Dear Paige,

Dear Paige,

I was born in Renton, Washington. Even after I am dead two thousand years, the fact never changes: I was born in Renton, Washington. If someone were to tell you I was born in Kansas, you would simply need to check my birth certificate to discover the truth that I was in fact born in Renton, Washington.

            So you’re probably wondering, what this has to do with history, but let me explain. History has to at least sometimes be accurate because people have lived and people have recorded it. If I write in my journal “4:16 PM on Monday, May 2, 2011 I am typing on my computer.” That is a fact! Regardless of what others say that fact never changes. Yes, it is true people have different perspectives, such as, witnesses dealing with a car accident. But there is an absolute truth and often times different pieces of different people’s story fit together in order to make the most complete truth. This is not to show that history is inaccurate, but rather that you must check your sources and research information.

            Do you believe the Holocaust took place? That most certainly was not only recorded by “the winners.” But if you compare many different people’s stories and talk to witnesses and view photographs it is extremely evident it did in fact occur—both from interviews with Nazis as well as Jews.

            It can be hard to always believe what happened in the past since we cannot directly talk to people, but comparing documents and researching discoveries, the truth is going to prevail. Look at the Bible. Four different men with very different occupations recorded the life of Christ: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Though each of their ways of describing things is different, the facts all match up! How can you possibly deny four eye witnesses accounts? In our courts, it sometimes only takes one eye witness account to charge a person as guilty! Also in the Bible, Daniel, who was taken captive and his country overtaken by Babylon wrote historical happenings. He was by no means a winner, yet a lot of information from that book has been confirmed with archaeological findings, such as, the confirmation of kings in existence he spoke of. Does this not prove his authenticity?

            While people’s biases are going to sometimes color history, the facts remain. Who won the war? Who was born when? Facts such as these cannot be “interpreted.” If you are genuinely concerned with what you’re being taught, do research! Look into archaeological discoveries, biographies, autobiographies, figure out if what you’re reading from is a reliable source. Before I read a book, I after do background on the author to discover what point of view he is coming from, and you can do the same. At least I know historically wise, the Bible has never been proven inaccurate, so that is a GREAT reliable historically accurate text, you can compare things to. Now good luck studying for your history final! Remember, the grade you get is the grade you get—it does not change from what your teacher gives you, no matter how much you want it to. Your grade is a fact, like much of history.

Love,

Christina

Economics #2

By definition, socialism is “a political and economic theory of that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.” While this sounds ideal, it could not work in our fallen world.

            Man by nature is sinful. He desires to be the best and is full of pride and selfishness. So while “everyone sharing” sounds nice written down, in reality, it would not work. And the government is made up of me; men who struggle with greed, too. So how can a group of a few individuals be responsible to EVENLY distribute the wealth? Obviously, selfishness will at some point get in the way, and corruption will occur. Also, how does the GOVERNMENT distributing everything promote a sharing attitude? People will no doubt be suspicious of the government keeping more for themselves or demand more even if there is not more to gain. Man always desires more.

            Further, socialism is unfair. It’s not fair to say everyone deserves a “C.” Some people work harder and deserve A’s and some people slack off and deserve D’s. It also discourages a work effort. If a teacher says no matter what every student gets a C, would anyone actually try? Likewise, if the government says everyone will get the same amount of money, wouldn’t everyone disregard their responsibilities and follow their fleshly desires and just “have fun”? Socialism would not work in our society. In fact, our society would fall apart. People would stop working therefore eventually causing the world to fall into utter chaos. While socialism may sound “nice,” so Ted Bundy apparently looked “nice.” This just goes to show how appearances are deceiving.

Global Secular Government?

Having a global secular government sounds appealing to many initially but when looking at the ramifications it could entail, it obviously is a very dangerous idea. Ideally, having a universal government eliminates misunderstandings and language barriers. Everyone would understand each other, enabling easier traveling and “world peace.” While this may be the goal of a “global” government, there is no possible way it will be achieved. For starters, people are innately selfish and sinful. Therefore, if it is not a Biblically- based government, those in leadership are bound to get greedy and this “global” government could end up worse than ever. At least now when dictators, such as, Hitler, take over, other countries, such as the U.S. and England were able to step in and stop him. However, if everyone was understand the same “global” government, what country would be able to stop him? None!

