I am currently a senior at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln studying advertising and public relations. I am hoping to work for a non-profit company once I graduate. I wish to make a difference in the world with this particular major. I believe I could help and work with countries below poverty, especially the young kids in Africa. I would like to make awareness ads, and since I speak Arabic as well as English, I could make awareness ads for the closest countries to Africa, and let them know and to be aware of what is happening to our children and to our world. Also, world hunger is a big part of why I chose the major that I am in today. With world hunger, I would like to do the same as the mentioned above. I am only 23 years of age, but I believe I have a big heart that can take me anywhere I please and I can help and make a difference with the knowledge and experience that I have gained from the specific subjects and courses that I have taken.
7030 Walker Ave.
Balsam B. Ali
Experience Lincoln, NE.
Provide assistance to customers. Cleaning when necessary.
4/2005-9/2005 Hue-Hot 56th"O" Street Lincoln, NE.
Seated and served customers.10/2005-5/2006 WRA 70
th"A" StreetLincoln, NE.
Telemarketing.Education 2007-2008 Sunway University College Malaysia
Tourism- Diploma
Additional 2007
– Malaysia and Singapore Aids Run
Community 1999-2001
– Volunteer at Bethany Branch Library
Involvement 2010
- 2010 Special Olympics
Bilingual- Arabic and English
Reference
upon request
During the twentieth century the American culture seemed to have gotten introduced to the life of dating, dancing, music and prostitution.[1] As mentioned in the book” many working-class women at this time, both immigrant and American-born, entered prostitution to make ends meet, seeing it as more lucrative than the factory jobs and domestic work of most employed women. Even though the name white slave trafficking was meant for the Chinese women who were sometimes brought to the United States by force and are enforced to commit prostitution.[2] As mentioned” American born sons and daughters of immigrants sought out sexual encounters, intimacy, and personal autonomy in the dark movie theaters and abandoned dance halls for the working- class women.The committee of Amusements and Vacation Resources are concerned about the welfare their young men and women. They feel that they could stop all of the delinquency issue that have been arising and are trying to notify the public in hoping that these inappropriate behaviors will be stopped. As mentioned in the book[3]” we need your co-operation in our efforts to suppress “tough” dancing which, according to our investigators, is being practiced to an alarming extent. We feel that once the public conscience is aroused to the gravity of the situation, means will be adopted whereby all dancing of this character will be prohibited.” The issue seems to be the dancing, the inappropriate dances are the slow rag, the bunny hug, turkey trot and many more.[4] As mentioned these type of dances are” modified varieties and conventional adaptations of a dance which had its origin in houses of prostitution, whence it spread first to the dives and tenderloin dance halls and thence to a large number of the dance halls of the city.” It appears that at first the committee is simply against the dance halls as the dances may or could lead to touching of the lower body and alcohol intake may be present as well. Another fact is that they believe these dance halls could hurt the young women’s reputation, lead them to the wrong path. The dancehall have also became extremely popular in such a short and fast timing and have sprung up in every cit throughout the country. It is mentioned in the book that the committee[5]”urges the importance of recognizing the distinction between legitimate dancing and this hideous perversion, which generally speaking is not dancing at al.” It also appears that the committee may believe that dance hall dancing is not even a real dance or should be in the category of dance.The working class women worked at factories with little amount of pay to pay for their families until they decided that when taking care of their family did not leave them enough money to enjoy leisure time. With that being said, these women were going out having a good time and getting gifts from men in exchange for attention, please and sexual desires. These women were knows as the “charity girls”. The charity girls never took money as they thought that would be wrong because that would make them appear to be prostitutes and that is not what they were. As mentioned in the book how these women were perceived as[6]” offering themselves to strangers, not for money, but for presents, attention, and pleasure, and most important, a yielding to sex desire, only a thin line divided these women and occasional prostitutes’, women who slipped in and out of prostitution when unemployed or in need of extra income.” The term treating as mentioned meant[7]” men often treated their female companions to drinks and refreshments, theater tickets, and other incidentals. While the women might pay a dance hall’s entrance fee or carfare out to an amusement park, but they relied on men’s treats to see them through the evening’s entertainment.” I think that treating is a good way to split the bills evenly and fairly between two people that do not share anything but a feeling between one another. But I also believe that a man should always try to pay for the bills as to be a man and not let or allow the woman to do so. Pleasures were sexual favors but on different levels, others were merely just being flirtatious to companionships. A woman did not need to work hard to get ‘pleasures’ that she wanted and/or needed from men, but on the other hand, it was more difficult for the man to do so. Also it appears to be that the working class women had more freedom than the middle class women. They would go out and stay out late, go to dance halls, stay with out with the gender and smoke ciggaretts.
