Last Post

What a title. Very ominous and spooky.
Today Twin asked us, for our last post, to write sort of a last message. I guess a better word to describe this post would be a reflection on basically anything. So I'm going to reflect on my junior year. Looking back at this year, I can honestly say that I survived junior year. I don't think I thrived. It sure as hell wasn't fun. In fact, it was emotionally challenging and completely exhausting. Part of that is my fault-I can be very negative and very stubborn, which essentially translates to I hold onto old hurts and view every situation as something that will hurt me. At the same time, I was dealing with my mental issues-my depression took a very steep turn this year. I got very paranoid, very anxious, and very tired. Of everything. I withdrew a lot, because I couldn't possibly comprehend a situation where I was wanted. Then there were relationship issues-rejection and break ups which to anyone else are a part of life, but that I take very seriously. It really affects me.
So, did it suck? Hell yeah. Does it feel like I wasted a year that could have been spent having fun and being a teenager? Also hell yeah. But did this year lack meaning? Not at all. I think struggles have their own purpose in life. It's not really living unless you are forced to deal with less than perfect situations at times. Clearly no one wants depression or anxiety. But as we saw in the video today, life is full of brick walls.
My brick walls (my mental illnesses) would stop me in my tracks. They would tell me nasty things about myself and make it hard to do basic everyday things (text friends back, do homework, etc). It sucked, but it did not mean I was stuck in my situation. It simply meant that I would have to go a different way to figure things out, and to try and live the best life I could.
I wish I could say that I knew why brick walls exist for me-I don't know what I want to do in life, so I'm not really getting a clear message on what my future should be or what I should do. I'm not all knowing and my life is clearly not all together, so I'm just going to have to speculate on their purpose. My best guess would be that these walls exist for me to prove that I can overcome things. Facing a wall may suck, but being able to get through it? Yeah, that's an exhilarating feeling.
Life, I assume, is based on a lot of challenging moments, that are only worth dealing with because of the few, great chill moments. I can't say this for certain, because I've only been alive for sixteen years. Hell, maybe there's some super cool meaning of life that's revealed when you graduate out of college, because why else would twenty-somethings be so weird?
Lots of things can be overcome. Especially situations that seem way too overwhelming to even be possible. But it is possible. Life is basically a lot of people saying, 'I don't like this situation. So I'm going to change it.' It's how a man who was going to die in six months was able to give a great presentation about life, not death. It's somewhat incredible what people can work themselves through. We need to give ourselves a lot more credit. And we also need to stop worrying about things that we can't control.
Life happens and we can't really stop it. We can't stop the struggles, we can't stop the problems. Things happen no matter how perfect a life may be. It's the attitude that matters.

Essay Idea #4

My mother's family is from the Azores, so naturally my older sister and I were raised staunchly Roman-Catholic. I have so many memories from my childhood, many of them shaped by my faith. I remember going to church every Sunday, and eating donuts after mass. I recall all of the times I spent with my friends at CCD. I cannot help but recollect about playing an angel in the Christmas pageant or Mary in the reading of the Passion, having my nose filled with incense.
When I was thirteen I started questioning what I had been taught my whole life. It was not rebellion or fighting the power. I had been bullied severely for several years, and I could not process why I had been through what I had been through. I could not understand how the trauma could have occurred-why would God have let this happen to me? I had been faithful as a little girl, and always kept a miniature Nativity scene besides my bed. Why would God have left me alone? I turned away from a community that had once brought me comfort. Adding to the sadness I felt about what had happened in the past, there was this new loss. My mother insisted I keep going to CCD and to mass. She wanted me to continue getting the sacraments and to eventually get confirmed. For me, I felt that there was no meaning to it, and I pushed it away as stubbornly as she pushed for it.
I ironically applied to Saint Raphael Academy when I was in eighth grade. Despite how insistent everyone seemed to be towards religion, it was at least an escape from all the negativity and sadness I had felt in elementary and junior high school. Many of the upperclassmen talked about how Saints had changed them, but I never felt that way until my sophomore year, when the Drama Club put on a production of Godspell. I worked on costumes for the show and was part of the stage crew. Godspell quickly became my favorite play. Finally there was a religious story that I could actually feel like I was part of. I was able to understand the meaning of Catholicism, through the community and trust the cast and crew built towards one another. I could identify with the feelings of being completely isolated, and finally feeling welcome in a newfound community. I could definitely see myself as Jesus, having been betrayed by close friends before. Overall it was probably one of the most important events in all of my high school career.
So when I finally was able to get confirmed, I did it wholeheartedly. I remember my confirmation in vivid detail. The smell of incense, the feeling of the chrism on my forehead. I picked Saint Joan of Arc for my saint name. Like me, she had been misunderstood and mistreated, but she had risen above it with honor and dignity. To many people, a confirmation may not seem like a very big deal. But to Catholics, it is a symbol of becoming an adult in the church. When I became Emily Joan Craig, I had finally become an adult, and I was happy I had achieved this milestone.