            The very fact that government is secular reveals that they will NOT have a biblical based opinion on things. They may not value human life or privacy. Perhaps the global government will declare gay marriage is the only kind of marriage and killing for all is “okay.” This may sound ridiculous, but man is born sinful and evil. Therefore, if he does not have God working in Him, there is not telling what horrors he may promote. If the Holy Spirit is not in a man, there is nothing stopping a demon from taking over. And if a demon possessed man “globally” rules the world, it is safe to say, the world is headed for complete and utter destruction.

            A global secular government is a very dangerous idea and unrealistic. It is idealistic to think that all would abide by the same law, or a “just” ruler would govern the land, and it would be a perfect fairytale. HA. We live in a world were babies are murdered everyday under the name of “abortion,” we have airplanes flying into buildings and killing hundreds of thousands, and people committing mass genocides over racial prejudices. In our fallen world, a global secular government would never work. And if it was attempted, the outcome would no doubt be catastrophic.

Abortion

Teenagers who become mothers do have a grim future. They are most likely not going to finish school, give their children proper care, they will rely upon public help, and usually end up getting divorced or not even married in the first place. I fail to see how this even relates to the argument. I mean, so what? First of all, this is NOT always the case. In fact, 7 out of 10 teenage mothers finish high school or earn a G.E.D. which makes it a 70% chance, which is considered passing. But this still does not address the issue.

The public victimizes the teenage girl, but what they fail to address that is was the girl’s choice to have sex! Granted, she may not have “wanted” to get pregnant, but when having sex, she made the choice that it was a risk she willing to take. And consequently, if she was willing to have sex in the first place, she should willingly accept the result of her decision. This is the reason Americans are so lazy is because they deny responsibility for their actions! Every action has a reaction. If someone kills your wife, do you not expect them to be put in jail or get some form of punishment? Likewise, if a teenage chooses to be sexually promiscuous before they are married, they are risking their future, as well as the care of their child. But does that make it right to allow them to kill a child in order to have a “better future?” If I think killing the president will help me have a “better future,” is that “okay?” Absolutely not! Abortionists fail to address the real issue. They make claims which are occasionally legitimate, but in no way relate to whether abortion should be legal or not! In addition, this information only proves that teenagers and people should wait to have sex until marriage because studies do show that children raised in a loving marriage relationship tend to do better, and then there is no risk for the girl not to be able to finish school.

The other argument is that perhaps it was not the girl’s decision, and she was raped. While this is tragic, it is a result of our fallen world. But do two wrongs make a right? Does killing a child correct the sin committed through rape? Absolutely not! Also, statists show that rape abortions are as few as 1 in 1,000 (Alcorn) making this not even a huge factor. What about the other 999 teenagers who chose to commit their sexual actions?

While these issues stated are very real for teenage mothers, this in no way legitimizes abortion. It truly reveals that teenagers are not mature enough to raise children and are not in the right position to. If a girl is not ready to have a child and all the responsibilities that come with it, she is not ready to have sex!

JUSTICE

Within the Critical Legal Studies, “justice” and “equality” are essentially interchangeable—they only seek to further their agenda. In fact, “The legal system, according to CLS, supports the status quo.” Therefore, rather than there being absolute standards, the CLS believes that the law is simply based on “certain peoples’ beliefs.” Due to this theory, they desire to undermine the law as it is used to “suppress” people. In Deuteronomy 10:17, equality is seen as “no partiality” such as between poverty stricken people or the rich. While justice in Jeremiah 22:3 is seen as “doing what is right” or “the act of being just.” The distinction between the words is significant in interpreting the Bible and for living in this world. The CLS attempts to legalize abortion or gay marriage by proclaiming this is displaying “true equality.” However, equality is showing no partiality. By desiring give homosexuals “special” privileges, does this not show partiality? The law promotes equality because it expects the same standards of living for all. By trying to limit the law, the CLS is actually promoting “favoritism” which is blatantly seen in their promotion of Feminism. Feminism is ALL about women. By bending over to all their “needs,” does this not display favoritism and promote women to a higher status than men? It’s ironic that in the article they discuss that is “justice” to have women be able to win rape cases easier. However, what about if it is a male rape case? Should just be able to say “I’ve been raped” and automatically win the case as they suggest is should be for women? This is not promotion justice or equality, merely the CLS’ agenda.