Middle class women viewed the charity girls as vulgar, loose, not knowing how a respectful woman should act, that they were the ones they measured themselves with when it comes to respectability. The middle class women perceived the charity girls as prostitutes, as they would have intercourse with the first man they meet. Even though as mentioned in the book, middle class women[8]” adopted a more instrumental and flexible approach to sexual behavior, premarital sex could be labeled respectable in particular social contexts. As follows charity girls characterized their sexual activity from prostitution, a less acceptable practice.” The reactions charity girls received from their bosses were not a favorable. For example a woman had a brought a child into the world out of wedlock, and the boss released her from her duties as an employee. Charity girls seem to enjoy different types of dances, from a slow shimmy to shaking their hips and/or shoulders. Most of their dances if not all included close body contact, sexually appealing dance moves. I believe that their dances appear tame to me, they are in many ways similar to the way the middle class women dance but of course not as intense.
A lot more mixing was not all the way accepted but was improving that before, men and women were meeting for leisure time during the day, during lunch hours, and just to spend time away from home. The white reformers try to improve the situation as it appeared appealing to the middle class women, the white reformers have setup no men groups, debating societies, music clubs, movie clubs supervisions, all in favor of helping the young women take care of their reputation and their status in the community as a woman.
[1] MPHAS,page 234
[2] MPHAS, page 273
[3] Reformers Condemn “tough Dancing” (c.1910). MPHAS, page 282
[4] Reformers Condemn ”tough Dancing” (c.1910). MPHAS, page 282
[5] Reformers Condemn “tough Dancing” (c.1910). MPHAS, page 283
[6] Charity Girls and City pleasures( 1880-1920).MPHAS, page 299
[7] Charity Girls and City pleasures(1880-1920).MPHAS, page 301
[8] Charity Girls and City pleasures(1880-1920).MPHAS, page 306
I will be talking in regards of historian B’s way of thinking about same sex relationships. That includes the issues they have been faced with throughout history. I will be explaining in details and timings of the events that occurred in society. I will be showing the wrong doings and discriminations that have appeared to be the cause of the change that is happening today, if any. I will be talking about how things used to be back in the times of during the Victorianism times, new morality times, the post way of WWII and finally during the sexual revolution times.“The study of the history of sexuality has posed unique epistemological problems. A sort of common wisdom has assumed that taboos in Western culture have suppressed or silenced frank discussions of sexual behavior. This is true in the sense that many of our questions regarding the history of sexuality cannot be answered because individuals in the past could not or would not speak about sexuality in the way we do today. But a more sophisticated understanding of the problem, according to Michel Foucault, recognizes that knowledge of sexuality is framed in the terms of certain kinds of “discourse”-popular, familial, theological, legal, medical, and psychiatric. As people change the categories they use to discuss sexuality, or as they talk about sexuality in different contexts, the kinds of things they can and cannot say (indeed, even think it possible to say) about sexuality change. From this point of view, the misunderstandings arise, not so much from historical censorship or suppression of sources (although, as this case shows, this can be a problem), as from the historian’s tendency to bring to the study of the history of sexuality questions framed in her or his own categories and not in the categories and not in the categories of the societies or eras being studied. Indeed, one might argue that the field of the history of sexuality has not existed until now, not because of any prudery or Puritanism in Western culture, but because the categories have not existed that would have allowed anyone even to conceive of a history of sexuality.”[1] For the period of the seventeenth century,” ministers were quite unequivocal in their definition of sodomy [as]… sex between men or between women. Ministers did not discuss the possibility that anal sex between a man and a woman or non procreative sex in general might constitute sodomy. They focused on the violation of boundaries between the sexes, not rectal penetration or sodomy’s non reproductive character. The word had for them a distinct meaning, even though the phenomenon to which it referred should, they insisted, be understood in tandem with, not in isolation from, other sins. New England laws against sodomy generally followed clerical example in defining the crime as an act that involved “parties of the same sex.” The legal codes, however, focused much more specifically on male sex than did clerical pronouncements. The Plymouth, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire laws quoted verbatim Leviticus 20:13: “If any man lyeth with mankind, as he lyeth with a woman, both of them have committed abomination; they both shall surely be put to death.” Rhode Island adopted the language of Romans I:26-27, defining sodomy as “ a vile affection, whereby men given up there to leave the natural use of woman and burn in their lusts one toward another, and so men with men work that which is unseemly.’”