Women In America- The Scarlet Letter

In America, the status and role of women in our society has changed multiple times. While women were once only viewed as maids, children bearers, and basically to put it bluntly, objects, today things are much different. Women today can vote, own property, have a job, as well as share the responsibility of a family with another individual. I simply cannot imagine my life if I had to live how many women lived their lives in early America. In an excerpt from The Scarlet Letter beginning on page 246, it states that men should only consider certain women when they are looking for a future spouse. Things such as chastity, sobriety, cleanliness, and beauty are all things that an 1831 article suggested a man look for in a woman that he intends on marrying. This totally struck me as hilarious because nowhere in this suggestion does it mention what a woman should look for in a man or if a woman’s feelings even truly matter. This reinforces the idea that women were once simply known as objects. Luckily, women today are viewed as equal to men and there are rarely significant differences in status between the sexes. The old America was filled with double standards and while there are still instances of this issue, our society seems to be better off today.
    It seems so hard to believe that America has changed so much in only a matter of years. Another excerpt from the book details the idea that women that cheat on their spouses are to be considered prostitutes and just down right filthy. They reason that this idea is acceptable because they believe women are supposed to be the fairer and therefore more delicate sex. Nowhere in this explanation do they mention the idea that men shall be deemed disgusting if they cheat on their wives. This excerpt is a total double standard. It is absolutely ridiculous to believe that a man is not as much at fault for cheating on his wife.
    The last excerpt that I discovered to be rather obnoxious was written in 1765 by a man by the name of William Blackstone. It states that by marriage, the husband and wife become legally one person. The very being and legal existence of the woman is said to have been suspended during the marriage and therefore consolidated to the husband completely. Personally, this statement makes me believe that these men only viewed women as a piece of their property. They basically became owners of their wives under this law, which probably made the men extremely happy and the women rather unhappy. Women are not pieces of property and luckily America gradually became more intelligent about equality. Men and women of America are now considered equal and while I believe it should have always been this way, I just like to remember the idea of better late, than never.     

Adultery in America- The Scarlet Letter

    Throughout the history of America, adultery has always been a generally debatable subject. While the settlers of America found adultery to be an act that required for the persons’ involved to be physically punished and sometimes even killed, Americans today view adultery in a much different light. Most people still agree that adultery is a rather horrible act to commit, but nowadays, it is not at all illegal. There are no strict laws prohibiting this act and people who commit adultery no longer have to fear for their lives. Unless of course, you are Tiger Woods and your wife (allegedly) chases you down with a golf club and beats you senseless after she finds out about all the women you have been with. In such a case like this, you may have to start fearing for your life. But for the massive number of Americans who choose to commit adultery today, there are really no severe consequences for their actions. While I personally find adultery to be truly repulsive and insensitive, I do not believe our government should be entitled to punish the offenders.
    In the text referring to adultery beginning on page 241 of The Scarlet Letter, it states that  many of America’s original colonies had strict laws prohibiting adultery. The Massachusetts Bay colony established their adultery law on October 18th,1631 and it proclaimed that if any man fornicates with another man’s wife, he shall be punished by death. Many other colonies followed suit and established laws that required offenders to be beaten and sometimes killed. They also required the adultery participants to be publicly ridiculed for their actions that they believed greatly dishonored God.
    While I do understand that times were very different back when America was initially established, I find it so incredible that adultery, which was once something so taboo, is now only frowned upon. In our society today, people commit adultery all the time. The media tells us daily of new tales of adultery that were committed by celebrities and even political workers. While these people technically do receive some sort of public ridicule, they do not receive much more than that. Our government is no longer involved in these affairs and I believe that this is the way that it should be. If somebody decides to engage in a sinful act, then I believe it should be up to them. They will be the one’s who have to live with a guilty conscious and personally I find that to be punishment enough.  

Response to, "Death and Justice"

      In our society the death penalty has always been and always will be a debatable subject. In the short essay, “Death and Justice”, which can be found on page 534 of The Prentice Hall Guide for College Writers, the author, Edward I. Koch, discusses his view on this truly touchy subject. He has worked in the public service industry for a large number of years and over those years he has heard the many differing opinions on the capital punishment controversy. While he has heard positive and negative things about the death penalty, he personally is in favor of capital punishment. To illustrate why he is in favor of the death penalty he discusses seven reasons why people tend to find the death penalty unfair. The first reason why people tend to find the death penalty unfair and wrong is because they consider the death penalty “barbaric”. While some may find it a barbaric practice, it tends to be one that is done as humanely as possible. Another reason why people dislike the death penalty is because America is currently the only major democracy that uses the death penalty. Also, people like to question what would happen if an innocent person was accidentally convicted and then put to death. Mistaken identity cases have happened before and without a true confession there seems to always be an element of doubt. Along with this doubt comes the idea that the death penalty actually cheapens the value of human life. If the government is so willing to put these convicts to death, won’t the value of life be lessened? The last three issues that many people have with the death penalty is that it is applied in a discriminatory manner, the bible is against it (Thou shalt not kill), and the fact that the death penalty is basically state-sanctioned murder. While these ideas are all very interesting, the author discusses his main reasons why all of these reasons lack real substance. He explains that the death penalty is only given to those who truly deserve it. If there was no death penalty how would these criminals know there is the harshest form of punishment waiting for them if they take the life of someone else.
    While some may call the author’s opinion hypocritical and the wrong way to think, I personally agree whole heartedly with him. If someone decides to take the life of an innocent individual I believe that the government is totally right to take their life from them. While this may be considered an “eye for an eye” type of way to look at it, I believe it’s perfectly acceptable. If there was no death penalty wouldn’t this give criminals the okay to do as they please? There truly would be nothing stopping them other than the fact that they have to spend their life in jail. For all I know, these people wouldn’t mind spending their life in jail. I always think of it like this, if someone killed someone that I loved, I would want them to be killed as punishment. While some believe an “eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”, I would rather have the whole world be blind than have these disgusting criminals literally getting away with murder.  