Christians are called to live justly. In Micah 6:8, it says, “And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy.” James 1:27 further displays how to place to into practice by revealing one should “look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” Obviously, by showing kindness to those in need and helping others, Christians are displaying justice. However, the second part of James is truly critical in understanding God’s plan for our lives—“Keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” It is easy to succumb to the world’s agenda, such as, the CLS because we are constantly bombarded with the messages of “justice for all” means “gay marriage is legal.” In fact, just this past week I had a discussion with a Christian individual about this! As Christians, we know that God is Just. And our Just God tells us that gay marriage is NOT okay. So obviously, gay marriage is NOT just. It should be very simple. If we deduct who God’s character tells us who He is to be, and then follow His word, we should recognize the lies of society. It’s when we take our eyes off God and forget who He is, that we fall into Satan’s traps and end up believing foolish lies such as “abortion is justice.” Since justice can be defined as doing what is right, is not upholding The Righteous God’s law the correct thing to do? Further, we know God does not show partiality (Deut. 10:17). Therefore, it is evident people are not born homosexuals because that would mean He is showing partiality to heterosexuals. As Christians, this should be enough evidence to disprove any “scientific evidence” which may try to convince otherwise. God is not asking homosexuals anything different than he is asking of all mankind. In fact, he is trying to protect them from the harmful effects of homosexual relationships, such as AIDS and emotional dissatisfaction. It’s important for Christians to be in the word of God to live justly because ultimate justice is found in who God is. As for equality, God warns not to be kinder to the wealthy than the poor. He reminds us that all human beings are made in His image, and we called to treat them all with love. However, in my opinion, if you truly love someone you will tell them the truth. While you should love homosexuals because they are human beings, love does not mean promoting what is wrong, but rather sharing them the truth of Jesus Christ and setting them free from captivity. If you truly love someone you would not leave them ignorant to what could save them. If someone you knew was dying of cancer, would you withhold the cure?

Muslim V. Christian views

Law is a direct outflow from a worldview's theology. Therefore, at the very core, Christian and Muslim's view of law is going to be completely different from start. Muslims believe people are innately good, while Christian's know that each person is born sinful. This opposing views of mankind greatly influence the importance of law. In addition, the view of God is polar opposites. As the God of Christianity is loving and merciful, Allah is seen as the "absolute authority" though he is unreliable and unknown. He is seen as harsh, waiting to condemn people. Just looking at these aspects of each worldview it's evident that theirs laws cannot be similiar.
The Christian law stems from WHO God is--it is a natural law. His laws agree with His character. For example, He is a God of justice and therefore calls people not to steal. Also, he created laws because He LOVES us. In the end, God judges man in accordance with His law. He knows this and therefore lovingly gave us the law, in written form, in the Bible, too--its like a teacher giving all the answers to test! And no matter how many times we fail in following His law, He still forgives us limitlessly. Further, God gave us the law to protect us! He knows our sinful instincts and gave us laws so that we may enjoy life to its fullest. If someone murders another peron, God knows this will haunt the murderer, too, and wreck his life--not to mention the person he has killed and that man's family's.
On the other hand, the Shari'a law is based off of the Hadith and Qu'ran. It is vague and does not answer many of the issues prevailent today, and it is not based off of Allah's character. Therefore, it has no basis. It is merely men trying to please their "God" however is really has nothing to do with who their God is. The law is more like something to be condemned by and earn points with, rather than the laws the God of Christianity has placed in love. While failing to abide by Allah's law condemns one to Hell, Christians can be saved through the person of Christ, and therefore do not have to live in a constant state of fear.
Further, back to the issue of who man is--since Muslims' do not see man as naturally bad, they do not see man having absolute power as an issue. Their faulty view of man can easily be seen in the government's falling apart all over the Middle East. Rather than respecting authority, people make bold claims that they are following "Allah's will" in attacking the government or flying into buildings. Because of Allah is "unknown", Muslims' can essentially make up any law under the pretense that is "his will," displaying their lack of stability and solid law. On the contrary, the Christian law is based on God who is unchanging, and therefore a solid rock through all of eternity.

Are legal standards to be determined by the individual?

