A feminist analysis on Gwendolyn Brooks, The Mother Custom Essay

Assignment ENGL # 1 ( 1 Page / 300 words 2 References)
Write A feminist analysis on Gwendolyn Brooks, "The Mother" looks at the roles of female (or lack

thereof) characters or issues in the text. Further issues include female vs. male writing differences and women

writing about the female experience (sexuality, childbirth, motherhood). "Queer Theory" looks at gay and

lesbian issues brought out, either overtly or covertly in a text. The analysis should be at least 300 words long

(double-spaced).
There are no "right" nor "wrong" answers for this–the power will be in what you use from the

text and the theories to support your points. Be sure to anchor your thesis statement in a theory using vocabulary

we’re learning and practicing. Include the theorist(s)’ name(s) throughout the response when you use the

vocabulary. No problem explaining briefly what the theory or vocabulary means in your discussion.
It’s very important to focus on feminist and queer theory angles. Stick to larger issues related to feminist and

queer theory concerns. It’s fine to bring in outside socio-economic events to the texts–dates, events, etc.
Assignments # 2( 1 Page / 8 sentences each/ 2 References each)

A). Respond to Michael Lassell, "How to Watch Your Brother Die" in terms of critiquing it for following a

feminist critique. Point out areas that you believe a "classmate" may have overlooked or not have had

room to analyze. Your response should be a solid paragraph of about 8 sentences. Anchor the Response in vocabulary

terms and theory, giving credit to the particular theorist you are using (Showalter, Chodorow, Gilligan, Sedgwick,

Cixous, Butler, etc.).
B). Respond to Diane Di Prima, "Brass Furnace Going Out: Song, After an Abortion" in terms of critiquing

it for following a feminist critique. Point out areas that you believe a "classmate" may have overlooked

or not have had room to analyze. Your response should be a solid paragraph of about 8 sentences. Anchor the

Response in vocabulary terms and theory, giving credit to the particular theorist you are using (Showalter,

Chodorow, Gilligan, Sedgwick, Cixous, Butler, etc.).

Assignments # 3 ( 3 Pages /No References needed)
(Complete the following Study Sheet)
STUDY SHEET FOR FEMINIST AND GAY/LESBIAN CRITICISM

1. For the following authors, list their their most famous works (pick one) and dates of publication.

a. Mary Wollstonecraft b. Elizabeth Cady Stanton (speech)

c. Virginia Woolf d. Simone de Beauvoir

e. Kate Millet f. Germaine Greer

g. Gloria Steinem h. Betty Friedan

i. Carol Gilligan j. bell hooks

k. Judith Butler l. Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick

2. What is meant by the term “images of women” school of criticism? Give a leading critic of this so-called

“school.” What is the focus of this type of criticism?

3. “Killing the angel of the house” is a famous metaphor relating to women’s psyches when entering traditionally

male-dominated professions. With whom is it
associated and from where does it come?

4. What is “gynocriticism?” With whom is it mainly associated? How does it differ from the “feminist critique” or

the “images of women” schools?

5. In her 1977 book A Literature of their Own, Elaine Showalter breaks women’s writings into three chronological

and socio/political phases: the Feminine, the Feminist and the Female. Give the approximate dates for each and

briefly explain how they differ from each other.

6. According to Dobie (or other sources you have found), what are the major differences between “British,”

“American” and “French” feminist critical approaches? List one writer associated with each “side.”

7. What is meant by the term “ecriture feminine?” With whom is it associated? What is the title of her essay which

introduces the term?

8. “One is not born a woman–one becomes one.” Who wrote this quotation and what do you think it means?

9. Briefly define what you think a “psychoanalytic feminist” approach to a text entails.

10. Describe briefly the difference between essentialist and anti-essentialist positions on sexual identity.

11. What do you think Adrienne Rich means by the term “compulsory heterosexuality?”

12. Give brief definitions for each of the following terms.
a. homophobia

b. homoerotic/lesboerotic

c. queerbashing

d. queer theory

e. the closet and “coming out”

f. camp

g. butch/femme

h. hypermasculine/hyperfeminine

i. genderfuck

j. Stonewall (1969)

k. gay ghetto

l. vanilla sexuality

13. List two lesbian representations from t.v. and/or movies.

14. List three “out” lesbians from the public world.

15. List two gay male representations from t.v and/or movies.

16. List three “out” gay males from the public world.

17. Evaluate the following statement for its accuracy. Think about the difference between homosexual activity and

homosexual identity (hint: Foucault):

“Gays and lesbians have existed since the beginning of time.”

