The Significance of Feminist Movement

I really liked this reading. It was very straight forward and easy to read. She went straight to the point and put her views out there. While reading it was a lot easier than the previous, it did contain a certain depth in meaning that I didn't catch in any of the other readings. Not to say that the other readings were not good, but I think that I was able to relate to this reading a lot more because I could understand the way in which it was written. It was the most modern reading.

In exploring hook's "The Significance of Feminist Movement," she believes that one of the primary mistakes of the early feminists were their inability to distinguish the female struggle for equal rights between the fight against men. "In their eagerness to highlight sexist injustice, women focused almost exclusively on the ideology and practice of male domination" (hooks 824). In exploring this, she is saying that women were more focused on deeming men as the enemy, which in turn called men the enemy. "They argued that all men are the enemies of all women and proposed as solutions to this problem a utopian woman nation, separatist communities, and even the subjugation or extermination of all men" (hooks 825). In saying this, men are the enemy, and there is a fight to be had among the two sexes.

hooks, bell. "The Significance of Feminist Movement." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for the College Writer. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford?St. Martins. 2006. pp. 824-831.

Women's Place in Man's Life Cycle

Until reading this chapter of Carol Gillian's book "In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development, I never though about how boys and girls differ in term of their attachments to their mothers. What I found interesting about this chapter was Gillian's usage of previously well known psychologist to somewhat clarify this theory. She goes on to say that "masculinity is defined through separation while femininity is defined through attachment, male gender is threatened by intimacy while female gender is threatened by separation" (Gillian 804). I think this quote buys into the double standards that exist today in terms of how men and women are viewed and treated. Women are seen as fragile creatures that always react based on their emotions, while men are seen as more level headed dominant because of their strength. Why is this? I in no way think that one sex is superior over the other, however in exploring the theories presented in this chapter, there are obviously others out in the world that do. And I find it ironic that these psychologist ultimately blame this difference on a woman; "attributes these differences between the sexes not to anatomy but rather to "the fact that women, universally, are largely responsible for early child care" (Gillian 803). This pissed me off! While yes women, usually the mothers, are the care givers of children, I believe that there are more contributing factors that help influences the differences that exist between the development of males and females.

Gillian, Carol. "Women's Place in Man's Life Cycle." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for the College Writer. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York. Bedford/St.Martins. 2006. pp. 801-817.

Women: Myth and Reality

I loved this reading! Simone de Beauvoir was brilliant! I found myself laughing while reading this; not because it was funny, but I found the way in which she approached the material at hand sarcastic. She didn't necessarily choose sides, male or female. She created situations in which the female was viewed by men and sometimes by themselves and then presented contradicting situations in which these same females could no longer be viewed as such. "The saintly mother has the cruel stepmother, the angelic youth has the perverse" (de Beauvoir 786).

While I understood her writing because it was pretty straight forward in presenting its ideas, I was still somewhat thrown back by some of it's wording. For instance in the opening paragraph de Beauvoir describes her opening myth in stating, "...sublimating an immutable aspect of the human condition - namely, the "division" of humanity into two classes of individuals..." (de Beauvoir 784). I didn't know whether she meant separating man and woman into two classes or separating how women are viewed into two classes.

Another interesting thing that kinda ticked me off in reading this was a passage in paragraph 7 referring to how a man is not obligated to respect a womans body when inflicting pain upon her. I took this in terms of during sexual intercourse. "Men not need bother themselves with alleviating the pains and the burdens the physiologically are women's lot, since these are "intended by nature"; men use them as a pretext for increasing the misery of the feminine lot still further, for instance by refusing to grant to woman any right to pleasure, by making her work like a beast of burden" (de Beauvoir 787). Wow! That quote is horrible. I feel men should always respect a women, and in-turn this means respecting their bodies, wife or not. This quote totally undermines that.

de Beauvoir, Simone. "Women: Myth and Reality." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins. 2006. pp. 784-794.

