Gender Bias?

WT #1 pg. 783

Women in today’s society have just as many rights as men do. The attitudes towards women have changed so much since Woolf’s argument was introduced. No one really cares if someone is a man or a woman when it comes to jobs and careers. The only situation I see where women can’t do certain things if they want to, is in the military. Women in the military have less rights and opportunities than men do, this is more prevalent in a war zone. Women are excluded from ground combat and other areas in the military; I believe this occurs for a good reason. Other than this I don’t see or know of any instances where women are not able to do something they want. Woolf’s arguments have almost completely lost its relevance; we would have had a women president if Barack Obama didn’t run for office at the same time. Hilary Clinton would have definitely won because the easily influenced Americans would have voted for the woman candidate. We might have another opportunity to elect a woman president in 2012 or 2016, if Sarah Palin runs for office. I believe she will have a great chance of being elected. It all depends how well our current president does in his first four years. If something drastically happens in Obama’s first term, before the next election, expect Palin to run and most likely win the presidential seat.

If a woman is qualified for a position than she will get the job, it’s not like the movies make it out to be. The movies I’m talking about is of a qualified woman who doesn’t get the job and the position gets filled by a less qualified man. These ideas are outdated and are exaggerated for the movies. If everyone stops believing, doing, and being influenced by what they see on tv, magazines, and movies the world would be a better place. Also I believe when women or men complain about not getting the job, they blame it on anything they could think of except themselves, including gender bias. When in reality the reason why they didn’t get the job is because they weren’t the best qualified or they tanked on their interview. These type of people need to take responsibility for themselves and by doing this they can start working on fixing themselves for they can get the job next time. All in all, the arguments of Woolf have lost their relevance. It’s a different world than it was even 10 years ago, there are equal or even more opportunities for women now. There are even rules and regulations people have to follow to hire an equal number of men to women, and also hire a diverse group of people. Whatever the case, there will always be instances where there is bias going on, everyone is different. But the main attitude in our culture is men and women are equal.

Parents View on Marriage

WT #1 pg. 589

The parent’s attitudes towards marriage as portrayed in Achebe’s story are the complete opposite as my parent’s attitudes. In Achebe’s story the father does not like the women his son is going to marry and he will disown his son if he does choose to marry the women. This is a regular occurrence in different religions and cultures all over the world. Cultures who participate in arranged marriages do this to set their daughter up to marry a man that will give her and her family better status and financial opportunities. As for my parents, they trust my judgment in choosing a wife if I ever decide to be serious enough in a relationship. When I visit my parents and I tell them I’m bringing a friend, they know what to expect. Usually when I go and visit my parents I bring someone with me, not always a girlfriend but a girl I’m casually seeing. I do this for I can have a better reason to leave that day when my mom asks me to stay, as she always does. But when my parents see me and the girl I brought, they usually know if I’m serious or not. When my friend gets along with my mom and dad it makes me like my friend more and know that she’s girlfriend material. Only a few times my mother came up to me or called and told me that I should “keep this one around”. My parents are totally different in what they want me to do relationship wise. My dad wants me to not get serious with any girl and on the other hand my mom wants me to sort of settle down. I actually like that both of my parents have different views in what I should do, but they have similar views at the same time. For example, they both want me to be happy in my relationships and also if I decide to marry someone I know they will both respect my decision because I am very selective. I also know they will not disown me if I do marry someone they don’t like, as in the Achebe’s story. Even when it comes to religion, my parents accept all religions, except the extremism ones. I’ve had friends with all sorts of religions and my parents never had any problems or concerns. Of course any parent who is religious would prefer to have their son marry someone in their religion. It would make it easier when the couple decides to have children, but if everyone accepts it, it shouldn’t be a problem. At the end of the day, everyone should marry whoever they love and believe would be a good wife or husband. Also only marry if they are sure they will stay with them for the rest of their lives. There is over a 50% divorce rate in this country, and this needs to change. People are marrying for the wrong reasons, they marry because they believe it’s no big deal, or they think they’re in love, and also people marry to early. People should be together for years before they get married, and they don’t even have to get married. Just pretend you are and be in a committed relationship. All marriage is, is a piece of paper.

Response to the Middle East

WT #2 pg. 516

I don’t believe any nation would want to be ruled under an authoritarian government, especially if they held a fair and open election. Also we wouldn’t know if the election was truly fair and open unless the United States controlled every aspect of the election to make sure there was nothing illegal and immoral happening. But this will never happen because you can’t control every aspect, somewhere in the process will be tainted. There will be threats to people and the authoritarians would keep people from going to the polling place. There wouldn’t be a way to control who and how many times they voted because of the non proper, nonexistent, or fake identification of the citizens.

But if there were to be an election where it was held fair and open and the results came back that they chose an authoritarian type government. Then I believe the United States should respond by accepting and congratulating them on their choice and advise them that there are other types of governments to have. Respond by saying we respect their decision and we will stop pushing freedom and democracy on them. We still have a job to do in the middle east and its not close to being over, but our presence in your government aspect will be minimal. Ofcourse will still have to be a “watchdog” and make sure they are not planning terrorist attacks or developing nuclear weapons. But our push on their freedom will be cut.

