A couple weeks ago I saw a movie called “Pink” on Netflix and I began to think about how it tied back to our discussions in class. In this movie, three girls go out for a night of fun and encounter a group of men who invite them to their hotel for a couple drinks. The opening scene of the movie shows the three girls on a cab ride home looking horrified, and the silence that consumed the atmosphere was almost chilling. Throughout the movie the events that occurred that night are revealed in pieces. All the while the men are trying to get revenge, because one of the ladies attacked one of the them. The guy who was injured had to go to the hospital and got a bandage over his eye. He was from a well connected family and had a lot of resources, while the girls were middle class, average-working girls. The men felt embarrassed that one of them was attacked by a female, and so they set out to destroy their lives by making sure they lost their jobs, kicked out of their apartment, and shamed in public. The girls try to go to the police and reveal the men groped them and attempted to rape them the night they were all together. Because the men are so well connected the police disregards the accusations posed by the women and instead arrest one of them for attacking and injuring one of the men.

One thing that struck me about the movie at this point was how easy the men set their minds to destroy the lives of the three ladies. It was almost as if they didn’t even stop and think that maybe they were in the wrong. Another thing that struck me was that the police officer in  charge of handling the accusations from both parties was female, and yet in my eyes even she couldn’t be trusted. As the movie unfolds, it seems that everyone refuses to help the woman, and no lawyer is willing to represent them in court due to the accusations the men have told about them. A neighbor in the community, who happens to be a retired lawyer, comes out of retirement to help the ladies out. He points out in many occasions how society has let woman down, and how the word of a man with good connections and a deep pocket has more importance than that of a victimized woman.

One work that has reminded me of this is “The Rights of Woman” by Olympe de Gouges. Even though the movie is set in present day India and targets the flaws of Indian society and government, Gouges basically does the same thing by modifying the “Declaration to the Rights of Man and of the Citizen”, which was written in France in 1789. This year seems so distant yet the basic problems that arose in France at the time seem prevalent in our day and age. Gouges does a good job at pointing out that woman are completely disregarded in the previous declaration, and that they have rights just as much as men do. Gouges believes in a world where both men and woman would receive the same punishment for the same crime, without taking the sex of the criminal into account. She believes woman should be a part of the good and bad aspects of society, just like men are. Gouges also briefly advocates for other underrepresented minorities in French society such as children, the elderly, and people of other races/religions.

As I watched this movie, it was a cold reminder that woman still aren’t equal to men, no matter how much we would like to believe so. We do have a right to vote, and freedom of speech, and other constitutional rights that men have. But yet somehow we are caged in. In other societies as well as the American society, things like rape and feminine problems seem minuscule and unimportant, and are branded as taboo. Recently, and especially under our new administration, things like birth control and abortion are up in the air. There aren’t as many woman in politics as men, yet it seems like these kinds of decisions about a woman’s body are being made for her. There are still certain things woman have to fight for in society, even though we have come a long way. Gouges set a good example for woman and how they should express their need for equality, and the movie “Pink”was a good reminder that even though it’s the 21st century, we still have ways to go.

George’s relationship to his fiance Frieda is a very open relationship, where George seems to be very honest about what he does. Their relationship also doesn’t show the complications of being engaged with someone, but rather seem quite into each other. The fact that he is marrying a girl from a well-to-do family shows that class is still somewhat relevant in this situation. George also has a very peculiar relationship with his pen pal. In comparison to George, the pen pal seems to lead an unsatisfactory life, and the way George talks about him makes it seem like he enjoys gloating about his successes, even though he claims he doesn’t. George constantly compares the success of his business and home to the failure of the friend, whose business is barely afloat and who prefers to lead the bachelor life, most likely not by choice. The friend threatens the foundation of Freida and George’s relationship, because he represents everything that George isn’t. Freida perceives this relationship between these 2 men as weird, because they are complete opposites, and the way it is described seems like George only writes to this friend out of pity. The friend also represents failure and the bachelor lifestyle, which Frieda believes is a reason this friendship shouldn’t exist, especially when George is engaged. She believes an engaged man shouldn’t associate himself with people like the friend, and says she is offended that not only the friendship exists, but that George is always honest with the friend with everything but their engagement, and that they are both at fault.. George also explains that he refuses to change for the improvement of the friendship, and that the fact that they are complete opposites doesn’t mean he has to stoop to the friends level.

