting.
I totally and completely agree with the both of you. In society today a girl who is a little bigger than the rest is automatically fat. It is terrible the way society judges us, but we allow them to. Even as girls we call each other or ourselves fat, just because we don’t look like Victorias Secret model. We feel the need to conform and change ourselves to look “thinner” because we are programmed that if your skinny, then your pretty; Which is such a lie. Like look at Adele she is gorgeous and bigger, but she overcomes people calling her fat by singing. So I feel that society will never change from this. It will always be fat is bad, skinny is good. But it should change, because there are girls who are anorexic and bulimic when they are already skinny, but do that because that’s what they think society wants; skinny girls. And I always call myself fat, but as a joke, but that’s not even ok, like if you keep repeating, then eventually you can accept it or even believe it. I really enjoyed this article because it showed how someone being called “too thin” in the 1890′s can affect a society 112 years later.
I know what you mean, Jacqulyn. But this sentence you said; “The pressure on woman to have perfect bodies is one of the most oppressive things towards them” I somewhat agree on what you said there. Girls aren’t the only ones oppressed by society. Boys are too believe it or not, like a boy has to have Bieber hair and a six pack in order to be considered hot. Do you think a man with a thinning hairline and jelly rolls is attractive? Most will say no, why? Because that isn’t what the media portrays as handsome. All these boys go to the gym and drink nasty protein shakes in order to be Hollister model sexy. Please, don’t get me wrong, girls have it bad as well. We look at all this stick figured models/celebs and we naively think this is what is appealing but little do we know that its is all fake. You know what I say? Humbug! I don’t think anyone has the right to tell me what is hot and whats not. Beauty is in the eyes on the beholder and I don’t need Seventeen magazine to tell me otherwise. People will always judge you, tell you your too fat or too skinny like in this passage; “Ballerinas used to be plump by modern standards; indeed, the Great Russian ballerina Anna Pavlova was criticized in the late 1890s for being too thin (mocked for her long, slender limbs, she was nicknamed “the broom” by fellow students).” Anna Pavlova was a great dancer yet people still judged her for being too skinny. Even though she was skinny she was probably the best student out of all of the other ones. No matter what you do everyone is going to judge you. Don’t let their judgement affect you, let them hate and use that hate to motivate you to do better.
I love Anna Pavlova
and I like that you considered men in Your rebuttal.
Hey guys,
I agree with all of you. These girls are being pressured by society to look a certain way, and it’s not always to be thin. Sometimes when a girl reaches her goal of becoming thinner, she is then told that she’s too skinny. We can never win! What we should really be worrying about is what weight is healthy for our OWN body. There is always going to be someone who is thinner than us or maybe someone who has a more voluptuous, curvier body than us. We have to be comfortable in our own skin. And i completely agree with you, Sandra, when you said that boys are oppressed by society as well. Girls aren’t the only ones who are told to look a certain way, but men have it just as tough. If you have a dream of becoming a model or performer, sure, maybe you might have to lose a few pounds; that might even boost up your health, but you shouldn’t be killing yourself to reach a certain goal that really isn’t humanly possible for your body. The article even states that, “When you do, occasionally, see a dancer who is half-starved, you can also see it in the quality of their dancing.” This shows that dancers are doing what’s healthy for they’re bodies,otherwise, they wouldn’t be as talented performers. And as Jacqulyn said, “Just because they are built differently from one another does not mean they cannot be beautiful like others.” That is so true, we were all made differently and individually and that is what makes us beautiful. So if you have a talent or a passion and it’s something you’re good at, then you should go for it 100%; don’t let others bring you down.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/31/world/asia/afghanistan-strangulation/index.html
This article is about how this guy killed his wife because she gave birth to a daughter instead of a son. The story takes place in Kunduz, Afghanistan . I dislike this article very much for many reasons. First of all know one should ever die because of a reason like this . “After the youngest daughter was born, Mohammed blamed his wife for not being able to deliver a boy, Habib said”.The man brutally assaulted his wife and then killed her because she didn’t have a baby boy . I also dislike this because the man obviously believes that a boy is more valuable than a girl . But in reality everyone is equal . I think this limits his daughters’s equality because he clearly doesn’t believe that they are equal to a man or he would be happy with what he has . I believe that this negative towards women and men . It’s negative towards men because it makes us as a population look dumb for doing something like this and I think its negative towards women because it makes them look like they have no rights .
