Revolutions!!!!!

Last class we talked about how people can spend a long time talking about what they disagree with, but at last nobody does anything to change the situation. Then, some people talked about their experiences on revolutions, and now I want to tell all of you my personal experience with this issue.
As you all know, I am from Colombia, a country of violence, guerrillas, kidnapping and drugs, as most of the people think. It is also a country where people don't give up, we fight for what we want, we try as hard as we can to fulfill our dreams. I guess the most important dream that all Colombians have is peace. We are tired of living scared for everything, we are tired for not being able to go wherever we want without thinking that something bad may happen to us. We are tired of crying for all the people that are killed or kidnapped by the guerrilla. We just want to live in peace.
We all have agreed that this situation is out of control and that no one is able to stop it. However, if we get together and try to make a change as a group we may be able to achieve something. So, that's what we have been doing for the last years. We are getting together to march against las FARC and in favor of the peace.
The first march that we did was February 4th of 2008. A group in facebook was made in order for people to know that all the people in the country will stop everything on this day, and go outside to the streets at noon and march for the peace and the liberation of all kidnapped people. This march was a total success, more than 13 million people from 183 cities of the world participated. The most important thing was that some days later, 13 kidnapped people were liberated! From that day one we have been repeating this marches, and everytime more people participate.

Mill's View of Women

In one of the discussions that we had on class during these last meetings, we talked about women and their role in European Society of the 19th Century. We also discussed about how capitalism had negative effects on women and their rights. Then, I thought about Mill and what would he have thought about this issue. After doing some research I found that he was an advocate for the equality on women. He had also deal with this subject in one of his works written in 1869 that was called "The Subject of Women"
The following text is an excerpt from his work and it clearly shows how Mill believed in the equality between men and women.
"The object of this Essay is to explain as clearly as I am able grounds of an opinion which I have held from the very earliest period when I had formed any opinions at all on social political matters, and which, instead of being weakened or modified, has been constantly growing stronger by the progress reflection and the experience of life. That the principle which regulates the existing social relations between the two sees--the legal subordination of one sex to the other-- is wrong itself, and now one of the chief hindrances to human improvement; and that it ought to be replaced by a principle of perfect equality, admitting no power or privilege on the one side, nor disability on the other."

How many goats for her dowry?

We discussed recently about whether or not prostitution was not basically the same as arranged marriage. I'll deal with the two main opinions before I state my own.
The first...No, marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman. No matter how they entered into that covenant, it is a binding contract of sorts. Marriages all over the old testament were arranged but that didn't give people the right to cheat on their spouses. That same Bible says to honor your husbands and love your wives. Is it honoring if you cheat, even if there is no love?
The second...Yes, back in the day the father would pay the husband a dowry for the marriage of his daughter so that they could comfortably get started on their lives and often the daughter was given no say. She was simply entering into a union for security and comfort just as she would be doing in the profession of prostitution. She's just trying to support herself and keep herself in financial security. Furthermore, in regards to the argument about the Bible, did David not have more than one wife? Soloman? And this practice was not just limited to Kings. Jacob married both Rachel and Leah and had children with both.
My opinion, in the old testament church, yes it's true that many of the great men of the Bible practiced polygamy but is that really the same thing? Exodus 20:14 clearly states, "You shall not commit adultery" but what is that exactly? Levitcus 20:10 goes on to explain it. " 'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death." So, while the polygamy argument is definitely valid adn debatable, it is not really the same thing. My personal opinion is that marriage is supposed to be a picture of Christ and the church so leaving that covenant, in any circumstance, other than those offered in Matthew and other books, is a sin. Plain and simple.

9th grade immaturity vs college condescension

Though I really don't think it was Dr. Abernathy's aim, her question about teaching 9th graders Huckleberry Finn definitely sparked a debate. Some said that different high school have different maturity levels and to an extent that is true but are ninth graders around the country really that different? Can some handle topics better than others? Yes, there is a great myriad of thoughts, parents, socioeconomic backgrounds, and overall geographies but I think for the most part they would have about the same ability to grasp certain readings. I lived in a VERY rural community and we read To Kill A Mockingbird in ninth grade as well as Fahrenheit 451 and I think that with the right guidance, we understood them both just fine. In 7th grade we read The Devil's Arithmetic, The Giver, The Wave and The Outsiders. All of those deal with deep things that might be difficult and are often tiptoed over but should they be? The earlier that a person is exposed to the problem of racism (within reason) and the stifling of ideas, the easier it will be for them to fight those in their own lives down the road. To Kill a Mockingbird deals with many of the same kinds of themes as Huckleberry Finn while Fahrenheit 451 has some very deep themes of censorship. The Devil's Arithmetic, The Wave, and The Diary of Anne Frank are all about the Holocaust but in reading all these we learned about what happens when you don't think for yourself, when you roll over and don't say anything when a wrong is being perpetrated and when you just try to live life adequately instead of excellently.
In conclusion, though some fresmen wouldn't understand it right away, you can't keep a classic from all of them just because of a few. Moreover, isn't the mark of a good teacher helping their students along in understanding and drawing their own conclusions? I think we (myself definitely included) forget how much we understood when we were that age. We need to stop and remember how books like that affected us and who we are now. Plus, being the daughter of two teachers, I know middle school and early high schoolers understand alot more than we give them credit for.