Essay Idea #1

Mental illness has always shaped my life. The first time I went to a therapist, I was seven years old. I was having problems with OCD. It is a misconception that OCD is simply cleaning and hating germs. For me, it was switching lights on and off, turning the kitchen faucet back and forth, and opening and closing doors. I have a history of self harm, which started when I was only thirteen years old. For someone who was raised in such a loving, supportive household, the way I would mistreat myself might seem almost ridiculous. But for such a young person, who had no idea what was going on or why I felt so terrible, it was the only way to force my feelings out of my system. By the time I attempted suicide, I had dealt with cutting, depression, and anxiety.
The hours after my suicide attempt were probably the most uncomfortable in my life. My mom insisted on staying with me in the ER, which she probably thought would be comforting. It was, of course, the exact opposite. Between glaring at me and yelling at me, it only made me feel more awful about the situation.
I am not proud of what my life has been like, or the violence I have inflicted on myself. For some reason, there is a sense of shame around mental illness. Those who are mentally ill are seen as unstable and dangerous, but in my case, I felt heartbroken and overwhelmed. But just because I am not happy about the past, does it mean that my future is set in place, or that I should feel ashamed.
Mental illness is just what the name says-an illness. If those who were depressed were treated like those who have cancer, maybe they would be given love and encouragement, instead of being told they are lazy and worthless.
People consider suicide to be cowardly. In my opinion, they have no idea how much courage it takes to not only admit there is a problem, but to ask for help. It is so incredibly difficult to reach out when the mind is saying that there is no hope or chance for the future. So why make such a controversial topic the main focus of my essay? If I look at the story of my life, it does more harm than good to ignore the bad things that have happened to me. My life is my set of experiences-some of them were great, and some of them landed me in the hospital on April 30th.
More importantly, having to have dealt with mental illness has made me both stronger and more determined. Many people say that they are tough or hardworking, but I can honestly say I was given the chance to give up, and in the end I chose to keep going. I chose to live. I have been at the lowest point in my life, and there is no where else I can go but up. Through a suicide attempt I have a different outlook on life. I cannot say that I automatically felt better. It simply does not work like that. But I can say that I realize that life is something I do not want to miss out on. I want to learn, I want to travel, I want to go on adventures. I risked losing the most precious thing, my existence, and because of that I am able to fully value what I have been given.

Literary Fallacies

Well, I'm pretty sure I messed up on this before. So take two! I'm going to use Inherit the Wind.
Appeal to Authority: If religion is good enough for Matthew Harrison Brady, then it is good enough for the country.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo8I-UnRnao
The Fallacy Fallacy: Brady uses Texas Sharpshooter to point out facts that only work with creationism, not facts that go against it. Henry Drummond points out that he uses a fallacy, but then acts as if his error alone proves that creationism is wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5Kdc0LLSW8&nohtml5=False
Genetic Fallacy-Brady assumes that because Drummond is an agnostic, he is immoral, so everything he believes in or does is tainted by this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECITwTYSIsg&nohtml5=False

So, hopefully I did this right!

Those Who Enjoy Art vs. Those Who Produce Art

Ok, so I wasn't in class on Wednesday so I didn't see the video. But from what Darling was telling me I think I can pretty much make a blog post anyway.
Alright, so we live in the magic digital age, where content is always being created and viewed. To some however, they believe that the constant connection to new and original material is harming the younger generation. They don't have to wait for new animated movies to come out every few years, because children's movies and tv shows are constantly being created. Theoretically, children will not appreciate the quality of good media when they are given it because they are constantly viewing cheap media. However, I can't help but disagree.
Being able to view media is important-it allows children to create and imagine new situations based on what they see everyday. Viewing media is the first step to creating media. Reading new books. listening to new music, watching new movies inspires people to create their own books, music, and movies. There is a saying that the first step to being a good writer is to constantly read. It easily makes sense-to be able to write well, a person must be exposed to all kinds of plots, characters, and situations. Being exposed to media won't make kids too lazy to create their own-in fact, it does the opposite. It's human nature to want to create things to live beyond our legacy. It's why so many real and fictional people want to write books, like Nick Carraway, Anne Frank, and Liesel Merminger.
Perhaps the first media that is created by new content creators is not the best. The older generation thinks that the new generation will fail to make classic films like Cassanova or Snow White, or books like the Great Gatsby or Of Mice and Men. They just need the chance to make media. Fitzgerald wasn't perfect at first, neither was Disney.