I definitely agree with Ayub because I too believe that women should not be killed over this absurd reasoning. It is ridiculous how such a human could commit such a sadistic act! What even makes me more furious is that his mother, herself stated that he was not guilty and even made up a story to defend him. “My son did not commit the crime,” Hazrata said. “… But after three daughters, Storay herself felt guilty and committed suicide.” Not only does it create an image upon men and women, but it also enforces the stereotypes upon the human race. Portrayed by his acts of violence, it makes us want to believe that men are indeed violent and that women are always the victims. Since, men are always the suspect of battery, assault, rape, etc. it puts them in a dominant state, while women remain useless. Jane too was a victim of assault, yet no one thought it was a big deal even though she was injured! I find it very unfair how women are not valued the way they should be. The women in the news report even stated that the Afghan government lacks to enforce the laws of women’s rights, which I believe is true. “This is in part because the Afghan government does little to implement or enforce the laws that protect women’s rights, she said.” Overall, I think that people should not overlook women. Women, like Ayub had said, are very similar to men. Every human has the potential to do anything and even though a man was born physically stronger, that does not mean women cannot do what they can do. The Afghan government really needs to enforce women’s rights because in truth, women are just as great as men.
I agree with Ayub that no women should die because she bore a child that the husband did not want. It is really absurd to the extent that people would think that this person is just mentally crazy. This person is inhumane. This is because he goes and kills his wife for just bearing a child that is a girl. Generally people are already happy with having a child in the first place. Yet, he’s not satisfied with what he wants so he kills her. It seems like he has a mind of a child either getting what they want or they would throw a tantrum or in this case kill someone. In the article when it says :”Generally the human rights situation, and particularly women’s rights, is deteriorating”, i totally agree with that since the women in this case had no saying of if she would die or not, the decision was just made by the husband. I also agree when Ayub had said “But in reality everyone is equal” because we live in a world where people are suppose to be equal, so it doesn’t matter if you’re a girl or a boy, if you’re a human, than you are a purpose in the world.
Jenny Nguyen. Sec: F
Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-16932892
This article is about the popular local restaurant, Hooters, closing one of its locations in Millennium Square on Monday of this week. The location of the now closed Hooters was in the UK. I think that it is a good thing that the restaurant closed because, as most of us know, that restaurant is known for having its female employees wearing little amount of clothing. I think this is showing an unequal balance between the sexes because why should only men get to enjoy these sights of women? Where is our pleasure ladies? I think this can relate mostly to normality because nowadays, it’s completely normal for men to think of women as “breasts and butts”. It is rare when we find a gentleman that notices a woman’s personality instead of her physical attractiveness first. This article can also relate to individuality because the UK is unwelcoming of the Hooters restaurant franchise. It is widely accepted here in the US though. I feel that this article itself is positive for women because it shows that the UK won’t stand to have women degraded by being asked to wear tank tops and super short shorts. I feel that the Hooters restaurant franchise reflects negatively on women because women aren’t just what these restaurants are portraying them to be. Women are smarter and better than what they are portrayed as in these restaurants. Women like Michele Obama and policewomen show what real women can be and are like, strong and independent.
You are completely right, and coming from a boy’s perspective, I can not lie by saying I do not like hooters, but we are who we are. I also agree when you said, “I feel that this article itself is positive for women because it shows that the UK won’t stand to have women degraded by being asked to wear tank tops and super short shorts.” This is very true and the first I have ever heard of a Hooters closing down because of its content knowing that there are hundreds of restaurants all over the world. This is like in “Jane Eyre” when Rochester wanted to marry Blanche, she was pretty and rich. That was all he cared for, even though he did not go through with it, getting engaged for that reason in the first place makes you a pig. Boys do not look at someone and say “wow she has so much in common with me, I want to go talk to her,” they judge by appearance since they never had the pleasure to get to know every girl they see or encounter. On the other hand, when the article said, “Last year, Bristol City Council started an investigation after a 12-year-old boy was allegedly given a birthday cake shaped like naked breasts at the venue,” I was completely shocked that someone would even ask for something like that even if there was no proof of it being true, it just shows how much respect boys at even a young age have for women and their body. I agree when you say that the UK is honorable for closing such a sexist place for only men’s pleasure with a side of fries, but if you, as a girl, think its so wrong, why do you where clothes like that knowing that it’s wrong? That is something that all women think about, “Since a girl gets so much attention dressing like that, I want that much attention too!” The truth is, you’ll never find the right man for you if you do not dress the way you act and feel.