Assignment GVPT# 4 ( 2 Pages /4 References)
There are growing “control gaps” between state aspirations and state capabilities.
What is the control gap? What are the theories of globalization? And is it really all about oil? As always use

specific evidence to edify your comments. Include your perspective.
Assignment CSIA # 5 ( 1 Page/ 2 References)
Speaking on Security Technology: Find an Article about Prevention System, Intrusion Detection. Comment on the

article, and include your Perspective.

Assignment HMLS # 6 ( 2 Page/ 4 References)
1) Should terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda be given prisoner of war status and thus be entitled under the

rights of the Geneva Convention? and Which system of justice would you advise the President to handle regarding

captured terrorist? Domestic courts, military tribunals or something other?
2) How is the checks and balances in the U.S Constitution important to protect individuals liberties? Can you cite

two examples of this checks and balance? Could checks and balances be limited during times of terrorist events or

war? Why is this a good idea or a bad idea? Please explain your answers and answer each separately.
Assignment # 7 ( 2 Pages -one page for each Note/ 2 References each)
Respond to the following notes bellow
Sonya’s Response
by Sonya DeHoyos
Note # 1
1.Should terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda be given prisoner of war status and thus be entitled under the

rights of the Geneva Convention?
I do not believe members of Al Qaeda should be given POW status because their actions are not committed as part of

any ‘war’. They are criminals, whose extremist beliefs have driven them to murder. However, I do believe when they

are captured and detained that they do have rights under the Geneva Conventions because the Geneva Conventions are

International treaties that were written for the purpose of ensuring humane treatment of individuals in custody. I

take this position because we as a nation, must continue to uphold our integrity as a leader of human rights. The

American Civil Liberties Union also holds the position that the US should not deter from its human rights

leadership by detaining individuals indefinitely without charge, allowing torture of detainees, and acting unfairly

toward immigrants (ACLU, n.d.) I agree with ACLU that we must uphold our moral authority by taking action to reject

these injustices (ACLU, n.d). Even our current President, President Obama, holds the position of human treatment

and respect of the US Constitution. I reviewed his remarks regarding National Security on May 21, 2009 and although

he does make some valid points regarding transparency (not releasing photos for the safety of our servicemen and

women), which I do agree with, he also makes it very clear that no matter what war or who we are fighting, we

uphold our core values, act humanely, respect the rule of law and due process (Obama, 2009). He also said we are

the nation that shut down torture chambers and replaced tyranny with the rule of law (Obama, 2009). This is true,

we were leading by example and all of a sudden that changed after 9/11 with the policies. I agree with Obama, we

need to get back on track.

1. Which system of justice would you advise the President to handle regarding captured terrorist? Domestic courts,

military tribunals or something other?
Because these two different systems can’t seem to co-exist as they are, I would advise revision of the detention

policy, as recommended by some Yale Law scholars. The Yale Law scholars also agree with ACLU and Obama’s position

in that the US should uphold its moral principles. They propose the following principles be incorporated into the

detention policy to help undo the damage done to our nation’s reputation and to uphold our moral principles (Ahmad,

et.al., 2009):
•
o Observe the rule of law by respecting international humanitarian law, ceasing to engage in run-arounds regarding

the constitution and basic human rights.
o Make Liberty the norm by not detaining without trial or for preventative measures (incarceration is a result of

what an individual has done, not may do)
o Individualized process should be carried out no matter the circumstance or the individual. Every person, even

those suspected of terrorism should have the right to this process.
o Engage in Transparency with the public to establish credibility and legitimacy.
They go on to add that there should be judicial oversight, zero tolerance regarding torture of detainees, and

overall adherence to the US Constitution (Ahmad, et.al., 2009). I think if these principles were applied, the

military tribunals would be sufficient.
1. Part I 1) How is the checks and balances in the U.S Constitution important to protect individuals liberties? I

think judicial oversight is the best way to ensure checks and balances in the U.S. Constitution. As we have seen,

the question of the Supreme Court’s authority keeps coming up but there should be no question because it is their

oversight that enables the checks and balances for the protection of individual’s liberties. Can you cite two

examples of this checks and balance? Two cases quickly come to mind as examples of this checks and balance: Rasul

v. Bush and Korematsu v. United States. Both cases took Supreme Court rulings to ensure that our Constitution was

upheld. As long as the Constitution always takes precedence, individuals’ liberties are protected.
2) Could checks and balances be limited during times of terrorist events or war? Why is this a good idea or a bad

idea? Please explain your answers. I think the checks and balances can be limited as long as the Constitution,

International laws, and Geneva Conventions are being respected. This can be a good idea when time is of the essence

but the procedures must be iron-clad with regular monitoring and reporting to ensure the integrity of the

procedures. Only in this situation can the involvement for judicial oversight be limited.

