Personally, I have had a few experiences with malfunctions from products of corporate American. Most every American has because, well, we created all these things and we are fallible. Reading Michael Petracca's "The Unluckiest Consumer In the World" was unbelievable. I know it was fiction but all those items that he listed were actually things that had been recalled because he researched Consumer Reports to find the defective items. This certainly painted a very ugly picture of corporate America. It displays corporate America as all about the money, not the safety and reliability of the product.
I have experienced dead battery's in my brand new used car, toasters that smoke and burn my toast on the lowest setting, clothes that fit crooked, computers that somehow attract electrical surges, and cell phones that ALWAYS have a low signal (world's most reliable network my tushy...). Most of these are not very life threatening however, like Petracca's "unluckiest consumer." My cousin and her family on the other hand, have had an experience with corporate American that was potentially life threatening.
This past summer, my cousin began experiencing debilitating migraines. However, she noticed when she was not at home, they subsided. It took her and her parents at least two months to figure it out, but they eventually discovered that their gas stove had a leak and that was what was causing her intense migraines. She was actually getting carbon monoxide poisoning. Natural gas from stoves can be extremely dangerous because flipping on a switch or even static on clothes or the carpet can cause an explosion when there is carbon monoxide in the air. They were very lucky that no one became seriously ill or anything else drastic happened because carbon monoxide is very dangerous.
Even though they have gotten their stove fixed it is still scary that something like that could happen. Corporate America truly is all about the money, and not the safety. How can we trust these products and the things companies say about them to be true?? I guess we all have to do our homework first (read Consumer Reports) and then judge if we deem these products worthy!
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Week 8 Blog Reviews
Deirdre: I definitely agree with you on your first blog that relationships come down to personal beliefs. You do a great job of using the article but some more of your own great ideas would add a lot :) I noticed some minor spelling issues : "Image if this was not the case. It would be a crazy would!" I think you meant 'Imagine' and 'world.' :) In you second blog I like how you ask the question "Why does it continue to take so long for our society to accept human sexuality when there is now a lot of evidence that homosexuality could stem back as far as we can study?" I agree!!! Why?? I think you have great ideas and you should add more of your own to your posts :)
Kayla: In your first blog I like how you discuss the effects a purely biological outlook on love could have. Lots of wrong people would be together because they'd think lust equated to love! You have good ideas so if you expanded on what mating rituals would change that would add even more to it! Your first paragraph on your second blog is such a great introduction! I can really hear your voice in your writing! I also like how you leave the reader to guess your own opinion on the matter since you write very unbiasedly :)
Kayla: In your first blog I like how you discuss the effects a purely biological outlook on love could have. Lots of wrong people would be together because they'd think lust equated to love! You have good ideas so if you expanded on what mating rituals would change that would add even more to it! Your first paragraph on your second blog is such a great introduction! I can really hear your voice in your writing! I also like how you leave the reader to guess your own opinion on the matter since you write very unbiasedly :)
Thursday, October 15, 2009
And the animals too!
Humans have evolved from animals. We still have have animalistic behaviors and tendencies to prove it. Because of our direct relation to animals we often look to the animal kingdom to research and determine our own behaviors. In Jeffrey Kluger's "The Gay Side of Nature" he discusses that animals exhibit homosexuality in nature. His discussion cannot help but point out that if animals have same-sex pairings naturally, then same-sex pairings between humans must be natural too. "Animal sexuality is more complex than we imagined, that diversity is part of human heritage" (Kluger 338). Animals have passed on their complex sexual identities to humans.
People that argue against homosexuality say that it is an abomination against nature. They clearly do not know much about nature! From elephants to monkeys, there are more than 450 different species of animal that have documented same-sex pairings (Kluger 338). If all these animals are engaging in same-sex relations than being homosexual as a human being is natural. Making people suppress who they truly are is what is unnatural. Anti-gay followers that were pressed with the idea of homosexuality in nature relating to human homosexuality, may turn the arguement around though. They may take the same-sex pairings in nature as signs of dominance, forming alliances, and appeasing enemies (Kluger 339).
Homosexuality can either be very complex to some, or very simple to others. It depends, I suppose what you believe to be true about nature. Do animals truly form homosexual relationships that can last for more than 15 years like male, greylag geese? (Kluger 338) Or is this simply a friendship in which the members must constantly establish dominance? In my opinion what is good enough for nature, is good enough for humans. If some animals are naturally inclined to homosexuality, how can we shun people that are only trying to be who they truly are according to nature? We should not.