You said: we are who we are…
Do you like hooters because it’s what you like or because society has told you to or told you you should?
Hey Jenny! I totally agree with you how it’s not equal how women can go to work dressing in minimal clothing for men to ‘enjoy’ but on the other hand there’s no actual enjoyment for women. I mean if women does this, why aren’t the guys doing it too?(lol) I also agree with you women working at hooters are degrading themselves. They are wearing clothing that men expect them to wear (tight tank tops and shorts that are practically underwear), not what they want to. I honestly hate how women do this to themselves. Women should be what they want to be, not what they are expected to be. They do not need to be “attractive” to find a decent job. “I think it’s a positive step because Hooters is all part of the normalisation of the sexual objectification of women.”-Sian Norris. God-bless UK for closing down that restaurant. I don’t think it’s a good thing that women are actually taking jobs at hooters to serve guys, chicken wings and fries. Women are better than that. They should be strong and independent like you stated. America is really horrible. It makes me want to live in Narnia or something. I hope that they will soon realize that the Hooters franchise is making a women’s image look bad, not ‘sexy’.
I totally agree with you, Jenny. The image of women has always been about their assets and not their inner qualities. I find the fact that this restaurant chain causes its female waitresses to degrade themselves appalling. Restaurants should be about eating and not about examining all the curves on the waitress. I think that no person should ever have to degrade themselves even if it comes with a pay check. As stated by Bristol Fawcett, “The men, women and children of Bristol always deserved better than a restaurant that served women up as sexual commodities, on the menu alongside chicken wings and fries.” I do not think it is good for the children of Bristol to view women like that. I also like how you said, “Women are smarter and better than what they are portrayed as in these restaurants.” I think that the United Kingdom is beginning to see all the good that is composed in a woman besides her looks. I just hope that the United States of America will begin to see it like the United Kingdom. I think if young girls see the image of these waitresses that they might see it as the image of what a real woman looks like instead of a female politician. I would hate for the cycle to continue and have women continue to degrade themselves because of that image of beauty on the exterior.
Article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46197109#.Tzsc1cXOX74
The article I have chosen is about an all- woman conference being held in the Brentwood School located in Los Angeles. The conference was held on Saturday February 4th, about two weeks ago. I enjoyed reading this article because it proved that when woman get together they aren’t gossiping. These woman had serious discussions about the world and it’s issues. I believe this article is about individuality because it shows how woman can hold intellectual conversations, unlike the stereotypical woman we see on television who only talk about their shoes. This article has a positive impact on woman because it shows how young girls were able to leave their comfort zones and able to discuss difficult issues around us. It shows how girls can talk about politics too, unlike common misconceptions. In the article, Maria Shriver [famous american journalist] said, “My work has always been about guiding and encouraging people to move beyond their comfort zones and the labels that limit them to recognize their power to be architects of change. These extraordinary young women did just that.” This quotes proves that these young women are changing the world by being able to hold conversations about the it, and by speaking their minds. I also believe that this article shows equality because the young women who participated in this event were able to talk about things that some men feel to be “off limits”. This conference not only gave power to women, but YOUNG women, which I find very important. I find that important because it allows teenage girls the opportunity to speak up about things that they don’t like about their life/country.
