Anna's Site

Quote:

            “I know I was physically giving off cues that I wasn’t interested. I don’t think that was noticed at all, or if it was, it was ignored.”

Comment:

            I took this quote from about half way through the Babe article entitled “I Went on a Date with Aziz Ansari. It Turned into the Worst Night of My Life.” This particular quote is from Grace the victim in this report. She is describing her night and the events that took place after she went out to dinner with Ansari. Grace made it clear that she was not interested in the same things that Ansari was interested in and expressed that she attempted to make that clear through both verbal and nonverbal cues. In the end felt as though this was unsuccessful.

            My reasoning for choosing this particular quote is how it shows the reader her thoughts and her perspective. Regardless of what the exact event of the night was this is how she perceived the situation. In her eyes she was being forced into something she did not want to do even though she was expressing her dislike for the situation. For me the key word here is perceive. Perception is everything and is a large portion of what the #metoo movement is about. Women just like Grace have found themselves feeling as though they had been taken advantage of while the man in the situation either denies or is unaware of her feeling.

             This reminded me of the discussion we had last class about “Disgrace.” We talked about how David struggled to recognize sexual assault as anything other than a violent encounter. It would seem that Ansari is similar to David in that way. Since there was no violence Ansari struggled to see that there was anything wrong with the situation. This just goes to show how differently people can interoperate things. I think it is precisely this that needs to be and is perhaps changing in our culture. Women are coming forward with anecdotes very similar to those of Grace and Melanie, the character from Disgrace. I look forward to discussing this today during class.

Question:

             If someone does not view their actions as wrong, does that mean they are any less guilty of a crime?

Quote:

            “Why? Because a women’s beauty does not belong to her alone. It is part of the bounty she brings into the world. She has a duty to share it” (Coetzew 16.)

Comment:

            This quote can be found at the end of chapter two of “Disgrace.” The chapter describes the first intimate encounter between David and Melanie in his apartment. David cooks dinner for Melanie and following they watch a film together on dance. After the film David invites Melanie to stay the night with him, but Melanie declines the offer and leaves. This quote comes from this interaction between the two.

            For me this quote jumped off the page and my very first reaction was to yell at character of David. However, after giving more thought to the chapter and the quote, I was reminded strongly of a discussion I had in my class on feminism. Recently we listened to a podcast entitled “Five Women” which tells the story of five different women who all had interacted intimately with their boss, Don. They all tell a very similar story of how he made them feel needed and wanted, they described their experiences as intriguing. However, each woman felt external pressures to spend time with him, for example one women continued to see him because it meant staying in his good graces which would enable her to get a job. The thing that is most interesting is that Don did not see anything wrong with the situation. I was extremely struck with how similar David is to Don. Both men are imposing themselves upon a woman who needs something from him. For the women in the podcast it was a job and for Melanie it was a good grade or education.

            I specifically chose this quote, because in the pod cast a very similar statement was made in reference to the way that Don thought. It seems to be very common for men (and even some women) to take on this mindset either consciously or unconsciously. What intrigues me is why that is and what it is about growing up in our society fosters such a train of thought. I have spent quite a lot of time in my feminist theory class discussing this, but I thought it might be something interesting to discuss regarding justice within this class.

Here is the link to the podcast

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/640/five-women

Question:

             Do you think that Melanie would have described this encounter in the same way that David would? In other words, do you think her perspective on the situation is different?

Quotes:

• “To begin with you don’t understand what happened to me that day. You are concerned for my sake, which I appreciate, you think you understand, but finally you don’t. Because you can’t.” (Coetzee 157)
• “Maybe, for men, hating the woman makes sex more exciting. You are a man, you ought to know” (Coetzee 158)

Comment:

            These two quotes are pulled from chapter eighteen. They stem from the conversation that Lucy and David have in the car after finding out that the car found in New Brighton was not actually theirs. This conversation is one of the first times they really speak openly about the incident. David is attempting to show Lucy that he understands her pain, however Lucy sees that there is no way for David to truly understand. It would seem that David is unable to grasp this concept.

            This entire conversation reminded me of Catharine MacKinnon’s “Toward a Feminist Theory of the State.” Within her work, MacKinnon crafts an argument saying that the state, and therefore society, is seen from a male’s perspective, therefore women who are put in similar situations to Lucy often aren’t able to bring their attackers to justice. It is because the male mindset is unable to see things from the women’s point of view. Lucy’s situation is just that. She seems to not want to come forward because of the current societal climate and her lack of protection from those in power around her. David fails to understand or see this.