Shakespeare's Sister

This chapter of Virginia Woolf's book "A Room of One's Own," she speculates on what life might have been like for the sister of Shakespeare. Assuming that this sister had the same talent and imagination as Shakespeare. In doing so, she shares the expected role of women during Shakespeare's time.
Women were basically seen as appendages of the men in their lives. They were not their own person. As an unmarried female, you were expected to do as you were told by your father. If you did not obey him, you could be beaten, scolded or punished freely at the hands of your father. This went the way for married women. As a wife, you were expected to obey your husband always. If you did not, you could be beaten and punished as he saw fit. Women had no choices in terms of marriage. Once married, usually to a man of your father's choice, you were no longer a person, you were seen as an appendage of your husband. "Marriage was not an affair of person affection, but of family avarice..." (Woolf 765).
Woolf goes on to express her dismay with the non-existing history of women. "...nothing is known about women before the eighteenth century" (Woolf 768). This entire passage goes on and on about the injustices that women of the past have faced. I especially like how Woolf uses the phrase referring to women and dogs, "...poodles dancing and women acting" (Woolf 769). She then goes on to show how this simple phrase, has evolved and carried on for centuries. All in all, I found this reading interesting and somewhat infuriating. It's a great piece of work, primarily because even after 70 years, it's underlying truths still hold some merit in today's society in regards to women and how they are viewed and treated in the everyday world.

Woolf, Virginia. "Shakespeare's Sister." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers." Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins. 2006. pp. 764-776.

Pernicious Effects Which Arise from the Unnatural Distinctions Established in Society

In reading the essay "Pernicious Effects Which Arise from the Unnatural Distinctions Established in Society," my first thought was basically what does the title mean? Not only is it long and wordy, but it's a bit confusing. As a matter of fact, reading this entire essay was confusing. I picked up some of Wollstoncrafts main ideas, yet it was always after reading through a bunch of wordy, prolonged analogies and metaphors. I felt like she said what she was trying to say, but using too many words. I don't know if it was meant as entertainment, or if she felt it was needed. Either way, for me, her style of writing sort of took away from what she was trying to say. Ultimately, taking away from the reader, and in this case that was me!

One of the most quotes that stuck out to me the most was pertaining to a phrase I grew up commonly hearing. "Whoever the devil finds idle he will employ" (Wollstoncraft 748). My grandmother would always tell me and my brother that idle hands are the devils playground. In reading this quote, my mind immediately jumped to my grandmother's warning. It astonished me that even in the late 18th century, such proverbs were circulating. I also believe this quote ties into Wollstoncraft's beliefs in what happens to individuals who are born to wealth and have nothing to do.

As individuals born into a life of wealth and privilege they are are not likely to work as the average person is required to in order to live and function in the world. It is because of this fact that these individuals find themselves alive but not living life. "Hereditary property sophisticates the mind, and the unfortunate victims of it..." (Wolstoncraft 749). I believe that this is true. Those individuals that don't have to work for a living tend to not appreciate the things they have or acquire, because they have not had to struggle and work hard to attain them. In essence, these people are getting by on their wealth and not living their life.

Wollstoncraft, Mary. "Pernicious Effects Which Arise from the Unnatural Distinctions Established in Society."A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins. 2006. pp.748-758.

Why the Rich Are Getting Richer and the Poor, Poorer

First off, this was an interesting read. I was kind of turned off by the random facts and figures that Reich threw in from time to time; all of which in some way added to his rhetoric about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. I suppose they were relevant, however they made this reading kind of difficult for me. I found myself re-reading quite a few paragraphs, no because the information was hard to process, but because the random examples seemed to come out of thin air and I was constantly going back trying to find a connection between them.

Secondly, in exploring an individual's position in the world economy, Reich claims that this is totally dependent on the function in which he or she performs in it. "Regardless of how your job is officially classified (manufacturing, service, managerial, technical, secretarial, and so on), or the industry in which you work (automotive, steel, computer, advertising, finance, food processing), your real competitive position in the world economy is coming to depend on the function you perform in it (Reich 420). I took this quote to mean, and I may be completely wrong, that your job defines your position in society economically. All in all it makes since. For instance, as a waitress, you aren't really seen as making a major contribution to the world as say a doctor would. Therefore, it is logical that a doctor would make much more money than a waitress. I took this analogy to sort of analyze the question at hand. While this does make sense to me, I have to question whether it is fair? It is a dog eat dog world, and competition is a must. But I truly believe that people are predisposed to certain economic statuses before they are even introduced in the work force and this too plays an important role in an individual's position in the world economy and the functions in which he or she performs.