I agree with you because I also think this article has a positive impact on women. It encourages more females to get out there and say what they feel everyone should hear. I also think that this is a great way for women to get a chance to speak their minds and spill out all their opinions out to the public. I agree with you that it is individuality and equality. Like you said “This quotes proves that these young women are changing the world,” this shows that women are capable of what men can do. By us, women getting involved with the world, it shows that women do have the opportunity to get involved and that is equality. This article also shows free will because females are finally getting more ‘freedom of speech’ like men. Good point about how these conferences not only changes present day women but also teenagers or maybe even later generations. I agree because once females join into these ‘men off limit’ things then more females will be encouraged to join in too. Then people will realize that everyone is capable of doing anything, as long as they try. Overall, I thought this was a good article on feminism because it is about females stepping up and saying what they want and getting involved. If a lot of people get involved and share their ideas/thoughts, maybe there would be more equality in the world.
Jackie, I agree with you and this article . You mentioned something about women coming together and talking and not gossiping. I think that there is almost like a stereotype on women and all they do is gossip. From this meeting they had, I believe that men and younger girls with stop with the stereotype of gossiping. This gives women some power because maybe now men will see that we can talk about important things and not just drama. Maybe if this continues and spreads throughout the country the stereotype will be completely gone and women will be seen as something more than just drama and gossiping. I believe that maybe this could even lead into something bigger, maybe a next women president! I also agree when you said this sets a good example for younger girls. If we provided them with this good example of women getting together and having power then they will do the same and not think that life is all about hating other girls or something like that. I personally think that this should spread all across the country so that maybe in the future women wont be stereotyped and they will be something more than what people believe they are to be today.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2012/02/13/women-less-likely-to-seek-help-job-hunting/
This article is about how women have less opportunities of getting a job than men because they aren’t proactive enough and they are stereotyped by others. This shows oppressment towards woman because they don’t feel like their good enough to get the job because their stay at home moms or young mothers who are very busy with their lives. This limits their right to equality because they don’t feel like their good as men to get the job, when all they have to do is continue applying. Some of the ways that men are most likely to get jobs than women are written in the article, “Phoning & e-mailing colleagues and professional contacts. Reaching out to current colleagues and professional contacts via social media. Making new professional contacts via social media.” This is negative towards woman because they feel like they can’t get a job and they need to try different social medias, look at catalogues, try to persuade companies to give you the job. Although the setting of this place is in Florida, I think that the woman should try harder to get the jobs and maybe try different things. Even if they don’t work out that doesn’t mean they should stop. I don’t think any woman should be stereotyped for her looks, personality, etc. Except for how hard she works at her job and how committed she is. Men, unfortuantely, still do get more jobs than women, being the head of the household. Although, women are allowed to get jobs too they have to look deeper into what they want instead of the situation becoming more opressed.
This article takes place in South Florida where a 25-year-old woman with a newborn baby was beat and choked. She called 911 because an intruder entered her home through a sliding door Sunday night. She was trying to call 911 but it was hit away. When she called again minutes later she claimed she was sexually assaulted and that someone had broken into her house. The suspect was running away from the woman’s house as she was calling. The police caught him in front of another house after hearing a description of him by the woman. I thought that this woman showed free-will by calling the police and having the security to leave her door open, but also normality since almost anyone would do the same. She had a newborn baby in her bed and had to do something in order to protect it so she obviously called 911 for help. She had attempted to call then, but failed and must have felt terror. “The woman tried to call police after the intruder managed to enter the home through a sliding door, but the phone was hit away while the dispatcher was on the phone, WSVN.com reported.” This had a negative effect on her because she could be mentally scarred by the fear of her child being harmed or of being physically harmed and not being able to complete her call the first time. After going through such a scene she would probably not feel safe in her home anymore and want to make changes so she would feel secure.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/14/south-florida-mom-beaten-raped-by-1-year-old/
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/22/overheard-on-cnn-com-whats-a-girl-toy-anyway/?iref=allsearch
This article is about toys but more specifically legos, there was a new line of legos released that were designed for girls. Parents are disappointed how these legos portray the stereotyped roles of a woman/girl. This takes place all over the country and others too, wherever toys are sold.
