Miss America: More Then Just A Beauty Queen

In the article Kate Shindle talks about the image of Miss. America and what it stands for had changed. She said from the beginning, “If often seems that they can’t even agree on what she stands for” (613). The image that the Miss. America used to project was good leadership roles in their community and doing things to help soceity. She said they used to go out and help people with different issues like health issues like AIDS and HIV. She got this leadership standing from Miss. America because it gave her standing to be able to talk to many people about these issues. This is the image that those girls want to have but I think that is not what society views as the big picture behind Miss. America. All we see are these skinny, tall beautiful girls in nice clothes walking around on stage talking about the idea of world peace. Shindle points this out too, “I thought my work on the front lines of a life-and-death issue made it clear that there is more to the Miss America program then swimsuits and evening gowns. I quickly realized that wasn’t the case” (615). All we think about these girls having is a pretty face with lots of make up on it. We don’t view them as being really all that smart or really caring about other people then themselves and others like them. She says that she now recognizes this and wishes it would change, “Granted, the belief that beauty and brains are incompatible is an old one but oranizers should do more throughout the year to counter the public’s perception of Mss America as someone who does little more than turn up at boat shows” (615). That is a good idea to try and do things to try and change this materialistic stereotype that we have against these girls but I think that the image that they have now going to be really hard to change. Society had had this idea about those girls for so long that I think that it would be almost pointless to try and change. She thinks it would help if, “Organizers just out the minefields-the trivia contests, the backstage dish sessions that threaten to make the contestants look bad- they’d have more time to say it. That would mean including more footage from the ‘personal interview’ portion of the show, when contestants talk about their political views and platform issues” (616). This would be a really good idea once again but I think that our society has this idea of these girls that don’t really care about what going on in the world and to try and change this idea that everyone had would be really hard because it would seem fake. Even though the girls are viewed as fake people, we would think that the girls were just faking the fact that they care about things such as political issues.

The Way We Wish We Were

In this article Stephanie Coontz talks about types of families and the way our society views the family roles and structure. Our society has a picture in our minds of what a traditional family should look like. This image comes from many different things like older TV shows such as The Andy Griffith Show, Father Knows Best and Wally and Beaver. She points this out when she says, “The problem is not only that these visions bear a suspicious resemblance to reruns of old television series, but also that the scripts of different show have been mixed up” (677). These shows set an image in our minds. They are like role models to us. Coontz points out that we have an image of the “traditional family” and this is an image that society projects. Coontz says this image is, “The notion that traditional families fostered intense intimacy between husbands and wives while creating mothers who were totally available to their children, for example, is an idea that combines some characteristics of the white, middle-class family in the mid-nineteenth century and some of a rival family ideal first articulated in the 1920’s” (677). This is an older style of thinking that our generation is starting to break away from. Coorntz relates back to “The way it’s always been”. We were raised with this idea about what families are supposed to look like in society but in reality this picture that we have isn’t always true. She points out that society can pick a model for themselves, “Pick a ballpark date for the family they have in mind. Once pinned down, they are invariably unwilling to accept the package deal that comes with their chosen model” (678). She says we have different model and some of the examples that she uses are looking at the colonial families and looking at the Victorian style families.
One of the reasons why the family is changing so much in society is because the roles of family members are changing. The mom was the one that always stayed home with the kids and did all of the household work but now the women are also working and having to do the household work. Coontz points this out when she says, “Within the home, prior to the diffusion of household technology at the end of the century, house cleaning and food preparation remained mammoth tasks. It has always been viewes that the women is supposed to stay home and raise the kids and the husband is the one that goes out and provides for the family. This image is changing and other images of family structure ate now arising. She points this out to when she says, “The late nineteenth century saw a modest but significant growth of extended families and a substantial increase in the number of families who were ‘harnessed’ together in household production. Extended families have never been the norm in America” (680). Families are changing in America and the image that was the mom, dad, one boy, one girl, is not a reality anymore.