Election Tidbits

Today in class we watched a video by John Oliver focused on how money intercepts political elections. While many people are for taking money out of politics, no one party is willing to go first, and no one party wants pay cuts. Money is sadly the necessary evil that comes with elections. The more money a candidate has, the larger their platform and the further they can reach.
While money fuels elections and connects many people to a candidate through commercials, ads, and posters, I must agree with Oliver. The work is the most important thing, ensuring hard work and following the Constitution is what is supposed to be important. Of course, due to SCWAMP those with money have more power. The Founding Fathers themselves were rich aristocrats, not the everyday man. When money gets mixed in things go awry. A candidate that campaigns for money ensures that they can be reelected.
If a candidate is always begging for money how can they do good for the country? All I can think of were the elite during the 1920s, who were so wealthy that the only time they worked was to gain prestige. I think of parties and large feasts, not current issues and challenging the system.
Many people share the same views but with money so ingrained in our culture and politics it's hard to focus on anything else. Someone needs to take the first step. After all, the higher you are the harder you fall.

Show This, Tell That

Comics get a bad rap. Most of the time they're seen as trashy or just a waste of an opportunity to read a book. While comics use pictures, that does not mean they're not as in depth as books. Graphic novels are getting some respect, which is great. However, some people still do not see the mix of words and art as real literature or real art. McCloud, however, the author of Understanding Comics, and the comic "Show and Tell" is able to convince even the most stubborn reader that putting words and pictures together has some merit, all through his use of ethos.
Ethos is using authority to add credibility to a piece. McCloud, as a comic book artist, has experience creating stories with pictures and words. He worked as an artist for DC Comics, created his own series, and written several books. His experience with creating visual literature gives him the credibility to explain why comics and graphic novels are pretty great, even for the oldest reader.
On the first two pages, McCloud draws himself as a child, connecting the reader (every reader was once a child) to the act of interchanging words with symbols and pictures.
On the fourth page, he explains how pictures and words go so well together. Words and pictures work together to get an idea across that would have been hard to understand otherwise. Clearly, as an artist, he understands how important putting words and images together to create one unique idea is. He lists seven different ways words and images interact: word specific (pictures add a point), picture specific (words create sounds), duo-specific (both words and images put the same idea across), additive (one concept enhances another), parallel (words and images work together but seem to go down different paths, so to speak), montage (words are pictures and pictures are words), and interdependent (both words and pictures needed to get the idea across). McCloud's knowledge on the subject and his clear concise explanation of each type of interaction shows that he clearly knows what he's talking about. The examples he provides allows the reader to clearly see where each interaction would be used.
In the next few pages, he draws a short comic about a girl getting ice cream. It's raining, she's crying, and then she eats the ice cream. The next set of panels is only words. Together, it creates a visual story. However, the words for the images do not have to match perfectly:
An image of a girl crying may be seen as sad, but by using words, she can say that she's happy about say, a surprise or a birthday. Using words and pictures is simply another way to delve into creating stories. It is not simple, and McCloud says that finding a balance can be hard. But clearly, with his experience, he's figured it out.

Celebrity Bodies

Celebrities are weird. The whole concept of them, I suppose. We find these people and for some reason we idolize them. That part I don't find very weird-everybody needs a hero, someone to look up too. But then we suddenly turn on them, which is weird. Like, why put a person you're eventually going to tear down on a pedestal? And they're usually torn down by the same thing that brought them to fame.
So I'm going to go with Jennifer Lawrence here.

Lawrence starred in the Hunger Games, X-Men, and American Hustle, to name a few. Everybody loved how down to earth she seemed. She didn't worry about trying to keep a "Hollywood" body and acted like any other person. She swore, she joked around. She was sarcastic and had a no nonsense attitude. To many people, she seemed like a great example of what a woman should be-beautiful AND interesting. (Which is really problematic but that's the point of what I'm trying to say here.)
And then all of a sudden? People were starting to get sick of her. They loved her acting, but wanted more celebrities in movies (Hollywood is fickle and fast after all). Apparently, she couldn't play more than one character-sassy and sexy. The persona of sassy and sexy for which she had been so praised was now a downfall. Instead of being confident, she was cocky.

