Course Reflection

The essay is not, in any conventional sense, fun. I recall endless instances where people extolled their choler over the rigid nuances of writing an essay. For one, many people just don't give a flying duck about the subject matter. Why? The reasons vary. Two, essays are sometime counter intuitive if you want to make people think deeply on a subject. Why? Because the subjects are nearly always convoluted and making claims will be revealed as erroneous. Three, essays are fraught with grammatical errors. Some people are grammar nerds (Grammar Police) and others are not. The vast majority of college students are not. And a lot of the grammatical structures people adhere by are, by and large, arbitrary. Four, essays are awfully, awfully egotistical. Think about it. It's all one protracted rant that makes a personality broad and vague. You are constantly utilizing your brain to sound like a prick. Your word choice habitually displays who you are as a person. Is meekness and recalcitrant behavior encouraged? Digressions are organic in human reasoning but it is suppressed in essays. Five, you have to make an essay clear, creative, interesting, factual, subjective, objective...essentially you have to pump qualities that are contradictory. plus, you have to make an effort to write. And that's a drag. Plus, you have to address the questions directly, which are seldom compltely concise. I cared for none of the assignments, really. Blogger was okay. This class was congenial.

Group Research paper final draft

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HC8MZ61mUL5FO2Ki6RfeL-JfGdaZhNLw6gaYdtple28/edit?hl=en_US&authkey=COXCtbAM

Blog Post 11

Juan: so...you didn't get belligerent right off the bat huh?
Angie: Nah, I'm a very composed and competent pixie when it comes to these things.
Juan: Ah
Angie: Met a guy
Juan: A common enough occurence
Angie: Really tall but not that tall
Juan: (whispers) dark, tall, and handsome.
Angie: He was wearing these really tight clothes
Juan: How tight was he?
Angie: Huh?
Juan: Never mind
Angie: You trying to be clever eh? Trying to be unassuming. Well, that's admirable but this guy took a different approach. I liked it. I mean, i saw through his strategy because he was, like, trying to, like, fucking oblieterate the way I was cloistered around my friends.
Juan: Is he a second order vain person?
Angie: (ignoring) He had really green eyes and, I don't know, he looked really, like, sizzling fucking fresh.
Juan: did I ask how he looked like?
Angie: He was like, I don't know, Jackie Chan Drunken Master at first...I mean they all were but after a while he was talking about, like, all the nuances of his major and shit. It was really interesting. Everyone else was like Goofy except without the charm.
Juan: Your favorite movie is Grease.
Angie: Plus he was really hot. He had this, like, crystal cross and shit. A rolex...
Juan: Really?
Angie: I don't know...it's kind of blurry.
Juan: You've been kind of negative so far.
Angie: No, dude, he was, like, fucking cute and smart, like, in more ways than one. I mean, he really sold me. I mean, it's organic for me to be apprehensive afterward but, like, if I see him again I'll probaly, y'know, pursue.
Juan: He won't be the same person if you see him again
Angie: what do you mean by that?
Juan: Don't be niave...it all relies on the context.
Angie: Fuck the context...Chemistry is chemistry.
Juan: Didn't you fail that class?
Angie: Fuck you.
Juan: Ok, I'll just leave you to your opium fantasies now, peace.

The flaws of a group debate.

Large group debates are a cumbersome debacle. The one we held in class recently met the requirements of a cumbersome debacle. The problems with group debates (especially large ones) is that an oligarchy quickly forms. Those in the oligarchy are the ones usually scoring up the word count not neccasarily because they are right or even cerebral but because they are most personably assertive. Proffessor Bogacka gave incentive to the groups by openly declaring extra credit to the one who wins the debate. However, debates are tricky affairs that are often used by educators to clarify arguments and not distinguish which position trumps the other. In both of the groups in our class, they were many that remaiend quiet, cowed almost. There were others who loudly (Myself included) argued their views (murky views). The reason why the views were murky was because we were assigned to believe in positions that we did not have the freedom to choose. How can one believe in a position through arbitrary circumstance (a flip of the coin or the whimsical decision?). It's like telling rabid aboritionists to argue for stem cell research or else they'll lose their households. I suspect that people did not take the debate seriously. Or else they saw at as a redudant excercise to be tolerated but not all celebrated or even considered as applicable to their daily lives. Who won the argument? It's hard to say. There was ample amounts of duplicitious on both sides. Determining the winner is as arbitrary as picking a side. The debate left me unsettled and unsatisified. Why should I care? It's just a limitied excercise, right? These debates are fraught with fallacies and outspoken viewpoints that insist upon themselves to the point where things are right because they sound right. Right? And why does one engage in debates? To gratify ones one ego? And why should an individual be so invested in a frivilious debate? That kind of conduct is loser-ish. The oligarchy usurps the group and points are almost always fallible. Unsatisfactory conclusions and people flinging extrinsic arguments back and forth. Is that a debate? And why type a blog post about it? What function does it serve? Well, this is, ultimatley, a request to the proffessor to either dole out extra credit to both groups or none at all. I proport none at all.