People that argue against homosexuality say that it is an abomination against nature. They clearly do not know much about nature! From elephants to monkeys, there are more than 450 different species of animal that have documented same-sex pairings (Kluger 338). If all these animals are engaging in same-sex relations than being homosexual as a human being is natural. Making people suppress who they truly are is what is unnatural. Anti-gay followers that were pressed with the idea of homosexuality in nature relating to human homosexuality, may turn the arguement around though. They may take the same-sex pairings in nature as signs of dominance, forming alliances, and appeasing enemies (Kluger 339).
Homosexuality can either be very complex to some, or very simple to others. It depends, I suppose what you believe to be true about nature. Do animals truly form homosexual relationships that can last for more than 15 years like male, greylag geese? (Kluger 338) Or is this simply a friendship in which the members must constantly establish dominance? In my opinion what is good enough for nature, is good enough for humans. If some animals are naturally inclined to homosexuality, how can we shun people that are only trying to be who they truly are according to nature? We should not.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Week 7 Blog Reviews
Deirdre: In your first blog I liked how you explained about Tannen first and then used her to segue into your main topic, communication. Your writing is very easy to read, as it flows well and you set things up nicely so the reader is not confused! The only thing I would suggest is maybe wrap up the ending/conclusion a little bit :) In your second blog I really liked your statement about Wright's essay making excuses for cheating and how it's like we're incapable of controlling ourselves. I agree that it is not out of our control! You did a great job concluding and I liked how you said you hoped our children wouldn't have to read about men and women making each other miserable in a future ENG215 class. Great writing this week!
Kayla: I liked how you summarized the essay at the beginning of your blog with out making it too long, just getting the points across. It really helps the reader focus on what points you are specifically going to discuss from the essay. Your example about your boyfriend was great! The second blog you wrote was great too! I really liked how you directlly addressed the question we were supposed to answer by using it as your thesis. How you built up to the thesis was really good too. You make a great point about how humans have the capability to have a lasting relationship with one person and this is what separates us from animals. I agree completely! My only suggesstion is to perhaps split your last sentence in your last paragraph into two sentences because it was a little bit of a run-on. Keep up the good writing!
Kayla: I liked how you summarized the essay at the beginning of your blog with out making it too long, just getting the points across. It really helps the reader focus on what points you are specifically going to discuss from the essay. Your example about your boyfriend was great! The second blog you wrote was great too! I really liked how you directlly addressed the question we were supposed to answer by using it as your thesis. How you built up to the thesis was really good too. You make a great point about how humans have the capability to have a lasting relationship with one person and this is what separates us from animals. I agree completely! My only suggesstion is to perhaps split your last sentence in your last paragraph into two sentences because it was a little bit of a run-on. Keep up the good writing!
Chemical reactions - Pg 310 #1
It is undeniable that a lot of what love is, has to do with our biological make up. Shannon Brownlee and Helen Fisher discuss this topic in both of their essays. Brownlee says "We are not just programmed for reproduction: The capacity for loving emotions is also written into our biochemistry" (Brownlee 295) while Fisher states "...the essential choreography of human courtship, love, and marriage has myriad designs that seem etched into the human psyche, the product of time, selection, and evolution" (Fisher 299). So, no girls, love is not just a figment of our imagination, and guys feel it too, although sometimes there love is not as lasting and is combined with their other desires... While these essays reveal some truths about human love and the chemistry that goes along with it, there are also some questions that they bring to the table.
If we were to view love as purely being chemical and biological, this would surely wreak havoc on the already tenuous relationships of the 21st century. Men already make excuses for their bad behavior. If we gave them an excuse like biology they would always shrug their shoulders and say they couldn't help themselves, it's in their DNA. Men do have some biology contributing to their despicable ways. In Fisher's article she explaines that men will stray to increase the likelihood of passing on their genetics (307). But they also have brains and if they would try to separate those from their hormones perhaps women would trust them a little more... A purely biological perspective could also convince people that they would not have to try in a relationship. With their intuitive chest thrusts and "apocrine" glands men might feel that their DNA would make up for being a jerk but they would be mistaken.
The idea that biology is the only contributing factor of love seems to be a mistake to me. It should be a connection of souls. But of course chemistry plays a huge role. However, biology should not be taken advantage of and blamed for humans' love problems and cheating hearts. We all have brains that can help us control our chemical and biological urges. Love is more than a chemical reaction in a person's body.