The conflict in the Middle East has been going on for a long time now. There is still not an end in sight and there shouldn’t be until we are done with the job. Most of the citizens in Iraq and Afghanistan want more freedom then they had but I believe we wore out our welcome a while ago. They might just agree to accept an authoritarian government to get us out of their business and country sooner. Whatever happens our government needs to make sure that we (the United States) come out better than when we went into this conflict. Or all these years, deaths, and money would be a waste and for nothing. Even though we surged into Iraq and Afghanistan to bring freedom/ democracy, fight terrorism, and “discover” weapons of mass destruction. There are deeper reasons why were there. When we are finished in Iraq, I believe they will be on their way to a functioning, free, democratic country.

My Personal Tastes

Writing Topic #1 pg. 371

My tastes in what I wear, carry, listen to, and watch all contribute to define who I am. I am 21 years old and my taste are constantly changing. Let me start off by reflecting on my style of clothing I wear. I tend to buy clothes of all styles, whatever I think is “cool” at the time. I don’t really stick to a certain type or style of clothing. I usually buy whatever catches my eye in the stores or if I see something on tv or in public that I like. I don’t have a favorite clothing store, I go into all the different types of stores. Not sticking to a certain style makes me open to different possibilities and options, I like a little bit from each style, genre, group of clothing. This also goes for shoes, I like all different brands and styles.

As for the things I carry that define who I am. The first thing that comes to my mind is I carry a money clip instead of a wallet. I have wallets but I don’t like using them. I don’t know why, maybe because they make me feel like an old man and they’re bulky in my pocket. As for the money clips, I have several kinds. The different money clips I have are chrome, platinum, gun metal black, and a Pittsburg Steelers one. Other things I carry are my truck or car keys, cell phone, and Chap Stick. Sometimes I carry an iPod when I know I might be bored. I don’t really carry anything else because I don’t like a lot of things in my pockets or on me. These define who I am because I like things as simple as possible and only carry the necessities. Another thing that can fit in this category are my sunglasses. I can never go outside, in the day, without a pair of shades. For some reason I only like Spy sunglasses, I have a collection of different colors and styles of spy sunglasses.

I don’t listen to a lot of music, when I do I again, like all different genres. Whatever catches my interest at the time I listen to, but songs get played out to fast to me. I can’t listen to the same songs over and over, I delete songs from my ipod usually once every two weeks. As for the things I watch on tv, I don’t like to many different shows. When I do watch tv I usually watch sports, the amazing race, the O’Reilly factor, and some reality shows. I have a Netflix subscription but I don’t have time to watch all the movies I get. They usually sit there on my counter until I let someone watch them or I send them back. I believe the things I watch can define me as liking sports, traveling to different countries, and staying current on the news and political topics.

I came to like all these things by trying different things out over the years and coming accustomed to knowing what I like and don’t like, thus sort of contributing to defining who I am. I never wrote (typed) so much on what my tastes are but there they are.

Collateral Damage, Justifiable?

Writing Topic pg. 164


Collateral damage happens way to often on a regular basis. It is not always shown on the news so we are not fully aware of the frequency of these acts. To me, there are two types of collateral damage. The first type is what the US Air Force defines Collateral damage as, which makes me feel it could be justified. The USAF defines it as the unintentional damage or incidental damage affecting facilities, equipment or personnel occurring as a result of military actions directed against targeted enemy forces or facilities. This kind of damage can occur to friendly, neutral, and even enemy forces. An example that the USAF gives is during linebacker operations over North Vietnam, some incidental damage occurred from bombs falling outside target areas. This makes it justifiable when you are at war with another country and you accidently damage unintended targets, such as “accidently” blowing up an enemies barracks when a bomb flies out of its intended range. Sometimes this is what happens in wars and conflicts. Also another example of justified collateral damage is when you’re at war; we shouldn’t put our military in harm’s way to verify every target before every shot or bomb dropped. If we took the time to completely verify a target, our military deaths would rise.

The other type of collateral damage is how The American Heritage Dictionary and mostly everyone else define it as. This is the type that is not justifiable. A.H. Dictionary defines collateral damage as unintended damage, injuries, or deaths caused by an action, especially unintended civilian casualties caused by a military operation. Every day in other countries militias and guerilla groups are killing or injuring civilians by carelessly shooting in villages and cities. They don’t use logical or humane thoughts before they start a military battle in or near an innocent town. This is not justifiable to me because usually these internal wars and conflicts are not necessary. These wars/conflicts in other countries are mostly about greed or claiming land/territory.

The Collateral damage phrase has its origins in military terminology, but now it is widely used in popular lingo. In the business world, they use the phrase collateral damage to describe the unintentional damage that occurs when a company moves its offices out of a city. The loses occurred by local restaurants and vendors could be described as collateral damage. Other use for this phrase is used to describe all types of loses by different subcultures. Going back to if collateral damage is morally justified or not. It depends on the certain situation, also on why and how the damage occurred. If the collateral damage was truly unintended in a legit war, then it is more justifiable than collateral damage occurring in a country’s internal battle based on greed.