The first thing I have to say about The Prevailing Opinion of a Sexual Character Discussed is that it is quite intimidating, but I think Mary Wollstonecraft would have liked it that way.
Wollstonecraft was not writing as the average housewife of her time. She was writing as one of the highly educated philosophers with radical and new feminist ideas of her time. She was bold, she was insulting, and for the most part she was right. I am not going to say I didn't hate this essay because I did. I hated the length. I hated the vocabulary. I hated her repetitiveness. I hated her late 1700s English, but at the same time that was what made me love it.
So many men of Wollstonecraft's time wouldn't expect a piece of such length from a woman, it made me feel like just because she had the dedication to write A Vindication of the Rights of Woman she was, in a way, sticking it to those that thought so little of her sex. Not only did the challenging vocabulary help to complete my requirements for this class, but it was the sort of vocabulary that wasn't everywhere, or for that matter really anywhere, that I usually pooled my reading material from. While reading her essay, I kept wondering "why oh why" did she keep repeating the same things? After the first few pages, I could for the most part guess her views on female rights. Wollstonecraft's repetitious themes on women's education, where they should be in society, and how detrimental the way society viewed their sex only showed how passionately she viewed these issues. As for the late 18th century English, I really did just dislike that quite a bit.
Now I'm sure other AP Comp bloggers will touch on the obvious key points of Wollstonecraft's essay. They will mention the brilliance of her comparing female education to the education of military men, how she feels about a woman's main focus being to please her husband, and what has changed since this was written. These are all important, but there was however a paradox in this essay that still confuses me( and by any means if you can explain it to me, go right ahead), and I found that I couldn't enjoy the rest of the essay because of it.
Around page 14, I pieced together two things Wollstonecraft had said. She stated that marriages would be better, if women were their husbands companion and were on a closer intellectual level. Later she stated that women would be better mothers, and could spend more time educating their children, if they had bad marriages. So in my mind and using Wollstonecraft's logic, however you spin it, these women couldn't win. You would have to be an educated woman with an unhappy marriage to teach your children, especially daughters, that an education was important. Somehow going against the social norm, just to be unhappy doesn't seem like the best way to convince women that education is what they need.
Although the rest of her essay was brilliant and it made me appreciate where the start of the feminist movement came from, this one part completely threw me off to the point that it almost tainted the rest of this beautifully crafted piece.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Skunk Dreams...
When I first read this passage, I was a bit lost about what exactly the point of this essay was. I can remember agreeing with a majority of what Louise Erdrich had to say, but the style she used had me going "huh?" in between the "Ohhh yeah she's right!'s" The focus seemed scattered between the cruelty of Corbin's Park and it's hunting club, the 6th sense that dreams could be, or living life like a skunk (I at least understood that Erdrich meant to metaphorically live like a skunk, and she wasn't trying to persuade her readers to living in holes and attack enemies with their unbearable stink.) I looked up Erdrich and found that she is known for her poetry and short stories, which I tried to keep in mind when reading this. Still, I found it scattered and whatever her true message must have been was partially lost to me due to the fact that I just couldn't understand the main focus of her piece.
As for Erdrich's actual style, I'm still not sure how I feel about it. Her use of sensory imagery and vivid description gave so much to the piece, but at some points, especially when she was describing actually seeing the fence for the first time, I felt like it wasn't as key to the point of the essay as the time she took to describe it.
What really resonated with me was the author's apparent joy in the outdoors. When I read this I was sitting outside a 4th century stone farmhouse in the French countryside. Reading about the Erdrich's pure love of nature truly made this article for me, and also helped me appreciate my surroundings.
Although I do have some praise for this article, I found that it gave me one too many mixed signals. However, through all the confusion Erdrich did sway my opinion on one thing...
If I had to be an animal, being a skunk wouldn't a half-bad choice.
As for Erdrich's actual style, I'm still not sure how I feel about it. Her use of sensory imagery and vivid description gave so much to the piece, but at some points, especially when she was describing actually seeing the fence for the first time, I felt like it wasn't as key to the point of the essay as the time she took to describe it.
What really resonated with me was the author's apparent joy in the outdoors. When I read this I was sitting outside a 4th century stone farmhouse in the French countryside. Reading about the Erdrich's pure love of nature truly made this article for me, and also helped me appreciate my surroundings.
Although I do have some praise for this article, I found that it gave me one too many mixed signals. However, through all the confusion Erdrich did sway my opinion on one thing...
If I had to be an animal, being a skunk wouldn't a half-bad choice.
Is Google Making Us Stupid?...
Is Google making us stupid? It might be, I don't think I'm exactly the best person to decide this, but I'm not sure Nicholas Carr is either. Although he has obvious talent as a writer and I very much enjoyed his style of writing, I couldn't help but rolling my eyes and possibly thinking that the guy was being a little over-dramatic.