My opinion on this is that both genders should be allowed to play with whatever toys they want, after all they are young and for fun they use their imagination which legos and other toys allow them to do. It is stated that a mother said: “girls are made to be mothers” I agree with this, all girls will not be mothers but the majority end up being mothers. That being said these ‘stereotypical’ toys are not very stereotypical, they have to do with what the girl might want to be when she grows up.
This article is not oppressive to women, when I say most girls grow up to be mothers I would hope women wouldn’t attack me and yell at me for being judgmental. These toys do not limit women’s free will, they just present what most girls want to be when they grow up. These toys should not be banned or changed, for a boy if he wants to grow up to be a fireman they will probably have fireman toys, is that in any way offensive? It is the same case for women
Bobby, I disagree with you completely. You said, “These toys do not limit women’s free will”. They absolutely do, as well as individuality and equality. This new brand of toys are designed for young girls, and it is sub-consciously telling them that they have to act a certain way, or saying that there is only a limited number of options they can be and do in life. The article states that the new design “introduces characters like the beautician, the social girl, the girl who loves animals” and whether people realize it or not that is exactly what girls are being taught and told they can only be, by the media, society, and even toys. You also stated that you think, “most girls grow up to be mothers” and I think that is ridiculous and degrading. Most people do unfortunately do think like you, and that is why women are degraded and looked down upon in society. Women have a far greater purpose than to just be mothers, and watch their kids, and cook, and clean and wait on their husbands and let him do all the work to support the family because she is not capable. This is what they are expected to do, and that’s absurd. You’re saying that you expect most girls to grow up to be this way, and that limits all their equality rights. I feel that the toy is just advertising this concept more and more, and this truly affects women negatively.
Alexis, I disagree with you and the claim that the new lego toys are telling kids what do become when they are grown.
When you said “This new brand of toys are designed for young girls, and it is sub-consciously telling them that they have to act a certain way, or saying that there is only a limited number of options they can be and do in life”, I could understand the reasoning behind “sub-consciously telling them that they have to act a certain way” because it is true, the toys are acting as a role model for the kid, and something for the kid to look up to. But when you said “saying that there is only a limited number of options they can be and do in life” I disagreed, because I think that the toy is there just to show the child what the average person is like (male or female) in society today, whether the child chooses to become like that person or something greater, it is they’re choice, the toy isn’t physically limiting the number of option the kid has.
I agree with Bobby when he said “This article is not oppressive to women, when I say most girls grow up to be mothers I would hope women wouldn’t attack me and yell at me for being judgmental”, because it is true, most women when grown will become mothers. After they become mothers, what they choose to do is 100% up to them. Whether it is becoming a house wife or a business woman, its their choice. The stereotypical toys they’ve played with gave them the basic role model formed by society, whether they become that role model, or build upon that role model, it is their choice. Adam Zahn from the article said “Forcing a truck in a kid’s hand does not make him want to play with a truck anymore”, and this is basically saying that kids have the right to become whatever they please, with or without the impact of stereotypes in society.
I totally agree with you Alexis! All these toys for little girls are ridiculous. Take Barbie dolls for example, oh all girls want to be like her, don’t they? These toys show what they might want to be when they grow up? Yup, dress like a slut when your older! Its sad, but maybe the girls just want attention. Wearing too much makeup, a lot of girls do it so that they can feel beautiful about themselves and hope to get compliments. All girls are looked upon as sluts because they wear too much makeup or whatever the case is, but they might just be insecure, and find that as a “getaway.” Most girls are made to be mothers? So are most boys made to be fathers? A lot of fathers aren’t even there for their own children, and the mother has to take care of it, why? Is it just because were supposed to be loving and caring? I don’t about you but a lot of women have dreams of actually getting a job and not get banged up at 16 and get on a show. Are most firefighters men because there soo manly and the women stay home to take care of the children? I heard a while back that in Walmart men were payed more than women. Why? They both work equally hard and do the same exact job. The society we live in today is just crazy.