One Nation, Slightly Divisible

In this article David Brooks talks about their being a difference in voting depending on where you live in America. He says that we are divided and he refers to it as red and blue America. He says, “People in Blue America, which is my part of America, tend to live around big cities on the coasts. People in Red America tend to live on farms or in small towns or small cities far away from the coasts. Things are different there” (582). This shows how Brooks thinks that the American people are different even though we are all Americans. He says this difference comes from the place or environment that we live. He gives some example like, “In Red America the Wal-Marts are massive, with parking lots the size of state parks. In Blue America the stores are small but the mark ups are big” (582). He points out differences in the places that were live in because they influence our political views. Our surroundings play a part in shaping and forming our morals, opinions and standpoints. I think this is very true because people who were brought up in the big cities have a different life style then people who grow up in small towns. Small town people have to drive a while to get to big shopping malls and city people can basically walk to any store they want to. Small town people know most the other people in the community here, as city people don’t because there are so many people. Brooks points out some other differences too such as, “Red America makes social distinctions that Blue America doesn’t” (584). He also points out something that I agree with and that is, “There also seems to be am important distinction between men who work outdoors and men who work indoor” (584). I think this is true because these men have different work ethics. It is these differences that change the way big and small town people think. These differences also set apart their political ideas and this is where the division comes from in political parties and voting. Since these people grow up in different environments they identify with others that grew up with the same background. This means that they can also identify with the political candidates as well. This is something that Brooks also points out, “Gore dressed down throughout his campaign in the hope that these middle-class workers would identify with him” (589). Since they have the same background experiences the voters will want to vote for the candidate that identifies with them most. This is because they feel like they have the same views on issues and some morals. Since they feel a connection the voter will tend to put their vote in for the candidate that they most identify with.

A Letter To America

Margartet Atwood talks about America and how it is changing. She starts out by reminiscing about the past and how she remembers it when she was younger and better in a sense. She remembers some of her old favorite books like Huckleberry Finn and Little Women. She remembers how we used to have a connection with our past, “We’ve always been close, you and us. History, that old entangler, has twisted us together since the early 17th century” (566). She talks about all of the old classic things that were so unique and she doesn’t think that we have that anymore. Our history is fading and we are letting it fade? I agree with this for example I think about the music that is popular now days and I wonder what we will show our kids when they ask us what kind of music we listened to. What singers are going to be considered classics? Our stars come to fame just as quickly as some of them leave and then forgotten about.
She also talks about the invasion of privacy that America has been faced with now days. “Your business is no longer merely your business. The paraphrase Marley’s Ghost, who figured it out too late, mankind is your business” (567). I agree with this because the government is allowed to look into our private lives a lot more then they used to be able to. It seems that our country is moving away from the older personalized ways of society and leaning more towards industry. “You’re torching the American economy. How soon before the answer to that will be, not to produce anything ourselves, but to grab stuff other people produce, at the gunboat-diplomacy prices?” (567). I think our society is built around business and success these days. I think this was one of the main points that Atwood was trying to point out in the differences in America. She tells about what we seem to care about these days is money and spending money. “You’re running up a record level of debt. Keep spending at this rate and pretty soon you won’t be able to afford any big military adventures” (567). People seem to want to make more money so they can spend more money so they can look good by outward appearance. Society tells us that we can judge how successful someone is by his or her assets. This is one thing she thinks America is turning into and she doesn’t like it and neither do I. I think that the success of a person is only self-measurable.