Revised Mid-term

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bTN5T7VzX1W1BCl2cDbJRjJwUM_4F6OS5Q5Qj85hZVc/edit?hl=en#

Blog Post 9: Fathers paradoxes and contradictions.

Single matriarch households are on the rise. The chances of the average married couple divorcing is officially likely (over 50 percent). The brain can function with only one hemisphere; it can compensate. So can women raising their children all by themselves. Development in the most base sense can be fostered by shelter, nutriments (food and water), and a sensible amount of education. People can compensate. But single parent households should not be glamorized or even set the example. It should be the last resort. When done right, two parent households (mother and father) improve the development of their offspring. "when done right" is helping the next generation with love and benevolent family values. Family is strong. It is stronger with a father and a mother.

Revised annotated biblography

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jx3b-nBK-mGsA0mx2zUoAKPQ_3Bg-KhfHwPgdSCw2jo/edit?hl=en#

Detachment in male-female jargon. (Thesis statement). Blog post 8

The language utilized in the essays discussing masculinity (male-female relationships) are fraught with esoteric and often ambiguous word choice. Reading such sentences involving highly academic terms (theoretical segregation, stratification, social assimilation) sometimes leads to obtuse conclusions. The language is increasingly cerebral and increasingly self-conscious about how to convey an argument that never becomes clear because of the tangents the writers drop (whether inadvertently or deliberately). Since the language is highly critical, it kind of alienates people, making them view the whole intellectual reasoning as forced. It diminishes the message of the essay.

First draft Research paper

https://docs.google.com/document/d/18uiuadXNbCHHM7ASkNrowCPV9x0tP6dH41iXgPfUIJY/edit?hl=en

Annoted Biblography

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jx3b-nBK-mGsA0mx2zUoAKPQ_3Bg-KhfHwPgdSCw2jo/edit?hl=en#

Blog post 7: Zinn. Economic factor in power distribution

Zinn states, "The evidence presented in this research suggests that in the realm of marital decision making, egalitarianism is far more prevalent than macho dominance" . Zinn argues that the working spouse is inclined to have more say in family decisions. However, she continues "although male dominance does not typify marital decision making in Chicano families, it should not be assumed that it is non-existent in families or in other realms of interaction and organization." Her essay's primary function was to eliminate the encrusting myth of the macho Chicano in favor of this more balanced image, however even she admits that conventional masculinity plays a role in the construction of gender roles. But what is more important is that it is not commonly revealed that there is equal partenrship in family roles. She implies that the Chicano man would rather live with the image of the super macho man than with the impartial one Zinn presents. It is the case that masculinity cannot be dismissed because it continues to be perpetuated inside the family unit and outside. Employment among spouses have altered the ways of Chicano's, Zinn continues, so that the distribution is doled out more evenly but that does not eradicate the gender roles of Chicano men. Zinn lays out the outwork of a theory that suggests that the myth continues to exist, burying any real steps people can take to better understand the condition of Chicano men and their famalies.

Blog Post 6 Venn diagram

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rg2k5h31XjdxBg9ZlSyU1pGx8pM4f9RPxsxImcx9SZw/edit?hl=en#

Link for Revised Analysis Paper

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jDjzEmprnaUfUrEpUKnc5FBZGmaMThND6L8a_gCTPbY/edit?hl=en#

Blog post 5 Espiritu

Espiritu raises salient points in his discussion of masculinity. I especially was enthralled on how he doesn't make the argument too black and white (his story about a man, impoverished by his incacereration in a concentration camp, cursing women for his lot is especially keen). By focusing, in distended length,on the emasculation of men he reinforces his point of view that the power of man is powerful enough to rebuke their belittlement. Bear with me. My point is that he (Espiritu) only verifies the fact that guys do not like to leave injustices at that. Why write an article? What's the point? To inform but also to provide a new perspective. I'm a very down to earth observer, so it seem's pretty reasonable to infer that his own masculinity compelled him to defend man. Leave it to a man to defend past wrongs.

Proposal link for Research Paper.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/13lWSFPXBtqpLE8JdFCCo192o_DWEUVbPjdvxGrGdzPw/edit?hl=en#

Link for Final Draft.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jDjzEmprnaUfUrEpUKnc5FBZGmaMThND6L8a_gCTPbY/edit?hl=en

Who's the man?