Reich, Robert B. "Why the Rich Are Getting Richer and the Poor, Poorer." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins. 2006. pp. 420-433.

The Position of Poverty

I've never really taken the time to think about poverty as a whole, none the less there existing multiple types of poverty. I've always thought of the definition of poverty, what it represents and who it affects as a whole and not on an individual basis. In reading Galbraith's "The Position of Poverty," he categorizes poverty as being either case poverty or insular poverty. "This one encounters in every community, rural or urban, however prosperous that community or the times. Case poverty is the poor farm family with the junk-filled yard and the dirty children playing in the barn dirt. Or it is the gray-black hovel beside the railroad tracks. or it is the basement dwelling in the alley" (Galbraith 407).
I took Galbraith's explanation to case poverty to mean that this particular type of poverty affects people on an individual basis. He goes on to mention specific factors that contribute to this type of poverty. He mentions educational, mental and physical deficiencies. But even with such disadvantages his final and most important contributing factor is lack of money. "Educational deficiencies can be overcome. Mental deficiencies can be treated. Physical handicaps can be remedied. The limiting factor is not a lack of knowledge of what can be done. Overwhelmingly, it is a shortage of money" (Galbraith 411).
I believe that there are contributing factors in any case where poverty is involved. However, I strongly feel that money is the underlying foundation of any and every poverty case the exists in the world today. "If the children of poor families have first rate schools and school attendance is properly enforced; if the children, though badly fed at home, are well nourished at school; if the community has sound health services, and the physical well-being of the children is vigilantly watched; if there is opportunity for advanced education for those who qualify regardless of means; and if, especially in the case of urban communities, housing is ample and housing standards are enforced, the streets are clean, the laws are kept, and recreation is adequate - then there is a chance that that children of the very poor will come to maturity without inhibiting disadvantage" (Galbraith 411). While I believe that one must always be ready and willing to help themselves, the majority of the poverty stricken individuals of the world today were born at a monetary disadvantage.

Galbraith, John Kenneth. "The Position of Poverty." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for the College Writer. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins. 2006. pp. 406-413.

The Communist Manifesto

Karl Marx's "The Communist Manifesto" made for an interesting read. It general structure was pretty straight forward, however I found myself re-reading almost every paragraph to make sure I understood it. Even in doing so, I was still somewhat skeptical as to it's actual meaning. So while it's structure and vocabulary is simple, it's underlying meanings are not. In reading the first section labeled "Bourgeois and Proletarians," I was astounded by Marx's ability to give such a clear description separating the two classes. The rich versus the poor. That sounds harsh, but in a nutshell that's what he did. The economic conditions of the two were clearly explained and there's no mistaking one for the other once you've read the comparative descriptions of Marx.
Marx credits society's progress to the Bourgeois. "Modern industry has established the world-market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in its turn, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages" (Marx 358). I took this to mean, that it was through the fundamental evolution of the Bourgeois' society that they contributed to society as a whole. While there were the movers and shakers of society, the rich and wealthy, the Bourgeois' of society were behind the scenes contributing mostly to better society.
Marx then goes on to explain the economic conditions of the Proletarians. He presents the Proletarians to be more organized and because of this, more successful than the Bourgeois. "But with the development of industry the proletarians not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows and it feels that strength more. The various interests and conditions of life within the ranks of the proletarians are more and more equalized, in proportion as machinery obliterates all distinctions of labor, and nearly everywhere reduces wages to the same low level. The growing competition among the bourgeois, and the resulting commercial crisis, make the wages of the workers even more fluctuating. The unceasing improvement of machinery, even more rapidly developing, makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between the two classes" (Marx 364).

Marx, Karl. "The Communist Manifesto."A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for the College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins. 2006. pp. 356 - 376.

