Margaret Atwood: Letter to America

Let me start off by saying that this lady is not making America look bad, just our current president. She romanticizes about the good-ole-days when the nation watched Leave it to Beaver, and danced to Frank Sinatra. She goes off on this rant about how she danced to the Andrews sisters and listened to Jack Benny on the radio (565-566). Oh and we are such environmentalists, tree-hugging is our specialty because of course, we Americans always know what the world needs to be even better, we are the examples (566). This is my letter to Margaret Atwood.
Well listen lady, I am pretty sure you were preoccupied with your Ella Fitzgerald and your chocolate malt shakes to realize that we were fighting wars and social crisis all through these fantastic times. Were we not in World War II? We were not even going to aid in that war until the war came knocking at our door. We must be heroes because we won't bother with anyone else or help anyone else until we're bothered. We interred Japanese people, on the assumption that they were spies. We've involved ourselves in a pointless race against the Soviets, on all fronts, from space to fighting communism, because capitalism is key. We've fought in pointless wars before the one we're in right now, hello...Vietnam? So why do you, Ms Atwood, have to come around now complaining about our foreign policies. It's not like we were always some innocent bystander on the globe, we picked on people. I do not like this romantic idea you are trying to compare our current situation to. We jumped into another war, at the time we jumped in, it was favored amongst a huge majority of the country. We were scared and wanted to prove that we were still fierce. Well, just like any war, we as human beings get tired of the fighting and realize the problems tied along with them. But do not tell me that we have fallen off the moral wagon with this one war, this one invasion, because we fell off the wagon many years ago and have been trying to catch up with it ever since. You are nothing but an onlooker, you do not know how all of this affects us, and by reminding us about it with your comments about our Constitution being "gutted" (567), please do not put your two-cents into this, we have to deal with our mistakes ourselves without some other person complaining about us.

Response to Churchill: Crimes Against Humanity

Ward Churchill has nerve to offer some of the creative names for his fictional sports teams. I am referring to his Hanover "Honkies" and Galveston "Greasers" (538). I agree with Churchill that there is a problem of discrimination becoming fun and entertaining for the majority groups. Calling a team "Redskins" and doing hand motions like the "Tomahawk Chop," making the depiction that these Native American people are primitive and barbaric is not okay (536).
America goes through all of these phases in history where it fights for civil rights and equal perception of its people, hoping that foul and racist words will be eliminated from the American language, and then it goes off and does racist things again. How is having a red faced Native American with a big dopey smile on its face any different from making fun of African Americans with black face paint in minstrel shows. There is hardly any difference. It is appalling that Americans are getting a kick out of making fun of a group of people that were, by the way, here before their immigrant ancestors slaughtered and redistributed them around the country. If anything, we should be begging for forgiveness. But that's not how people work, we never admit our wrong doing. Instead, how about we do what Churchill suggested and start poking fun at every other minority, and even majority. It only makes it fair. Oh, but wait, that is no fun when the joke is on you.

Response to Maxine Kingston: No Name Woman

It is sad to think that in this old culture, image is everything. I do not mean physical appearance, I am talking about the facade that a person must portray to the world consisting of morals, values, etc. This poor woman was living alone, facing the fact that her husband may have left her, died, whatever the case, and she could not have any intimate contact and start a new life. She finally succumbed to temptation and had become pregnant out of her own marriage. The sad thing here is that her town found it just to vandalize her home and humiliate this woman for having a baby(391). This group of people that thought so highly of themselves decide that day not to take the high route. Instead, they frighten this poor woman into suicide.
The saddest part of this is, the mother in this story who is sharing the tale to her daughter is using this tragedy to portray a message. "Now that you have started to menstruate, what happened to her can happen to you. Don't humiliate us. You wouldn't like to be forgotten," (392-393). Using threats as a way to warn a girl about not getting pregnant too soon is, of course in my culture, the worst way to go about the situation. In this culture I'm assuming that threats of disowning are common and worried about. This story reminds me of "A Tale of Two Divorces," where women are afraid to act out of the social norms, and end up leading unhappy or tragic lives and endings.