Legal standards are not limited to the determination and interpretation of each individual. In fact, that very statement is absurd. Humans are fallen beings so their interpretations of laws are bound to be faulty, as well. For example, many people today are claiming that under the First Amendment, abortion and gay marriage should be legal. However, as Christians, these two “rights” go against God’s word and His superior laws. Further, two individuals can see the same thing and interpret it very differently. Like two people who see the very same car accident often give diverse reports. How then can any individual’s interpretation of a specific law be held the determination for legal standards?

Even our government has a checks and balance system in order to keep from one individual’s ideas to become the legal standards. Also, everyone is accountable to a higher law. For example, a man may claim the first amendment gives him right to rape children for “his religion.” Thank goodness this is not the case! There are absolute rules despite how people try to demolish this idea of “absolute.” In addition, all people universally agree on certain stand points. If a person’s child was kidnapped, he would claim this is “unfair” or “wrong.” It does not matter if the kidnapper as an individual determined it was “okay,” what he did was wrong. This leads to the conclusion that ultimately every individual is held accountable to a SUPREME law that could only be created by a Supreme Being.

Are Government's the ultimate authority for creating laws??

Government's are made up of humans--fallen beings. How can they be held responsible for creating the ultimate laws? From my Christian perspective, I know that God is the ultimate authority for creating law. Since man is sinful, he cannot even uphold the law, let alone be the ultimate law maker. The very fact man is sinful though makes it necessary that he is accountable for his actions here on earth. As John Locke stated, "Man is entitled to life, liberty, and property" within a true Democracy. Therefore, the government of a Democracy must make laws which enable man to keep that which he is entitled to. So while the government is accountable to its people (and God, though that part is often ignored) to make laws which preserve their rights, they are not the ultimate authority. Though Hitler declared it law to kill Jews, Nazi's after WWII were still convicted in trials despite the fact their government made it "a law." Just because a government makes a law, it does not necessarily make it correct. Further, back in early colonial American history, when African Americans could legally not vote, was that ultimately right? Obviously not! Likewise, how would laws be made if there was not a higher standard? How would our founding fathers just randomly come up with the idea of "freedom for all"? A higher being must have created ultimate laws because despite what the "government" may say, I know that killing innocent people, such as the Jews in WWII is wrong.

How should Christians respond to feminism?

Feminism is the current trend sweeping the nation of America. Unfortunately, unlike other "bigger" issues, Feminism is often ignored and not talked about in churches--in fact, women preachers is a growing trend, too. I think Christians should respond to Feminism by speaking truth against it and calling it what it really is. Feminism is essentially idoltry. It is saying to the Creator of the Universe, "I do not like the role you gave me, so I'm going to do soemthing different." Feminism is a woman making herself God--thinking she knows what it best for her.
When God created Adam and Eve, He made them both in His image and with the same big picture purpose on life. However, He made them to carry out their jobs differently so as to most utilize their unique dreams and abilities. God made man to be "little king." (Gen. 2) He created within His nature a sense of leadership and "Warrior Spirit" different from what is within women. So when a women tries to be "the leader," she is taking away from the man's role! Not only is she affecting her own life, but Feminism is hurting the men all around, too. Therefore, Feminism is extremely selfish. It's not only denying God his perfect character, but it is also stealing from men what God rightfully ordained as theirs.
Further, Feminism does NOT bring satisfaction. Christians need to declare this truth loudly. So many women pursue a "Feministic" lifestyle because either 1. They are sick of being hurt by boys (yes, hurt) or 2. They think it bring them fulfillment. For number one, though Feminist's will adamently deny this, it is true. Men have hurt them so they want to take control. It's never truly because they feel "oppressed" or they are immune to what men think--no, it is simply because at some point or another they have been HURT by men. This can be solved by simply by "where are you as a woman placing your priorities?" Hurt is often caused by placing too much value on a person. No one's opinion should rule your life but Jesus Christ. Therefore, Feminism is not freeing women from men, it is proving simply how chained they are to them and how they have allowed their opinion or harrasment to change them. For the second reason, it is much more simple. ONLY JESUS CAN BRING FULFILLMENT. This goes for everything, but especially in the case of Feminism. Christians are often to eager to ignore the Feminism movement or condemn it, but what they really need to do is respond in LOVE--pointing out the lies of Feminism by shedding the truth of the Bible on it.