The Central Human Functional Capabilities

Nassbaum defines the central human capabilities as:

• Life
• Bodily health and integrity
• Bodily health
• Senses , imagination, thought
• Emotions
• Practical reason
• Affiliation
• Other Species
• Play
• Control over one's environment, political and material

Nassbaum argues that "the capability, not actual functioning, should be the goal of public policy" (Nassbaum 214), she presents this list of capabilities rather than introducing them as actual functions. What does this mean? I've come to somewhat assume that she is stating what she believes every human being is entitled to in terms of basic human necessities in order to pursue a successful life. While overall I think I understood where she was coming from I somewhat got caught up in the wording of it all. It wasn't a difficult read, but it wasn't an easy one either. The terms "functioning" and "capability" were greatly used, dare I say overused. So perhaps it was my lack of generally understanding her main points or perhaps I really didn't get this one. Overall I had a difficult time with this reading and while her ideas that were presented were not difficult to understand in terms of reading, they were difficult to perceive and grasp in terms of the way in which they were written. One thing that really stood out to me about this reading was Nassbaum's use and reference to ideologies discussed and presented through the works of earlier authors we've read throughout the section on justice, one such as Rawls. She presents her similar beliefs by first laying the foundation using the previously mentioned author.


Nussbaum, Martha C. "The Central Human Functional Capabilities." A World of Ideas: Essential Reading for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins. 2006. pp. 213-221.

A Theory of Justice

In a nutshell Rawls viewed the"primary goods" that people in a society need as wealth, opportunity and power. "Among the essential features of this situation is that no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does any one know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like" (Rawls 200). To a certain extent, I was able to grasp the general concepts that Rawls was referring to in terms of justice and fairness. However, I did get caught up in the wording of the essay. I don't know if it was just me, but while I was somewhat understanding what he was saying, I found myself focusing more on the words than the ideas behind the words. This basically tells me that I have a hard time identifying with Rawls particular style of writing. While it's very straight to the point, it's still not entirely clear for me. One of the things that stood out to me the most about this reading was actually found in the introduction before the reading. Jacobus summarizes Rawls beliefs in terms justice/fairness for individuals versus society as a whole. "Above all, Rawls believed that justice must be fair and that the rights of the individual should never be sacrificed for the greater good of society. Personal freedom insofar as it did not impinge on the freedom of others was one of his most sacred values. Underlying all these ideas is the insistence that people are equal and should be treated equally" (Jacobus 196). When I read this all I could say was "WOW!" This was so astonishing to me, because all one ever hears about justice and fairness is in terms of the greater good. In other words whats best for society as a whole and not the individuals themselves. Yes, this was definitely a shock to read.

Jacobus, Lee A. A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins. 2006. pp. 195-198.

Rawls, John. "A Theory of Justice." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins. 2006. pp. 199-204.

Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions

In reading the "Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions" I was shocked. It's difficult to imagine a world where women are viewed and treated as the women mentioned in this passage. Stanton outlines the injustices that existed for women during her time period. In a sense, such injustices that existed back then, are today taken for granted by women. For instance, the ability to own vote. Everyone in this day and age is entitled to the right to vote. However during the mid-1800's it was unthinkable to permit a woman to vote. "He has compelled her to submit to laws, in the formation of which she had no voice" (Stanton 165). I found it even more degrading that a woman was permitted to work, but she had to give her earning to her husband, "he has taken from her all right in property, even to the wages she earns" (Stanton 165). The quote "he has made her, if married, in the eye of the law, civilly dead" (Stanton 165), made me question whether or not it was better to be married or single during this time period. Either way, one can easily see that women were not valued or respected. As a woman, you had no rights. You were the property of your father until you began the property of your husband. Even then, your father had to pay your husband for you possession. A woman was regarded as an appendage for the everyday man. A woman was inferior, plain and simple. This truly signifies the ignorance that existed for the women of the 19th century. This declaration was the first step in advocating for the equal rights of women everywhere. I wonder where would we be as women today if this declaration was never written?

Stanton, Elizabeth Cady. "Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins. 2006. pp 164-168.

