haasa’s blog

There seems to be a growing trend towards singlehood, however society still pressures people to be in a relationship. Common themes from past works include, talking about the norm, talking about marriage, talking about how society views you and makes you feel. The people in the article talk about how being single can help you to better yourself, and how you should not have to settle for anything. However, it is not really settling, it is more compromising. He needs to reword his argument to make sense. What does settling mean? What relationships are perfect? What person is perfect? All relationships have problems, people need to learn how to compromise. And if you can’t compromise you are bound to stay single for a long time.

In the For gay marriage argument, Sullivan says one of the strongest arguments for gay marriage is a conservative one. And in the Against gay marriage argument Bennett says Marriage is not an arbitrary construct; it is an honorable estate based on the different complementary nature of men and women – and how they refine, support, encourage and complete one another. This is obviously a conservative approach. But Sullivan says ….several cities in the United States have domestic partnership laws, which allow non-heterosexual relationships to qualify for benefits. Sullivan is saying the concept of domestic partnerships chips away at the prestige of traditional relationships but undermines the priorities we give them. Saying that legally it is known they are together, but it is not accepted socially. Which are both logical approaches. Another part of his argument he says imagine dating without even the possibility of marriage. This is a very emotional approach to go about the argument. I think Sullivan does a much better job of defending his argument and pulling in more pathos appeal.

I worked really hard on my draft. I had to move things around and reorganize my paper many times. But the final copy really came out nice. It was hard not to rant on and on about all the things that upset me, but I took a very proactive approach, instead of a reactive one. I’m just really glad to be done with this first essay.

I have to reorganize my paper better and cite some things. I also need to work on my counter argument. I still have some work to do on this paper this weekend.

From the debate we had in class, i decided to write my counter argument against people who also disliked the essay, but thought it should be left in the textbook. Hearing the other side of the argument helped me refute my points better.

I think the peer review really helped me. All of my peer’s comments helped me to better my paper and gave me some good ideas. However, your comments still help me a lot more.

I really like my rough draft. I still to work on it a lot. I think my supporting evidence really helps me back up my points and I point out crucial details.

Hekker’s “The Satisfactions of Housewifery and Motherhood”, should not be considered as an effective work because her supporting evidence is weak, she leaves out crucial details, and Hekker’s purpose was not achieved in this essay.

The criteria that I am reviewing is supporting evidence, leaving out crucial details, and purpose was not achieved in the essay. I really did not appreciate Hekker’s essay and highly disagree with almost all of the points she has made.

I have never done readers responses. Usually in the past I have just read and then talked about the reading afterwards. But I feel like if i were to do these response logs, I would probably comprehend things better and remember more of what I have read. They could help me form a critique because i could just organize all of my ideas and go off of them. I think they are a great idea.