People then began to resent her attitude and her careless way of speaking. She described lesbians as being slutty, made light of eating disorders, etc etc. (Sources at the bottom) While some people agreed with her, some people believed she had crossed the line, myself included. There's a difference between being confident and being rude. But in a way, how can you blame her for saying whatever comes out of her mouth when that was apparently her best trait?
There was also an issue of nudes. People send nudes, whatever. Lawrence, like many adults, had sent them to her partners but they ended up being leaked. People everywhere saw them, and she got shamed. Now, look-if you search Jennifer Lawrence on google just to find a picture of her face, hundreds of sexual images pop up too. People saw Lawrence as a sex object, and were delighted when she was comfortable with her body.
But when she was comfortable to showing her body to someone who was not the crazy sexed up masses of fans, she got backlash. Her being sexy was important to her fame, but because she didn't share it with everyone on the big screen, she was a slut.
The most recent issue: she yelled at a reporter for being on his phone during a conference. However, it was later discovered that the reporter did not speak English fluently and was using his phone to translate what Lawrence was saying. For many people who originally supported her, this was a final blow. She was rude, and inconsiderate to a man trying to understand what she was saying. But once again, she was praised again and again for having no filter-so why would she think it was wrong to yell at him. She has been put on that pedestal for so long that what we praised her for has become the innate parts of her personality.
She's the same person that she was when she started her career-she's still loud, and opinionated, and pretty. But while people use to praise her for this, now they see these qualities as downfalls and shame her. We created this sassy, gorgeous, down to earth, talented person, and were upset when she played the role too well.
Interesting, isn't it?

Hey Guys

Because I was absent, the oldest blog post about politics will appear first on my blog, then the hip hop one, then today's one about zombies!!

I'm Glad I Have My Aussie Citizenship...

...Because America is absolute garbage right now. I have my Australian citizenship, so I joke around that if one of the crazy loons running for President wins, I'll be able to emigrate. But I really don't want to have to do that.
I don't know, but running for President seems like it should mean something more than publicity and memes, but whatever.
So how is it that we've gotten so far in the campaigns when to be honest, every candidate is rather loony? It has to be the way they talk. So, I'm going to look at four candidates and a tactic that each one of them uses. In this blog, I'm going to be looking at Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Ted Cruz.
Ok, we've got Ted Cruz. I don't really know a lot about him and that's the point. He doesn't use anything to further his status in the election except that he's already a senator. I don't think he realizes that just being a senator will not cause you to win the election. Especially if you're the Zodiac Killer.

I rest my case.
Next is Trump. (I'm just going to do Republicans and then do the two Democrats to make it easier.) So, what can I say about Trump? Personally, I think he's a pile of garbage, and so do many Americans. So why is he doing so freaking well in the polls? Despite not being a politician, Trump knows how to use rhetoric to his advantage (he is, after all, a business man). Trump, as we discussed in class, has a very clever way of giving speeches. He first off describes how bad America has gotten, and how badly it is affecting his life. This makes people think, hey, if he has it bad, even though he's super wealthy, even if someone like him is suffering, then I definitely am! He also makes broad, general statements that everyone can agree with-veterans should be taken care of, and there should be more jobs. However, he then follows up these statements by blaming these problems on immigrants, but never really addressing how to actually fix the problem. His claim is to Make It Strong Again, but it really seems, that with his racist points of views, lack of experience, and lack of solutions to important problems, that voting him in as our President will make us weaker than we ever we before.

Okay so now we're on to the Democrats. I'm going to start with Hillary Clinton because more people seem to know who she is (though Bernie is getting some publicity). Now, I identify more with the Democrat party, so naturally I agree more with the ideas that the Democratic candidates put forward. (As much as I don't like Trump, I do agree that we need to take care of veterans. They are dealing with mental illness and high suicide rates. But a person shouldn't care about veterans because they're Republicans. They should care because that's an actual human thing to do.) Clinton wants to fix the economy for the middle and working class, and also improve education. She wants to do this by raising the minimum wage so that Americans can better afford higher education, like college. While I do like that Clinton proposes solutions to very desperate problems today, I can't take her seriously. I feel that she's trying too hard to make the young voters like her by talking about memes and Beyonce. Yeah, it's great to bring in young voters, especially because the youth vote is so expanse. But the high school and college students are looking for someone to fight for the debt they are facing, the discrimination they face in society.

(While I do not completely agree with Hillary, and don't like her methods to get voters, I will not stand for sexist comments. You may not want her as President because of her views, but it better not be just because she's a woman. However, just because she is a woman, and it would be great to have a woman president, that does not mean she's the right choice for the American people at the moment.)
And finally there's Bernie Sanders. I personally like Bernie Sanders-I agree with a lot of views and I like his suggestions on how to fix things. He focuses more on the problems on hand than talking about Beyonce or blaming one racial group for destroying the Earth. He proposes closing the huge gap of wealth with people by taxing the wealthier more, and supporting the forgotten voices in society, which is pretty great. Will he be able to accomplish his dreams of free public university? I'm not sure, because Congress at the moment is full of people who don't exactly agree with him. However, his use of pathos draws me. By describing the situation of college students, families that have lost young sons, daughters, and children, and his general sympathy for immigrants is causing many people to support Bernie.