Sources:
ACLU. (n.d.). National Security. Retrieved on April 14, 2014, from https://www.aclu.org/human-rights/national-

security
Ahmad, M. L. (2009). Scholars’ statement of principles for the new president on U.S. Detention Policy: an agenda

for change . Yale Law. Retrieved on April 14, 2014, from

https://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Alumni_Affairs/Scholars_Statement.pdf

Obama, B. (2009). President Obama: our security, our values. Retrieved on April 14, 2014, from

https://www.whitehouse.gov/video/President-Obama-Our-Security-Our-Values

Week 5_Lee
by Shannon Garcia
Note # 2
Policy: 1) Should terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda be given prisoner of war status and thus be entitled

under the rights of the Geneva Convention? and Which system of justice would you advise the President to handle

regarding captured terrorist? Domestic courts, military tribunals or something other? Part I 1) How is the checks

and balances in the U.S Constitution important to protect individuals liberties? Can you cite two examples of this

checks and balance? 2) Could checks and balances be limited during times of terrorist events or war? Why is this a

good idea or a bad idea? Please explain your answers.
In all honestly, this question pumps and prods for a personal opinion in relation to the answer to question one of

this week’s conference. It does not matter what should happen among terrorist and enemy combatants, it matters what

is annotated and in doctrine that we can enforce. As of right now, according to the Homeland Security Presidential

Directive; “terrorists’ seek to destroy, incapacitate, or exploit critical infrastructure and key resources across

the United States to threaten national security, cause mass casualties, weaken our economy, and damage public

morale and confidence”. Personally speaking, I believe that each individual situation is different in regard to

prisoner of war status for the question that is being asked. Following the breakdown of the cycle of terrorist and

selecting a target and recruiting personnel to get a job done, utilizing personnel to prevent future attacks is an

option. Creating harsh environments and not gaining intelligence and information should some be given a prisoner of

war status and protected under the Geneva Convention may not always be the best option. In the past we have been a

reactive nation and not necessarily a proactive one. Each criminal, each terrorist has breaking points and

different situations just like no two humans are exactly alike (even twins have differences).
Within the justice department and the President handling the capture of terrorists, they are in a category all of

their own. I have had the opportunity to understand and be a part of the domestic courts as well as military

courts; although I am no subject matter expert in either one. I believe that a checks and balances of both would be

quite interesting, meaning I would choose other. If a terrorist is captured or found on American soil (meaning not

on some sort of military combat outpost or forward operating base in another country) than specifically domestic

courts should be utilized. If a terrorist is captured during a deployment of troops than a military tribunal with

the added benefit of the input of a domestic court should be utilized (in conjunction). I am not saying that one

court system is better than the other, we are all doing the same job, protecting the same nation; what is so

difficult about coming together to share knowledge and add joint decisions in the highest regard?
Checks and balances are important to the protection of individual civil liberties due to the fact that they were

set up to not only avoid any sort of anarchy but to achieve justice and the correct and lawful way in correlation

with law and the Constitution. “Madison felt that in a republic that the goal of it’s elected leaders should be to

maintain the authority of the Constitution, which of course gets it’s authority from the people living under its

laws.” Checks and balances are used so that the perception and interpretation of the Constitution is not only the

correct one but it is adhered to and that the good of the people is understood and civil rights and liberties are

maintained. Two examples of checks and balances would be the case between the New York Times and the United States

in reference to the Pentagon Papers as well as one of our previously discussed court cases during class of

Korematsu versus the United States.
I believe that checks and balances should not necessarily be limited during times of terrorist events or war, but

could be if there is no other option. Regardless the process would be slowed down. Many court cases and reviews and

trials are drawn out and lengthened when they are high profiled which would consist of a trial for terrorism or

during a war. Many things need to be taken into consideration and the smallest hiccup could cause derogatory or

negative results or actions. It is understood that time is of the essence in relation to terrorism, but not so vast

that the Constitutional rights or laws are not adhered to in the process.
References:
Salvato, N., 2005. Constitutional Liberty. Retrieved on April 14, 2014 from

https://www.basicsproject.org/constitutional_literacy/government/checks_and_balances_maintaining_our_liberties.htm
2014. Casebriefs. New York Times Co. v. United States [Pentagon Papers Case]. Retrieved on April 14, 2014 from
https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-sullivan/freedom-of-speech-how-

government-restricts-speech-modes-of-abridgment-and-standards-of-review/new-york-times-co-v-united-states-the-

pentagon-papers-case/
Legal Information Institute. Korematsu v. United States. Retrieved on April 14, 2014 from

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/323/214