“Girls are made to be mothers,” wait.. what? So, our only purpose in society is to have children? I disagree with that on so many levels, and I think that is so ignorant. Women hold a much bigger role in society than just “making babies.” I also disagree with your statement, “these toys do not limit women’s freewill.” They certainly do. I believe that children replicate what they see. If they play with toys that portray a certain thing, obviously later on in life they are going to feel like they HAVE to be that. Why? Because it’s what they grew up with, it’s what they were taught. I mean, yes, you make a decision of what you want to be when you’re older- BUT, most people make these decisions upon, what they were taught is “right,” and what they were brought up knowing. I think that this article is oppression, and it affects women in a negative way. Alexis stated, “..Saying that there is only a limited number of options they can be and do in life.” I agree with this a lot. These toys just make little girls have a closed-mind on what they should and can be in the future.
Hmmmm….
I’m not going to yell at you but I do what you to think about the following: do girls become mothers or boys become firemen because they want to or because they have been subconsciously influenced into such stereotypical roles?
What if boys grew up wearing dresses and playing prince? How would that change the gender dynamics in our society?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/04/woman-read-bible-for-more-than-hour-to-attacker-who-had-just-slashed-her-throat/?intcmp=obinsite
This is about how a woman was attacked and a man slashed her throat. Still the woman read the bible for an hour to the man who assaulted her. This took place in North Carolina at the woman’s house. I think it’s crazy how she was able to read the bible for an hour. It’s not just the time she spent reading it, but also how she was able to keep calm and read after a man had cut her throat. If it would of been me, reading the bible would be the last thing on my mind.
I don’t think this article is oppressive to women at all. I think it’s definitely an example of free will and individuality. It’s an example of free will on how she willing chose to sit there and read him the bible. Read it for an hour until the man finally apologized and left.
“She even invited him to her church,” a police spokesman said. “He kept saying he was sorry, and then walked away.” This quote says that she didn’t have to invite him. She chose to talk to him about her religion and her church and later ask if he wanted to go to her church. Her strategy was proven useful considering it got him to feel sorry and leave.
“‘Wood’s mother Jane Hamrick said of her daughter,”She doesn’t judge people. She doesn’t criticize people. She’s a unique person.”
Hamrick added, “She was doing what her faith led her to do. This is a testimony to the person she is and the faith that she has.” “
This shows how the woman is an individual. She does things her own way, different from what is ‘normal’. She chose to stick to her beliefs even in a situation where she was in danger and very capable of dying. The way she handled the situation was how she thought it would be best handled.
This is very positive to women. I feel this is saying you don’t have to do what others expect you to or what they think is right. Believe in yourself, do what you think is best. Don’t base it of the opinion of others. Do you.
Bishops Reject White House’s New Plan on Contraception – http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/catholic-bishops-criticize-new-contraception-proposal.html
This article is about how the Catholic church is rejecting Obama’s plan to offer free contraceptives at Catholic universities, hospitals, etc. They disagree because it apparently still infringes “on the religious liberty and conscience of Catholics”. Let me just start off by saying that people really shouldn’t be having unprotected sex-unless of course they are planning on getting pregnant and/or catching a STD. Anyway, I really don’t believe abortion is a solution. I mean what goes around, comes around, if you weren’t responsible before (having unprotected sex), now (when you have that unwanted pregnancy) you need to step up to the plate and do what you are supposed to do. Even though I am against abortion; contraceptives such as birth control and the morning after pill should still be offered at Catholic hospitals and universities to stop unwanted pregnancies and also in the case of a rape.The Catholic church can easily stop the “need” for abortion by simply offering the free birth control. This situation really robs women of their freewill: they have the choice to be responsible, but can’t actually go through with it.
This article is about a restaurant being shut down for having woman used as sexual object’s and such. This takes place in Bristol city. In the article they say “I think it’s a positive step because Hooters is all part of the normalisation of the sexual objectification of women.” So here there saying that there shutting down the restaurant for being scandalous not because its illegal or anything. True it is a wrong way of doing this just trying to get some business but its not illegal. If you were completely desperate about trying to keep your business of course you or anyone would do something like this. The woman here are shown very negatively mainly because there treated as “hookers”. This puts them down in the dirt because it limits them, like when they go around town applying for another job they wont be treated equally for what they did at the restaurant and wont get the job. It also effects other woman out there because after they hear of this they too might get put down based on similar things the woman at this restaurant have done. Even though they might get oppressed they still have the free will to do this based on their individuality. Once some hear this they simply will just ignore it but some will try to change and act normal to not get accused of anything or whatever else their trying to hide. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-16932892
Destiny Gilchrist
Sec: F
http://www.usnews.com
Women Could Promote Rights through Islam
The article I read was about how some Islamic countries have deprived of their rights. I think that all women should be treated equally because it is unfair to think of us as less of a person compared to a man. In Morocco, women went through a difficult process that lasted “many, many years,” during which many people were jailed. However, as “good Muslims,” she said, these women realized that their desire for civil rights didn’t “clash” with their religious faith.
