In the article “What is Marriage?” by Evan Wolfson, Wolfson essentially compares marriage between a gay couple and convicted felons. Wolfson does this because he is making the point that prisoners have the right to get married but a homosexual couple does not. By putting homosexuals in the same category as prisoners Wolfson is forcing his readers to consider the extremity of banning gay marriage. I thought this was an incredibly effective rhetorical strategy because it shows the fault of our system so prevalently. It cannot get much clearer than prisoners can marry but gay people cannot. I think this example of how far our government has gone to keep gay marriage illegal is relevant because it shows a great comparison of how skewed our government is.

Gender Betrayal

Vazquez waits to disclose the fact that Mickey and Brian are heterosexual to make a rhetorical argument. Vazquez waits because as you are reading it is easy to write the story off as ‘another’ story of homophobic violence but because she almost tricks the reader Vazquez makes a stronger appeal to our emotions. If they were gay, then the situation couldn’t happen to ‘me’ or ‘you’, but since they are straight the story has an ‘it could happen to you tone. I do not believe the issue of antigay violence changes in any way when we recognize that sometimes its victims are heterosexual because they were still perceived as gay thus the violence is still homophobic. I think our argument in class focused on what was homophobic and what wasn’t but I understood Vazquez’s argument to have a different meaning. I think Vazquez’s most important point is that in American culture we are not allowed to stray from our respective genders. Whether you are gay, straight, or bi you are not accepted if you dress outside of what your gender is ‘supposed’ to wear. My stepmom wears skirts when she is in the courtroom even though I know she prefers to wear pants. Why wear a skirt? Because in central Indiana you are more likely to appeal to a male judge if you dress in a more matronly/womanly fashion.

This is how you...

This is how you love; this is how you yell; this is how you hit; this is how you fight. This is how you cook; this is what I like and I don’t care what you like; this is called leftovers. This is called having no money and this is how it will work; this is not enough food; this is not enough money for new shoes; this is me trying. This is not enough time for me to parent you; this is I’M WORKING; this is me getting up from my desk to teach you how ride a bike; this is the moment where your dad pulls up because it’s his time for visitation; this is fake. This is what you wear when you get a job. This is how you treat your friends. This is how you shmooze. This is how you shut out the world; this is blasting music in the house and the car and any chance I get. This is a hug because you are sick; this is real. This is lying; this is lying to yourself. This is home; that’s not home. This is happy; this is hate; this is anger; this is self-loathing; this is pain. This is how you love.

Why is Eustace Conway the Last American Man?

Elizabeth Gilbert makes the assertion that Eustace Conway is the last American man in her book “The Last American Man”. Gilbert has interviewed almost every person Eustace has ever known and spent a great deal of time with Eustace. She has worked by his side, elbow deep in dirt, never receiving a break. She has had long talks with him about his family, lovers, and friends. She has even gotten drunk with Eustace. She knows him better then he probably knows himself. After all this quality (and quantity) time spent with Eustace she can probably make the assertion that Eustace is the last American man with self confidence. But before I would begin to explain why Gilbert is correct in her assertion I must define what she means by ‘the last American man’.
In the early days of America, the land was nothing but flora and fauna. The earliest settlers could do with it what they wished all they had to do was step upon the ground and claim it as their own. These people had vision, drive, and heart to reach their goals. They must prepare for every possible outcome because whatever it could be it may be their last. In a simple term, the earliest peoples of the world lived ‘awake’. They must be ‘awake’ to predators at all times to protect themselves and their food. They must be ‘awake’ to the weather at all times to protect themselves and their shelter and clothing. They must be ‘awake’ to other peoples because who knows when another tribe or ‘white man’ could attack. The people of today live exactly in the opposite manner.
The people of today live in a ‘sleep’, or better described as ‘stupor’. We are intoxicated by drugs, alcohol and sex; the behavior commonly publicized. We don’t have to worry about the weather because with today’s technology the weather can easily be avoided. We don’t have to worry about predatory animals because we’ve killed plenty of them and they don’t normally migrate toward cities or towns. We don’t need to depend on ourselves because society cares for us. We are coddled and brainwashed through the education system, no expectation to think for ourselves. Most of us don’t think because we don’t have to. But this is not the way Eustace Conway lives.
Eustace fights animals with his bare hands. If he loses… He eats what the earth gives him and what he can hunt on his own. He lives in whatever he can build for himself. Eustace works hard both physically and mentally for everything he attains in life. Eustace is quite literally ‘the last American man.’

Alexis de Tocqueville

Alexis de Tocqueville writes an interesting article about the differences between american women and european women. He explains that democracy creates a natural division between the sexes in America, that men must do the hard labor while women sit at home and run the household. He argues that this is what is natural and and what the sexes are meat to do. He believes our 'set paths' are what make America flourish. He acknowledges that women are respected and can be successful in america...but only in the designated field. He then describes European men and women, exaplaining a womans 'honor' in europe. Tocquville speaks european men and women being alike, holding the same job titles and rights. He explains that this has changed european women toward being less honorable. He believes european women less respected in regards to their sexuality. Tocqueville is a dip.

Disney Women

As a little kid I was always a fan of Disney fairy tales. I remember seeing Beauty and the Beast with my dad in theatres. I remember watching Cinderella with my aunt and family before dinner. I remember almost all the movies, especially Snow White. I remembered snow white for her beautiful black hair, fair skin, and heart of gold. I can remember all the odd little dwarves but not their names. I also remember the beautiful evil stepmother and role as snow whites horrible nemesis. I can remember all these things and it is not until now that I can fully understand how deep every character’s meaning.

Two women are featured in this movie and three have roles. Snow White’s biological mother is dead, rendering her powerless. Snow White must be the dumbest girl I have ever been forced to watch star in a movie. The dwarves tried to tell her not to listen or take anything from strangers and not only does she ignore their warning, SHE TAKES FOOD. And of course this leads me to her Evil stepmother. The one women with power in he story and she uses it for evil. I find it interesting Disney chose to make a woman, particularly a stepmother, the nemesis in most of their movies. What does all this teach our children? That most women with power, a queen, will use it for harm? To be good they must be beautiful and stupid? And if they do mess up, eventually their prince will come along and clean up their mess? Mulan was past my generation and at the moment I cant think of another Disney movie with a powerful women taking the lead role. What was I taught?

Emerson's Nature

“Nature is a setting that fits equally well a comic or a mourning piece. In good health, the air is a cordial of incredible virtue. Crossing a bare common, in snow puddles, at twilight, under a clouded sky, without having in my thoughts any occurrence of special good fortune, I have enjoyed a perfect exhilaration.I am glad to the brink of fear.”
The ideas Emerson alludes to in the first chapter of Nature are ideas I am well acquainted with. I read Walden last year and have studied the concept of transcendentalism. My favorite excerpt from Emerson’s first chapter is around the end of the chapter. Emerson talks about nature’s impact on our moods. He explains that nature can make us both happy and sad in an instant. This idea especially speaks to me because sometimes I can be feeling fine and content then I step outside to a beautiful day and I feel euphoric. Simply the smell and view of nature can bring me great happiness and joy. This can also happen in dismal surroundings as Emerson explains. Nature’s affect is unexpected and involuntary. I would even take this concept further and connect it to music. One song can change your life. You can be in a terrible mood and suddenly hear a “poppin” song and feel a sudden burst of happiness. A song, like nature, can evoke many emotions in a person.