Response to Roiphe: A Tale of Two Divorces

Being a child that had once been caught in the middle of a nasty divorce, I can relate to the stories that Anne Roiphe told about her mother's unhappy marriage and her own experience with a hopeless marriage. Roiphe shares that her mother was timid about divorcing, it was a black stain on her psyche. Roiphe's marriage was not a bed of roses either, and when realizing this, she did not stick around with her deadbeat husband the way that her mother had. I believe that in my mother's divorce she had experienced both feelings that these two women had. She had been brought up Catholic and thought that divorce was a sin, that a woman should try harder for a marriage to work. When she finally realized that her own husband was a deadbeat, she left him. But this was not easy for women before, the difference being that in the 50s women were becoming baby makers and men were bringing home the bacon.
It is hard for me to think about a time when women could not stand up for themselves and realize what is wrong with a relationship that they are in. I do not think it was necessarily that women were so subservient to their husbands as Roiphe led readers to believe. That her mother would make sure that her legs were waxed and her nails were painted, just so that her husband could find her attractive (205). This mother was a slave to her husband, nervous as hell, waiting for him to come home so that she could once again pretend that their marriage was happy and perfect (206). I think that the only reason women were like this was because unless they could keep the marriage from falling apart, they would be left alone and without anywhere to go. Women began going home and raising families again at this time, work was far from their brains in this culture. If Roiphe's mom could no longer fake the marriage, she would be unable to survive and raise her children in a "healthy" environment. Today, divorce is at its highest rate because people cannot stand dealing with disastrous marriages and opt out of them. This fantasy of love as oxygen (208) is over and people almost know that romantic love is the first type of love to flicker away. But now women are capable, even more so than men, to take care of themselves and their children.

Response to "Arranging a Marriage in India"

I am quite torn on Serena Nanda's article, I have never really thought too much about arranged marriages before. Growing up in "Western" society, of course the idea of such a matrimony is considered ridiculous and primitive. Although that thought was predisposed in my mind, after reading this article I am not so sure that I completely disagree with the arrangement of spouses considering the many promising aspects of it.
I learned today in my world literature class that the idea of Western society came about when Europeans began differentiating themselves from the cultural "other," which in their case would be those in Asia. "Eastern" society was exotic to them, customs and culture. When I read through this article I could see that the ideas of meeting a person and getting to know them before marriage greatly differed from having my mother decide that I will be marrying Joe Shmoe. But I thought about it, and I realized that in America, this idea of "romantic" love has its consequences. We have plenty of time in life to find a mate and get to know them, however, we choose to rush into relationships and base our futures on what we have encountered with our significant others in a matter of months or maybe a couple of years. This leaves room for many problems, both financially and emotionally.
Nanda's friend who was arranging her son's marriage was keen on finding a suitable match for her son, one that would not cause any problems to the family when it came to gossip, money, etc. She would not let her son marry a girl who came out of a family with too many girls (145) because that would be potential economic and social damage for the son's family. This reminds me of the story behind Pride and Prejudice, where it was not suitable for a wealthy man from a higher class to consider a marriage between a girl that was in practical destitution with a pack of five sisters at home. Let us not mention, that also in that story was the problem of the daughter Elizabeth being too out spoken and well learned for her own good, which brings us to another problem that tears me between liking and disliking arranged marriages.
The son was given another prospect with a woman who was very well educated and could hold her own in the outside world (145), which was a problem for the family because they did not want a girl who was too well educated. This distaste for an intelligent woman is oppressive in my opinion, because I have been a girl brought up to show off as much of my brain power as possible, never considering the feelings of the opposite sex. Giving the opinion on the mother's end, I can see that she does not want a girl to be too full of herself and not get along "harmoniously" (145) with the boy's family. I do believe that the behavior they wish for their son is shooting too high, no one person is perfect.
Reaching perfection in their son's marriage is an amiable goal, but it no two people are completely "perfect" for one another, and makes me think of Hitler and his hope for a perfect race and world. Perfection is a great thought, and of course we all wish that our lives were blessed with perfection, but to deny every girl her place in a son's life is rather excessive. Where one girl is too educated, the other is too loud, and another is too poor. This Nazi marriage is too much for me to fathom, however, I do remember my own mother saying that she wanted me to find a good guy to marry, and she'd hate the dude otherwise.
I also recognized that the references to the caste system was mentioned several times. I have been afflicted with my own version of the caste system in my own family. My family is against me marrying outside of the Catholic faith. In India, the Brahmins would not want someone marrying an Untouchable, it would be dirty and low. In any case, I do not understand this disgust towards lower castes of people, but I do see how it would be desirable for two people to be apart of the same caste in order to have less complications between not only themselves, but with the families involved.
As you can tell, I was all over the place in reading this article. I am still not quite sure I agree with arranged marriages, but I do like the idea of a worry-free matrimony. The ideals are all there, but there are glitches in the plans based on how Western society as brought me up. I must remember though, I am not in the East, so I do not know all of the good that can come from such an upbringing.

