Balsam Ali: An introduction about Balsam Ali

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.

RESUME

7030 Walker Ave.

Lincoln, NE 68507

Home (402) 325-0909

Cell (402)714-2981

Balsam B. Ali

Professional 8/2004 – 2/2005 USA Steak Buffet 27th Cornhusker hwy.

Experience Lincoln, NE.

 Provide assistance to customers.

 Receive telephone calls from customers.

 Cleaning when necessary.

4/2005-9/2005 Hue-Hot 56th"O" Street Lincoln, NE.

 Seated and served customers.

 Cashier. Opened and closed restaurant.

10/2005-5/2006 WRA 70th"A" Street
Lincoln, 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

Writing Samples

History/ women’s and Gender Studies 402/802

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]

During the 1920s and the 1930s gay men were viewed or seen as unlawful, scandalous, and criminals, and basically just dominated by hostile, harsh, and aggressive powers from society.”Groups of theater and restaurants workers were joined by gay teenagers forced out of their natal homes by hostile parents, gay migrants from small towns and the outer boroughs, hustlers, gay bartenders, and men who had more conventional jobs elsewhere in the city but who valued the privacy, convenience, and tolerance such housing offered. The district also included numerous transient hotels and rooming houses where male couples who met in a bar or on the street could rent a room for an hour. The men who lived and worked in the district formed the core of a social world- or several social worlds, really- in which men who both lived and worked elsewhere could participate. Times Square served as the primary social center for many such nonresidents, the place where they met their friends, built their strongest social ties, ’let their hair down’( once a camp expression for being openly gay), and constructed public identities quite different from those they maintained at work and elsewhere in the straight world. They built a gay world for themselves on the basis of the ties they developed in the commercial institutions which entrepreneurs had developed to serve the needs of the theater workers rooming in the district and the tourists who flocked there.”[7] After the repeal” of Prohibition in 1933 gay bars quickly became the most important center of gay male sociability in the city. The legalization of the bars made the gays more obvious and easier to find, for gay men and straight. Therefore, it subjected them to the authority of the newly created State Liquor Authority (SLA), which quickly proved to be a much more effective agent in the enforcement of state regulations than the prohibition era’s Volstead agents had been. From its inception, the SLA threatened to revoke the liquor license of any bar that served homosexuals.”[8]During the crackdown time, which occurred around the 1940s to approximately the 1950s,” some straight bars in ‘suspicious’ neighborhoods such as Times Square or the Village sought to protect themselves by posting signs over the bar reading ‘ If you are gay, please stay away’ or ‘ It is against the law to serve homosexuals’. At other bars, the bartenders were simply instructed to eject anyone who appeared to be gay, or, if they had not suspected them initially, to refuse to serve them any more drinks once they did. Gay bars that continued to serve gay patrons during the crackdowns sought to protect themselves by hiring floor men who made sure that men did not touch each other or engage in campy, or otherwise ‘obvious,’ behavior, which might draw the attention of the authorities by making the bar’s patrons as gay. Since the presence of ‘obvious’ homosexuals, or, ‘fairies’ in a bar invited the wrath of the SLA and the police, most bars refused to serve them, and other gay men were encouraged in their hostility toward them.”[9] During the crackdown times, I believe that the gay community was humiliated, they were treated as if they were animals, they were not even able to go to a bar to mingle and enjoy their time. Many gay men had respectful jobs, or jobs that gave them enough money to live, but do the SLA, many gay men lost their jobs, due to their sexual orientations.

During the cold war of America, the government believed that any homosexuals employed in the government were no capable of working with them, due to that they are generally unsuitable, and they constitute security risks. The government believed that being a homosexual is a crime under the Federal, State, and municipal statues and persons who commit such acts are law violators. I believe that is wrong, and it is prejudice and inhumane. Homosexuals can still perform their jobs, whatever they may be. Being a homosexual does not disturb their ability to work, or the way their brain works. This is exactly what historian B is trying to explain, how society is cruel, and they have mistreated homosexuals in so many ways that are not acceptable and are highly offensive to a reasonable person.

As for lesbians” since the 1950 there has been a nationwide movement to bring understanding to and about homosexual minority. Most of the organizations dedicated to this purpose stem from the Mattachine Foundation which was founded in Los Angeles at that time. Members of these organizations- the Mattachine Society, One, and National Association for Sexual Research- are predominantly male, although there are a few hard working women among their ranks. The Daughter’s of Bilitis is a women’s organization resolved to add the feminine voice and viewpoint to a mutual problem. While women may not have so much difficulty with law enforcement, their problems are none the less real-family, sometimes children, employment, and social acceptance. The membership is open to anyone who is interested in the minority problems of the sexual variant and does not necessarily indicate one’s own sex preference.”[10] During the 1950s, “the sway of conformity in American society demonstrated the power of the social. The ideology of conformism constructed everyday social life in postwar America. The emerging homosexual identity depended on this experience of conformism, which both denied homosexuality and yet, and the same time, created the conditions that made it possible. Immediately after World War II, homosexuality emerged in Americans’ public consciousness with surprising vigor. After Senator McCarthy reinforced firing homosexuals as well as communists from any government employment, homosexuality was an issue in the American public life more than any other source.”[11]San Francisco was thought of as a refugee camp for homosexuals. “Cops were patrolling the homosexuals, straight legislators were governing them. Homosexuals claim to have been inspired by black people and their freedom movements. Homosexuals have stopped being nice and pretending everything is ok, when they have faced the real ugliness and the real war of the America, and the American people.”[12] During the 1960s a Sexual Freedom League came about” it was a minuscule movement that was never able to mobilize a significant number of supporters. Few Americans even knew that is existed, and the organization failed to achieve notable political or legal change. The Sexual Freedom League failed in part because its founders refused to focus exclusively on the needs of any one particular interest group. Had the League represented solely the interests of gays or women or prostitutes or pornographers or straight males, it would surely have had a larger impact on society than it did. But by attempting to fight sexual repression on every front, the leaders of the SFL never managed to attract a core constituency of supporters. Straight, gay feminists, free-speech activists, pornographers, sex workers, and the like failed to see the utility of joining a coalition-based movement. Even people who are comfortable with their own sexual desires tend to be squeamish about the desires of others that they do not share. The Sexual Freedom League also failed because its founders believed they could use political activism to change deep-seated cultural attitudes. Poland did not appreciate the extent of American ambivalence about sexuality. It would take far more than protests or demonstrations to force Americans to recognize the hypocrisy of celebrating American liberty and individualism while prohibiting freedom of sexual self-expression.”[13]The American society was never at ease when it came to homosexuality or at least getting to know them, or accepting them into society. Homosexuals, whether they were gays or lesbians, had to struggle to show society that they are human beings, and are as equal as the rest. At the same time, they feel shame, and/or shyness to stand up for themselves or ‘let their hair down’ to society as they feel they are different than the rest due to how society has been treating them and they still are. For example: I read ‘ Stuck Rubber baby’ by Howard Cruse, it is a story about a gay young man that is confused with his sexual orientation and as he gets older he tries to fight the obvious fact that he is gay. I believe his reason for not being able to come out or come clean with himself that he is gay is due to society and what he has witnessed being done to people around him that were gay. I believe if society was less judgmental that people could actually be at peace with their own bodies, and can live together in peace rather than in hatred and war.

