Feminist Manifesto, Loy pg 1502-1505

While reading the modernist manifesto, I can understand to some extent Loy's point of view. Some think that women should be equal in every sense. I think of men and women as equal but different. We both have strengths and weaknesses( I am sure there are many that would disagree with me and say that women can do whatever men can do). My question is, do the majority of women truely want the exact same benefits and male status? In my experience, women want the ability to choose what is right for them, but I know very few that want their man in a sterotypical female role, while they pursue a stereotypical male role. In fact, I know of no one.

Even the women that want the same rights in business, and the same paycheck as a man, do not seem to want the responsibility that comes with that right. Yet, Loy does not seem to state the common opinion of feminists, she states that woman is not the equal of man, because man conforms to a social code, and that is feminine, and not masculine(1503) I believe that she should have named this the Individualist Manifesto, since feminist doesn't seem broad enough. I understand that when this was written, women were considered to be property of men in many cases and that women didn't even havethe right to vote at the time.

I do not think however, that most women agreed with the statement on 1503, where Loy writes,"Men and women are enemies," She goes on,"The only point at which the interests of the sexes merge-is the sexual embrace". I am sure that many women did feel very squished and controlled during the time, but I do not think sex was the only shared interest.

Honestly, I do not understand her thought saying that women must destroy in themselves, the desire to be loved. I think if someone says they do not want to be loved by anyone, they are lying. I think the importance should be stressed on loving yourself first, and knowing who you are, so that you can be genuine to who you want to be.

I understand her take on sex and that she felt that sexual freedom belonged to every woman, I agree that women should have the same rights as men, and I agree that there is nothing impure in sex. I think that both men and women should decide what is best for themselves, but I personally think that excessive casual sex is dangerous, mentally and it can also be damaging physically. Sex itself is not impure. It can be wonderful and studies show that married people enjoy it more often over a lifetime than unmarried.

Robert Frost's Poetry pgs. 1390-1407

Robert Frost to me seems a master of his audience. He appeals to the things that people will love through the ages; family, love, peace, nature, descriptive diction, and vocabulary that transpasses generations. His metered poetry varies like the music playing in the background of a movie. Frost was a pastoral poet, he was born in California, but many of the sources that influence came from English Poets. Not every poem was comforting, there were a few that brought tears to my eyes. "Out, out--"was one of those poems. How greif stricken I felt when I read about the that the little boy lost his life. Frost's vocabulary burrsts open with adjectives, and his words sail across the page more fluidly than a sailboat upon the ocean. His suitcase of words made very clear pictures in my mind, and yet they seem to reach understanding well, no matter who reads them.

In "Neither Out Far, Nor In Deep", I felt that Frost was saying that humans in general do not enjoy the mundane, or ordinary things in life/present moments(represented by the land), but rather we look out to something that is not the present. Frost indicates symbolically that people waste time pondering about things that they cannot see. One cannot see far into the future, therefore, isn't it better to live in the moment? This poem was thought provoking, and made me want to live in the moment. I began to think how the people on the beaches are like the people who get up, go to work, go home, and do the same thing every day, without pleasure, because they don't love "where" they are at.

The last poem that interested me deeply was "The Gift Outright". This poem was part of an innaugural ceremony for Kennedy, and I will say that it is Patriotic, though not completely accurate. There is an ideal America that Frost described, which may have been his image of America, given the knowledge that he had. I cannot say that I am surprised that this seems a little too sugar coated, given that it is linked to politics. It doesn't speak of taking the land from the Native Americans, because that would not bring a smile to America's face at innauguration time.

Washington vs. Du Bois

Washington was a realist and Du Bois in a sense, a romantic concerning what he expected at the time. Washington seemed to understand that Rome wasn't built overnight and had an ,"If you can't beat them, join them." kind of mentality. Du Bois looked at life dispairingly, and yet with passion that the future must come sooner. Washington seemed to understand "his enemy" and was more subtle. I am certain that Washington made more friends, and gained more support in his stance concerning white folk.

