A question that bugged me the entire time while reading The Handmaids Tale was this; what are men so afraid of women that they would put them in such bondage? Woman are naturally weaker vessels than men. I don't think the men in this book or in life are afraid that women are going to come to some strange realization that they can overpower us and then do so. I think the question begs to differ in the fact that men enjoy being oppressive towards their female counterparts and like to do what they want with them whenever they want to.
Men in the Muslim society fit this description of how they oppress women very nicely. Which is why I would like to do research on Muslim women in their community and find out why it is that they are oppressed so much. What is their role in their society? The answer to this question would shed light on what the men want out of their women. I believe that in doing research in this are I will find out what it is that men want out of women and why.
I chose this topic because I have always found it strange to constrain women this much. What is it that they are afraid of that women are capable of? Women are just as capable as men are. There is no huge difference between us besides how we might think and the actual physical attributes of men and women. That is why this topic interests me so much and I think it will help me better understand The Handmaids Tale.

Contemporary Literature
Vol. 32, No. 1 (Spring, 1991), pp. 1-11
Published by: University of Wisconsin Press
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1208335


This is an article that I found using the databases on the YC portal. This article is an interview with O' Brien that answers some questions that the reader might have had while reading the book. I would like to use this article because it came out after the book in 1991 and it sheds some light on the novel. I think it would be a critical asset to understanding why it is that O' Brien wrote the way he did. It gives context to the book, it gives readers an understanding that even almost thirty years after the war, some things still affect O' Brien and I think this is important when looking at his book. A reader must understand that everything a soldier goes through is remembered and the stories that they do share are very important.

2 U.S. Fliers Killed In Vietnam as Reds Down Their Copter
New York Times (1923-Current file); Jun 27, 1964; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2007)


I would like to use this newspaper article because it tells you what everyone thought we were fighting the war for. It talks about "Reds" and communism. This is the type of news that O' Brien was reading before he was drafted into the war. It is also very credible because it was written during the time frame and from a very reliable news source, The New York Times. It is also specifically talking about the Vietnam War and the begging of it.

The Gamblers Fallacy



The Sandstorm by Sean Huze

Sean Huze's play brings out a lot of emotions, but I don't know if they are the right ones. The play

has a lot of fallacies in it, the main one that sticks out is "Appeal to Emotion." He is using your

emotions against you to sum up a war that is very complicated. Multiple times the author suggests

that the Marines don't want to be there. This might be true but the author fails to recognize that this

is a very small select group of the Marine Corps. He plays a fallacy here called a, "Hasty

Generalization." This fallacy takes a small sample of a large group and then bases the facts of the

smaller sample on the entire group. Other than that the story appeals to emotions by involving

gory details and facts, somehow trying to undermine the war, and in a small way saying it's not

worth it because this is what's happening to people. The story in the end where it talks about the

Marines leaving the town and the author putting all that mushy gushy stuff in there, he continues

to use fallacies and fails to use common sense. Again, using the appeal to emotion fallacy, the

author forgets to add any amount of common sense. For instance, the fact that they are soldiers,

and that soldiers never see the whole picture. So when higher up calls for them to go and take

care of business somewhere else, like an uprising of insurgents which is a bad thing, they freak

out and feel like they are abandoning those people. In all reality they probably sent some more

Marines in to protect those people. And even if they didn't, they obviously had something more

important to take care of. In essence I was disgusted with this play because rather than use facts

the author relies on pity and emotion to grab the audiences attention.

The two poems that I reacted two the most or felt the most connection to was "Song of Napalm" by Bruce Weigl and "Letter Composed During a Lull in the Fighting" by Kevin C. Powers. I guess the reason that I felt such a connection to these two poems is that they both have to deal with war, which happens to be what my trade is. I joined the Army in 2008 and I'm a gunner for the 856 Military Police Company stationed up in Flagstaff. Reading these poems reminds me of some of the stuff I have been through in our training and what not. The discussions I've had with people in and out of the military and the awkward introductions I have made when explaining to my girl friends family what it is that I do in the Army.