I think that this is oppressive to women because this is an example of harsh treatment. It was said that, “women in Iran are among the world’s most oppressed.” It limits a woman’s right to equality, individuality, and freewill. It limits these because there, women don’t have the same rights as men because of their faith. How could women ever be individuals if they don’t even have the right to equality, how could they be thought of as people? Lastly this limits a woman’s freewill because many times they have tried to testify in Islam and many times they have been rejected. I think freewill comes with the power to speak and act freely.
This is positive towards women because this article shows that they can get things done by protesting and using force to get what they want done. No woman should have to live without a toilet so it’s their choice to address the topic like Anita Narre did. It’s her everyday normal to have a toilet so it doesn’t make sense if her normality is limited. She isn’t oppressed and this shows individuality because she has done something that no women ever dared to do, she disobeyed her husband. So this shows that women can be equals in their societies along side men and should be granted the right to live a clean and healthy life.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-17022847
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/14/opinion/coontz-santorum/index.html?iref=allsearch
In the beginning, this article mentions that Catholic institutions are stating that insurance shouldn’t cover any of women’s birth control. A man named Rick Santorum said that he is unhappy with the discussion of what they are thinking about doing. Well in this case, not doing. In my view, I would argue with these Catholic institutes statements. I don’t know much about insurance and all that stuff, but at least do something to help the women who need the help to pay for the birth control. I’m no woman either, so i wouldn’t even know how they feel about it but my guess is that those women who are struggling with paying for birth control aren’t happy either. If my company wouldn’t lend me the money I needed for medical purposes, I would be pretty angry too. Everyone who would do stuff like insurance for their male employees but not female, has very serious problems. This isn’t the only issue with feminism, I know that there are many situations like this where companies won’t help their employees when in need.
I completely disagree with you when you said, ” I don’t know much about insurance and all that stuff, but at least do something to help the women who need the help to pay for the birth control”. Coming from a Catholic’s point of view, I believe that helping women pay for their birth control is a waste of money. I’m not a woman either, and I don’t understand the pain that they are going through. I do listen to the news everyday and hear bigger problems that people face without any support. I think the Catholic insitutions should spend their money on more important issues, such as attempting to end world hunger and helping victms of disasters. Instread of worrying about women’s rights, the Catholic church should fix other problems. As a man, I do not get any kind of money from the Catholic church when I am going through a hard time. I agree with Rick Santorum when he said that birth control, “shouldn’t be covered by insurance at all.” While feminists might hate him, I applaud him for that brave statement. Birth control isn’t something the Catholic church or any church for that matter should care about. I know that birth control is obviously a problem, but I don’t believe Catholic insituations should help women pay for it. As a Catholic, I know that Catholic institutions don’t have enough money to help everyone. They should, in my opinion focus their attention on bigger problems.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/27/opinion/saudi-arabia-and-its-women.html?_r=1&ref=feministmovement
In this article sexism in Saudi Arabia is discussed. It goes in depth to explain how women are treated far below men. They aren’t even treated as people, theirrole in life is more similar to that of a slave. It i truly a sad and degrading existence compared to the pampered life of the average male.
The women there are not even allowed to go anywghere without the escort of a man. They also must hide themselves and may not show anything considered “inapproprite”, this is much more strict than in America, in public. Women dont have a chance to defend themselves.
If nothing is done about this then it will be horrible. Women have no rights and feminism could mean possible death.