[1] John D, Wrathallm in MPHAS, page 19.

[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.

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.

Reading the magazine ‘Seventeen’, I noticed that they mostly concentrate on beauty rather than anything else. The magazine focuses on how to get the ‘hottest body’, perfect hair, skin and makeup. My sister reads seventeen magazines and yes it is a mainstream in the American society. There are more images of white women comparing to the images of women of color. The images of women of color are mostly on advertisements that conclude that the women are athletic, active. On the other hand, the images of the white women are associated with beauty, makeup and feminine activities. There was nothing about women with disabilities in this magazine. I believe that the message that the women are getting about beauty is that if they were beautiful or look a certain way that they would become happy and loveable. From my understanding, I feel that the seventeen magazines are making it seem that without having makeup or looking fit that you are not worth much.This magazine mostly emphasizes about boyfriend/girlfriend relationships rather than marriage. I believe this magazine is for the middle class Americans, for example, they would show an example of an outfit that a celebrity is wearing, and show the same outfit but at a reasonable price. I believe this magazine is in a way a representation of women in American. Most if not all women in America don’t get involved in serious relationships, mostly afraid of commitments so rather than marriage they might get involved in a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship.I believe the types of messages that are represented in this magazine are wrong. For one, I think it is wrong and unfair to women that they make it seem that if you are not fit, or have make up on or dressed a certain way then you are not pretty. That is extremely harmful to women and or adolescent girls. If women don’t fit the picture in the magazine they would feel unloved, un pretty and might even become depressed due to all this pressure from society. As for an adolescent girl, they might have less self esteem, and might even try to starve themselves if they don’t fit the ‘ fit’ images or might try plastic surgeries if they don’t feel that they fit the ‘ pretty girl’s image’.

Reading Sylvia Plath’s poem,” Morning Song” made me really think about life as a whole. Plath’s seems to argue or contradict herself with how she feels about her life. Morning Song, from my understanding I felt that she is confused and feels that she is a good mother, but then questions herself. In the beginning she calls the baby ‘love’. To me that shows that she cares deeply for her baby, but then she leaves the readers questioning if she really cares, specifically when she said, ‘I wake to listen: A far sea moves in my ear.’ From my understanding, Plath seems to open up about womanhood, she questions nature, especially when she says,’ one cry, I stumble from bed, cow-heavy.’ That to me made me think that since she recently had a baby; her breasts are full of milk for her baby. Also her stumbling from bed shows how much women care and take care of their babies. What made me really think about how women do so much to take care of their offspring, while men do not show the same affection. Reading the poem from beginning to the end, Plath did not even once mention a man being around to help take care of the baby, or even just around. As being a woman, I connect with Plath and sympathize for her and what she is going through. She made me feel that she did not know what it is like to be a mother and she did it merely because that is what society expects from a woman. It is more of a cry for her help it seemed to me, rather than just talking about how she feels about having a baby. What I found interesting the most about Plath’s poem is how she describes being a new mother. A lot of women never show their true emotion or how they feel after having a baby. In the beginning of the poem, she seems cheerful and excited about being a mother, as the poem progresses she opens up more and shows the bad side or the part of having a baby that not a lot of women show. Her choice of words also shows that she really took the time to explain her true feelings rather than just write a poem that was about nature, or motherhood. Plath’s poem did greatly make an impact on me and how I feel about motherhood, or just being a woman. Her words are strong, solid and are real and true, it’s a real life situation.

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.

Radio Spot

Chevy Volt 2011

Loud television sound

Woman: honey, come here look at this

Man: what is it, what is it??

Woman: Wow, can you believe it. This car charges over night and it can run on a pure electric charge for up to 40 miles.

Man: that’s amazing

Woman: Steve, I want it.

Man: woman, everything you see on this television, you want

Woman: It helps the universe stay smoke free and it is cheaper than having a car that run on petroleum.

Man: ok ok honey anything for you. But it is not out yet. One more year and it is your love.

Woman: thank you sweetie.

Announcer: Chevy Volt 2011, is the green car for the up coming year. This car is amazing in so many ways. Stay green and come on in and check out the new Chevy Volt nearest you.

Creative part