Reading

Same-sex couples denied visiting rights

This article briefly summarizes the ongoing problem of homosexual couples being denied the same rights as heterosexual couples, particularly in hospitals. Pope documents several specific cases when homosexual people were kept from their partners or children who were in the hospital because they could not prove that they were related. The article even suggests to homosexual couples that if they do not have paperwork with them, it may be best to lie and say that the partners are brothers or sisters, rather than attempting to convince the caregivers that they should be allowed visiting rights. This sort of problem has kept parents away from their sick children, and even made it impossible for one set of siblings to see their adoptive mother before she died.

            This sort of legal issue seems to me to be good enough reason to legalize gay marriage. Two people who are in a committed relationship should not be forced to prove that they do, in fact, have visiting rights, especially not in times of crisis. The article recommends that legal documents be handy in case of such an emergency. This should not be necessary. Heterosexual couples are rarely questioned, but homosexual couples are placed under scrutiny. Marriage rights such as this should not be denied people just because of religious reasons; God is just not the issue.

            To me, what is most shocking is the idea that caregivers would scrutinize someone and force him or her to show a legal document before allowing that person to see a dying partner. When visiting my father, even when only immediate family was allowed, no one questioned that my mother was his wife; for the record, she’s not. They’ve been divorced for years, but no one asked any questions of any of us. For what they knew, my mother could have been someone completely unrelated to him, and they wouldn’t have cared. Why is there a continued stigma against same-sex couples, particularly in such delicate situations?

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/how-hospitals-treat-same-sex-couples/?pagemode=print


Derogitory Terms

4/23/09

 

            By using a derogatory term proudly, such as “cripple” or “queer,” the word loses its ability to hurt—the term becomes powerless. In making the word your own, you may very effectively turn it on its head. When Mairs calls herself a cripple, she is facing the word and all its implications; in calling herself a cripple, Mairs refuses to deny what she is or be ashamed of it. She does not like what she is, but this does not stop her from being it, and as she cannot change it, it is better for her to come to terms with it on her own. If someone else were to call her a cripple before she had adopted the phrase, it might still be seen as cruel; she might have found it insulting. But because she has made the phrase her own—indeed, has made it part of herself—it can no longer hurt her.

            Any derogatory term that someone may use against another person ceases to have power when it is used by the person it was once used to insult. I doubt I ever would have been truly offended by the label “nerd” or “weird,” but in defining myself by these words, it becomes—to me, at least—a humorous, harmless jab at myself. I can laugh it off when someone else calls me such, rather than get offended, because I have made the term my own. It’s how I refer to myself, so how can I possibly be hurt when someone else uses the term? Making an insulting name into a label you use for yourself is an infallible protection against both the term itself and any person who might intentionally or unintentionally use the word unkindly. In her essay, by referring to herself as a cripple, Mairs has done just that.

 

 

Mirror Scene–Scarlet Letter

3/16/09

“Hester looked, by way of humoring the child; and she saw that, owing to the peculiar effect of this convex mirror, the scarlet letter was represented in exaggerated and gigantic proportions, so as to be greatly the most prominent feature of her appearance. In truth, she seemed absolutely hidden behind it.”
The way Hester feels when she sees her reflection in the bent mirror reveals a lot about her personal sense of identity. The first thing she sees when she looks in a mirror is not her face, as most people would, but the scarlet letter. This could be explained by the curvature of the mirror, as it might make the letter appear enlarged in comparison to the rest of her body. However, when Hester gazes into the mirror, the letter is not only the first thing that she sees, but it seems to be the only thing she sees. The passage states that she seemed to be hidden behind the letter–but  it is unlikely that a mere mirror might be able to achieve this effect unless the viewer of the mirror wants to see it this way. For example, if a vain person gazed in a mirror, even a convex mirror which made her neck and torso seem out of proportion to the rest of her body, she would seek to look at her face and hair and perhaps check that her clothes look good on her. But Hester is so completely focused on her sin and the mark that she wears that she can see nothing else except for the scarlet letter.
In seeing Hester’s obsession with the letter, we learn that she identifies herself with in completely. She is not her own person, in her own eyes–she is simply an adulteress who wears a scarlet letter. We see from this passage that to Hester, Hester is nothing more than the scarlet letter itself.

 

Restrictive Diets

February 27, 2009

This article discusses parents who raise their kids to be obsessed with health foods. Many of the parents sort foods into ‘good’ food and ‘bad’ food categories; things with sugar and high fat contents are often deemed to be ‘bad’ and many children who are raised this way become paranoid and obsessive about the foods they eat. If they do not understand that things are okay in moderation and instead believe that anything with sugar or trans fats is bad or wrong, it can often lead to eating disorders. There is some discrepancy among eating disorder specialists about whether the parents cause the disorders because they are too adamant about their child’s eating habits or whether the eating disorders arise from certain personality types that are prone to disorders and OCD. Additionally, not all children with parents who are health-conscious end up with eating disorders. The problem arises when kids diets are too restrictive, so that instead of viewing traditionally unhealthy food—sweets and high fat foods—as treats that may be occasionally indulged in but should not be eaten regularly, they begin to view cookies and French-fries as deadly and evil. And it may not just be parents that contribute to this mindset; some health classes and programs at schools may go overboard in condemning white sugar and trans fats.