[2] The first two same sex relationships that appeared, was in New England. The New England court had charged them for an “unclean” behavior they both shared together.” In 1642, Elizabeth Johnson was whipped and fined by an Essex County quarterly court for “unseemly practices betwixt her and another maid.” Sara Norman and Mary Hammon, both of Yarmouth, Plymouth Colony, were presented in 1649 for “leude behavior each with other upon a bed.” In neither case does the brief court record suggest that the magistrates categorized the offense as sodomitical or, indeed, that they categorized it at all save as “lewd” and “unseemly.” The use of these vague adjectives may reflect judicial uncertainty about the classification of sexual intimacy between women as well, perhaps, as a reluctance to describe the acts in question. Except for New Haven’s, New England sodomy laws referred only to sex between men.”[3]During the Victorianism attachments were appearing between a woman to another, and also men were extremely dedicated to other men.” All the world gives ready credence to the possibility of friendship between man and man- some people are even inclined to believe that the immutable attachment of Orestes and Pylades, of Aeneas and Achates, may be repeated among men in these inconstant modern times;- but the devotion of woman to one of her own sex, the sincerity with which she clasps the hand or presses the lip of woman, the genuineness of her self-sacrifices daily made for a beloved sister, are subjects of a cast amount of skepticism. Philosophic writers, poets, wits, have openly declared their disbelief in the existence of the strange phenomena of woman-friendships.”[4] During the 1800s same-sex friendships were heedlessly standard in the American society. “A female world of varied and yet highly structured relationships appears to have been an essential aspect of American society. These relationships ranged from the compassionate love of sisters, through the enthusiasms of adolescent girls, to sensual avowals of love by mature women. It was a world in which men made but a shadowy appearance. Defining and analyzing same-sex relationships involves the historian in deeply problematical questions of method and interpretation. This is mainly true since historians, swayed by Freud’s libidinal theory, have discussed these relationships almost exclusively within the context of individual psychosexual advances or, to be more explicit, psychopathology. Seeing same-sex relationships in terms of a dichotomy between normal and unusual, they have sought the origins of such apparent deviance in childhood or adolescent trauma and detected the symptoms of “latent” homosexuality in the lives of both those who later became “overtly” homosexual and those who did not. Yet theories concerning the nature and origins of same-sex relationships are frequently contradictory or based on questionable or arbitrary data.”[5] In my opinion, during the Victorianism time, sex, same-sex relationships were not as unaccepted. May be they were given a blind eye, they were around, many women and men found comfort in the same sex rather than the other sex. I believe even married women kept a lover or a ‘girlfriend/friend’ in handy. They could talk about anything, without being judged or misunderstood. They were able to talk about their kids, their husbands, etc.
During the early 1900s it was in New York City that you saw lesbians, same sex-relationships. They were many in the city, it was also an open, may be even more accepting than any other city for same sex-relationships. Some of the issues they faced were the “restrictions when it came to entering or going to a bar. There were restrictions concerning the wearing of women’s clothes by men or the wearing of men’s clothes by women is withdrawn. In fact, there is the greatest possible tolerance shown for almost anything- short murder-just as during the old Greek Bacchanalia or the Roman Lupercalia and Saturnalia. Under ordinary circumstances, in most American cities, the “fairy”-with plucked eyebrows, rouged lips, powdered face, and marcelled, blindined hair- who attempts to walk the streets, attired in woman’s costume, is practically certain of arrest and severe punishment.”[6]
[2] Richard Godbeer, in MPHAS, page 89.