I would say the black male in Marable's piece is more masculine in the orthodox sense. And by that i mean that the black male is less philosophical and more compliant to the harsher realities of a life that is against their favor (politically, economically, and media wise). That is not to say that they thrive in life. Theroux is more brash about his perception on the male myth, concentrating less on statistical evidence to back his claims. It almost feels like he uses his essay to exercise his witticism, a searing scorching observation that's tainted by his personal experiences. Marable (both the men he's trying to describe and himself) is more objective, daring in his claims of African accomplishments in the settling of America. He raises interesting viewpoints that have a solid basing. He's more serious, i suppose. He discusses suicides and jail rates and broken families and misconceptions and what forces fostered the atmosphere of contempt. The black males faces more disadvantages then one who want's to demonstrate his creativity. 

Blog Post 4. Brains and Brawn

Intilligence is a factor in being a man. The logic for the racist sexist (all the suffixes) white master during the time of slavery  is something not dissimilar to this:
Real men have control over their sexual impulses
Black men do not have control over their sexual impulses
Therefore they are not real men. {END LOGIC}
Of course, the logic doesn't really end there because if they're not real men it follows that it is not unethical to treat them as animals (as they've conditioned them to believe). The masters superimpose sytnethic concoctions but one negative consequence of that is that everyone starts to takes that as truth (The philosophers can hash the meaning of that all day). That is how stereotypes are made. They don't prop up overnight like a starbucks, they have a long and dubious origin. Marable epmhasises that the perception of black males were that they were physically gifted (their volume and strenght) but were incapable of higher virtues. Part of this is because the slaves had been robbed of their history, taken from a continent they knew next to nothing about as the years progressed. What i am trying to say is the intilligence plays a role in mascalunity. I am saying that brawn doesn't verify one's manliness because if it did then the slaves of the past would have been considered men. Marable raises other topics that are interesting to say the least but i will stick to the point that i have made. Which is that brains is active in mascaluninity.

Link for revised Second draft

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jDjzEmprnaUfUrEpUKnc5FBZGmaMThND6L8a_gCTPbY/edit?hl=en#

Photograph analysis 1

  

No one is viewing you. But pictures existence, and it’s powers, directly defies definition. Words, words, words. So many people are so hung up on them. I belong on that category. This holds relevance to my overall argument. So, fine then, clean the slate and disregard. Now just raise the prospect of a wedding or a graduation or a funeral and it’s a given photographs are going to be involved in the proceedings. It’s recommended every once in a while men (and women) dress up (as if normally everyone dressed down) to capture them at their most presentable, their most groomed, their most optimal. Celebrations of a sort are the best opportunity. The focus of this paper will concentrate on how men’s conduct at regal affairs is supposed to be subdued, not too concerned with actively pursuing garrulous, i cannot stress that enough, impressions. What you see is what you get. No one is viewing you but yet they are. In dumber words, for that’s what I've been exhorted to utilize to eschew pretension, the conservative triumphs over flamboyancy in relation to being a man. I will expound in my closing paragraph.

Before you can assess his conveyance, or even a plausible setting, you must account somehow for the three piece suit and the reason for it’s presence. The social context is crucial, but a stranger would just see an outdated photo of a fresh faced young man, hispanic, clad in a drab hue of blue; definitely not connoting vacuous skies.  Regal shoulders straight for the most part. Hands fidgeting around the pockets, caught in a maladjusted position.  The shoes condition, crinkled and worn, dissonant to the ironed pieces of the lent clothes. A tie, wide and a very light blue. A belt of feasible quality. Legwear uncreased and ironed reasonably fitting. A white buttoned down shirt eclipsed by it’s surroundings. Young but mature, is what the clothes seem to say. Stable, not bright but not laid back or, worse, lazy. And it sure is convincing. No creases
    Now the features. I repeat, hispanic, young but not too young but a teen may still yet linger. The passage of a few years can dramatically change a stripped down countenance, and it seems the future for the man is prepping for that change. Hair that is not distractingly long nor blatantly omitted but, given the groovy era, quite safe and short if a little curly. Fresh faced. Not a follicle below the temple. Face neither narrow nor wide. Ditto for the nose. His face impassive, perhasps expressionless but something can be derived from this docile sternness. Not a big man, rather a thin one, and just distilled. Overall, a bland thin layer in a tome of shifting layers. Calm. Eyebrows monotonous. Distributing the bulk of his weight ever so slightly on his right foot. No facial creases.
    Below him, cracked cobblestones but presentable.  A night hour, thin trunks of unnameable trees lurking in the background. A row of retro motorcycles, frugal and if a little askew. The owners must be guests or party goers. One man cannot possibly govern these dangerous two wheeled vehicles. No Harley Davidson’s are they but their appeal is in it’s litheness, presumably. It’s a hospitable night. Something official has transpired during the taking of this inelastic pic.
I have made whole paragraphs from a picture i could have just dismissed as normal. But being a man is hardly a matter to be taken so flippantly. Disputes are insanely raised. Males are shot because they want something to prove; this coming from a personal experience. Crude male Insults projected are always, at their core, somehow questioning one’s virility, one’s chutzpah. But those are extreme examples. The male who lives securely and steadily is the man. Not exactly reticent, could be very colorful, but ultimately keeping a straight line in his insulated empire. What does the man need to prove other than his physical presence? Take what you get. Don’t amplify. Shut up. Be respectful. No one is viewing you.

