List of Qualities I'm Looking for in a Man

• Honest
• Fun 
• Smart 
• Likes the outdoors
• same religious values
• Outgoing
• Tall 
• Attractive
• Personable
• Dependable 
• Responsible 
• Hard Working
• Good Humor
• Athletic
• Caring
• Loving
• Good with kids
• Likes dogs

Looking for My Prince Charming Pgs. 543-544

The general argument made by Shalmali Pal is that it is not very easy to find your perfect prince charming.  More specifically this is a story of an Indian girl who can’t find a husband as easily as she thought she could.  She had three suitors and none of them were her prince charming.  She writes, “If I could take elements of my three suitors and fuse them together, maybe I would have the perfect man.”  In this passage Pal is only suggesting that she expects more in her future spouse. She also said that it would be easier if she married an Indian man so that she wouldn’t have to explain things to him. In conclusion, it is Pal’s belief that it is pretty hard to find a prince charming because she is lazy.

In my view I think that it can be hard for some to find their prince charming. I think that Pal had the wrong approach when deciding to be lazy when looking for a spouse.  For example in one of my favorite Disney shows, Beauty and the Beast, Belle is at first frightened by the beast and his hideous outward appearance.  At first the Beast was mean and did not want to be kind because of the way he looked.  Belle showed love towards him and was very persistent and patient with him.  This showed the beast that he too could be kind, and he had a change of heart. Then Belle and the Beast fell in love.  That story is a prime example of how we should not be lazy when searching for someone that we can love and spend our lives with. Although Pal was lazy when choosing a mate, she should not be lazy at all because she needs to find a good husband and being lazy is not the way to do it.   Therefore, I conclude that it may be harder than it looks to find your prince charming, but if you stick with it you will eventually find your true love. 

Media Portrayals of Men pgs 538-542

The general point made by the Media Awareness Network in their work Media Portrayals of Men and Masculinity, is that the media portrays men in a certain ways that are not always accurate. More specifically the Media Awareness Network suggests that the media defines masculinity, whether it is by stereotypes, or simply just advertising what men should look and act like.  They write, “Families, friends, teachers, and community leaders all play a role in helping boys define what it means to be a man (538).”  In this passage the Media Awareness Network is only suggesting that the media plays a vital role as to how some men define themselves and their masculinity.  In conclusion, it is the Media Awareness Networks belief that they can use the internet to see how men are portrayed.

In my view, I think that they are right because when reading the works and the stereotypes, you can think of men who have at least once in their lifetime said something about that stereotype.  For example one stereotype is that it’s rare to see men or boys crying otherwise showing vulnerability.  I know that many boys don’t like to cry because of this reason, but really I when boys cry it shows that they can be sensitive to whatever it may be and they too have feelings.  Although some people agree with many of these stereotypes and choose to base if they are valuable or not be what the media says, I think that there is more importance in life rather than what the media has to say about how people should look and act like.  Therefore, in conclude that people should not define who they are by the media, people should be themselves and not have to worry about what others think about them. 

The Male Privilege Checklist pgs. 536-538

The general argument made by Peggy McIntosh in her work The Male Privilege Checklist, is that that males have a lot more privileges than women in many things.  More specifically McIntosh suggests that there are 46 specific privileges that men have, and that they need to humble themselves and give up these privileges. She writes, “This checklist is, I hope a step towards helping men to give up the first big privilege.”  McIntosh is suggesting that these privileges that are listed are old and need to be reconsidered when we go about our daily lives. In conclusion, it is McIntosh’s belief that males have derived certain conclusions on what their privileges are, and that people need to reconsider some of these privileges.

In my view, McIntosh is right, because we now live in a society where it is ok for a male to do a job that say a female would normally do. It is also the same the other way around, more females are doing certain jobs that males would normally do.  For example there are more and more male nurses. I think it is awesome that our society can accept that now more than they would have, say 20 years ago. Although some men still believe that they have these privileges, I think that they need to humble themselves and come to an agreement that they will not always have these privileges and that they are wrong. Therefore, I conclude that males play a vital role in everything, but so do females and they should have equal rights. 

Beyond the Cult of Fatherhood pgs.526-531

The general argument made by David Osborne in his work Beyond the cult of Fatherhood, is that being a parent is a lot harder than it looks, and that it is difficult to work while being a parent as well. More specifically Osborne suggests that society places a specific role for men to go out and work, while women stay at home and be the mother.  This is not the case in this passage, it is in fact the opposite.  People don’t understand how hard it is to simply nurture and care for a child.  He writes “That was when I realize what I had gotten myself into-and how much I had to learn (Pg. 527).” He didn’t realize how hard parenting would actually be until he experienced it for himself.  In this passage Osborne is suggesting that it is hard to work and be a stay at home parent as well.  He also writes, “The contradiction between family and career is nothing new; it is perhaps the central unresolved conflict in the lives of American women today (529).”  In conclusion it is Osborne’s belief that it is hard work to be a parent, and it is hard to have a career as well. He didn’t say it wasn’t possible, because it most certainly is, but he said that it is difficult, which most people are able to find out for themselves when they become a parent.  But Osborne said it is definitely worth all the hard work. “Then he propped himself up on his elbows, leaned over and kissed me. If there are any better moments in life, I’ve never found them (531).”  So being a parent is definitely worth while!