Response to, "One Thing to Do About Food"

    For the millions of Americans who are always on the go, fast-food is typically the easiest way for them to catch a bite to eat. While this food may be convenient and easy on the wallet, it is rarely very healthy. In one of the responses from the essay, “One Thing to Do About Food”, which can be found in The Prentice Hall Guide for College Writers, the author, Eric Schlosser, discusses the hidden dangers of the fast-food, as well as processed foods. He stresses the idea that looks may indeed be deceiving, especially when it comes to the food that we eat. He claims that numerous nameable fast-food and also processed food chains use advertising that truly is not realistic. Skinny and attractive people who seem to be having fun have been known to sell these cheaply made and nutritionally disturbing items. He also explains that Americans tend to buy things without really doing their research on the products. In 2005, the United States House passed The National Uniformity for Food Act of 2005. This act seemed to be a prime example of how food companies prefer to keep their consumers in the dark about what they are really selling. The author explained that if the Senate followed up on passing this act into a law, states would be prevented from having food safety or labeling requirements stricter than those of the federal government. State created laws that help keep people informed about what exactly is included in their favorite foods would all be virtually unheard of. Obviously this is all very troubling information. The author urges people to do more research about the foods that they buy before they buy them.
    I found this essay to be rather interesting. Truthfully I rarely do my own research about what is really in the food products that I eat. I guess you could say that I have always thought that our government would create restrictions on food companies so that they wouldn’t be able to sell their products without a warning. Obviously I am just too trusting and would prefer to have someone else do all the research about such things, rather than having to do it all myself. Besides the fact that I don’t have the time to research every food item that I decide to eat, even if I did research the ingredients that are included, I probably wouldn’t know what to do with the information. How am I going to distinguish whether an ingredient that is included is harmful or harmless without doing even more research. There comes a point where it just seems like a never ending cycle and this should not be the case. Bottom line is that our government should be looking out for the welfare of the citizens of our country and we should expect nothing less than the absolute best in information about these types of issues.        

Response to, "My Friend Michelle, an Alcoholic"

    In America, the legal alcohol drinking age for citizens is twenty-one, and although this is the law, many teenagers choose to illegally ingest these beverages. In the student essay, “My Friend Michelle, an Alcoholic”, which can be found on page 338 of The Prentice Hall Guide for College Writers, the author, Bridgid Stone, discusses the problems her friend had with alcohol. Although the author never directly stated if her friend was of the legal drinking age, she does inform us that they are both college students. The author then delves deeply into the many instances where alcohol became a problematic substance in her friend Michelle’s life. For instance, Michelle constantly announces her want to go out and get drunk and even does so to the point that it makes her miss her classes. When she goes out and partakes in these parties she gets so drunk that she will, without a doubt, have to be carried back to her dorm room, where she will most likely get sick. When the author finally confronts her about her drinking issues, Michelle swiftly brushes off her concerns and questions whether she should finally go to class, or go out and get drunk again. Sadly, Michelle chooses to go out and get drunk, rather than attend her classes, which seems to be the breaking point for the author. The author decides at that point to move out of their shared dorm and doesn’t see Michelle as frequently. When the author does see Michelle, she learns of the new consequences that she is facing due to her drinking, and unfortunately Michelle seems to have no regrets.
    Personally, I do not party and really don’t have a want to do it. I do, however, know of people who choose this type of lifestyle. While I cannot scorn them for doing it, because it’s their life and not mine, I do hope that they don’t become as out of control as the author’s friend, Michelle, did. Alcohol may seem like no big deal to some people, but what they may not realize is that you can become addicted to it. Once someone is addicted they may actually be considered an alcoholic, and they would require some serious help to overcome their issues. While people choose to drink alcohol for several reasons, I just do not see the need for it. Why can’t you have fun and be sober while doing it? Why do people believe all their life problems will be solved if they choose to drink? Truthfully, I believe there are a lot of misconceptions about alcohol and it really can be dangerous to a person. I can only hope that more people will read Bridgid Stone’s important essay and will realize the dangers of alcohol and partying.

Response to, "Do Americans Really Want Jobs?"

