Resisting Democracy

While many may believe that democracy is a system of eternal peace and universal satisfaction, this is most certainly not the case. Resistance is necessary for a functioning democracy not to become tyrannical. If a simple majority were to decide an opinion, those in the minority could become continually oppressed. For example, if there were 100,000 people in a nation, and 60,000 of them wanted to ban yellow pants, then under a vote, yellow pants would be banned. This is not fair the the other 39,999 people (one of them has died from hepatitis B since I started writing), which constitute a rather large percentage of the nation. This is simply not fair. Those in the less advantageous position would have to fight back, rather than simply accepting their fate. This is why in America, there is not a simple majority decision for everything. It is to eliminate the total power of the majority, and so those who do not agree with them may be able to voice their opinions with equal power.

Wolfgang

Wolfson presents his argument by starting with an extensive and precise definition of marriage. This is most certainly a fair and sensible definition of marriage; one could argue that his definition is slanted, but the abstract concept of marriage is the basis of his argument, so he defines it as he sees it. This (possibly) gives the reader a warrant—that what he gives are the actual parameters for marriage—from which Wolfson will state his claims from. The very title of his piece is What is Marriage, so this first part is obviously the most important part of this excerpt. He fully explains the concept, even going as far as to distinguish it from similar concepts (such as love) and distance it from common misconceptions and stereotypes. Without clearly defining marriage, his entire argument would be useless. Towards the end, he gives numerous examples of loving couples that cannot become legally wed, and refers back to his original warrant many times. Reflecting on his legal expertise, Wolfson uses Safely v. Turner as the legal precedent under which he argues that denying marriage between homosexuals is completely absurd, both morally and legally. Wolfson has efficiently woven his rhetoric by using the threads of logic and emotion, and has visibly imprinted it with his legal credibility.

Wage Gap

A gender-related issue that I think is very important is the large wage gap between men and women. While it seems like a non-issue, this problem is very real: as of 2004, women earned just 76.5% of what men earned! This problem is not new: it has been going on for a very long time. While some may argue that "women don't work as hard" or flock to "women's jobs", consider this: according to studies, female scientists have to be twice as accomplished as male scientists in order to receive the credit. Still, some assert that the economic risk of a woman taking maternity leave is a good enough reason to pay them less. I would agree with this statement, except for the fact that this is a (rather sexist) assumption on the part of the employer. Another interesting aspect of the wage gap is the amount married people (regardless of gender) make versus unmarried. (Unmarried women earn 94.2% of what men earn.) One thing that I think these studies need to do in order to improve their credibility (as well as their accuracy) is to take into account the occupations, hours, experience and skill levels, and even the relative size/age of the organization for which they work. Taking these factors in account would present a much more realistic picture of the situation, rather than some of these possibly inflated statistics. I do believe, however, that even if the situation has indeed been hyperbolated, the wage gap is a significant problem that needs to be addressed in the near future, if not now.

Santorum

The Shocker (Look at mah eyyyebaawwwwlz!!!!)

In Vásquez's essay, she attempts to surprise the reader by letting the reader know that Brian and Mickey are straight after she tells the story. It most certainly surprised me. When I was reading the two stories, I thought, "This is just another typical story about gay-bashers." When I found out they were straight, I said to myself, "Carmen, you tricky little fiend, you!" She most certainly got me, and if I had to guess, she "got" most of her readers. She eventually discloses it so that the reader feels somewhat shocked, or maybe even betrayed by his or her own assumptions. That Brian and Mickey aren't gay lets the reader know that homophobic violence affects heterosexuals as well; this may not be big news for some of her readers, but it is the way in which it directly affects non-gay people as well that is truly shocking. It is not to say that people that are not gay wouldn't care about these issues if it had no possibility of directly affecting them, but this revelation could make those that already care even more concerned about the situation of homosexuality in America, thus it is directed toward those already sympathetic with her cause.

BOY (They call me Vivaldi in the hood)

Throughout my life, I have definitely been taught about gender in ways similar to the authors. I especially identify with Kincaid. Thankfully, I didn't believe everything that came out of my mother's big fat mouth.

"You're the man, so you need to support your family." Even if I have a brain tumor?
"Always give a woman your seat." So I should also give up my seat because I'm black, right?
"Never hit a woman." Even if she has a knife pointed at me?
"You should always pay for the date." Even if she ordered a $29 salad?
"Do these things and you'll become a wonderful person." So I'm guessing you didn't do these things? [Zing.]

I've never really done things if I didn't know why I should do them, and she never really explained the reasons for these things fully.

"It's what the man is supposed to do." Why?

So basically, after a while (quite a while) I realized that she's just bitter, and now I make fun of her for it. As we discussed in class, these are all social conventions (and inventions), so I take what I like and ignore the ones that bother me (or piss me off).

Eustace: Closer to Crustacean or Mustache?

Eustace. Eustace Conway. Eustace Robinson Conway IV of South Carolina, Dear Eldest Brother of Judson, Martha, and Walton Conway.

But is he a transcendentalist?

Yes.

Or is he?

Maybe.

In some respects, he most certainly embodies the ideals set forth by Emerson.
(Not finished, but maybe I can still get a little bit of credit. . .)