Hip Hop Planet

There's a joke in my family about music. My vavo, who speaks very broken English, loves music. When she tells us this though, it sounds as if she's saying that she laaaaaaaaaaaves moosic. We all kid around with her, and she laughs at it herself. But the point is, my vavo, who grew up between foster homes and has seen her own child die, holds music very closely to her.
This is because music expresses the emotions we all feel, love, sadness, happiness. But they also express the experiences and emotions of particular groups, like people in the black and Hispanic communities. Let's face it, white Americans treat their fellow citizens differently because they have darker skin. This treatment has been going on since the first Europeans landed in America, and it still exists today. There is no one isolated incident; instead, it is truth that if you are black, or Asian, or Hispanic, or Native American, you will be treated negatively. You will face discrimination just because your skin contains a different amount of melanin or your hair looks different or that your lips/eyes have a different shape. You will face violence and cruelty and ignorance.
So where's this going (I do have the tendency to ramble after all)? Well, it goes back to music, especially hip hop. Hip hop is considered to have originated in South Bronx and Harlem. However, the music that was produced by those teens and young adults reflects the music of Africa and many Latinix countries, with the beat and sound. Hip hop is considered urban, but more importantly, it is considered black. (It's a big problem that something being associated with being black makes people think it's trashy but hey people are gross racists, and that's not what this post is about.)
Hip hop is taken one of two ways by white people-it's either rude garbage, or is the coolest thing ever.

Let's start with the latter. Black music and terms and language were not started by white people. (For example-on fleek? Yeah, not by a white kid.) White people appropriate black music and culture and clothing, completely ignoring the problems faced by the black community. White kids seem to consider that anything that isn't suburban country club to be some cool, urban kind of fun. White people viewing black culture as being underground and fun because it's not "proper" is insanely racist.
Now for the former. People think (it's usually the older community or the teen members of the KKK) that see hip hop as trash. They associate the music with black people-which is not wrong, because black people and Latinix people invented it, and it came from native African music-but like I said before, this is wrong because they associate things that have to do with being black with being bad. They talk about how all of the lyrics are trashy and gross. But do they acknowledge the part that white artists add to the "trashiness"? Didn't think so.
What really sucks is that the treatment of hip hop music by white people is not only giving it a bad name, but causing young people of color to see it as something to get away from. As McBride described, it reminded him of violence and the past he wanted to leave behind. "It held everything I wanted to leave behind." (McBride) Hip hop music is frank-it discusses the violence and the problems that many ethnic communities have to deal with. Especially the younger generation, as McBride says, is discouraged from listening to hip hop, and to embrace whitewashed Western standards. And if that happens, if hip hop artists are deprived of their voice, then who knows what the world will be like in the next few years?


Hip hop gives oppressed youth a voice that would so often be ignored. So, what will they be forced to pick by society? Whitewashed western beauty, or being black AND being beautiful? Because black and beautiful, hip hop and voice, go hand in hand.

A Modern Zombie

The world is changing vastly and I don't know if that's for the better. With new inventions come new addictions-for example, when soda became cheap and available everywhere, many people became addicted to the sugary drink. For me, my addiction is the internet.
The article we read today compared modern life to being in a zombie apocalypse. There's always some mindless, repetitive task to do (answering emails vs. shooting zombies in the head). It's not like an addiction, it's just something that has to be done so that we can survive. (You can't ignore important emails.) But the things that consume us, like my problem with the internet-I guess it could be considered an addiction because it feels like I need the internet to live. And I just took a test to determine my independence on the internet. I got 58, which was in the 50-79 zone:
"MODERATE 50 -79 points: You are experiencing occasional or frequent problems because of the Internet. You should consider their full impact on your life."
It's sort of like a drug to be honest. I would rather be reading a book or doing something fun, but instead I'm online liking and reblogging posts. Yeah, sometimes it's fun, and sometimes I don't go on for a few days, but I'm pretty constantly connected. Just a lot of tumblr, or YouTube. While this isn't necessarily bad, and it isn't my entire life, it is a problem.

It's like I just have to reblog posts or watch videos. I'm not spending so much time online because I find it fun, but because it's habit. It's my thing that I have to do, show my presence online to like things and add new stuff to my blog.
I suppose the way to end this zombie in my life would be to just delete my blog. But it's my thing to do, part of my daily habit. What would I do with all my free time?

I guess that, as described in the article, I just have to keep at it. It's almost like a job to just post stupid memes and do my rounds, but I guess that's my life. And the mindlessness it causes? It's so similar to a zombie apocalypse, it's hard to tell the difference.