            In her work MacKinnon attribute quite a lot of this societal viewpoint to the media in particular the pornography industry. She blames it for portraying violence in a way that becomes accepted and even expected in today’s world. The second quote I chose seems to follow a similar train of thought. It would seem that Lucy is observing very similar things to what MacKinnon saw. What I think is particularly interesting is the fact that this book takes place in South Africa, a country that was not described or discussed by MacKinnon. I think it might be notable that such viewpoints can be shared across national boards.

Question:

            Is it possible for David to understand what Lucy is going through? Is it right that he is at least trying? Why or why not?

Quote:

         “It’s painfully apparent that the United States needs a national truth commission of some kind to address hundreds of years of injustice suffered by Black Americans. There, centuries of enslavement, state-sponsored racism, denial of civil rights and ongoing economic and social disparity have yet to be addressed” (Ibhawoh.)

 Comment:

         This quote comes from the very end of the piece Bonny Ibhawoh wrote entitled “Do truth and reconciliation commissions heal divided nations?” Before this quote is brought into the article Ibhawoh defines what a truth commission is and provided examples of different nations that have utilized such a tool after certain events; examples included South Africa and Canada. He concludes the article by discussing his own personal belief and view point of the necessity for a national truth commission in the United States of America. It would seem that in his view, America needs help healing in order move forward and grow stronger. He expresses that this can be done in any nation by creating a “permanent, public memorialization that inoculates the future against the mistakes of the past.”

         I chose this quote specifically because the concept of a truth commission or reconciliation commission sparked my interest. Being in the educational field and having worked quite extensively with young children I have come to the conclusion that we as humans are wonderful at talking the talk but not walking the walk. What I mean to say is we teach our youth to use our words to work through disagreements and apologize sincerely for our wrong doings, however it seems that we rarely are able to follow through with such rules in adulthood. If there is a disagreement on the playground it is custom for a teacher to have both parties involved explain each of their perspectives and then talk through how one might have harmed the other. After this occurs, the students are often allowed to continue playing without a second thought about the incident.

         Though I do realize that national and international disputes are on a much larger scale than a squabble on an elementary school playground, but I think that there is something to be learned here. The best way for kids to find closure and rebuild friendships is by talking about conflict in an attempt to reform their ways. That being said I would like to agree with Ibhawoh when he calls for a reconciliation commission in the US and in other countries. I believe that acknowledging, discussing, and learning from disputes and struggles is the best way to create permanent and lasting change in society.

Question:

         Is it possible for all disputes to be solved by reconciliation commissions? If not when might such a tool not be advised? 

Quote:

            “All social values – liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, and the social bases of self-respect – are to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of an, or all, of these values is to everyone’s advantage. Injustice, then, is simply inequalities that are not to the benefit of all. Of course, this conception extremely vague and requires interpretation” (Rawls 54.)  

Comment:

            I was able to pull this quote from the end of part 11, “Two Principles of Justice.” Within this sections Rawls defines what he believes are the two most basic principles of justice based upon the original position he defines above in part 4. This quote in particular jumped out at me because he is elaborating on the second principle he defines as “social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all” (Rawls 53.) Initially this second principle made sense to me, however as I kept reading and read the quote I have selected to highlight above, I found myself questioning the reasoning behind such a quote.

            After reading the quote on page 54 my initial instinct was that Rawls was defining a utilitarian society.  However, it would seem that Rawls argues that not to be the case closer to the end of this section. From my understanding Rawls is attempting to say that inequality is sometimes fair or just. This relates to my discussion last week about how equality is not the same as equity. I believe that Rawls would agree with such a statement. To further this thought, I would like to hone in on the concept of opportunity that Rawls discusses as what makes unequal distribution of values to be just.

            I may be jumping too far, but I would like to connect this view point to the American Dream, a belief that one can go from rags to riches, everyone has a chance to “make it” in this country. Many people have come to America for this very reason and yet it seems that some people are unable to catch the illusive dream. I would like to argue that it is almost impossible to have equal opportunity with an unequal distribution of values. I say this because within any society there is a structure or a system and in order to progress in the said system one must have access to certain tools, such as an education. There are many instances of this access being denied to many individuals in this country both today and throughout our history. For example, under Jim Crow laws black Americans were denied the right to an education comparable to the education of white Americans. They were denied the same resource and tools, which I believe robbed them of the access to the social values Rawls discusses. I think Rawls discusses a compelling argument, however I am not so sure that the two principles of justice he discusses are neither universal or plausible in real societies today.

Question:

            What would Rawls think of the way modern America operates? Would he consider it to be a just society the follows the two principles he set forth? Why or why not?