[3] Richard Godbeer, in MPHAS, page 97.
[4] Julia Deane Freeman, in MPHAS, page 188.
[5] Carroll Smith-Rosenberg, in MPHAS, page 201.
[6] Dr. La Forest Potter, in MPHAS, page 347.
[7] George Chauncey, JR, in MPHAS, page359.
[8] George Chauncey, JR, in MPHAS, page362.
[9] George Chauncey, JR, in MPHAS, page363.
10 Del Martin, in MPHAS, page 348.
[11] Jeffrey Escoffier, in MPHAS, page 395.
[12] Carl Wittman, in MPHAS, page 419.
[13] David Allyn, in MPHAS, page 430.
2
In this essay I will argue that Peter Singer’s idea is not strong or solid when talking about animals and their liberation. I will argue that Singer is wrong, and I greatly agree that Tibor R. Machan is correct. Machan heightens that “Animals are not moral agents- they are not morally responsible for what they do, nor are they capable of moral goodness. People are more agents- we are smarter and more valuable than animals.”
As said by Rachel’s “Rights and liberty are political concepts applicable to human beings because human beings are moral agents in need of what Harvard philosopher Robert Nozick calls “moral space” that is a definite sphere of moral jurisdiction where their authority to act is respected and protected so it is they not intruders who govern themselves and either succeed or fail in their moral tasks.”
I believe that Singer is wrong animals do not have any rights and should not liberate. To have a right essentially means being able to do as one wishes or chooses that is being able to be free, freedom of speech, freedom of life and liberty. Animals are not capable of speaking therefore; the freedom of speech is not relevant. Having the right to life and liberation is not a strong argument either, animals are here for us human beings to survive and nourish our bodies. The idea of animals being liberated and having rights like us human beings is not logical. As said by Rachel’s, “ oddly, it is clearly admitted by most animal rights or liberation theorists that only human beings are moral agents- for example, they never urge animals to behave morally (by, e.g., standing up for their rights, by leading a political revolution). No animal rights theorist proposes that animals be tried for crimes and blamed for moral wrongs.”
In Rachel’s, Jeremey Bentham,” who in his An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789), argued that those animals that can suffer are owed moral consideration, even if those that molest us or those we may make good use of may be killed- but not ‘ tormented’.” I believe that statement is wrong, we as human beings do not owe animals any moral consideration. We as humans need the essential vitamins and minerals that may be given through animal products. This is the cycle of life; humans eat animals in order to live a productive life. After doing so, we provide a better life for human beings and even more animals. We also help the earth by eating meat and hunting down animals therefore decreasing population levels by controlling animal population growth. In my arguments, animals are not moral agents; they are not capable of making intelligent thoughts, compassion, or any other traits that are valued and distinguish by human beings.
Scientists might argue that animal testing is immoral, wrong and cruel but I beg to differ. My reasons are as follow: drug industry, cosmetics, cloning.
I argue without animal drug testing we would not be able to help others. There would be no medicines or any cures for any of us. We would die trying to let animals survive, when I strongly believe that since we are more capable and more intelligent that animals, we should have the right to go ahead and test on animals that way we could also help them if they are ever in need. This way we help the sick, the weak, the young, the poor, the pregnant, and all that with the help of animal testing, and that is not wrong since it does not affect them or hurt them. The other big topic of animal testing is for cosmetics purposes. Scientists test cosmetics on animals for our safety, as human beings we come first, we need to be taken care of and told if this drug or cosmetic is not right for us. This way of testing is neither cruel nor harmful. I rather have my cosmetic tested on an animal incase, skin rashes appear rather than on a human being, since you spend your hard earned money to buy the product and then you find out that it does not work out for you is not fair and hard to deal with. When an animal is being tested on, it doesn’t cost them anything, not their time or money, therefore, it is ok to test on an animal rather than not and wasting a human being’s time and effort. Animal cloning is another way that animals can be duplicated. Human beings are able to make a duplicate of a specific animal which helps us in that, population rate, we do not need more animals we could just clone them. Also if we need a specific animal for a specific job we could simply clone one instead of having to wait so long for one to be born. Also cloning could be look at as a thoughtful gesture. If I had a cat and this cat is dear and near to my heart I would want to extent its life by cloning it and therefore it will always be with me. As many argue animal testing of any kind is wrong, but it is not. Animal testing helps the world in so many ways. The top medicines’ of the world came about by animal testing. We as human beings use animals as our way of surviving, which is only natural. As living beings we all use one another for something or another. Animals are put here for our use, our survival, not to be babied or stood up for.