In my opinion, Osborne is right because this is most certainly an issue among many families in America, especially if the family is short on income and needs the extra money to support everyone. For example my sister works, but she works part time so that she is able to be a mother as well.  And that is the case with many of the mothers that I know in my life.  Although some people who aren’t parents yet don’t understand how hard it is to be a parent and to work at the same time, I maintain my respect for all of the parents for doing the hard work of taking care and nurturing a child. Therefore I conclude that it is a lot harder than it looks to be a parent, and one only understands when  they become a parent for themselves.  

Civil Disobedience Questions

          A good citizen is someone who follows the laws and who actively participates in community activities.  A good citizen is someone who treats someone else with respect and who shows dignity for themselves and for their country.  Thoreau described a good citizen as someone who doesn’t always follow what the government has to say.  He thinks that people should be less governed. 

          An unjust law is a law that doesn’t make sense in following.  An unjust law would be a law that doesn’t benefit the people and it is just wrong and everyone would seem to think that too.  One can’t show respect for a law when breaking it.  In order to show respect for it you have to follow it.  I guess if you break it and realize you did and not deny it could partly be a form of respect.  If everyone acted according to their conscience our world would be crazy.  Laws are there for our safety.  Acting on conscience could also make a stand on the issue though.

          Dissent is not patriotic.  Some people that have led our country have had different opinions than the majority, and taken a stand for it, but it is not considered patriotic.  I think that it can sometimes be moral depending on the issue that it is based off upon. It can also be Christian as well. Americans have their freedom of choice so differing from everyone’s opinions can be considered American.

      No the mass of men do not serve the state as machines.  There is a wide variety of where and what men serve as. The state punishes people who follow their consciences. If it’s not the law they get punished. They may have a say in certain things, but it is pretty strict.

         We as citizens should be able to trust statesmen and legislators to tell us what is best for our state.  I think in certain situations some people do not trust them.  I think that statesmen should be allowed to define patriotism, a good citizen and justice, but I don’t think that they should define proper morality. They can define morality to an extent, but different people with different views on religion and such tend to differ than people who don’t.  I think there is a line where they can define morality.

      Thoreau’s opinion on wealth and consumption is that the wealthier a person is the more likely they are to show it and be prideful and think they are right, therefore they don’t have to follow the law. The wealthier a person is the more likely they are to be puffed up in pride he says which makes them think that they are right and that they don’t have to practice civil disobedience.  Economic class figure so centrally to the works of Thoreau, Gandhi, and the King, because in the time period where they grew up those issues were prevalent all of the time.  Thoreau grew up in the 1800’s and that was a major issue of that time.

         Martin Luther King, Jr. said “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor,” because the oppressor is someone who burdens the people with cruel or unjust restraints, and if someone is an oppressor they cannot voluntarily give freedom. An oppressor just doesn’t do that, and it is as simple as that.

       When the government grows so large and powerful that it can no longer be resisted effectively, I don’t think that we are still free.  I think that the government has taken over at that point when people don’t have the choice anymore.  Thoreau says that we should not have as strict of a government, and he says that the government that is most successful is the government that is governed the least.  I think when the state goes right to our income before we even see them that they are not being just and need to allow the people the opportunity to see where their money is going first before taking it away, so the people don’t freak out. We can resist the actions of the government by first voting for someone who you think would govern the state/country the best.  If we disagree with something that the government is doing we can take a stand and let others know that you think what they are doing is wrong.  We have that right in America.  A free state is a state that people are not afraid to voice their opinions and that their opinions are taken into consideration.  A free state is where people have the choice to choose their actions whether they are right or wrong.

         King dismantles the argument by writing this letter and addressing it. The four steps that he said were necessary in every nonviolent campaign were; collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self-purification; and direct action. He said that his followers and allies have carried out these steps in seeking to achieve racial justice in Birmingham by doing things such as taking down racial signs and doing things that followed what he had to say.  He said that the immediate purpose to direct, nonviolent action is that people will take into consideration and start to follow what they have to say.

        People who seemingly undermine the values of society should be questioned yet respected at the same time, because they might have a reason behind their reasoning.  People should have a good so to say relationship with their community so that their voice will be heard and so that they are someone in the community. 

Civil Disobedience pgs. 715-727

The general argument made by Henry D. Thoreau in his work Civil Disobedience is that the government should not affect people’s way of thinking and so to say their conscience.  More specifically, Thoreau argues that many people allow the government to influence how they go about doing certain things.  He writes “I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe— "That government is best which governs not at all.” (pg 716) In this passage Thoreau sis suggesting that the most successful government is the government that doesn’t govern as much and gives people their freedom to a certain extent.  If you look at the governments across the country where they govern too much you see certain problems arise because the government is too overruling and forceful.  Also the time period when he wrote this is very relevant to his writing.  It was written in 1817 when slavery was going on.  In conclusion Thoreau was simply saying that the government is too strict and it would be best if they didn’t govern at all. 

In my view Thoreau is wrong.  I think that it is good to have government to an extent so that the people don’t go crazy and take advantage of not having a set system.  I also think that too much government can be bad.  I think that there needs to be a happy medium, and that the government shouldn’t be too strict and also shouldn’t be too lenient.  Although Thoreau might object in having a government that governs too much, I think that government needs to govern to a certain extent.  Therefore, I conclude that we need to have a government that governs, but they can’t be too strict, because then people start to rebel more and to disrespect the government which can also cause major havoc.