Letter from Birmingham Jail

This was a very long letter. But as Dr. King stated, the letter was written by him while he was imprisoned in a Birmingham jail after being arrested during a peaceful protest. I would like to address King's disappointment in the white churches of the South. While countless injustices continued to exist within the south after the judicial rulings of the Supreme Court in regards to segregation, Negroes of the south felt that change was incumbent on the actions of themselves. No longer could or would they wait to seek justice within the legal system. It was through Dr. King's peaceful protests that African Americans were able to express their beliefs to the injustices that they were being exposed to. These protests, while ultimately non-violent in regards to the actions of the protesters, were see as a threat to the southern way of life in which whites had become accustomed to. It was during these protests that innocent, non-violent protesters were subjected to the brutality of the opposing public and political forces of the south. It was in the churches lack of advocacy in promoting what was deemed as morally just, that Dr. King was greatly disappointed in. Dr. King felt as though the representatives of the church community, white, black, green or blue, would be the Negro community's strongest allies. Instead, he felt as if the church was their opponent in the struggle towards equality. "I felt that the white ministers, priests, and rabbis of the South would be among our strongest allies. Instead, some have been outright opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement and misrepresenting its leaders; all too many others have been more cautious and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained-glass windows" (King 185-186). Dr. King felt as if his solidarity laid within the fundamental belief system of the church and by not receiving their full support, he was disappointed.

King, Martin Luther. "Letter from Birmingham Jail." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers." Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins. 2006. pp 173-189.

Civil Disobedience

While I somewhat understood the general idea that Thoreau was trying to get across, I kind of got lost in the wording. I had to re-read each paragraph just about and for some of them I'm still a bit hazy on what it's exact meaning was. I extracted what I thought he meant or was trying to get across, however I seriously question whether or not I was correct in doing so. In examining how Thoreau dealt with unjust laws, paragraph 16 stuck out the most to me. "Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that if they should resist the remedy would be worse than the evil. It makes it worse" (Thoreau 144). This paragraph identified the act of knowing the extent of the unfairness that existed within the law, and examined mans ability and willingness to do something about it. Paragraph 18 then goes on to say "if the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go: perchance it will wear smooth - certainly the machine will wear out. If the injustice has a spring or a pulley or a rope or a crank exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then I say break the law. let you life be a counter friction to stop the machine. What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn" (Thoreau 145). From this quote, I inferred Thoreau believed that the best way to enforce or incorporate change in the legal system was in directly doing so himself. In actively disobeying the law, or in Thoreau's case, doing what he felt was just, he believed he made a difference. By not going along with the flow, he became the counter friction to stop the machine.

Thoreau, Henry David. "Civil Disobedience." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins. 2006. pp. 137-157.

The Separation of Church and State

According to Carter the First Amendment protects religion from the state and not vise versa. "The metaphorical separation of church and state originated in an effort to protect religion from the state, not the state from religion" (Carter 103). This can be seen throughout America today. I'm not exactly sure when and where, but there once was a time in America where individuals were trying to enforce prayer in public school. This is wrong for a number of reasons. For one, not everyone practices the same religions or share the same religious beliefs. Another thing the First Amendment protects the public from is the possibility of being persecuted for practicing your religion. As Americans we have a plethora of different cultures and belief systems, so it would be unimaginable, even though it's happened throughout our history, that an individual would be reprimanded and discriminated against for practicing the religion of their choice. Carter states that "the government should neither force people into sectarian religious observances, such as classroom prayer in public schools, nor favor some religious over others, as by erecting a creche paid for with public funds, not punish peoples for their religiosity without very strong reason other than prejudice" (Carter 103). I believe that this is the reason for the First Amendment, to protect the religious rights of the public from the government. However one has to ask themselves how far is too far? Carter gives an example from his home town. He states that "The town of Hamden, Connecticut, where I live, briefly ruled that a church group could not rent an empty schoolhouse for services" (Carter, 105). This decision was said to have been made as a defense of as required by the separation of church and state. Was this decision correct? In my opinion, of course not. I don't see the harm in renting an empty space that just so happened to have once served as a school building. This in no way violates the First Amendment, at least in my eyes.