One of the issues I had with Carr's essay was how he only referenced the problems he noted in people his own age. Carr never mentioned how Google, or even the internet in general, affected other generations that had always grown up with it.(Yes, I "Google'd" Nicholas Carr, trust me the irony isn't lost on me, and he is about 61 years old).
A quote in his article, by Bruce Friedman, went something like "I now have almost totally lost the ability to read and absorb a longish article on the web or in print...I've lost the ability to do that. Even a blog post of more than three or four paragraphs is too much to absorb. I skim it." And maybe I'm an exception or am just being stubborn, but I don't find myself facing this problem. However, I am growing up in a very different time. I believe in some ways Carr holds a very valid point, but I just wish he would have analyzed this aspect of this problem.
Carr's story about Friedrich Nietzsche brought much credibility to his article and was very interesting, but once again it was a story about a person who hadn't grown up with this technology and was just being introduced to it. It only made the article feel a little more one-sided. Just as Carr explaining Taylorism was interesting, it only made me feel like he was being a little over-dramatic.
About half-way through this essay a truly puzzling thought emerged in my mind. Which came first? The internet becoming such an intricate part of our lives due to our need for instant information, or our need for instant information because the internet has become so wide-spread. I have yet to figure this out in a way that agrees with my own judgement, but it was the most thought-provoked I was while reading this article.
Finally, when Carr interviewed Google's chief executive, Eric Schmidt, and Schmidt mentioned making Google into "an artificial intelligence, a HAL-like machine that might be connected directly to our brains." That was too far. Along with the 2001: A Space Odyssey references I started to loose faith in this article and began to believe Carr took it a bit too far. Although, as I mentioned this before, I found Carr's style extremely enjoyable. I did not find his take on the effects of the internet to the human brain as enjoyable.
I am sure I will get some flack for this, but I found Is Google Making Us Stupid? one-sided and not filling of its potential.
One of the issues I had with Carr's essay was how he only referenced the problems he noted in people his own age. Carr never mentioned how Google, or even the internet in general, affected other generations that had always grown up with it.(Yes, I "Google'd" Nicholas Carr, trust me the irony isn't lost on me, and he is about 61 years old).
A quote in his article, by Bruce Friedman, went something like "I now have almost totally lost the ability to read and absorb a longish article on the web or in print...I've lost the ability to do that. Even a blog post of more than three or four paragraphs is too much to absorb. I skim it." And maybe I'm an exception or am just being stubborn, but I don't find myself facing this problem. However, I am growing up in a very different time. I believe in some ways Carr holds a very valid point, but I just wish he would have analyzed this aspect of this problem.
Carr's story about Friedrich Nietzsche brought much credibility to his article and was very interesting, but once again it was a story about a person who hadn't grown up with this technology and was just being introduced to it. It only made the article feel a little more one-sided. Just as Carr explaining Taylorism was interesting, it only made me feel like he was being a little over-dramatic.
About half-way through this essay a truly puzzling thought emerged in my mind. Which came first? The internet becoming such an intricate part of our lives due to our need for instant information, or our need for instant information because the internet has become so wide-spread. I have yet to figure this out in a way that agrees with my own judgement, but it was the most thought-provoked I was while reading this article.
Finally, when Carr interviewed Google's chief executive, Eric Schmidt, and Schmidt mentioned making Google into "an artificial intelligence, a HAL-like machine that might be connected directly to our brains." That was too far. Along with the 2001: A Space Odyssey references I started to loose faith in this article and began to believe Carr took it a bit too far. Although, as I mentioned this before, I found Carr's style extremely enjoyable. I did not find his take on the effects of the internet to the human brain as enjoyable.
I am sure I will get some flack for this, but I found Is Google Making Us Stupid? one-sided and not filling of its potential.
The Talk Of The Town...
When I first started reading Adam Gopnik's article, I wasn't quite sure what it was about. However as I continued reading, I became deeply drawn into his views and the way he expressed them. Gopnik's use of quotes, statistics, sarcasm, and shockingly obvious logic gives his piece the matter-of-fact tone that is needed to get the message through to readers. It is nearly impossible to believe that any American could read this article and not take a stance on how the United States handles gun control.
Every few years we hear about a devastating shooting like Columbine or Virginia Tech. Every few years we mourn the losses those who didn't need to die. Every few years there are people on T.V. talking about the shooters mental illness. Unfortunately, every few years U.S. gun control laws aren't increased. We are not learning from our mistakes like Scotland or Canada, as Gopnik points out in his article.