If we were to view love as purely being chemical and biological, this would surely wreak havoc on the already tenuous relationships of the 21st century. Men already make excuses for their bad behavior. If we gave them an excuse like biology they would always shrug their shoulders and say they couldn't help themselves, it's in their DNA. Men do have some biology contributing to their despicable ways. In Fisher's article she explaines that men will stray to increase the likelihood of passing on their genetics (307). But they also have brains and if they would try to separate those from their hormones perhaps women would trust them a little more... A purely biological perspective could also convince people that they would not have to try in a relationship. With their intuitive chest thrusts and "apocrine" glands men might feel that their DNA would make up for being a jerk but they would be mistaken.
The idea that biology is the only contributing factor of love seems to be a mistake to me. It should be a connection of souls. But of course chemistry plays a huge role. However, biology should not be taken advantage of and blamed for humans' love problems and cheating hearts. We all have brains that can help us control our chemical and biological urges. Love is more than a chemical reaction in a person's body.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Bring monogamy back!
Monogamy will always exist in some form. Even if humans are part of the animal kingdom and naturally inclined to have different mates and propagate the earth, they will still pair off for longer periods with certain people. And while “…serial monogamy is tantamount to polygyny” it is still a form of monogamy (288). But an incredibly skewed form… Evolutionary psychologists believe that “…it is “natural” for both men and women- at some times, under some circumstances- to commit adultery or to sour on a mate, to suddenly find a spouse unattractive, irritating, wholly unreasonable” (280). Serial monogamy is basically the new monogamy. People date someone for years but then break up or married couples are together forever and then suddenly divorce. Eventually they all find new mates. And so continues the cycle. They are faithful to that one person for a long time but then something causes them to end their relationship. “…evolutionary psychology shows how inhospitable the current social environment is to monogamy” (280)
Are we to blame or is mother nature to blame? Is polygyny in our genes, and why? “The human mind, like any other organ, was designed for the purpose of transmitting genes to the next generation” (280). Basically, polygyny is in our genes. It helps us carry on those genes. If a mate is unable to provide for his mate and children, or unable to produce children, then the genes die out. We exist to carry on the species and this is ingrained into us like nothing else. So if monogamy is not working out, it is ended and the mates move on.
Today things are not quite so dependent on propagation because there is plenty of that going on. There is actually a surplus of people in the world and it’s getting a little crowded. Seems like everyone is doing a pretty good job with carrying on the species. And yet serial monogamy still seems to be the trend. Maybe it isn’t all about propagation after all. What is it then? Are we just naturally inclined to move from one partner to the next, or to cheat on our current partner?
“Evolutionary psychology illuminates the tremendous flexibility of the human mind and the powerful role of environment in shaping behavior” (280). But that is no reason that we can’t be faithful. We have the most mental capacity of all other creatures. Surely we can use that to rise above our primitive urges. Don’t we say our morals and ability to reason set us apart from animals? If only we could be unselfish and use our own advice to bring back real monogamy so that men and women no longer have to make each other miserable.
Are we to blame or is mother nature to blame? Is polygyny in our genes, and why? “The human mind, like any other organ, was designed for the purpose of transmitting genes to the next generation” (280). Basically, polygyny is in our genes. It helps us carry on those genes. If a mate is unable to provide for his mate and children, or unable to produce children, then the genes die out. We exist to carry on the species and this is ingrained into us like nothing else. So if monogamy is not working out, it is ended and the mates move on.
Today things are not quite so dependent on propagation because there is plenty of that going on. There is actually a surplus of people in the world and it’s getting a little crowded. Seems like everyone is doing a pretty good job with carrying on the species. And yet serial monogamy still seems to be the trend. Maybe it isn’t all about propagation after all. What is it then? Are we just naturally inclined to move from one partner to the next, or to cheat on our current partner?
“Evolutionary psychology illuminates the tremendous flexibility of the human mind and the powerful role of environment in shaping behavior” (280). But that is no reason that we can’t be faithful. We have the most mental capacity of all other creatures. Surely we can use that to rise above our primitive urges. Don’t we say our morals and ability to reason set us apart from animals? If only we could be unselfish and use our own advice to bring back real monogamy so that men and women no longer have to make each other miserable.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
You just don't get it!!! He Said/She Said
Reading 'Sex, Lies, and Conversation' was like reading a page out of my own life story! Me and my boyfriend, Pat, could have avoided countless arguments if we had read this essay a long, long time ago. Tannen observes that "...most wives want their husbands to be, first and foremost, conversational partners, but few husbands share this expectation of their wives" (Tannen 241). I have asked Pat numerous times to call each other at the end of the day and see how each of our days went. Afterall, he is my best friend. But do I get this? Of course not! Instead he texts me all day about nothing. For example "What are you doing?" to which I reply "I'm in class" or something similar and this happens basically everyday. Nothing is really being said here that is worth the effort. Why not just call each other at the end of the day to talk about the high lights of our days? Because boys/men have different ideas of communication apparently.