When reading Powers poem and realizing that the first line is a of him writing home to his girl, I can connect with him on a personal level because of the letters that I have written home to family and friends. I understand what it's like to be writing a letter and wondering if anything that is happening around me will some how be passed in through the letter, like smells or dust or even a drop of blood. I can even now still remember where I wrote some of my letters and the weird feeling it is to be a killer yet a lover at the same time. To be writing home about your feelings when you know the next day you wouldn't want any of your loved ones to know what it is your training for, or what it is that you will be doing the next day.



In Weigl's poem I see how a young man is trying to forget where he is by day dreaming, by wishing away everything he has seen. This experience is common amongst us soldiers. I don't know how many times I have sat around day dreaming wishing I was some where other than where I was. But you are always brought back by the chirp of automatic gunfire or the heat or someone yelling. Trying to go back to the day dream is like trying to catch the bird you just released. It's senseless to try once the day dream is over but you try again anyway, because it was just nice to get away for a while. But like he explains in the end of his poem by saying,
"And not your good love and not the rain-swept air
And no the jungle green
Pasture unfolding before us can deny it." (Weigl 41-45)
He's saying that no matter how you paint the picture reality is what it is. There is no way to get away from it, no escape.












Works Cited
1. "Song of Napalm" Bruce Weigl, Archaeology of the Circle: New and Selected Poems. Grove/Atlantic, Inc. 1999 https://3bb.yc.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_22410_1%26url%3D
2. "Letter Composed During a Lull in the Fighting" Kevin C. Powers, Poetry 2009. https://3bb.yc.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_22410_1%26url%3D

Image 1-http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/11/16/1611webstory_iraq.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.theage.com.au/news/iraq/us-troops-free-scores-from-secret-prison/2005/11/16/1132016823151.html&usg=__QfqPDvmMZMmfNcsxgJ2u8HK0ykU=&h=310&w=470&sz=29&hl=en&start=63&zoom=1&tbnid=9BUy_p0SH9VFLM:&tbnh=138&tbnw=191&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpictures%2Bof%2Biraq%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26sa%3DX%26rls%3Den%26biw%3D996%26bih%3D960%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C2228&um=1&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=433&ei=Y9qKTIKrJIfQsAPp-sSxBA&oei=MtqKTPTiN5K-sAObtamfBA&esq=11&page=4&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:63&tx=61&ty=62&biw=996&bih=960

Image 2- http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.vietnammemorial.com/vietnam-soldiers-1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.vietnammemorial.com/vietnam-war.html&usg=__KdjgPyiQe_WhfoyeYKzy41BK55s=&h=404&w=500&sz=45&hl=en&start=20&zoom=1&tbnid=hlhVGo8edfEorM:&tbnh=138&tbnw=179&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpictures%2Bof%2Bvietnam%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26sa%3DX%26rls%3Den%26biw%3D996%26bih%3D960%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C582&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=530&vpy=368&dur=2&hovh=202&hovw=250&tx=166&ty=135&ei=FNqKTJSuINmxnAeR-cmBDA&oei=EtqKTIOdEIT6lwfL_5H_CQ&esq=2&page=2&ndsp=22&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:20&biw=996&bih=960

Sam Hammil’s view of how to change the violence in today’s society and past is ridiculous. He is presuming that all humanity can come to a point of certainty about love. He is saying that everyone, if they try, can have enough “compassion” in their heart to overcome the “batterers” of the world. But then he goes on to defend the people in jail saying that they need to be saved too. He’s saying that people can be saved, when in reality we cannot save them. They made a choice; he says that people lash out because they don’t know how to express their love. This is such a stupid statement because people know when they are hurting each other, people don’t sit around and go, “Oh, gee, I wonder why I just hit her?” NO! It’s because the fool was drunk and he was pissed off and he is taking on his anger. Not because he doesn’t know how to express himself.
He absurdly assures us that we can through “compassion” somehow change the world. He refers to Japan and how he served there. Does he not remember how the war started? Does he not know what happened on December 7, 1941? WE WERE BOMBED! My Grandpa was there he was almost blown in half and his best friend WAS blown into pieces. We were not even involved in the war; we were trying to stay out of it. But no, Japan attacked first, they wanted us to enter the war and they were totally prepared to take us over. That is why we attacked back, that is why we dropped a nuke on them. It was to save lives on both sides. If we had invaded their country they were totally prepared to fight until no one was left.
Does Mr. Hammil understand or even know what their government was made up of? It was the Emperor and whatever he said went. He thought that he was so “holy” that he had never touched the ground with his actual feet. He was always elevated and people lived to serve him and his legacy. Now can you tell me how that is compassion? Can you tell me that if Mr. Hammil had gone up to him and told him he was wrong and that he should be more compassionate on others, that the Emperor would have listened? I don’t think so. This view of the world and how to solve it’s problems are stupid. It would never work. However, look at Japan today. They have a democracy they can do what they want without asking an Emperor if it’s ok. That is what we brought them; in essence we died so THEY could have it.