Professions for Women

I just really, really love feminist rants. Especially when they're low key feminist, because hey, sometimes it's not super safe to be like yay women! (Which sucks, but that's our society unfortunately.) Anyway.
Virgina Woolf. Super cool, super feminist, totally LGBTQIA+, and totally mentally ill. Oh, and anti gender roles. Looking at these facts, considering the time period in which she lived, it's more than likely that she might never have reached the fame she did. But she became famous and she published her works. She had no chill. She just said what she wanted to, and often her perspectives, though sometimes (most of the time) were unwelcome were men, were curt and to the point.

Girl is great, let's be honest here. Part of that fame is due to her awesome use of rhetorical strategies, however. Her writing was clear but also eloquent, because of this usage.
First and foremost, she was a novelist. So most of her writing, even if it wasn't a story per say, is written in a similar form. Novels tell stories, and the style of her writing always seems (from the examples I looked up) to tell a story. She did not just come out and say her point, that the advantages that women were gaining were still minor and controlled. Instead, she used rhetorical strategy to make her point clear.
Characterization-Woolf describes the voice in her head as a ghost. The ghost was pure, beautiful, and most importantly, the girl of every man's dreams. "She was intensely sympathetic. She was immensely charming. She was utterly unselfish. She excelled in the difficult arts of family life. She sacrificed herself daily...she was so constituted that she never had a mind or a wish of her own...she was pure." (pg. 526) Her goal is to let readers know the constant struggle women face by trying to be as open and honest as men, even though society deems that this makes you a failure of a woman. By making this thought process like a person, and killing that person at that, Woolf is describing to the readers the fight she and every other working woman face on a daily basis.
Scene Setting-Woolf''s main scene is in the attic. Lots of stories take place in such an ordinary setting. To Woolf, she was an ordinary girl, doing ordinary work, in an ordinary place. It makes it more obvious to the reader where she is and what she is doing. A mental image is an important factor in novels and thus in her essays.
Detail-Woolf pays a lot of attention to detail. Just like scene setting, it creates a great mental image of what is going on. For example, she describes the imagination space of an author. Instead of writing something about how interesting it is and how deep, she describes it as a lake, where she is fishing and letting a fish come to her line. She describes the characteristics of the lake so that her audience will see it clearly in her mind. This allows her to have a more personal relationship with her readers. (pg. 528)
Figurative Language-The biggest one off the bat is personification (see above). She also uses extended metaphor to describe a woman writer's thought process in her imagination, and how she is snapped out of it by "women's tasks". She also describes the literacy path of women as a road: "My profession is literature; and in that profession there are fewer experiences for women than in any other. For the road was cut many years ago-" (pg. 525) She also uses onomatopoeia when she describes being snapped out of the lake, giving the piece energy.
Professions for Women was written in the 1930s, and is older than some of the other feminist texts we have read, like Bad Feminist and (OK so we didn't read this one as a class, but I thought it looked interesting, so I read it) I Want a Wife. The former talks about how women have to act a certain way, to be a perfect woman or a perfect feminist. Both articles address the idea that women have the ability to be their own self. I Want a Wife describes the Angel that Woolf mentions in her essay. Though I won't go into detail about the essay (everyone should enjoy it by themselves), it basically is expressing how much women do for those around them, constantly sacrificing themselves for the "better good". What really is shocking about these three works is that they were written decades apart, and yet the problems in each are similar. So much for progress for women.

A Modest Proposal

Reading this work was an experience. Because I'm gullible and dippy I didn't realize that it was satire until I read the questions in the book. In my defense, though it sounds too disturbing to be true, would eating babies be a big surprise considering how much mankind really just sucks? I've seen some weird stuff, but I think this has to take the cake. I felt really creeped out until I realized it was satire, but to be honest, I still think it's a weird way to talk about social problems. But hey, that's not my business so away we go.
So, why is this creepy article in the same textbook with works like the Declaration of Independence? I would say because it deeply affected the readers, just like any other famous work. Swift uses ethos, logos, and pathos to make sure his audience really understands what the heck he's actually saying. Now, just a quick reminder of what the heck those words actually mean:

Swift uses ethos to make people trust him and his viewpoint. There are tons of people and tons of writers in the world, so why should they have listened to him? He's trying to look as educated and wealthy as possible, because when a person has those two things going for them, it's easy for them to get their way. (Helllo SCWAMP) He mentions his gentlemen friends, ("I have been informed by a principal gentleman in the county of Cavan" pg. 405), his weird American friend, "I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a healthy young child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food..." (pg. 406), and all the places he has friends in, America, London, Cavan, etc. By name dropping such exotic places (they would have been considered exotic to the impoverished Dublin citizens) and such polite men, he is essentially trying to hide the disturbing suggestion of cannibalism between wealth and power.