Recently I was talking to Pat about my old best friend. We had gone our separate ways due to differences in opinion and I was still upset about it. I had seen her on campus and said hi and she ignored me. I needed someone to talk so I turned to my boyfriend. He said "Just don't worry about it and keep trying to say hi." That was the LAST thing I wanted to hear!!! If I had been talking to a girl she would have been telling me I was a bigger person for being the one to say hi and that there is no way I should keep trying after she was so rude!
After reading this essay I realize my self what kind of communicator I am and how different my boyfriend is. I can now see where he would be confused by my expectations of our communication since until I read this I didn't really realize! While I want different opinions than my own, I first and foremost want to be agreed and sympathized with! "When most women talk to each other, they assume a conversationalist's job is to express agreement and support. But many men see their conversational duty as pointing out the other side of an argument" (Tannen 243). Pat was just trying to point out a different opinion than my own but all I wanted at the time was support. Maybe next time things will be different since I plan on having him read this essay!
Recently I was talking to Pat about my old best friend. We had gone our separate ways due to differences in opinion and I was still upset about it. I had seen her on campus and said hi and she ignored me. I needed someone to talk so I turned to my boyfriend. He said "Just don't worry about it and keep trying to say hi." That was the LAST thing I wanted to hear!!! If I had been talking to a girl she would have been telling me I was a bigger person for being the one to say hi and that there is no way I should keep trying after she was so rude!
After reading this essay I realize my self what kind of communicator I am and how different my boyfriend is. I can now see where he would be confused by my expectations of our communication since until I read this I didn't really realize! While I want different opinions than my own, I first and foremost want to be agreed and sympathized with! "When most women talk to each other, they assume a conversationalist's job is to express agreement and support. But many men see their conversational duty as pointing out the other side of an argument" (Tannen 243). Pat was just trying to point out a different opinion than my own but all I wanted at the time was support. Maybe next time things will be different since I plan on having him read this essay!
Week 6 Blog Reviews
Deirdre: Although I have never seen 'Wild Hogs' I could definitely see the similarities between it and 'Thelma and Louise.' You did a great job summarizing the movie so those who haven't seen it would be able to compare it to 'Thelma and Louise.' I agree that most people look for life changing adventures but most of the time nothing as drastic as Thelma and Louise did. In your second blog I tend to agree with you that the nuclear family is not truly the reason for homosexuality. The way you summarized the essay but still added your own thoughts was really good.
Kayla: Your blog on 'real wild women' was great! You writing really flows. I really liked the route you chose with your movie, proving that females can be the aggressors to and not just for revenge on a male. After reading your summary I want to see this movie! I don't get how kissing can lead to murder...! You did a great job with the blog on Gay Identity! You used the text to back up your own opinions which made for really strong ideas. I like how you say that the American family is based on completely different criteria than it used to be. It's so true.
Kayla: Your blog on 'real wild women' was great! You writing really flows. I really liked the route you chose with your movie, proving that females can be the aggressors to and not just for revenge on a male. After reading your summary I want to see this movie! I don't get how kissing can lead to murder...! You did a great job with the blog on Gay Identity! You used the text to back up your own opinions which made for really strong ideas. I like how you say that the American family is based on completely different criteria than it used to be. It's so true.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Gay Identity
The definition of a family is much broader these days than it used to be. More people have open minds, making this broader definition possible. This has allowed many gay people to “live outside the family” and develop their gay and lesbian identities (D’Emilio 235). D’Emilio states “Every society needs structures for reproduction and childbearing, but the possibilities are not limited to the nuclear family” (233). A family is no longer limited to a traditional mother and father definition with medical advancements such as invitrofertilization. Of course there is still bigotry and prejudice against gay and lesbians but things have much improved over the years.
Part of this improvement can be attributed to changes in our social and economic lives due to technology. Technology is a staple in today's world. Almost everyone has a cell phone, a laptop, a television. Through technological advances the economy and capitalism have advanced. Like D’Emilio says “…capitalism has led to the separation of sexuality from procreation” (D’Emilio 234).These advances have helped change the definition of a family and helped gay and lesbian people create their own support systems outside of traditional families.
Part of this improvement can be attributed to changes in our social and economic lives due to technology. Technology is a staple in today's world. Almost everyone has a cell phone, a laptop, a television. Through technological advances the economy and capitalism have advanced. Like D’Emilio says “…capitalism has led to the separation of sexuality from procreation” (D’Emilio 234).These advances have helped change the definition of a family and helped gay and lesbian people create their own support systems outside of traditional families.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
