Battle of the Sexes

I think that the paper by Deborah Tannen was a very interesting perspective on how men/women arguments are seen by a woman.  I do agree with most everything she said when it came to what women argue about and how different it is than what men will argue about. Tannen says "complaints from women about their husbands most often focused not on tangible inequities.....instead, they focused on communication." "He doesn't listen to me" and "He doesn't talk to me" are quotes that I feel are associated with what women think of their husbands.  Rather that men thinking what she "Doesn't do for me" is what they feel they should argue about.  I do not think that one is "better" or "worse" than the other, just different ways of thinking.  
I think that most people have had someone of the opposite sex to argue with and know what their opinion is and how it was affects them and the way they go about bringing up or talking about certain sensitive topics.  The way couples talk about these subjects and how certain topics maybe should not even be brought up is a very important part of being in a marriage of any time of relationship.

Week 6 Blog Reviews

Amara:  I enjoyed looking around your blog and getting to know you from your about me section.  I think that Erin Brockovich is a very good choice for the "Real Wild Woman" because of the way she portrays herself to the viewers. She goes around and uses her sexuality to convince men to agree with her and help her get ahead in her job.  A part that I do not agree with is where you says that she is nurturing and that is a standard attribute of womanhood. I think that she does not follow the role of nurturing by the way she presents herself more than half of her daily life. 

The effect of technology on family has been just as big as capitalism and has changed almost everything in every day life.  I feel that your example of families not communicating effectively or distancing themselves from each other is a very real and scary thing that can happen and is happening today.  I also agree that social network sites have changed ways to communicate and keep up with people without interacting or ever seeing them.   

Hilary:  I like how your blog is set up and easy to read and very colorful. I have never seen the movie Heartbreakers so do not know how the women are portrayed but the way you describe them it does seem to fit the article very well.  Your quotes fit what you were trying to portray very well and gave a good incite to what you are trying to portray.

I think your article about "Capitalism and Gay Identity" was well written but could have been longer with more ideas.  I did like your point about how adopting can solve the issues of not having enough children to fill jobs and keep the economy going because more people are able to express the homosexuality. I think that this is a difficult topic to write about and I feel you went about it very well.

Real Wild Women

When I read the chapter about Real Wild Women/Wild Real Men the first movie/TV show to come to my mind was the Real Housewives of OC/Atlanta/New Jersey or any other city that hosts the show.  The show consists of usually five or six women who are "friends" and their families.  You get to watch them go through out their daily lives with all its ups and downs.  The show is full of drama and arguments that involves everything from family issues to who was or was not invited to their weekly parties.  This show and shows like these has, in my opinion, changed the way people watch television forever with the unreal "reality" storylines.  I feel that the show does put a positive light on women is some aspects, but at the same time the show is seen as a joke so it is not always a positive.  The question that I think every time I have seen the show is "is any press, good press?". Most of the women on the show are seen as dumb or fake which is not good "press" for women, but other women on these shows have charities that they are able to raise money for through the shows which is a very good thing. 

The quote that stood out from the reading was "the celebration of individual freedom and enterprise has simultaneously permitted a history of colonialist exploitation." When I am watch a movie or a TV show I rarely think of what ramifications could come from someone taking this movie to seriously.  I agree that freedom of speech is very important but it can be dangerous if not handled well.       

Week 4 Blog Reviews

Amber- I like the painting you picked it is very colorful with a lot of stuff going on around the main part of the picture. I like that you see a painting at you first reaction is to sing, I think that says a lot about the kind of person you are and lets the readers see how you are.  I like your description of the painting, it points out just about every important part that I saw.  I like the mother nature reference because that is exactly was I thought when I first looked at the painting.

April- The picture you chose is a very interesting one because I think there are many different ways to interpret it.  I think that your objective description is one of the best I read. You were able to step back and describe only what you saw and not what you thought very well.  I liked your interpretation of the picture to see what stood out to you because is was not what stood out to me. I always like to hear someones opinion when it is different than mine to see what they saw.