Swift tries to use statistics and facts to prove that his point, while beastly, is really quite reasonable considering how many poor, hungry children exist. When people have logic on their side, it is more likely they will be able to convince someone to see their point of view-facts are facts. Swift writes that "The maintenance of 100,000 children from two years old and upward, cannot be computed at less than 10s. a piece per annum..." (pg. 408) He then writes that if people started eating children, this would mean that instead of paying for the impoverished, the country's "...Stock will be thereby increased 50,000 per annum..." (pg. 408) Clearly eating children will help the country as a whole, but what about the mothers who get rid of their children and turn them into lunch meat? Rest assured, cannibalism will help them too. If the cost of raising her child would be two shillings and it would sell for ten, then "The mother will have 8 shillings net profit." (pg. 406)

Emotion is key in winning people over, and Swift knew this, so he used clear examples of pathos in his piece. Though cannibalism seems extreme and horrible (which it is), Swift's goal is to influence the audience to believe that it's better than leaving these children to suffer. He describes abortion and the murder of children to pull on heartstrings, and uses emotional words in his writing, like melancholy, horrid, and deplorable. He claims that to leave these poor kids in the cold with no future is worse than eating them, because at least then they will serve a purpose. (pg. 407)

Civil Disobedience

"We love eloquence for its own sake, and not for any truth which it may utter, or any heroism it may inspire."
I personally agree with Thoreau's statement. I think that he states an important truth about human nature in this quote-our love of finery. While this finery is obviously pretty things like nice furniture, tasty food, etc-I think it also includes the little things-like adding a ribbon to a gift, or putting sprinkles on a cake. We don't love these things because they're useful (sometimes they cause more trouble than they may seem worth), we just simply love them. In the book 1984, Winston finds a paper weight that is pretty to look at. The decorations were pretty but served no real purpose, and yet he still liked.
Obviously Thoreau was not thinking about cake or ribbon, but instead the state of government. By the time the piece was published, America had changed-the ideals of the Patriots were different than those of his time. And yet, from what he describes, the laws are still the same, the expectations are still the same. Everything in the American government is coated with tradition and sentiment. But what's the point of this eloquence? What's the point if everything has changed? Why keep up with the same fancy traditions and rituals in a different environment?
It's not because it offers truth-Thoreau points out that there are laws that men don't agree with, that might be considered tyranny because it is causing civil disobedience. "All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable. But almost all say that such is not the case now. But such was the case, they think, in the Revolution of '75." The love of eloquence does not provide truth; by trying to uphold old morals, the truth of what is happening at the current moment is hidden.
The old ideals of America (the old eloquence) bring honor and heroics-standing up to a large enemy and fighting for freedom are considered basic parts of the life of the American solider, for example. There's this thing in America that young people are pushed to be heroic, when some people are simply just there. And there's nothing wrong with that. It was the same in Thoreau's time: "'I should like to have them order me out to help put down an insurrection of the slaves, or to march to Mexico."' But are these young people aspiring to be heroes by upholding old American ideals? Or are they just trying to have people see them as such?
Clearly, we must just love eloquence. We love the idea of an America that stands true, one would say, to the ideas and heart that it had at it's beginning. Even though times have changed, overall the meaning behind America, the beliefs in freedom and equality for all are still important. But these ideals are not often met. Who knows if they ever will be? So we continue to love this eloquence just because we can. Our love of what some consider too good to be true, too idealistic, not useful, is important. It's our own civil disobedience.

The Declaration of Sentiments vs The Declaration of Independence: AKA When Elizabeth Cady Stanton Dragged Thomas Jefferson

There's nothing I like more than reading early feminist works. It's proof of how crappy women have been treated-women were not content to be pushed aside, even if that's "how things we're done". Women have been angry and will be angry when they are treated as less than a person, and yet this continues to happen. It's been happening since long before the Seneca Falls Convention and will probably last for much longer as well.
During the 1840s and 1850s, women were expected, more than ever before, to be docile, sweet, and unthinking. They were treated like they weren't people-because in the eyes of men, if they weren't men as well, they didn't matter. However, it was also a time of reform, and the women of the Convention decided that men would never listen to a woman speak, but they would read her words instead, especially if written in the same style as the male Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. Stanton, the main writer, was gutsy-she made the men of the era look at what they believed and forced them to ask why, if women felt the same, were they not allowed to want the same freedom fought for in the Revolutionary War?