For my group presentation, we presented on the Navajo Ceremony Night Chant. We discussed how this chant is a way that the Navajo community has a relationship with nature, and that it can be tied to romanticism because they always turn to nature in times of desperation and healing. We also mentioned how many components of the ceremony are temporary, such as the sand paintings on the floor, the ceremony itself which only lasts 9 days, and fact that no photography is allowed at these ceremonies. The photography represents a danger to the nature of this ceremony since taking a picture would freeze the Navajo in some sense, disrupting the flow of the ceremony and their relationship with nature.

The English and German Folktales on the other hand tell stories of young woman who must lie and plot their way to the top. The female protagonist is usually portrayed as the typical “damsel in distress” and waits for her luck to change by meeting a young man, usually someone of higher status. The difference in social class is evident through the dialect the characters use, showing some are more educated than others.

Both of these texts also seem to have a different version of beauty. In the Navajo texts, beauty represents the ideal healthy state of a human being, while the folktales perceive beauty as something physical, representing youth and attractiveness. The folktales also incorporate magic of some sorts, through wishing or doing favors for someone in return for something. An example of this is when the 3 “ugly” women spin yarn for the girl so she can marry the prince. The deceitfulness and trickery is not something the Navajo community would agree with, and they would definitely not perceive that as a source of beauty or nature. It would seem rather unnatural to them.

Shelley’s take on poetry and it’s ultimate task is to revive and reanimate the past, but in a beautiful light. According to Shelley, “Poetry thus makes immortal all that is best and most beautiful in the world”. She also adds on by saying ” Poetry redeems from decay the visitations of the divinity of man.” Shelley believes that poetry is where the past resides and that it is a “universal sense” which can transfer the emotions and experiences in a poem into a person.  Shelley also states that “It is impossible to read the compositions of the most celebrated writers of the present day without being startled with the electric life which burns within their words.” Her description of the experience of reading such poetry proves the high level of regard and admiration she has towards poetry.

In regards to the state of  a post-revolution society, Shelley believes that poets and contemporaries alike will live on in the society even after the time of war/conflict has resided. It is these voices that will live on, and hold true power in times of revolution. She claims that “the most unfailing herald, companion, and follower of the awakening of a great people to work a beneficial change in opinion or institution, is Poetry.” She states that during times of revolution, the messages said through poetry and written works grows and accumulates.

Shelley ends her defense on poetry in a good note, arguing that ” Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world.” One thing to point out about Shelley’s defense of poetry is that she never fails to capitalize the first letter of words such as poetry, power, and world, even if they aren’t beginning off a sentence. It clearly demonstrates the importance of these words and how poetry is a true influence in times of revolution, among many things.

Descartes core ideology and purpose is the truth and nothing but the truth. It is constantly brought up that he seeks the truth and wishes to distance himself from the act of jumping to conclusions. He describes four laws as a method to abandon previous opinions entirely. The first law is to not accept anything as true unless evident in order to avoid prejudice. The other laws are to break down problems for an easier analysis, begin studying subjects that are very simple and then move forward to more complex ones, and to be wary of progress and to review it to make sure nothing has been left out.

Descartes way of thinking may be effective if you are seeking the plain truth, but it gives little to no room for imagination or creativity. There isn’t much flexibility with his straight forward way of thinking. Just because something isn’t evident or in your face doesn’t mean that it’s not real or true. The one thing I can agree on is the fact that Descartes makes a clear division of mind and body. Ultimately, he believes that the mind is who we are and what we are meant to be. In my opinion, this distinction should be implemented by everyone daily. Your mind is the core center of who you are, where as physicality is redundant in comparison.  I also found it very interesting how Descartes sees himself as almost god-like towards the end when he describes and reflects upon his previous doubts. This work overall highlights the importance of questioning what you learn, what you are told, and inclusively your own beliefs, In other words, doubt is something you should always have on your mind, and you should go outside the box a bit instead of sticking to norms.