Crimes Against Humanity

Ward Churchill is talking about the names that certain athletic teams have that target Native Americans. Churchill thinks that these names are victimizing and offensive to the Native American people and it should be chandged. I don't know if I agree with him or not because I would really like to know from the Native American point of view if they feel directly tagreted or not. One of my teachers last year is Native American and she wasn't offended by the names. We actually had a discussion about it and she said it was something that didn't bother her or her family. i think that the examples that Churchill used were more extreme then the situation at hand because he was being more extreme in the names he was using and the actions that he said. He used the example of making a team that targeted African Americans, "The players could appear on TV every week or so gnawning on chicken legs and spitting watermelon seeds at one another" (538). Its not like the players fromthe teams go on TV and dance around in circles doing raindances and chanting trying to make fun of the Native American people and culture. I also wonder what when the names of the teams were being established what the intention was. If the people that were making up the names of the teams were like hmm lets name our team the Indians because we don't like them and we want to insult them or if they were like Indians are neat and it would be an honor for them if we named our team after them. This is a point that Churchill makes but he says that the people who say, "As well as university and public school officials, to announce that they mean not to insult but to honor native people" (537) aren't really being sincere and don't realize the impact that these names are making on the people. I do understand how they can feel like they are looked at as a symbol and not as an actual group of people with this amazing cultural background. They may think that since we have named our teams after them we are not trying to honor them but we are actually now comparing them to a football team and a bunch of sweaty jocks. When someone asks how are the Redskins doing people will respond with football stats and not the actual people. Also this is a derogatory term and it could be taken as an insult to some people. He thinks that the names that we use contribute to the ridicule of the native Americans. "Each competing with the next to make Indians appear more grotesque, menacing, and inhuman" (540). "Plainly, the European American public was being conditioned to see Indians in such a way as to allow their eradication to continue" (540). The names of the teams definatly aren't helping them since they already feel targeted in our society. He brings up the point about assimilation. In other words they have to conform to the dominate cultutre in order to servive. I know this to be true but only with Native Americans but this happens wtih other groups that are targeted. The only difference is that Native Americans have the wide spread controversy over the names of these teams which is very widely known and not helping them but its actually putting them down. It is thus of obvious importance that the American public begin to think about the implications of such things the next time they witness a gaggle of face-painted and war-bonneted buffoons doing the Tomahawk Chop at a baseball or footbal game" (543). I think that when people do this they are over looking the meaning of it and they are just doing it in spirit of the game and they aren't consciously thinking I am putting down Native Americans right now by doing this. But subconsciously they might feel that natives are inferior because what we are doing to them by saying this chat or using their names for our teams and they have no control over it.

Shakespeare in the Bush

In this story Laura Bohannan is telling to story of Hamlett. She starts to tell some people that she thinks will understand the story and enjoy it. So she starts to tell it and not to long into the story the people start asking her questions about some of the things she is saying in the story. They don’t agree with some of the things in the story and they are being very ethnocentric towards it and this starts to bother her as it would me too. “His question barely penetrated my mind; I was too upset and thrown too fat off balance by having one of the most important elements of Hamlet knocked straight out of the picture” (218). I don’t understand why the people can’t just listen to the story and know that since its a story there will probably be some things in it that they themselves don’t agree with. “Two years is too long,’ objected the wife, who had appeared with the old man’s battered goatskin bag. ‘Who will hoe your farms for you while you have no husband?” (219). This is just one of the comments that someone made. They are looking at things from their own point of view and how there culture tells them those things should be. But back in hamlets time the culture told them that they shouldn’t rush into a marriage and they should morn for two years after a death. I think the people that were listening need to understand the other point of view and look at the situation sociologically. They are judging the story based on their own values and beliefs not on those of the time that culture was. The people also had a problem when she was talking about the omen. The were arguing about how omens couldn’t talk and the differences between an omen and a ghost. They weren’t even willing to listen to the story because they were just picking away at it and finding things in it that they didn’t agree with in their culture. “Omens can’t talk! The old man was empathetic” (220). “What is a ghost? An Omen?’ (220). “But again they objected. ‘Dead men cast no shadows” (220). “Dead men can’t walk,’ protested my audience as one man” (220).

Arranging a Marriage in India

Serena Nanda tells us how marriage is arranged in India. She went there on a trip and found that basically their parents set up all the couples. She said that the parents can’t force their children to marry anyone that they don’t want to so they have usually one meeting before and if neither of them object then they will get married if the parents think that the other person is good enough for their child. Nanda said at first she would totally object to this and rebelled. “Had anyone tried to arrange my marriage, I would have been defiant and rebellious” (141). I know if my parents tried to set me up with a person that I only met once before I married them I would object too. I personally don’t think that I could handle that kind of thing. I would feel so forced and I don’t think being forced would be fair to my new husband or me. I also wouldn’t want to have to learn to love the person I marry. I want to already love the person I marry. I think its hard to find a person that will fit you and be good for yourself. How is someone else going to know what’s good for you when you yourself might not even know what is good for you. I think it would be really hard for me to spend the rest of my life with someone that I don’t even know if I get along with them. But the parents did seem very picky and they wouldn’t choose just anyone off the streets. They had a process almost in choosing who was good enough for their child. That is a good thing when it comes to arranged marriages. It makes for a division in social class though because they pretty much only look for people to marry their kids to in the same social standing as them selves. “The basic rule seems to be that a family’s reputation is most important. It is understood that matches would be arranged only within the same caste and general social class, though some crossing of sub castes is permissible if the class positions of the bride’s and groom’s families are similar” (144).