Tuesday, October 11, 2011

the masters tools will never dismantle the masters house (Audre Lorde) (argument)

this author (Lorde) argues that the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house.

Lorde uses her quote to explain the position of many feminist and advocates that fight for change. Lorde shares her experience when she agrees to take part of a conference in NYU institute for the humanities, where she commented on issues that dealt with role difference of race, sexuality, class and age. Lorde argues that is arrogant to try to examine and discuss issues about role differences if there is no input of feminist that know about the subject. in page 36 Lorde says "when the tools of racist patriarchy are  used to examine the fruits of that same patriarchy? it means that only the most narrow perimeters of change are possible and allowable." from my point of view lorde tries to say that there is only a small amount of change that could be done because they voices of different race's, sexualities,class and age are not present in important meetings to bring change. her main point is that i order to bring change people in different role should come together and make policies because it allows for everyone to see issues from any angle not just from one.

Sunday, October 2, 2011

people like us ( review)

What does sociologist Lawrence Mead truly say with “if people behaved rationally, they would seldom be poor for long in the first place.” To me, Mead is not saying a bad thing although it truly sounds like a bias statement. From my point of view mead is trying to say that if poor people realized what their problem was and thought rationally about the options they had to fix them they wouldn’t be in that hard situation for too long, and although the smallest change would take time it would be like taking small steps until you reach a point that you are able to take long strides.
Tammy is middle aged woman who has lived on welfare for 18 years, she an example of someone who has tried her best to better her life and that of her children. However I feel like she conformed to her way of living. She did not try to at least keep her home clean, I believe that if Tammy would of taken a different approach to the situation; for example she could have saved a small amount of money little by little too slowly be able to buy the parts that she needed for her car to be fixed. That way she could have found a better job, and from there she could have worked her way up and out of her situation. Even though it would take some time to do so. Another reason I believe Tammy conformed to her life, is because she stated that her dad was poor and he did what he could and she is doing what she can as well. By doing and believing this she has limited herself in a way.
Her son is an example of a person in poverty who wants and is passionate to move up the social ladder. He shows this in many ways, for example he tries to keep his home clean and presentable even though it’s not an amazingly beautiful home. He tries to dress better because he feels that his poverty is not a reason for him to look bad. He is driven by his dream of someday going to college and trying to have a career that would help him out of his situation; and even though it is tough he does not give up because he knows that if keeps trying better days would come his way. He does not conform and rebels against all the odds that face him.
It must sound like I’m against these people but I’m truly not. I have the utmost respect for them because they work hard to maintain their family. I just don’t agree that people should just give up trying or just stick with their problems because they believe they cannot do anything about it. and ultimately that is what Mead is saying