Lucy Liu’s AP Comp Blog

The author’s definition of beauty is that it is (re-hash) “in the eye of the beholder”, or rather, that dove is making it seem that way. But she also presents evidence that resembles the opinion of many of today’s psychologists: that inner beauty can only go so far because to human nature, and its derivatives from evolutionary instinct, inner beauty can only go so far. These ads and commercials make it seem like there is something to be ashamed about being beautiful, rather than the original intention which seems to be more that unattractive women can still be as beautiful as the next model. No, the article offers a lot of examples of choosing outer beauty over inner beauty, and the motivations behind it. It is almost as if the ads are making people question the actions of the general public, and this article then makes us feel like hypocrites by applying the principles on a more personal level. Sure, I don’t feel like women should choose a handsome man over a geeky-looking one solely based on looks, but if I were put in a situation where I would have to choose one without ever speaking to either, I would definitely choose the handsome one. For guys, its Halle Berry over Whoopi Goldberg. I see what is wrong about it at the same time that I don’t think there is any explanation owed.

The word “Art” is a broad term that means different things to different people. What i perceive as what art is to others is anything that stirs emotion. Because emotion is caused by a mixture of personality and personal experience, no one will see art in the same things. Art can take any form where one of the senses will perceive it: audio, visual, taste, smell, and touch. It can also just take the form of an unmistakable but indescribable feeling within the human psyche, without taking any sort of physical form. To me, art is those things that speaks to me, sends a message, and shapes me to become a better person. It tells me to look at the world in a different light, take a different perspective. It is a communication between souls, between creator and audience, to discover truths within oneself. Art is not to be taken lightly for child’s fare, but also not to be judged for myself by another. My own experience will be different from a judge’s, and so I will just have to see for myself.

1. Rhetoric is important to a politician because their skill in wielding rhetoric determines their effectiveness as a speaker. With good rhetorical skills they will be able to convince others that their ideas are reasonable and just, which is important in garnering those moderate votes that everyone strives for.

2. I don’t keep up with politics. I just know that John McCain’s upper lip doesn’t move, that Hilary is a raging feminist, and that Obama presents himself as the biggest humanitarian, which naturally attracts all my idealistic, liberal, peers.

I’d never thought about women being “marked” before reading this article. Certainly, I’d thought about how much easier of a time that males had socializing with each other (the ways they find friendship in each other seem so simple, unpremediated, and honest). Women have it so much harder than men these days, and this piece makes no qualms to disprove it.

The more I read of this article, the more I see how it applies to my life. The author herself came upon this discovery when sitting in a room with three other women, whom she unconsciously “marked” with defining labels, such as “dark brown hair in a classic style” and “wore a only a light gloss on her lips and a hint of shadow on her eyes.” They are not simply “that woman sitting to the left of me” or whatnot. When man makes a first impression, one does not unconsciously assign words like “pinstripe-suited” or “fair-skinned”. There is no psychological or logical explanation for it; it just happens.

Since reading this article I increasingly find myself guilty of using labels when I think of people. “Then there’s Holly, that slender brunette that wears too much eye makeup.” Inferences are made about personality from these labels, whether it be intellectual or simple-minded, outgoing or introverted.

Mencken lived through the time when women were finding their footing in a man’s world, through the campaigns of the suffragettes, all the way until the 50’s housewife was beginning to take form. It is rather difficult to make inferences about women at this time because both extremes of submissive homemaker and militant feminist were represented throughout the duration of his life.

It was refreshing to read a piece written by a man that not only did not denounce women, but gave reasons behind their inferiority in society. He doesn’t blatantly blame anyone for the problem, because his point is that the problem lies within everyone: some are oppressive because they want to stick to the old ways, and some react to this by being submissive, creating a vicious cycle that will only end when someone is man enough (perhaps pun intended…) to rise above society and act in an almost hedonistic manner. All the elements are there for women to find equality: intelligence, good sense, influence, etc. I wonder what Mencken would say now, so progressed that we fancy our world to be.

1. What was your first reaction to the article?

I started reading the article in the middle, skipping the first paragraph or two. I could tell it was a satirical piece because it was either written recently enough among modern thought to make the author not taken seriously, or it was written so long ago that us, the readers, would think it ridiculous anyway. When I went back and found out that a woman, a wife, was writing this, I was certainly less confused if not surprised.