This all reminds me of the, " You can catch more flies with ." statement. I think that Du Bois possessed the kind of mentality that challenged everyone around him and the kind that says, "Shoot for the stars! If you don't reach it, catch one on the way down." I believe that he thought to not make lofty goals would surely lead to failure because the white folks were not going to involuntarily give up a portion of power. Therefore, it was up to the Negro nation to take what belonged to them at the present time, and not allow anyone to take from them what belonged to them accoring to the Emancipation Proclaimation.

Washington in his time was smart enough to know that Mary Poppin's medication worked best. If he had a theme song it would be," A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down!" Du Bois would be more like Beastie Boy's hit,"You've got to fight for your right, to Party."(not to make light of the subject) . Both Washington and Du Bois were valuable writers, and both were well written intelligent men. I think they were on very level playing fields. Washington may have understood his audience better, but Du Bois came to the table with an adament persuasion. This may have turned some off, but surely as many as were turned off, others were ignited with the same passion.

Cochise and Charlot....

As I read the words that were supposedly from the mouth of Cochise on pg 383, I was moved with great sympathy for he, and his people. Having read somewhat extensively in a history book about what the indians went through with the Spanish Conquistadors, I hated for a period of time that the United States was built on the blood of others. Not only did African Americans suffer by dehuminization through the process of slavery, and stripping of basic needs, but Indians were tortured, women raped, and children essentially left parentless, or left for dead.

When I read Cochise's speech, I see it very sadly as an admission of defeat. He knows that the white people have won, every valuable possession has been stolen from him, and that he has no choice, but to treaty. Essentially, he is saying , 'Fine, I give up. There is nothing else for you to take. We just want to reserve what little we have left in peace.' I could feel the tears welling up in my eyes as I pictured a tired old man, give what he had left of his pride away. I remember reading one portion about the Spanish Conquistador's heartlessness, as they took the land and the lives of Natives in the name of their Catholic throne, that sickened me immensely. Instead of sharing it with you, you can read about it in a book called."Portrait of America, Volume One by Stephen Oates".

As I continued to read pg 385 in our literature book, I could see Charlot in a sense take back the pride of his ancestors as he stated how horrible white Americans had been to Native Americans, and that taxxing his people was the final straw. The whole piece fluently stated the cause of Native Americans, and the sins of caucasians, and it had a ,"So There!" tone to it that made me smile. I could not help but put myself in the shoes of these people as they pled their cause, and made their issues known. I cannot help but wonder if Charlot was absolutely correct when he spoke of our motives as a whole nation. Are we greedy people as a whole, and do we consider ourselves to be above others? Do we now think that because we are born here that we deserve the best, and that others deserve less? These questions and more fill my mind, and search my soul.

Letters from Earth.

Mark Twain's "Letters from Earth," pgs. 307-318

To be honest and sincere, I felt passionately that this piece was Twain's personal opinion. I believe that if he had wanted it published he would have done so himself. Another thing that frustrated me is the fact that we as students seem to be able to study what some consider,"blasphemy", with references to God and the Bible, and yet are unable to study the Bible in a public institution as the main text without a challenge.

I respect Twain's right to an opinion, and he must have felt strongly about his opinion, in order to challenge the stance at the time. It seems as well thought out and written, as his other work. Having the Bible as a reference, I did note that some of the things he had written were true according to the Bible I have. He essentially makes the case that God could not be real because what happened in regards to Noah's Ark is impossible, and further makes God to be simple minded because he killed people when the earth was flooded. He makes God out to be a wishy-washy, out of balance creature. His tone is condescending and demeaning in certain parts. I felt that he stated his opinion as fact on several occasions throughout the piece.

He seems to have taken some kind of poll in which he discovers that heaven is a certain way and that most people would dislike the atmosphere there. My understanding having read some extensively of the Heaven in the bible is that it is a place of celebration. I do not believe it to be exactly the place that Twain described. I also do not believe that most people stereotypically dislike church. I know many, many people that personally give their money, talents and time to their church. Perhaps in the time, church was rather boring? I know that church years ago was more oppressive, with many rules to obey, and as further interpretation has come to the church about what is acceptable, there have been many changes. This piece was interesting and made me think, rethink and research. For that, it was valuable, and unforgettable.