The Intellectual Capacity of the Typical Ninth-grader, Or, "Baha, the N-word!"

It's hard for me to try and reason why I was such a devout teenage-drama mediator/mentor from 2005 through 2008. Very little progress was ever made, and not one person ever payed their dues. That was all expected from the get-go, just by considering the common disposition of 'second-gen' teenagers (dare ye read my book to learn the definition behind that).

But why are the majority of them so stupid? I would use the word 'ignorant', if they didn't branch themselves out so much. Anyway, society is to blame. With that said, their involvement in society is to blame. So they themselves are to blame, right from the moment they find aesthetic pleasure in saying a cuss word.

Well, this should not prevent the teaching of material such as Huckleberry Finn; at least not based on preliminary analysis. I think the material should be circulated through the literary classes of high-schools everywhere for historic cultural understanding. The opportunity to both read and learn the details of Twain's work shouldn't be withheld simply due to the past, present, and most likely future half-wit actions of "the crowd", but it should at least be tested to see if it can hold up in a class without creating such a stir amongst the idiots that it causes the whole school to collapse on itself. If it really does cause a problem that you can't handle (and since you probably can't expel over 60% of a class' students), then it can be withdrawn, but at least let it run its course and see what happens. Sawyer and Finn should not be overlooked in the future simply for the reactions they receive amongst those who just want to have 'fun'. And if the parents require an explanation for why it's being material, give it one try. If it doesn't work, give it up and repeal the material, as it's already clear the parents were no further educated in their own youth.

*begin atypical whiny session* It's a sad, sad world we live in, where saying the N-word abbreviated with an "a" at the end instead of "er" is considered a friendly reference amongst many, and listening to clicking beats with lyrics about booty-shaking is considered the right-of-passage for crowd-acceptance.

I vote to make Jaymay a popular music figure. Like any of you know who that is either. :)

A Time

"There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under heaven:

a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,
a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain,
a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,
a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace."

- Ecclesiastes 3:1-8


Similarly, there is a time for everything in Honors Lit:

a time to read and a time to write,
a time for Abernathy and a time for Biskner,
a time to talk and a time to listen,
a time to question and a time to accept,
a time for literature and a time for politics,
a time to research and a time to study,
a time to sleep and a time to... not sleep,
a time to blog and a time to be done with blogging.

Guess what time it is?!?!?! :-)

Prostitution in Marriage?

Last class in our discussion about Mrs. Warren's profession, we talked about how Mary Wollestonecraft believed that marriage was a type of prostitution. I do not think that referring to marriage will automatically mean prostitution, but there are some cases in which this relationship does exist.
Prostitutes sell themselves in order to get money. Some women get married in order to get financial stability without necessarily being in love with the person they are getting married. What drives the actions of these two types of women? Money. So, what is the difference between these two? In the second case, women just sell themselves to one person for the rest of their lives, however in the first case women sell themselves to different men. It doesn't matter which situation we are talking about, for me, both of them are completely wrong. Both of these type of women lack respect for themselves and are damaging the sacred view of the union between men and women.
There is a specific example that I want to refer to in Crime and Punishment. Sonya prostitutes herself in order to get money for her siblings. She is selling herself to different men that will offer her money. In the other hand, Dunya is getting married with Luzhin. Luzhin takes advantage of Dunya’s situation when he proposes to her because he knows that she will be beholden to him financially. Thus, she will sacrifice herself for her family by getting married to him. Love is not part of these unions. Therefore, the only motif that drives the actions of these two women is money. So, what is the difference?
I think this a reality that still exists, although in a smaller amount than in the 19th Century. Nowadays, some people get married not in the basis of love but in the basis of economic stability.