    Illegal immigration in America has always been a hot topic of debate and it surely will remain this way for many years to come. In the short essay, “Do Americans Really Want Jobs?”, which can be found on page 547 of The Prentice Hall Guide for College Writers, the author, Ruben Navarrette, Jr., delves into the topic of illegal immigration and the effects it has on the American industry. The author believes that many people are misinformed on the topic and tries to explain many of the misconceptions. Firstly, the author believes that there is a big lie hidden in the illegal immigration debate. This lie is that Americans would be happy to do jobs that illegal immigrants are currently doing, but only if the wages were higher. He believes that while this may be true in some cases, generally Americans are lazy and would rather work less physical jobs that provide them with good benefits, as well as a large sum of money. Obviously there are jobs out there that may not be the most “glamorous”, but they do need to get done. The author then discusses cases involving several meat-processing companies. Supposedly, these companies were more prone to hiring illegal immigrants rather than Americans because they would work for smaller wages and didn’t complain as much. After delving deeper into these issues, the author then ends his essay by saying while he doesn’t condone the hiring of illegal immigrants over Americans, he is beginning to understand the concept more.
    After reading this essay, I was shocked. While I knew that illegal immigration has been a big problem in the United States for many years, I didn’t know of these specific consequences that we are facing due to not enforcing stricter rules on illegal immigration. It’s horrifying to think that an American would not receive a job in their own country, where they legally reside, just because there is a bad rap for some Americans and their work ethic. This practice is totally unfair and stricter actions should be taken on those companies who choose to hire people who illegally reside here. I truthfully can see why a company might be drawn to hiring someone who doesn’t complain a lot and who will work for less money, but that doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do. In my opinion, unless you are a legal resident of the United States, you should not even be given a chance to get a job in America. Some people may call my philosophy harsh, but these immigrants are taking part in an illegal situation, and until they come to our country legally, there is no excuse for them.
    While I do understand that some Americans may have poor work ethic, the author should not put us all in this unfair category. I know of many people who may not enjoy working, but they push through this to do the best work that they can do. They don’t sit around complaining and they surely do not ask for constant vacations of pay raises. Many Americans even take pride in their work, although I am not sure the author of this essay could even understand this concept. I can quite obviously agree with the author when he suggests he is learning more about this topic, but does not condone it. I do not condone illegal immigration and I surely do not agree with hiring illegal immigrants over American citizens. If we do not take action against this practice now, when and where will the line ever be drawn?           

Response to, "I'm O.K., but You're Not"

    Our world is inhabited by billions of people who have billions of differing opinions. While in most situations there is rarely a right or wrong answer, many people enjoy believing that everything they do and say is the only way to view a situation. In the essay, “I’m O.K., but You’re Not”, which can be found on page 31 of The Prentice Hall Guide for College Writers, the author Robert Zoellner discusses his experience at a restaurant with a very hypocritical couple. Robert Zoellner admits to smoking three to four packs of cigarettes a day and has done so for about 40 years of his life, so when he arrives at a restaurant, he knows he will be sitting in the smoking section. He is seated at a table that is literally five feet away from a table in the non-smoking section, but since he is technically in the smoking section, he decides to light up a “breakfast” cigarette. Soon, a well-dressed couple walks into the restaurant and chooses to eat their meal in the non-smoking section. Basically a minute after they are seated, they clearly become annoyed with Robert’s smoking habit. Robert is quickly asked by the man to stop smoking immediately, which leads Robert to point out that he is technically not doing anything wrong because he asked to be placed in the smoking section. The couple, visibly annoyed, eat their meals quickly and quietly and then leave the restaurant to go jump into their gas guzzling vehicle. In the vehicle are two poodles who clearly were in need of a “potty break”. The dogs do their “business” on the restaurant’s lawn, and without picking up the waste, the couple gets back into their car and drive away. Robert watches the whole escapade and finds them completely hypocritical. They had asked him to stop doing something that they found gross, while they didn’t have to stop doing things that he found gross.
    I found this story to be one that I believe many people can relate to. When people feel so strongly about something, they take comfort in believing that they are right and people with opinions different than theirs are wrong. This obviously should not be the case, but as they say, ignorance is bliss. While many people enjoy living their lives in an ignorant state, there are also people out there who are open minded. Personally, while I do have strong opinions, I find it interesting to listen and process through others opinions as well. I believe it can be helpful to hear others opinions because it can either help me validate my opinion more, or slightly alter it. Either way, I don’t feel the need to penalize others for having different opinions than me. After all, opinions are important in creating diversity.
    In conclusion, I really enjoyed reading this particular essay because it made me remember that there are people out there who lead ignorant lives. While I do also believe smoking is disgusting and I would probably have been offended by the smoke in the restaurant, I would not have singled out the smoker. Sure it would be annoying, but I am aware that I do things that annoy people as well. It’s all about remembering that we live in a free country where we can choose to live our lives how we want to. So while the non-smokers found Robert’s actions rude and gross, they are in the wrong when they ask him to stop. In situations like this, we need to step back and take a moment to think it over. We need to realize that we are only in control of ourselves, and nobody else. The mentality that “what I do is perfectly okay, but what you do is perfectly awful”, is not correct, but rather very ignorant, and until that mentality is changed, the world will continue to clash on the rights and wrongs of societies.