Quote:

            “The original position is, one might say, the appropriate initial status quo, and thus the fundamental agreements reached in it are fair. This explains the propriety of the name ‘justice as fairness’: it conveys the idea that the principles of justices are agreed to in an initial situation that is fair. The name does not mean that the concepts of justice and fairness are the same, any more than the phrase ‘poetry as metaphor’ means that the concepts of poetry and metaphor are the same” (Rawls 11)

Comment:

            This quote comes from early on in the section entitled “The Main Idea of the Theory of Justice” where Rawls begins to explain the beginning of justice. He reminds his reader that we are operating under the idea that we are to think of the “original contracts” of society as “the principles that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interests would accept in an initial position of equality” (Rawls 10.) In other words, he is trying to get his readers to understand that justice begins with an original agreement that each member of the society deems fair. He also specifies that members of society are not to reveal their economic, social, or intellectual status so as to ensure the decision process remains fair. The quote above continues this idea of fair beginnings of justice.

            What intrigued me about this section was the idea of ensuring the original contract or the initial situation is “fair.” The concept of fair seems to be very subject to me and I could not help think about a graphic that I have seen in many of my education classes depicting two boys standing on boxes of the same size trying to look over a fence. One boy is able to see because he is taller than the second boy. The caption of the image is “fair is not equal.” The idea that if both boys are to reach the same goal of seeing over the fence the second boy must stand on a bigger box, they are not equal though it is fair. I then would be curious to know what Rawls would think of this idea that fair does not mean equal. Rawls does specify in his quote that justice and fairness are not the same however, he does explain the justice relies on a sense of fairness or sameness. Though I would like to argue that if when creating a justice system for a society everyone is treated exactly the same how is that fair when it is clear that every person is different. I believe that it is for this reason that we see many imbalances in justice systems around the world.

Question:

            Is justice fair? In other words, can justice be the same for every member of society?

Quote:

            “The concept of justice I take to be defined, by the role of its principles in assigning rights and duties and in defining the appropriate division of social advantages. A conception of justice is an interpretation of this role” (Rawls 9.)

Comment:

             This particular quote comes from the end of the section entitled “The Subject of Justice.” Within this section Rawls discusses possible ways of attempting to defined the concept justice and what it means. He addresses that it is part of the way organized society runs and is able to function. Though Rawls also addresses in the earlier part of the section that there are many dimensions and levels to society in which justice can be applied in different ways. The quote above is Rawls’ attempt to define this term of justice. I decided to write about this quote, because I was able to touch upon some of these ideas within my midterm project. Within my project I discussed how I believe the concept of justice to be very abstract and depends on the person who is defining it. I mean to say that my idea of justice could be different from my neighbor’s idea of justice. This is due to the complex differences of each individual belonging to a society.  

              Rawls also touches upon the idea of societal justice early on in this section. He calls social justice as “the basic structure of society, or more exactly, the way in which the major social institutions distribute fundamental rights and duties…” (Rawls 6.) For the most part I agree with this statement, however I would like to say that I believe justice to also be dependent on social norms. For example, my first thought after reading this section was back to “Between the World and Me” and our discussions about the mistreatment of black Americans throughout our history. Though the laws declared abuse and discrimination toward black Americans to be unjust, it would seem that the collective society deemed it just by looking the other way. We see this again in “12 Angry Men” when the jury is ready to convict the young man solely based on preconceived prejudice. To that end I would like to say that I think justice to be defined by a mixture of societal views and institutional views.

Question:

            At what point should social institutions define justice? And at what point should the citizens of society define its sense of justice?

Quote:

“Their tears at the bitter injustice dry when they begin to perceive the terrible justice of reality, and to accept it. Yet it is their tears and anger, the trying of their generosity and the acceptance of their helplessness, which are perhaps the true source of the splendor of their lives. Theirs is no vapid, irresponsible happiness” (Le Guin 4.)

Comment:

            I found this quote in the final two pages of the text after the author has described the brilliance of Omelas misery of child that kept away. The author had previously explained to the reader that the city’s happiness depends solely on the hardships of this child. However, the citizens of Omelas will eventually wish to see the child who is the reason for their good fortune. Le Guin tells the reader that though the members of the society are upset by the child they eventually accept and move on from it.

            This quote I felt really brought up some interesting thoughts for me. I couldn’t help but see a strong notion toward the theme of the individual vs society. In this short story there are clear parallels to our modern day society and I think that the author is sending he’s readers a clear message: societal happiness is dependent on the misery of the individual. However, what really intrigued me was the notion that at some point in their lives the members of society are faced with this fact. They seek to see the source of their happiness but are not pleased when they are first confronted by the stark reality of the situation. This unrest comes from being taught a sense of was is right and wrong within the joyful society. Yet intriguingly enough this sense of wrong dissipates and becomes justified over time.