This was a fascinating article for me, first because I am very conscious about what I eat and also because I always assumed that parents needed to be more adamant about feeding their children good food instead of macaroni-and-cheese and dinosaur-shaped-chicken-nuggets. I tend to forget that both sides of the spectrum exist: there are parents who never cook and end up feeding their family fast-food and junk on a daily basis, but there are also parents who do not allow their children to eat cake at birthday parties. Because I am vegan and health conscious, I always intended to raise my kids—whenever I do have kids—vegan and with health in mind. However, I never intended to tell them that meat and sugar are ‘evil.’ Not healthy, yes—and I always assumed that once they reached the appropriate age, I would explain why I don’t eat meat or dairy. The success stories that I’ve heard of from vegan parents nearly always involve telling kids—after they are about ten or so—that they can make the choice to not be vegan or vegetarian, if they wish. I don’t think that the parents referred to in this article ever gave their children such an option. None of them told their kids, “I’ve raised you to be healthy, but if you want to eat sugar, trans fats, and white flour now, that’s okay, that’s your choice.”

One of the dangers of restrictive diets is the fact that kids become afraid of the foods that are restricted. I wouldn’t want to raise a child to be vegan or healthy out of fear. And I never intend to stop baking brownies—I love brownies, and I’m sure my kids would also. Whenever I do become a mother, I do not want my kids to be addicted to sugar, and I don’t want to buy them soda—but I don’t want them to feel that it is totally forbidden either, because forbidding something often makes it desirable. The article mentioned that understanding moderation is key. That is, kids need to understand that while something may not be healthy, it might be okay every once in a while. This doesn’t work for meat and dairy, if I want to raise my kids vegan, but it might work with junk food and sugar. I want to keep this in mind, because I don’t want to raise my kids to be afraid or to develop eating disorders—and I certainly don’t want to go too overboard myself.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/health/nutrition/26food.html?pagewanted=2&em

I Just Wanna Be Average: Mike Rose

February 3, 2009


Rose, in his memoir “I just wanna be average” discusses his experience with poor educational systems and reflects on how he managed to escape the cycle of apathy and failure. He reveals how the classes he was placed in affected his ability to think and care through anecdotes and stories, as well as specific examples and metaphors. Rose’s purpose is to communicate how education and expectation can influence a student’s performance in order to make his audience have a clearer understanding and appreciation for education. He adopts a relaxed, but not informal or careless, tone intended for an audience that has an invested interest in education, or one that does not realize how harmful low expectations can be, including current, present, and past teachers, parents, and students.

  1. Vocabulary:
    1. Vocational: relating to education.
    2. Disaffected; Disaffect; to make dissatisfied.
    3. Somnambulant: walking as if asleep.
    4. Salubrious: promoting well-being.
    5. Laryngectomize: to surgically remove the larynx.
  2. Rhetorical Strategies:
    1. Metaphor: “I and the others in the vocational classes were bobbing in pretty shallow water.” (318)
    2. Metonymy: “Ken Harvey was gasping for air.” (321)
    3. Apostrophe: “Mr. Montez was a tiny man, slight, five foot six at the most, soft-spoken and delicate.” (318)
  3. Questions:
    1. What is the significance of the word “Wop” on page 317, and why is this behavior never reported? Is it because of the school, the vocational track, or simply the time period?
    2. Rose seems to remember a lot of details about his peers and the events that transpired. How much is fact and how much is ‘metafiction’?
    3. It seems in this time period that the ‘vocational track’ was fairly accepted, even though it did little to help students. Is there a modern equivalent? How much has education improved?
  4. Quote: “Students will float to the mark you set.” (318)



Terwilliger Bunts One: Annie Dillard

January 27th, 2009


Dillard, in “Terwilliger Bunts One,” reminisces about her mother’s quirks. She muses over her mother’s character by recalling specific memories, actions, and words. Dillard’s purpose is to give the reader a reference to understand who she is and how her mother affected her and her behavior. She adopts a lighthearted told for an audience expecting an amusing and jocular memoir.


  1. Vocab:
    1. Poinciana: a tree with reddish-orange flowers.
    2. Portulaca: a flower that may be pink, red, white, purple, or yellow.
    3. Eschew: to abstain from doing or using something on principle.
  2. Rhetorical devices:
    1. Asyndeton: “Mother cried back, stopped short.”
    2. Parallelism: “When we children were young, she mothered us tenderly and dependably; as we got older, she resumed her career of anarchism.” (153)
    3. Alliteration: “She was scathingly sarcastic about the McCarthy hearings while they took place…” (155)
  3. Questions:
    1. How old was Dillard’s mother when she approached the couple at the zoo?
    2. Dillard’s style is very lighthearted; how different would it have been if she didn’t love her mother?
    3. To what generation did Dillard belong, and how did this affect her mother’s (and her own) actions?
  4. Quotation: “If she answered the phone on a wrong number, she told the caller, “Just a minute,” and dragged the receiver to Amy or me, saying, “Here, take this, your name is Cecile,” or, worse, just, “It’s for you.”

 

Say your words