Theroux's deliberatley inflammatory--unsound--method of being manly

Theroux's technique is to be provactive. To embody chutzpah. His adriot, if long winded, precis is inserted to contrast his conclusion's observation on how the writer's "real life" is attached to their sex. Beekeeper? Peace corp? Arguing with missionaries (which is a little too A-hole for my taste), Too friendly?  It's subversive. It's slovenly and not at all effective--his argument is just trying too hard to assert his drawn out neurotiscm on an issue that is labyrthine e.g. "I had thought of sports as wasteful and humiliating, and the idea of manliness as a bore" or "It is normal in America for a man to be dismissive or even somewhat apolgetic about being a writer" (The problem is that it could he exclusively his sole complaint or it's all just moot). I disagree with him. Sports trigger a host of problems but who'se to say that the problem's affecting the future fugitives isn't a pre existing condition; that sports may simply just exacerbate the compulsion of outlaw behavior. His critisism on the manliness of writers fixates on a couple of particularly famous writers (Hemingway, Mailer, Didion) which would make his argument more effective if writers were to be limited to half a dozen or so people in a isolated century. He pretty much eschews that one of the first novels was about a deluded old man who believed in fantasies and failed to live up to his artificial predescessors. There's nothing manly about a comedy. There are more writers. His argument is kinda limp but it raises interesting quandries.

Blog Post # 2. On Lorber's perspective.

From the starting gate, Lorber stresses the ambivalence the consensus projects on the whole gender role debacle. For example, my sister, sauntering to the fridge from a nap, and me, gazing at a screen, having been in this class for a mere iota of time, and feeling facetious so i start inquiring her about how when she was a kid our mother would dress her up for her birthdays. 'She always did that' She said, among other things, just another sedated afternoon, dispirited banter.

'And how did that make you feel?' I asked, but monotone, like a kid playing video games while warding off questions of homework, and feeling like a hack shrink or a hack analyzer.

'I don't know, i felt it was normal i guess.'

A few seconds later.

'oh your doing gender roles right?' Desert dry inoculation, to graduate herself in a few months. 'why is it that men do that and women are posed as this and...' etcetera. The crux of her mumbling refutation basically non-chalant on the whole analysis scheme. Her positing sound. It got me thinking. Over-thinking is the flaw of handling the whole gender roles. It's shrill, overbearing, even to a independent women as my sister, to rail against men in the gender role topic. The thing is that people, without ever knowing it, allow their intelligence, their ego, their reason, their persona to overpower the way for a concrete solution. Fausto-Sterling, for all her knowledge, comes off as a petulant feminist, lambasting men for their arrogance when she engages in identical smugness. Informative but off-putting. Lorber is a little more open-minded. Acknowledging the futility of of being unbiased. Herself admitting to mistaking genders from time to time. My whole argument revolves around being less of a retentive analyzer, a woody allen female variant, and being more active. Active by pushing for maturity. For people to rise above the handicaps through--hate to say it-- love. This is something that took me a long time to learn. It's easy to point fingers. It's the same thing with race. Prejudice exists. Sexism exists. Let's not kid ourselves. Everyone has the capability of being the people we hate the most. But instead of solely addressing the problem, discoursing on descriptions to death (we know that's what philosophy majors love to do--sorry, i'm taking potshots because at this other class there a few opinionated blokes who have sabotaged the whole manner of there being God or not) why don't we take simple acts to just transgress? instead of letting our egos raze the future? I'm already tired of analyzing. Get's old quick
An expansion of men's role in our society.An expansion of men's role in our society.An expansion of men's role in our society.

Blog Post # 1 -- Are men born are made?

I'm going to cop out. My way of attenuating the nebulous conondrums of the quasi-feminist question stated above. A feeble argument. Provincial. Lazy. Shallow. Ok: What constitutes a man depends on a variety of factors. Culture, religios, class, race, language, etc. If you live in San Franscico, for example, the article would be read with fervid vehemence, where they--you already know-- would hash out the nuances of Sterling's argument. The fault of Sterling's argument, however, is that it can be--although erudite and accurate in many respects-- applied to skewer both sides. She negates herself. One of her points is to critisize the egotistical bravado of a man governed instutition (Hospital decisions) but she fails, like most critics, to provide a proper solution. Her conclusion feels unemphatic, as if her findings were supposed to justify her argument. She ends it open ended, essentially, whereas it would have been prudent to offer something.