            I am curious to understand why it seems that collectively as a society we are able to overlook and accept small acts of injustices if it means prosperity for the greater good. This reminds me of the class discussion we had on Tuesday concerning the number of people involved in a seemingly unjust situation. It would seem that the more people who hold a stake in a situation, the more their individual sense of morality changes. I’d like to further this connection by mentioning ethical debate of the Trolley Problem. If a train was about to crash and kill all of its passengers on board is it right to steer the train away from danger yet, toward an innocent individual. In other words, which is more just, saving the life of one person or saving the life of many. The individual vs society. This is a conversation I hope to discuss in class.

Question:

Can societal happiness exist without the suffering of the induvial? Or is the darkness that represents the unknown political possibilities an elusive concept to society?

Quote:

            “What a fuss this crazy wife of mine has made! She sent the maid to her mother’s house, and the servant to the farm. I praise her for that; but I can’t praise her for being so squeamish before she finally agreed to get into bed. ‘I won’t…What will I do… What are you maing me do…Dear me! Mamma, Mamma!’ And if her mother hadn’t given her a piece of her mind, she wouldn’t have gotten into that bead! I hope she gets a bellyache! I don’t mind women being finisky, but not that much! She’s driven us out of our minds, that chicken brain!” (Messer Nicia 48)

Comment:

            This is a monologue of Messer Nicia has right at the beginning of the last scene in Act Four. Though Ligurio and Friar Timateo both enter the scene, this quote of Messer Nicia’s is between himself and the audience. He is complaining that his wife was reluctant to go along with the plan they have set forth.   Despite the fact that this quote is only Messer Nicia speaking, I chose this quote because I think it showcases the way all of the characters in the play view Lucrezia, Messer Nicia’s wife. He complains that she was reluctant to get into bed with another man and went crying to her mother. He continues to say that this kind of “finicky” behavior is something he does not intend to tolerate and that any women should consider herself lucky to be with him.

            This mindset proves that women in society are seen most as an object than another human being. Messer Nicia is not concerned for how Lucrezia feels about the plan, he merely wishes to achieve his own goal, to father a child. Throughout the play the plan is justified by each character by saying that Lucrezia will finally have the opportunity to bear a child. This infers that all women are meant to care about is being a mother. In Messer Nicia’s eyes, Lucrezia having her own opinions and desires is nuisance that he should not have to deal with.

           These viewpoints reminded me a conversation that I had in my Contemporary Feminist Theories class regarding the suppression of women of the course of human history. We discussed that historically speaking women have been viewed as having a single role in society, motherhood. This falls perfectly in line with Messer Nicia’s views. We also read excerpts from Simone de Beauvoir’s “The Second Sex”, that trace this collective view point back to the biological fact that only women can have children making them immanent in society. On the other hand, men are free to be transcendent, just as all of the men are in this play. They are free to define what they think is just and act accordingly to achieve their personal goals, whereas Lucrezia is never afforded such luxury.

Question:

             In your opinion has the role and view of women in society changed since this play was written? If so, how? If not, how might society achieve this?

Quote:

            “If I could have known I wasn’t going to have any children, I would have done better to marry some peasant girl” (Machiavelli 20-21.)

Comment:

            This quote is found in act two scene five. This is a very short scene with only Messer Nicia and Siro. Messer Nicia is venting about his struggles to have a child with his wife, Lucrezia. He acknowledges the fact that his wife has in deed put in the effort to have a child with him, but he complains that there is no result. Most of this conversation consists of Messer Nicia muttering to himself, but Siro does offer the advice to be patient. He justifies this by saying that “you have to go easy with women to make them do what you want” (Machiavelli 21.)

            I chose this quote, because in has a strong connect with another course that I am currently taking, Contemporary Feminist Theories. This scene really exemplifies the way that women are seen in France at this time. It would seem that in the eyes of Messer Nicia it is a women’s job to bear children and create a family. Based off of this quote if would seem that Messer Nicia is unhappy with his choice for a wife since they are having trouble having a child. Through his words, he compares not having children to being a peasant or poor. In other words, if he is going to make anything of himself in society his wife must bear his children. In all likelihood, Messer Nicia is not the first man in France or in the world to take this view point. In almost all societies around the world women are seen to have the primary purpose of having and mothering children. This is would seem to be because of biological reasons, social constructs, and a blend of the two.

            I would like to challenge this view point by saying that this is not women’s primary role. However, with societies expectations it is very difficult to step out of this expectation. Society has created an expectation that successful men have family whom they provide for on a daily basis. However, this cannot be shown or found if a man has no family. Therefore, he places immense pressure on his wife to bear children. Though I think this pressure can sometimes be masked or applied inadvertently but it never the less is there. Just as in the case of this play. This is a topic that is very intriguing to me and I would like to discuss in class.

Question:

             In your opinion, will women ever been seen as complete equals to men?