The two Declarations were written in a complete parallel style-the introduction, the list of wrongdoings, and what the injured parties were going to do as a result. Stanton dared to think and write "like a man". Both began the Declarations with the words "When, in the course of human events...", and both also agreed that it is the nature of humans to accept abuse, rather than fight it. They only would fight it if it got far too unjust. But then, what makes it different?
The purpose, to be honest. They were both Declarations of freedom, but the Declaration of Sentiments was made up of the words of people who still were not receiving the freedom won in the Revolutionary War. Stanton compares man to the King (who Jefferson describes as a tyrant), and compares the family man to being the cause of injustice.
Stanton was just a badass, let's be honest. She essentially was like, "Look. We get the short end of the stick. We always have, and we always will unless you guys stop treating us as stereotypes." She wrote the Declaration to say, yes, technically we have not been taxed or forced off of land, but we are never seen as people, we are only ever seen as what we sacrifice and produce and give. And if a woman does not want to give away what she has, she is shamed into doing it or it is simply taken. What's worse is that it's like that today. The points Stanton made are still important signs of the inequality between men and women.
Men are encouraged to sleep around, women are shamed to stay virgins. Men are treated seriously in the workplace while women are called sweetheart. Men are encouraged to get educated, while women are shamed for being smart and for liking science.

We do twice as much to be seen as somewhat like a man. We are shamed for our femininity and because we do not identify as males, we are treated like there is something wrong with us. We're seen as sex objects, child bearers, cooks, cleaning staff, homemakers, and child raisers. Even our bodies are seen as someone else's property.
Take this article, "5 Reasons to Date a Girl with an Eating Disorder." (http://www.returnofkings.com/21313/5-reasons-to-date-a-girl-with-an-eating-disorder) I'm not sure if the author thought this was funny, but the idea of a woman being sick and unconfident is ridiculous apparently. (I know this is not like the Declaration but I thought it was clear proof of how women are just seen as objects, not as people.) It literally says that "An inflated ego and an unearned high self-esteem are among the most unattractive traits in a girl." You can't tell me that after reading that I am seen as a person and not as someone else's object.

First Post of 2016

Wow, it's been a while since we wrote on these blogs. The title of my blog post has really nothing to do with the post itself, but I'm not good at titling things. At least that title won't be wrong.
So today we read letters from John Adams to his wife Abigail Adams. We discussed the use of punctuation and capitalization in class, because trying to find a meaning in hard. These were personal letters, and in personal letters and emails, we don't focus on trying to come up with a thesis or argument, it's just communication without actually talking.
So the letters didn't have a purpose, but they did have meaning. They reflected an America that was on the brink of creation-we were still colonies at that point. Though their letters discussed some cool early ideas of feminism (not beating your wives and daughters-who woulda thought?), that isn't what I'm going to right about. Instead, I'm going to discuss a quote from (I think) John's letters:

"Whenever Vanity ad Gaiety, a Love of Pomp and Dress, Furniture, Equipage, Buildings, great Company, expensive Diversions, and elegant Entertainment get the better of the Principles and Judgements of Men or Women there is no knowing where they will stop, nor into what Evils, natural, moral, or political, they will lead us." (pg. 538)

What a line, am I right? (I'm not going to discuss the punctuation of the quote, but wow. He put a lot of emphasis on key words by capitalization. It sounds like he's giving a speech.) Twin was saying how he was an early thinker for his time, and she was right. The colonies were starting to rebel and people were starting to use their voices, it's true. But a lot of people still saw the wealthy as better than them-well, they have more money, they must be better. Yet John Adams saw the correlation between selfish rulers and unhappy subjects. While he was reflecting on the actions of imperial control, where absolute power was leading the monarchy to take and take and take, causing the colonies to suffer, it is a key moment of self realization. John Adams couldn't have been the only person to think like this-it reflects the self realization of colonists and people as a whole, really, as well.
But what does it really mean? I think it reflects human nature. Humans by nature want to be comfortable and protected. We want to survive and raise offspring in healthy environments. Essentially, we want to be able to live easy, happy lives. It's not necessarily laziness or greed that causes the problems Adams reflected on, though that could be a cause of it. There's this term called defensive eating, and it's when a person will eat despite being full so that no one else can eat that leftover bit. (Pretty much me and dumplings. I don't care if I'm full. I want it.) I think people are just like that in general. They worry when something is taken from them, even if it's not really taken. What I mean to say is, if someone with hundreds of books sees someone work hard and hard for just one book, instead of being happy for them, they see that as a book stolen, which just isn't how it works. People become accustomed to having so much, so that when others fight for just a fraction of what they have, they see it as a personal attack.
It's even happening today. People like Trump are upset that the impoverished just want to be able to survive, while his lifestyle would support thousands. Leaders focus so much on their wealth and lifestyles that they seem to ignore what it does to the people they lead.