Nabokov thinks that a good reader is one who has a combination of artistic and scientific outlook when reading a book. He believes that a good reader should remain somewhat "aloof" from what he or she is reading. The idea behind this is that the reader can fully enjoy the novel that he or she is reading. The reason for this, or so Nabokov believes, is that if you are thinking about how you relate to the story or how you have seen what the writer is trying to "paint" before, you are missing out on how the writer wants you to view it and are instead creating what you have already seen in your mind and applying it to what you are reading. Nabokov believes that this is an insult to the writer, because if you create your own picture then you are missing out on the whole point of reading the novel, and that is to see something new.

I agree partially with Nabokov because it is good to be lost in a new world of a book. At the same time though it is comforting to some people to recognize something and be able to see themselves in that situation. This is good because this does give the reader a feeling of friendship with the author, as in he or she knows what they are going through or what they have been through. I don't think you should do this all the time because I do believe that it's good for a reader to be able to be lost in a book that is totally fresh and new.

I consider myself an average reader because I will admit (to Nabokov's despise) that I don't pay attention to details sometimes and I get rather bored with them if the book is just explaining how something looks or if the author takes the time to really tell you the tone of the scene. But, at the same time I do enjoy some details in books, I guess it just depends on how much detail or what the detail is trying to describe that gets me. I do enjoy all dialogue between characters because I do find that hard to get bored with. It's always intriguing to me to see and understand a character in a book. It's like meeting a new person and then being able to understand them more deeply and look deeper and deeper into them without it being awkward. It might be awkward in real life if you were to just pause and ask the person to repeat what they just said so you could understand them better, like you would re-read a line in a book to get the full meaning. So I guess I would rate myself a seven out of ten, I consider myself an above average reader.







Image cite-http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/63/46263-004-A74F04C5.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic-art/401299/79745/Vladimir-Nabokov-1968&usg=__b_ylN_Ja5NtOO8Bf2V-eOFaQMoA=&h=450&w=346&sz=29&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=pLNMhOhU2W_YDM:&tbnh=161&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3DNabokov%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Den%26biw%3D1024%26bih%3D944%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=261&vpy=99&dur=9&hovh=256&hovw=197&tx=96&ty=144&ei=IY11TN7dCYP68AabxpX3BQ&oei=IY11TN7dCYP68AabxpX3BQ&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=28&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0

People say that a picture is worth a thousand words. What does this mean? How can one photo or painting of something be worth a thousand words? Well let me share how it is that a picture can be worth a thousand words. Well it's because a photo or picture can be left up to interpretation. That is anyone can look at a picture and give it whatever meaning it is that they want it to represent. When looking at a picture haven't you ever wondered what it was the author was trying to get across? There usually is a reason for the painting whether it be to represent a picture of a beautiful landscape, a beautiful woman or something cool like an airplane. But when looking at a picture you should be trying to analyze why it is that the painter decided to use what colors they used and why they painted what they painted. You should be wondering what it is that the painter wants you to feel when painting a picture.

When a painter paints something they are trying to portray what they are feeling about that particular item. For example a painter might be painting a picture of a war scene like you commonly see in history text books. So the painter is going to go into great detail with the people's faces and the expressions that they are portraying. Also he might use colors that are somewhat bleak in comparison to other colors that they might use. This would be used to portray that the scene and what was happening at the time was very sad and hopeless. Obviously if they used bright colors or went into great detail with the grass and clouds it would leave the viewer wondering what it was they wanted them to focus on. This is how a picture can portray a thousand words. It's because anyone can look at it and say what it means to them or what they think the painter was trying to get across.