Carter, Stephen L. "The Separation of Church and State" A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers." Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins. 2006. pp.22-31

Total Domination

I believe that there is not a single adult in the world today that has never heard of the Holocaust. When first learning about it myself, I was disgusted. First, I thought I was being lied to. Why? At the age I was at the time and even now I still find it unfathomable that any human being could subject another human being to the torment, humiliation and injustice that the Jewish people were subjected to during the Holocaust. I am convinced now that the horrible things that I was told and read about actually happened to these innocent people. Even today, as an African American, I have been discriminated against simply because of my race. And the ideology that someone can create such an enormous lie based off of racial superiority and forever change the history of an entire race for the worst is extremely scary, especially being a minority. When reading this, I was kinda scared by something Hitler stated "to be successful, a lie must be enormous" (Arendt 91). In a sense, I took that as meaning if someone were to come up with a lie that was so big, no matted how outrageous, it could be accomplished simply because out of fear no one would question it. And for me, that explains the role of terror in a totalitarian state. Not enough people came to question what was happening and why.
And this was understandable during the particular time that these events happened, but at the same time just knowing that this happened leaves my mind in awe because if it happened once, whose to say it can't happen again. Have we really evolved as a a human race to value every human life as if it were our own? No!

Arendt, Hannah. "Total Domination." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins. 2006. pp. 88-96.

Machiavelli: The Qualities of the Prince

According to Machiavelli it is better for a prince to be feared. I find his thoughts about the particular subject kind of disturbing but ultimately true. While the idea of being loved and respected would be great for any governing person to have, I believe that there would be limited respect and that would definitely lead to misfortune on behalf of the governing individual. Machiavelli gives multiple examples of how an individuals compassion can ultimately lead to the downfall of the common good. In the destruction of Pistoia, the Florentine people's primary goal was to avoid being cruel to it's people and this ultimately lead to the destruction of Pistoria. Macheavelli states "with a very few examples of cruelty he will be more compassionate than those who, out of excessive mercy, permit disorders to continue, from which arise murders and plundering; for these usually harm the community at large, while the executions that come from the prince harm one individual in particular" (Macheavelli 43). As harsh as this may sound, I agree. Sometimes being nice isn't always the answer because there a lot of people that take your kindness for weakness. Therefore as Macheavelli puts it "one should like to be both one and the other; but since it is difficult to join them together, it is much safer to be feared than to be loved when one of the two must be lacking" (Macheavelli 44). While the idea of ruling through fear seems like something from out of the dark ages, I have a certain level of respect for it simply because I know that as a ruler there must be limitations as to what one is willing to tolerate. Being known as a compassionate ruler, while would be great, I don't think they would be able to maintain their empire. I feel that their compassion would ultimately lead to their downfall.

Machiavelli. "The Qualities of the Prince." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins. 2006. pp.37-50.

Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching

While somewhat an easy read, I found this reading rather difficult to wrap my brain around. The structure of and the vocabulary in the article were rather simple, however it's contents were not, this made for a much more difficult reading than expected. I found that the most profound thing that jumped off the pages at me was the actions, or should I say non-actions, of the "Master." Lao-Tzu strategically voices his beliefs towards moderating the government's active roles in society. It was his belief that the government should not do anything. However if the government had to intercede then it should be at a minimum and in a manner in which it was inconspicuous. Lao-Tzu uses "The Master" as an active figure throughout the article. It is through The Master that Lao-Tsu is able to further stress his beliefs in a government for the people, with a significant emphasis on "the people." Lao-Tzu makes it known that The Master is always there, always aware of the situation and always available to lend assistance. However, The Master does just the opposite. The Master acts without actually doing anything physically. Through the various examples in the text, The Master is there, "emptying people's minds and filling their cores" (Lao-Tzu 22), while governing "the people are hardly aware that he exists" (Lao-Tzu 22), and he travels all day without leaving home (Lao-Tzu 23). All of these examples show that while there is a governing presence, his actual involvement is at a minimum. The Master is there acting as a sort of spiritual force behind the scenes, no necessarily always a physically active hand of the government. Lao-Tzu used the Master to show that while there should be a governing presence available at all times to the public, it should not be necessary. The Master, while if needed would step in, was still only present at a minimum.

The more I write the more I find myself questioning my understanding of the article. I kind of feel like I'm "writing in circles." I definitely saw a connection between Lao-Tzu's belief in moderating the government's involvement in everyday life and I believe he used the Master to help shape his argument.

Lao-Tuz. "Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching." A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A Jacobson. Trans. Stephen Mitchell. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins. 2006 pp 22-31.