Pride and Prejudice

A major theme evident within the story of Pride and Prejudice is that outward first impressions do not always accurately portray a person's true inner character. For example, when Mr. Darcy first comes to Pemberly, all the people find him disagreable and therefore write him off as arrogant and prideful. Likewise, Elizabeth hears this conceit when Darcy suggests to his friend, she is "not handsome enough to tempt [him] to dance." From this point on, Elizabeth only sees his overwhelming pride and uses it to judge every action he makes--never able to see past her first impression of him. It is obvious since Mr. Darcy in actuality hurt Elizabeth's own pride, this is why she judges him so severely. Further, when Lizzy first meets Wickham, she finds him to be "charming." Therefore, whatever he says, she instantly believes due to "truth in his face." All the words used to describe Wickham are merely physical. He is "charming" and has a "truthful face," however, this shows nothing about himself. Elizabeth allows this first "impression" to conceal the truth of his true identity to her--which is VERY different than what she initially perceives. His immediate attention to Elizabeth evidently causes her to flatter herself and fall prey to his lies. In the end, all the characters end up differently than first portrayed. Elizabeth who originally "cannot tempt Darcy" becomes the apple of his eye. Elizabeth who "detests Darcy's pride" has the opportunity to experience Darcy's charity firsthand. And Darcy who Elizabeth at first finds "charming" and a "true gentleman" ends up being a selfish rogue who nearly ruins Elizabeth's entire family by scandalously running away with her sister.

The Ideal Reader should understand this to be taken very literally--people are not always how they appear and first impressions are not always accurate. It also displays how each human has a bias which gets in the way of everything they do. Since Darcy first injures Elizabeth's pride, until his letter, she is unable to find good in what he does. Likewise, since Elizabeth takes an initial liking to Wickham, she readily believes his horrendous lies against Darcy. This signifies another theme within the story on different perspectives. Everyone sees things differently. Each character has a different angle to offer of a situation and the same is true in life. Even the reader's own opinion is a subjective view of what he thinks. The reader should see this "individual" theme throughout the story, as well as find it applicable to their own lives. Before judging a person too quickly, he research and really get to know the person-- and even then, judging people is ridiculous and immature. Universally it is apparent within Pride and Prejudice that every individual has a subjective view, but this view is limited. Like when Elizabeth is touring Pemberly, she has the epiphony that looking through the different windows she sees the same yard but with a "different perspective." That is a very literal theme within Pride and Prejudice.

I agree with the theme that first impressions are not always accurate and people are not always as they appear--I've experienced different situations of these within my own life. Because of this truth, I strive not to judge others and give people the benefit of the doubt. However, I also recognize I am very opionated person, which ironically, Austen also seems to support. Within her story, Mr Collins is who Mr. Collins appears to be. And no one is condemned for mocking him. While this seems contradictory to Austen's overall theme, it seems in the case of Mr. Collins, that no one is perfect-- no one realistically can go through life without getting annoyed or rightfully judging someone (unless you're Jane maybe...(: ). As sad as that sounds, it is true. While I definitely do not want to use this as an accuse for mocking others if they're "annoying", it's more just a relief to know that I'm not alone in WAY missing my "perfectly never judging others ideal Christina". (: While everyone reads this story and wants to be Elizabeth, I wish I was more like Jane. I wish I never had rude thoughts about others or disliked those who merely "hurt my pride." But I am not Jane, and that's the beauty of Austen emphasizing the importance of individuality, too. It's not about being perfect. It's not about expecting others to be perfect or condemning for their inadequacies. It's about everyone being themselves and accepting others for who they are. (In the case of a nonbeliever, "accepting" them in the sense of unconditionally loving them, and loving them SO much as to not leave them in the dark, but to share the light of Jesus with him.) (:

Does Bible teach "homophobia" and "sexism" ?