Mary-  The painting Frida and the Casarean Operation is one of the strangest that I have seen from Frida Kahlo.  I think you did a great job describing this painting because of how much is going on and how many different way it can be interpreted.  I like how your view of the painting was affected by the sad story of Frida Kahlo and how it brought a personal experience to you mind. I think that art is best when it makes you think and feel.      

Frida Kahlo

Kahlo, Frida. The Dream. 1940. Privite Collection. Frida Kahlo Foundation. Web 9 Sept. 2010. <http://www.frida-kahlo-foundation.org/The-Dream.html>

Objective Description
In the picture "The Dream" the you see a woman laying on a bed made of wood. Her head is on a white pillow and is covered with a yellow blanket. On top of the bed frame there is a skeleton with its head on two white pillows with flowers in its hands. There are cylinders that are strung together with wire covering its legs.  There are green leaves growing up the blanket toward the head of the woman and is starting to surround her. The bed is floating in the sky with clouds behind it. 

Impressionistic Description 
When I look at the picture the first part that catches my eye is the plant moving up the bed. It makes me thing of the dream creeping up into her mind and surrounding her body. It seems to be like while the the dream, "the plant" is covering her everything that surrounds her is part of the dream. Like while everything is there the dream is still protecting her.  The next part that I notice is the skeleton over her, which I took as death is near and over her. 

Writting Assignment Pg 165 #1

In the article "Thinking Machines, Take Two" Wright is talking about the question that seems to be talked about more and more, "Can machines think?".  I think that the thesis of the essay has to do with the consciousness of computers and how there are different ways of looking at the consciousness.  In the article Wright uses examples of other to argue both sides of this question. Kasparov's example of himself playing the computer in chess is one way where Wright uses another to argue one side. Kasparov is trying to tell of how himself playing and beating the computer in chess shows that humans are smarter than computers.  On the other side, there is Chalmers who argues that his machine cog can process data just like a human.  This side of the argument also can make sense to anyone reading by the way Chalmers tells of how this robot processes everything with the feeling of pain and can always make rational decisions. Wright goes on to tell of his opinion on the topic where he takes somewhere of a middle ground saying there is some level of consciousness with machines. I think the thesis of the paper is well described and well argued on both sides.

Week 3 Blog Reviews

Amber:  I agree with much of what you said about humans being smarter than computers since humans made computers. I think that there is a lot of things computers can do that is not even humanly possible. When you said that there is no way you can remember how exactly you felt in a situation weeks ago, I thought the exact same think when I was reading the article. So overall I think that there are many tasks that a computer can do that a human cant, the biggest difference is that computers would not be able to be around and function without humans.

April: I like how you break up your response in your blog. The first part you give a well written overview of what the writer was talking about. You then go on to analyze and give your opinion on what you read.  When you talk about humans being able to plan ahead I believe that computers can run through any situation ahead of time also so there is not a big drop off between the two in that situation.  

Mary: I like how in your blog you talked about personal experiences with computers. I think that everyone remembers the first time their family or someone they knew brought home their first computer so it is always interesting hearing about other people experiences.  I think that robots taking place of troops and saving many lives in war time appeal to millions of people who have lost loves ones during war time all over the world.

Class Discussion pg 136 #2

As Brook talks about in his writing, bigger does not always mean better. There are plenty of situations where small many not only be better but can only be small. For example, eye contacts have to be thin and small or else they would not fit on the eye.  A hearing aid is another example where technology is better as they got smaller.  A situation where all sizes can work is something like a plane used in war. Sure a big intimidating plane look cool but is an easier target to hit and is not as mobile. These large planes can not be a stealthy and go un-detected.  In nature, smaller can be better all throughout the food chain. For animals that are not carnivores in nature, it is better for them to be smaller so they can go unnoticed by predators.  Almost all predators go for the bigger slower prey rather than the smaller faster ones. A lion would much rather go for a fatter slower zebra with much more meat than the smaller faster rabbit.