First of all i agree with the fact that Saudi Arabian women are treated horribly and that they deserve the same rights as men. What i don’t get is how this can mean possible death. Sure the government doesn’t like it when the women protest, but that can’t grant the goverment the rignt to kill women, just because of some peaceful protest trying to get the voices of women heard. It is also an abomination that the Saudi Arabian government feels that women should be kept locked up in the house all the time cooking meals for the men who keep them locked up in the houses, beacause according to the Saudi Arabians women cannot leave their house without a man coming with them. What is this supposed to prove? I think that the women are given so few rights because the men are afraid that the women become more powerful than them and instigate the same laws and restrictions upon them as a type of revenge to show the men how opressed they were. This can definately connect to Jane Eyre, because Jane and other women are considered to be nothing unless they have a husband to tell them what to do and how to do it. Overall I think the Saudi government should give women complete and equal rights, instead of just some voting rights. I think that the Saudi government should forget about its old laws against women and start anew with an equal and fair goverment system.
I agree with you fully. Who would not? Keep in mind also that this isn’t the only place this sort of thing is happening, and this condition is not as rare as you think. To me, the horrid conditions for women in these countries where they are treated as property are not news. In fact: this article actually seems to me a positive one. It shows a step TOWARD women’s rights. Although it is only a dipping of the toe in the pool of democracy, it’s a start. Maybe I am being a bit too optimistic, but all this brings is the smallest bit of hope. I do think however, that if this leader REALLY wants his words to carry more weight, he should go ahead and put that weight on. He should enforce his law by first actually making it law, and, to avoid rebellion from the male citizens accustomed to women being nothing but property, some emotion and convincing to his words. Maybe if he uses other beliefs and customs of his people to reinforce his, this leader can guide his country to women’s rights.
I agree with Joshua saying “this article actually shows to be a positive one. It shows a step TOWARD women’s rights. Although it is only a dipping of toe in the pool of democracy”. First of all, good metaphor. Second, I agree because women currently have almost no rights in Saudi Arabia and King Abdullah is giving women the right to vote (although they should have already had that). And it’s only a dipping of toe in the pool of democracy, because they have almost no rights other than that, although they are making a huge effort on women‘s educational rights with 58 percent of women being college graduates. As the article states, “Laws must be changed to provide greater protections for women who are raped or suffer domestic abuse. The archaic ban on driving by women also must be lifted” I agree with this statement from the article because if this happens, I think women’s rights in Saudi Arabia will start a revolution and they’ll be equal to men.
i agree with you 100% janielle. No one not say a word if a man was to rape a women but yes everyone would have talked about a wommen raping a man. women should not be mistreated and abuse when they are putting aside thier llife and making a life changing decision in serving the country. i love the part where you mentioned “Women put themselves in positions to show that we are capable, but if we still do not receive good treatment, how can we better peoples opinions on what we are?” its basically saying how there are women that try to change what people portray them as which is only being a sex object and actually becoming a strong figure but tend to fail to the constent dergrading by men. its like they are trying to say that women should just expect to get raped beause its a cycle and no change would ever happen, women should be treateted the same way as men and should not be treated anyway less.
the way this article connects to jane is when far back in the beginning of the book when jane was trying to read and better her self off with education but couldnt and would get beaten by John Eyre and Mrs.Reed. Jane was put in the poistion where she had to like nothing in order to atleast be something.
Should be under janielles article but something happpen…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46417501/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times/#.Tz2hm9WuOSo
this article is about a practice in Afghanistan were girls are traded to another family because of some wrong doing by someone in that family. The girls are brutally abused and then made into wives. the article talks about a specific case were the two girls in question actually escape later and rejoin there family. the family then had to leave the town with almost nothing to avoid being taken by the family that had abducted the two girls in the first place.
the article itself was from a very neutral view point which i thought was very nicely done considering the subject matter would be considered by most to be revolting, even thought the practice of baad (taking girls from the family that wronged you) is a cultural thing that goes back a very long time.the article talked about many Afghanistan politicians’ viewpoints on the subject and most saw it as immoral they also pointed out that although the girls must suffer, usually it brings the two family together and ends blood feuds. the practice is very oppressive to women because it does not give the women a choice and they are abused in their new households. the women are also viewed as property.