Every thing  and anything can be taken out of context or distorted. The Bible is often subject to this happening. The Bible no where teaches sexist behavior or homophobia. When people see this happening, it is only cause of the sinful human being misrepresenting. A recent example of this is the "Christians" boycotting soldiers funerals--that is NOT Biblical by any means. Likewise, I feel the same way about Christian homophobes and Christians' who are sexist! That is NOT Biblical by any means!
The Bible clearly teaches to do EVERYTHING with a pure heart and out of love. Putting a certain gender down or being scared of people is NOT displaying this. As for homophobia-- this Bible states marriage is to be for one man and one woman, and he even says that woman essentially "completes him." It also talks about how two men acting sexual is "abnormal and corrupted" and makes him angry like shown in Sodom and Gomorrah. However, no where in the Bible does it say to criticize them or "be scared of them" or put them down. No it talks about how when a brother is sinning-- go to them in love! Another human issue which gets in the way is the "rating" of sin. Christians will say "homosexuality" is one of the worst sins when in reality it is no different in the eyes of the Holy God than using His name in vain or occasional stealing. If anything, the Bible does NOT teach this because it clearly reveals all sins are equal. It is human fallenness which rates them and therefore builds their own prejudice.
As for the issue of sexist being taught in the Bible-- that is outrageously absord. As I said earlier, Eve literally "completes" Adam. On earth, male and females have the same general roles! They just do them differently. And both very clearly are made in God's image-- it's just differently. Who is to say that one sex is better than the other then? Or how does God's word display that? It's once again human's misunderstanding and verses taken out of context which leave people believing this lie. People associate different as one better than the other which could not be farther from the truth. While males and females clearly have different roles in a relationship, they complete each other very nicely that way. God knows our innermost hearts-- he created them! And He knows what we want most-- deep down. So wouldn't you trust the different roles He made are to bring the most happiness and satisfaction? The same applies to His view on homosexuality. God loves man so much He does not want any of them to live these corrupt lives which leave people empty. I fail to see how this love can in any way equate to hatred that so many ignorant Christians seem to teach, which in turns gives a false reputation to the Creator.

Sociology Response

If the state is a Democracy, how can this be in their best interest? People will obviously resent their meddling and rebellion is sure to break out among the people. In a Communist Dictatorship, this would be ideal, but a Democractic scoiety thrives on freedom and diversity. The job of a Democratic government is to protect the people's ideas and beliefs, not to infringe upon them and attempt to control the parenting styles and home life of the individual. Also, the government is made up of humans-- humans are sinful and greedy, therefore if a few people have the ability to control how EVERYONE raises their children, pride and disillusionment is sure to cloud the eyes of the those determining "how children should be raised," which will undoubtedly end in chaos. And how can the state compromise between two antithesis ideas, such as, spanking or not spanking? This places too much pressure on a select group of people who most likely have different beliefs themselves. In addition, how could the state control what was happening within each home under their leadership? This is physically impossible. It would not be a good use of money and time. How people raise their children does not provide jobs, does not fix the economy, and does not provide the immediate benefits people are demanding. Overall, I think that is it NOT in the state's best interest to meddle or to any individual's advantage either. If the state attempted to do this, there is no doubt a revolution would occur like when Britain was micromanaging her colonies. Our country is founded on freedom and freedom is what people will demand.

My Lens

           My room very much symbolizes me and who I am as a person. It’s my personal space where I am free to express what I like without any consideration to what other thinks. As I sat on my bed pondering what makes up my “critical lens,” I simply looked around the walls of my room and found the answers I was seeking.

Alice in Wonderland Poster: An antique hanging in my room is my “Alice in Wonderland” Poster. As a child, I had an obsession with Alice and this movie—I was even Alice for Halloween multiple years! To me, this poster symbolizes my curiosity and “why” complex which I often bring into analysis. It comes in two different forms: 1. The Innocent Child Questions and 2. The Rebellious Teenager Defiance. I’ve always been a naturally curious child. In literature, I always question “why” they wrote this or “why” their tone of voice is such a way. As I’ve grown older, I’ve also gained a more “defiant” tone, as my mother so sweetly puts it. I am often eager to analyze in a way different from normal interpretations of pieces, thinking “why” does it have to mean what they say?

Bible Verses: On my wall, I have different Bible verses written out. I know this may sound cliché, but starting the day off reading the word of God truly makes a HUGE difference. It is a constant reminder that this life is not just about ME. Looking at the verses around my walls, it’s extremely evident that Christianity and my relationship with Christ hugely influence how I see the world and analyze literature. I’m constantly seeing parallels to scripture and creating Christian morals to secular stories because Christianity plays such a significant role within my life.