As noted by John Hosper after reading Tom Regan’s book; it is a fact of nature that living things have to live on other living things in order to stay alive themselves. It is a fact of nature that carnivores must consume, not plants (which they can’t digest), but other sentient beings capable of intense pain and suffering, and that they can survive in no other way. It is believed that it will help our existence as human beings. . By promoting drug testing and cloning we are helping people throughout the world, in the process of helping we are making a large amount of people happier, in that they are living better, healthier lives.
Utilitarianism proposes promoting the greatest happiness of the greatest number of sentient beings, not just living beings. Therefore, I believe by human beings using animals for drug testing, or eating animals.
Animal right are void when it comes to human survival. Due to that we need to use animals to as best as we can in order to survive and live a better life.
3
Creatures by Maxine Kumin is different than Plath’s poem, Kumin uses a different approach to life. When reading creatures, I understood that she feels that she is part of nature, and believes that she is part of nature, that she belongs to nature. In the begging of the poem, she feels that nature is giving her the right to be part of it. As a class we feel that she is only seeing what is outside, or what is on the surface rather than really seeing nature for what it is. The bugs that were on the surface did not mind her coming into the water, therefore, she felt that it was ok for her and felt that yes, it is ok for me to be here. I feel that Kumin is confused or wants to be something that she is not or that she might be looking for something different. She feels that as a human being that she has the right to go into the water and be welcomed like she would be welcomed in the real world. I also feel that the leach symbolizes reality and that on top of the surface she does not see reality but when she gets to the bottom, reality sinks in, and she is shown that she needs to get back to the surface because she does not belong there.
These two poems show a lot of similarities, I feel that both women are trying to find themselves and are having a hard time doing so. Plath is confused and seems like she does not know what she is doing with the baby and with her life. While Kumin seems to be confused and does not know or think that she is just a human being rather than a water creature. Both women show their inner feelings in the poems but never explain why they think or feel the way they do. They are both women and they share with us how they feel about life in a woman’s point of view. They both tell a great deal of greatness and are very visual, and I have never experienced that before in a poem. Especially Plath’s poem is extremely visual on the way she is feeling. While Kumin’s poem is more visual on what she sees rather than on what she is feeling. The biggest different that I see is that the way the two poems are written, Plath seems to put more visual and emphasize on what she is going through, while Kumin only describes the visual part of what she sees. But with Kumin as a reader you feel that you are going through or seeing what Kumin is seeing rather than having to imagine and using your visual understanding to understand what Plath is talking about. Also it appears that Plath has a happy ending, while Kumin is moderate and that the feelings she started with is the same as the one she ended with. Kumin does not show any kind of emotion at the end of her poem. When reading the poem I feel that Kumin never had anything to be excited or happy about and that her idea of the poem is just to explain nature, and how it works rather than ending a poem with a conclusion.
I enjoyed reading both poems and I feel that since they are both women that is one of the main reasons why their poems are very explanatory and non discrete. Both of their poems explain how they feel about the world. I feel if we were to take the poems as women fighting for their rights or freedom, Kumin’s poem the most would be of use, merely because she feels that she was part of something but at the end she had realized that she is not. As women we have struggled to be liberated for many years and until now all women do not get the freedom and the belonging of somewhere as they should.
Chevrolet volt campaign.