Gopnik also touches on another serious issue. The heavy presence of the N.R.A., with its capitalist agenda and ideas that "every man has the right to bear arms" that dates back to the 1700s. He admits that there will always be a part of America that has a focus on hunting. That is perfectly acceptable, but Gopnik also notes "hunters need rifles and shotguns-- with proper licensing, we'll live with the risk. There is no reason that any private citizen in a democracy should own a handgun." He is right. You can't justify any average American citizen needing a handgun or a semi-automatic or anything that is really meant to kill anyone, if no other average American citizen has one either. A simple background check before purchase could solve so many problems. Gopnik points all of this out with great style and articulation. His article was more than a pleasure to read.
As for Susan Sontag's article, it was equally interesting although slightly more insulting. Not insulting to me, not insulting to the informed public, but a slight undertone of blame towards the leaders who kept this in the dark.
I did however find it quite refreshing that Sontag didn't just talk about what went wrong. When this article was written, America felt like a victim. And in some ways, America was. There was in fact, another part of the story that most Americas didn't know. Sontag's way of addressing what so many Americans didn't know after such a traumatic experience was perfect.
She was subtle when needed and harsh when expected. Just like Gopnik's I very much enjoyed reading it.
Every few years we hear about a devastating shooting like Columbine or Virginia Tech. Every few years we mourn the losses those who didn't need to die. Every few years there are people on T.V. talking about the shooters mental illness. Unfortunately, every few years U.S. gun control laws aren't increased. We are not learning from our mistakes like Scotland or Canada, as Gopnik points out in his article.
Gopnik also touches on another serious issue. The heavy presence of the N.R.A., with its capitalist agenda and ideas that "every man has the right to bear arms" that dates back to the 1700s. He admits that there will always be a part of America that has a focus on hunting. That is perfectly acceptable, but Gopnik also notes "hunters need rifles and shotguns-- with proper licensing, we'll live with the risk. There is no reason that any private citizen in a democracy should own a handgun." He is right. You can't justify any average American citizen needing a handgun or a semi-automatic or anything that is really meant to kill anyone, if no other average American citizen has one either. A simple background check before purchase could solve so many problems. Gopnik points all of this out with great style and articulation. His article was more than a pleasure to read.
As for Susan Sontag's article, it was equally interesting although slightly more insulting. Not insulting to me, not insulting to the informed public, but a slight undertone of blame towards the leaders who kept this in the dark.
I did however find it quite refreshing that Sontag didn't just talk about what went wrong. When this article was written, America felt like a victim. And in some ways, America was. There was in fact, another part of the story that most Americas didn't know. Sontag's way of addressing what so many Americans didn't know after such a traumatic experience was perfect.
She was subtle when needed and harsh when expected. Just like Gopnik's I very much enjoyed reading it.
Pina Coladas And Getting Caught In The Rain...
Well this is my first blog entry, or I guess my introduction. I never thought I would be doing this. I always thought blogging was for hipsters or something, but I guess blogging is for AP Comp students too. I hope it's apparent that my name is Gabriela, and for those of you that don't know I'm going to be a Junior next year.
I really don't enjoy just straight up writing about myself, but here it goes. I love the environment, but sometimes I get a bit intense about it. I love music, but depending on the day it changes. I love running; I'm honestly not the same person when I don't run. I love being involved in drama. I love taking random trips to Brew&Grow or Dairy Queen with my friends. I love Jones. The sound of harmonicas is one of my favorite. I could eat Indian food every day of the week.I hate tongues. I have a terribly awful laugh. I use the word pants as a suffix. I want to travel the world. I don't have a TV at my house. If I use the word "I" to start one more of my sentences, I just might cry. But because I know anybody reading this is dying to know, Yes I do love Pina Coladas and getting caught in the rain!
I really don't enjoy just straight up writing about myself, but here it goes. I love the environment, but sometimes I get a bit intense about it. I love music, but depending on the day it changes. I love running; I'm honestly not the same person when I don't run. I love being involved in drama. I love taking random trips to Brew&Grow or Dairy Queen with my friends. I love Jones. The sound of harmonicas is one of my favorite. I could eat Indian food every day of the week.I hate tongues. I have a terribly awful laugh. I use the word pants as a suffix. I want to travel the world. I don't have a TV at my house. If I use the word "I" to start one more of my sentences, I just might cry. But because I know anybody reading this is dying to know, Yes I do love Pina Coladas and getting caught in the rain!
a
I might come off as a space cadet or uptight, but when it comes down to it. I'd much rather just go with the flow. I'm sure I've made myself sound like one of the least interesting people in the world. I'm also sure that I'll think of a million more clever things to say as soon as I post this, but that's okay. I think it'll be interesting to read what everybody has to say on these blogs, and by the end of the class I hope I'll be semi-fond of this whole blogging concept.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)