Favorite essay.

I actually liked reading them all. They all had something new to explain and give expierences i have not heard of. The one i probli could say i liked the most was "Secrets and Anger" by David Mura. This is because i got the chance to read about how people react to certain questions and situations. Pshycology is a famous subject when dealing with emotions and people's behavior. I have not found a day when i have not been excited about the reaction a person has given to a question. "Secrets and Anger" tells the truth about if one should keep shut, or be liberal in their "freedom of expression" no matter what the consequence may be. I can emphasize on many occasions with argueing with myself on whether to give my opinion or to just ignore it. Although i like to hear what other people say i too like to give my explanation of things. Even if I can't change an individuals point of view, i sure as hell will make them take into consideration my thought on the subject. If i ask a question it's because im confused and am willing to hear the response and cope with it. Everyone has things they hide from certain people and tell to others. Thats when two-faced comes in. Subjects such as Religion and politics are fun to argue about. people get so emotional, and insecure that anything can be said to prove a point. This goes to show what true feelings are. Although the ending might not be enjoyable it's a thrill to push someone to their limits.

Choosing the essay

To me "on Being Cripple" by Nancy Mairs was the most difficult essay to write on. I don't have a cripple dissability. The essay from what i read through the perspective a a cripple has opened a new wide range of opinion and respect for cripple's. I don't know what it's like to not be able to use a hand or leg, and this makes it difficult for me to write on becuase i have not expierences there pain. I have on other hand lived with cripple's and have had to deal with them on many occasions. Even so, what they tell me, i can probli sympathize with maybe my hieght, or reach ability, but never can be compared to what they go threw. Never will i be abe to understand it completely unless something happens to me. (which i hope nothing happens at least not now)....
my left foot will eventually give out because of a stab i have in it. Till that day i will realize the struggle and advantages of being a cripple. By advantages i mean, people being nicer, more helpful. being able to get a parking up close without alot of hassel. But still then it will feel like it does not compare as to when (rite now) my foot is able to work on it own.Reading and hearing of handicapped people and their expierences has indeed invited me into their world, but im not part of it.

Homosexuality

Many people identify somone whose a homosexual as "fags," "gays," and "queers." Although they are inappropriate and rude many use them. There are many ways to tell if some are homosexual or straight. For lesbians and gays they like to put a rainbow on the back or any where of their car. Also on gay clubs you'll see a rainbow somewhere. Gays, as for males, are sually surrounded by women mainly because they feel comfortble around them. They care about their personnal hygine, as do metrosexuals, and like to dress preppy. I have many gay friends and they are all awesome to hang out with, not all, but some like to change there appearance, as do lesbians. some people get involved to much about what is right and what is not mainly because of religion. I can give a S*** its their life and if they feel a certain way about another gender so be it. Many gays try to hide the fact that they like the same sex. This is because of the pressure some people might impose on them. Being laughed at, treated differently, and even parents have rejected (mainly fathers) their kids for being gay. Certain voice patterns can be noticed similar between them. Hand gestures, just all that. It reflects on identity because of the struggle they go through... some on the other hand don't struggle at all. Some homosexuals are lucky and are filled with people who accept them for whom they are.

Tracing back to the Beginning

The women were not allowed to learn how to speak or write, none-the-less draw, or be artistic. The repression they went through was more of a slave if not they were slaves. Language is what one identifies themselves as. Language can be anything. not necessarily voice. Drawings, like the phrase "a picture is worth a thousand words" or also the things they wore which maybe they understood and can explain as part of their culture. Language can be gestures of all, hand movements, face nods or expressions, actual speech patterns, anything. But women were not allowed to express themselves therefore they were repressed of their language. Yes this is still present in many cultures. The Middle East for example women of Indian or Hindu descent are not allowed to show their body. Only their face if not their eyes can only be shown. In that sense they are repressed of there self expression. Wanting to wear certain clothes or jewelry. They must instead be kept hidden. As for other races I'm sure there is but for the time being i can only think of this one. Men also face repression of their language and identity. All the minority people men/women are diminished towards the government and tried to be kept hidden from the upper class society. Yes, indeed there is gender and racial expectations built into language. Mexican men are expected to be able to work in construction. Black women are expected to buy chicken. White men/women are expected to be rich and buy their way through life. These are expectations and stereotypes built into language.

The secrets behind race...

In Secrets and Anger Mura speaks of how Miss Saigon, was all white actors when the theme was in China. He argues about the difficulty it is to be a minority and his experiences with people about his race. I agree and i don't agree. I'm not as liberal as Muras' friends, Paula and Mark, but i do take into consideration both views. The fact that the movie was based for Asians and the actors who portrayed the part were white is a bit idiotic. It's like stealing someones idea and making it your own. If a movie was played in Mexico and there was only Hindu people as the main actors, that would be one huge controversy. For one, there are not many Middle Eastern people in Mexico and to make a movie about them there is completely weird. But then there is the view of Mura's friends... They were more liberal and viewed the movie as art. There is always arguments of how people cannot understand what it's like to live in a certain culture. In my opinion that's what they were trying to do. (maybe) Like trying to say that everyone is equal; and religion is all the same, anyone can act for any movie. What gets tricky is that not one Asian was able to play a role in the movie. At least have some diversity in the Protagonist or the people surrounding them. I'm not torn by this but a bit confused on the choice. I believe in order to avoid all this anyone should have been given he right to preform.

nancy maires

Nancy Mairs , a women who likes to be referred to as cripple, expands on the relationship between disability and identity. The examples Dolnick gave on how people seem to treat "disabled" people has to do with their identity. The outer appearance affects another's judgement and forces them to be kind, more aware of what a disabled might need. Mairs explained the ways language and disability interact with each other. The whole concept of whether what kind of disability a person has can affect language. The Mental disability makes it difficult for people to communicate with them. Then there is the physically challenged people who are completely the same as everyone else on a communication and intelligence level but are looked down upon because of their disability. Like I said, more people are aware and just watching out for what that person might need. And last there is the language on certain people can understand, the type of people where segregation can somehow be related into this. For instance, someone with a disability can emphasis with another who is also disabled. There really is no need for the whole, "I'm sorry" "I can't imagine what your going through." They can go straight to the "and ho did you learn to deal with the emotion" or such and such. It's a different type of language in my point of view.

Deafness is a Disablitiy

Deafness in my opinion is a disability. Dolnick's expansion of our definition somewhat does and does not integrate into someones identity. The way an individual can communicate is in a way a disability. Everyone around the world is not able to understand each other and can be considered a disability. At least to me it can be. There are certain things that are vital to a person in order to be considered disable. In my point of view not being able to hear is just as important as not being able to see, or move. The arguement where everyone at some point may see blury, or does not hear the words correctly is all proof that we are all disable. But some are more than others. Some people have to live with that disability all their life insteaf of just a couple times throughout their life. The way this can influence individual identity is by stratification. People eventually are place into groups of physical or mental features. The "normal" people, the "deaf", or "blind" people, even cripple's or handicapped individuals are all classified by society and therefore reflects on an identity. The way this can be argued is by explaining how either way, disabled or not, a person can live their life "normally." The cultural pre-conceptions about language are challenged by people who do not agree what they have is a disability and therefore do not want to find ways to make themselves more compatible to others. For example sign language, cued speech, or the cochlear in order to help "disables" getting around easier with standard "normal" person. Dolnick made an intersting arguement that can be considered and understood, so now instead i classify everyone (including me) disabled or normal. In the end we are all the same.