Rosie the Riveter Poster: As a child, before I even knew what this poster meant—I insisted on getting it for my room. And it’s been there ever since. Though I did not know the historical context to Rosie and her “We Can Do It” encouragement, to me, she was a symbol of a REAL, AMERICAN woman. This symbolizes my “American Woman” lens I often see things through. To be completely honest, I LOVE my country and I tend to have a biased towards her. Though I recognize America has many faults, I still feel the need to defend my homeland against what I consider treacherous slander.

Piggy Bank and Antique Doll: Both very dear pieces mean so much to me. Both were presents from my parents and display how much I value both their opinions. The piggy bank and doll symbolize my family’s influence on my life, and essentially my “Conservative” lens. Being raised on a Conservative home, I have natural tendency’s on I view things both morally and economically. This plays a big role on how I analyze pieces of literature that deal with society, too. Also, both objects are aimed toward “young” children. This also symbolizes my innocent and young outlook. Though I have experienced hurt and heart break, I have also been very sheltered and have yet to experience life on my own! Because of my young age, my analysis is often limited to how I feel and have experienced or what my parents have taught me.

Pictures of people: Any empty space on my walls is literally covered with pictures. People have played a huge role in my life, and in general, I love people! This symbolizes what I consider my “Biographical” way of looking at literature. I’m very interested in knowing what the author was going through or why they wrote it. There must be a reason! Something must have happened, and they must have one meaning! I truly believe each author wrote their piece with one intention in mind. People have made different interpretations, but by looking at the author’s life, the true meaning most likely can be found. I like knowing THE truth. 

Feminism Critic of Death of a Salesman

          Death of a Salesman's character Linda is an instrument in analyzing the play through a Feminist lens. Linda, the only woman mentioned by name within the play, is overlooked and forsaken. The entire play is centered on Willy and what Willy desires. Linda is merely a tool he uses in order to enhance his own personal happiness. This is seen through Willy’s affair and symbolic use of stockings. Willy selfishly cheats on his loyal wife and buys “the woman” new stockings. Later, Linda is seen mending old stockings because she is too kind to burden Willy with needing new ones and because she assumes it is her duty to keep things together—including her stockings. Willy obviously neglects his wife’s need for new stockings revealing woman’s “second rate” place within society. Willy also takes advantage of Linda’s “infinite patience” (17), and makes decisions solely based on himself because he is aware of this attribute within Linda. Further, the fact Linda is completely oblivious to Willy’s affair displays her as “stupid”—or at least not as intelligent as Willy who is able to hide it from her.

                In addition, Linda is an extreme pacifist and is portrayed as frail and unable to defend herself. Even though her children were young and merely goofing around, when they start to tackle one another, she frantically exclaims “Why are you fighting?” (49). Through the character of Linda, Miller is constantly trying to put woman within a box. Very literally, Linda is never seen leaving the house! She is subject to a cycle of taking care of Willy, Laundry, protecting peace within the house, cooking, cleaning, “mend[ing] the lining of Willy’s jacket” (53), and rarely sleeping. Despite the fact Linda holds the family together, she often even overlooked by the reader because she seems to lack any substance. She appears to merely be a “nice” housewife and mother without any backbone—a role woman have been forced into for centuries and only recently have been able to break free of.

Also, Linda very literally makes no distinction between herself and Willy. When Biff is angry at Willy, Linda states “Biff, dear, if you don’t have any feeling for him, then you can’t have any feeling for me” (55). Even when Linda is “angry,” her speech lacks passion as she refers to Biff as “dear.” Miller suggests those women are not only to be submissive to men, but truly have no identity apart from them! Not only that, but they apparently “hold men back.” When Willy longs to go out to Alaska for a life of adventure, Linda begs him to “stay with her and the children.” Though Willy does stay, he outright tells Linda multiple times he regrets he didn’t her. Even when he does not literally say anything, his actions often show he resents her for it. Essentially women are in a “lose lose” situation in life. A woman only has purpose in a man, yet she will “hold the man back” so he inevitably will resent her—so either way, woman is destined for a life trying to “work” for her husband’s “love.” Men not only rule the world, but within this play, are the only people who even matter.