Response to "Shakespeare in the Bush"

At the end of my senior year in high school we had to read Hamlet, and of course, our teacher taught us the "interpretation that was universally obvious" (Bohannan 216). This story was absolutely hilarious. Never again will I view the play the same way again. It was funny for me to read because the way I learned it, Claudius was the person at fault for everyone's death at the end, but these chiefs and elders blamed Hamlet and Laertes for all of the turmoil that ensued. They validated Claudius' marriage to Gertrude, claiming that the "Europeans were more like [them]" (218), it was a rule for the dead man's brother to marry the grieving widow immediately. Of course the Europeans did not see this union as proper, and so that was a difference in the upbringing of these two communities. Customs are very different no matter where you travel, and if you expect everyone to act and understand the same things, you are obviously living in a bubble.
It was funny how the elders would interjected with their customs while Bohannan told the story. Saying things such as, "But he must have many wives! Who else can brew beer and prepare food for all of his guests?" (219), which left Bohannan confused and frustrated. Her irritation was caused because there was no "universal" custom, not everyone follows the same rules and ideals in every culture. That is what culture is, a way of life that sets one community of people apart from another. Of course, groups of people imitate one another's cultures and guidelines on living, but no two tribes of people are the same.
I found it quite interesting that when the elders of this tribe talked about the Europeans, although they would correct their interpretation of Hamlet, they still said something that struck me. An elder said that "people are the same everywhere" (225), which is a statement that you do not often hear. There are always people who are racist or believe that their customs are the only way, but this tribe recognizes cultural differences and still believes that ultimately everyone is the same. I found it refreshing to read that, it was the nicest line I have read all semester. For once it was a positive view on societal differences.

Shop Like a Man

The title of this article really should be "Learn to Shop Like a Woman." I am unclear as to what the message behind the article was. Underhill began by saying that men do not spend as much time shopping as women do, yet he also says that "as women's roles change, so do their shopping behaviors--they're becoming more like men in that regard," (187), so what is going on in this article? Are women too involved with shopping or are they becoming less involved in the experience? And what about men? Is their shopping habits, or lack thereof, desirable?
Underhill's ideas were a bit scattered. He would discuss a man's intuition to pay for everything at the check-out counter for a natural ego boost, but then would talk about how men are too quick to shop and not smart enough when choosing simple items such as groceries (189). His final decision would be based on flashy boxes and his children begging for whatever lunch snack they wanted.
Underhill shifts again to say that shopping is stressful for a wife when her husband is involved because he is not entertained enough. He suggests that stores such as Victoria's Secret, a lingerie store, should attempt to appeal to the opposite sex using tools such as a Sport's Illustrated section or a big screen that includes the lingerie fashion shows (192). Although the idea seems like a sure fire way to attract men into that shopping establishment, I think that Underhill should consider his other suggestion; it would be more appropriate for the owner to open the store next to a computer or sports equipment shop in order to keep the men occupied (192), no need to have a room of gawking men occupying the store where women measure their cup-sizes.
So, Underhill wants an integration of men and women in shopping in order to occupy both sexes in the shopping situation, or at least that is what i was getting out of the essay. This seems all fine and dandy, but is the title not "Shop Like a Man," and is this form of integration really teaching men to take their time shopping and women to not rush due to their man's inability to stay controlled in a clothing store? This is not shopping like a man, this is shopping like a woman, if Underhill's stereotypes are correct. Steady, controlled, and timely shopping falls under the generalization that women spend more time shopping than men do, as said in the beginning of the article (187). What is the point of Underhill's article then? Is it beneficial to shop the brief and careless way that men do, or do we begin a transition into steady and controlled shopping where we all check price tags and monitor our budget?
I feel as though I've written my own response to this essay as scattered as Underhill had written his observations.