This article was hard to read. Rasmussen was a bit roundabout at getting to her point, and once I finally figured out what she was saying, I didn't really care. I personally think that Rasmussen is a sexist woman with an over-rated opinion! She attacks both Bell and James and unjustly signifies that because the writings are from a male perspective, they are themselves sexist and phallocentric. She also implies that the feminist perspective, which she uses as no more than a title under which she can vent her own sexist attitude, is of crucial importance in reading James's Washington Square and Bell's perspectives.
An expansion of this stubbornness is the problems it causes through its rejection of others for not matching Alice 's standards, leading to instances of madness in the context of her own standards. Alice’s meeting with the Caterpillar is where she highlights the madness caused by this stubbornness. The madness is seen in Alice’s refusal, “well, perhaps your feelings may be different…it would feel very queer to me,” of the Caterpillars solution that change should effect one “not a bit” (Carroll 41). At first, her rejection seems reasonable as she is not going against any clear benchmark of behavior. Yet, she supposed to use reasoning to come to this conclusion, which requires her to look at all the evidence.
“When the media takes light of street harassment, it reinforces the idea that it’s acceptable, that we’re ‘overreacting’. #EndSHWeek” -Melissa A. Fabello (Rebolini). A hum, whistle, or comment to a woman about their body may seem harmless and a compliment, but the emotional effect is long lasting. It bothers and sticks with them long-term and doesn’t go away. The real problem is that the victim is expected to just get over it and suck it up because it is our fault and we are put to blame (Chapin) but, as a study shows, “catcalling negatively impacts how women think about themselves” (Young).
Choosing reading as a pleasurable activity would have been uncommon. What Christine discovers upon reading this text is just the opposite of her expectations. She realizes that Matheolus is not respectful toward women, but just the opposite. His work represents women as "devilish and wicked." However, she uses her wit to describe her displeasure in the text: "Because the subject seemed to me not very pleasant for people who do not enjoy lies, and of no use in developing virtue or manners, given its lack of integrity in diction and theme, and after browsing here and there and reading the end, I put it do... ... middle of paper ... ...o Moses and Abraham.
However, focusing on the shortcomings of someone always puts them in a negative light. This writer could easily produce a novel featuring women who do much of the same thing or perhaps I could bash a certain religion, race, or how about talking trash about homosexuals? I do not do this because it gets us nowhere and in reality, it is wrong, everyone has shortcomings. Focusing on the positive of out civilization is the way to go. I feel that the chauvinism displayed by both of these authors is a detriment to the novelists who manage to take unbiased views on the world.
She is not consistent with her arguments and the profanity used in her article makes her seem less educated and does not match with the character she is trying to take. Therefore, I would not suggest the publication of this article in The Shorthorn because of all the cons Kelley overlooked. It will most likely not reach the attention of a large audience, to which many will disagree on her ideas and men will not have any part in this bias article, since it is only targeting women.
The fact that Serena feels hostility towards the Handmaids is ignorant because she knows that they have not chosen their position in society, but rather they were forced into it. At the end of the novel, Serena finds out about Offred’s secret visit to Jezebel’s. She is mostly upset with Offred, which is completely unreasonable because the Commander had forced her to accompany him to Jezebel’s. This is a direct example of the feminist way of thinking: it’s always the fault of a women’s promiscuity, not a man’s. Serena’s attitude supports the order of Gilead, because she tortures the Handmaids, who cannot help themselves.
The use of a rigid structure confines people, forcing their ideas to be regulated. This expectation is the antithesis of individuality. Deviation from this regimentation sets people up for disappointment, “I wonder what made me think you were different,” said both Twyla and Roberta as daggering insults thrown at one another (Morrison, 256). The structure allows Bishop to seem successful in maintaining control and her composure throughout the poem “One Art,” until the last stanza when she strays from typical structure by adding the word ‘too’ in line one of the refrain and writing that loss “may look like (Write it!) like disaster” (Bishop, 18-19).
In these articles, Orwell defines the two major problems with these articles: “The first is staleness of imagery; the other is lack of precision” (para.9). I agree with Orwell’s argument about the dull use of imagery in these articles, which avoids creativity. Orwell uses a long line of images/metaphors that writers use in their work, which are often misused because the writer does not know the meaning of the terms “Many of these are used without knowledge of their meaning” (Orwell para.10). This is an important example of the foolishness of writers that do not understand the metaphors, similes, and symbolic expressions to help the reader understand their ideas in the writing. I also agree that writers do not use words “precisely”, which can confuse the reader.
Academic essayists such as Susan M. Gilbert, Susan Gubar, and Elaine Showalter have a feminist reading of the story, however, this is not the most important reading. The author experienced the turmoil of the rest cure personally, which means that the story is most likely a comment on the great mistreatment of depression, hysteria and mental disorders in general. Despite the claims of Gilbert, Gubar, and Showalter that “The Yellow Wallpaper” is solely feminist propaganda, their analysis is often unnecessarily deep and their claims are often unwarranted, resulting in an inaccurate description of a story that is most importantly about the general mistreatment of psychosis and the descent into insanity regardless of gender. When things are stretched too thin, they become less sturd... ... middle of paper ... ...show that it is a feminist reading, which is unconvincing. In the end, there is more information supporting the fact that it is not about women, and is about all people dealing with this issue.