2. What has changed (if anything) in terms of gender equality in our country? Would Sykes’s criticisms still be relevant today?

Some of her criticisms would still be relevant, especially the stuff about certain aspects as housewifery: “I want a wife who cooks the meals, a wife who is a good cook. I want a wife who will plan the menus, do the necessary grocery shopping, prepare the meals, serve them pleasantly, and then do the cleaning up.” Although many of these things are being shared between husband and wife these days, it is rarely ever the husband that exclusively upkeeps the house. Additionally, fine culinary and housekeeping skills are still a very important factor in choosing a mate. Conversely, that stuff about “a wife who will type my papers for me when I have written them” would not be relevant, however, because unlike housewifery, there is no collective value in the wife helping out the husband with their work/homework; it only serves one of them.

3. Do you feel that women are discriminated against in our society and if so how? If not, what has changed?

I don’t feel that women are discriminated against by men. I feel that whatever discrimination there is comes from other women. Most men are probably too afraid of being labeled as sexist or misogynistic. Women, however, sometimes look down on other women for not being “as good of a housewife.” There is a lot of competition that goes on between women to try to “have it all”, the family and the career. Theoretically, one reaches something like the ultimate achievement in life if they are to successfully balance the two elements, without having to make considerable sacrifices in each. As many of us know, there are many things that could prevent this from occurring, and so are set up to either be an unsuccessful employee or an unsuccessful mother. Men don’t have to make this choice, but its not as if they put women in that situation on purpose.

4. Could an equivalent essay entitled “Why I want a husband” be written? If so, what would it contain and what points would it make?

As much as girls want to think they are equal with men, they will never be. This is because there is no such thing as equality between two organisms so different in biology, mannerisms, and talents. Although I am all for believing that girls are just as smart, or smarter, than boys, I still believe in chivalry and gentlemanly behavior, not because I enjoy being a damsel in distress, but more so because I believe that men are made to accomplish certain things, among those being to protect and care for the women. In turn, women will also care for the men, but in different ways. An essay entitled “Why I want a Husband,” if written from the wrong perspective, could take a very feministic, bitter turn very quickly.

Russell’s essay on happiness:

1)    Explain the first sentence. In order to have a good life, there must be happiness.
2)    Explain what Russell means by “In fact the whole antithesis between self and the rest of the world, which is implied in the doctrine of self-denial, disappears as soon as we have any genuine interest in persons or things outside ourselves.” People are hedonist as a general rule and principle until something that doesn’t involve themselves truly interests them. This, however, is contradictory, because as soon as they take an interest in it, it becomes self-fulfilling to pursue it.

3)    How effective is Russel’s simile of the billiard ball?  Would he be better without it?  A different metaphor? This metaphor seems a little silly to me because, while it worked, there was no alternative simile to explain the other side, or what it would be like if the collision resulted in meshing together.

4)    Explain what Russell means by a “citizen of the universe.” A person that is such is part of a whole, and not an individual. Their time here will come and go, but because they are living for the nation and not for themselves, their purpose and “life” continues on because there are both ancestors and descendants to live for.

5)    How is this essay like/unlike Singer’s Animal Liberation in style, tone, and content? It is different in that Russell uses more logos in the form of asyllogism, the if/then statements. The tone here is one of a less serious manner. This is a result of the assumption that this essay is less likely to change people’s views: when the reader is done with the essay, they might still come out with the same views if they read this essay, but that their views will be either changed or strengthened by Animal Liberation

The general argument made by Peter Singer in his work “Animal Liberation” is that animals should be given the rights. More specifically, Singer argues that animals should be given the same rights as humans. He writes, “humans tend to fall back on nonlinguistic modes of communication which are often found among apes.” In this passage, Singer is suggesting that humans and apes are not as unequal as is commonly thought.  In conclusion, Singers’ belief is that animals should have the same rights as humans because we are equal on many levels.

In my view, Singer is partially right because animals deserve rights. More specifically, I believe that animals do not deserve to suffer.  For example, no matter how smart and capable a creature is, they can all feel pain, and therefore none should have to suffer.  Although Singer might object this,
I maintain that animals are in no way equals with humans.  Therefore, I conclude that animals should not be treated cruelly except when the well-being of a human or many humans depends on it.