i haven't listened to them that much, but I'll have to check them out in more detail!

Rock on with the music choice, Drew. :)

You're thinking of giving up participation in the blog altogether? Our aim is not to ostracize any outsider, it's to communicate and learn in a nurturing and positive fashion. We'd love you to stay, as long as you play by the rules a little more. It doesn't need to be rainbows and butterflies and cupcakes all the time, (although I could go for one pretty much any hour of the day) but professionalism is much appreciated.

Thank you for that correction, I forgot to add the common substitution that wikipedia referenced through the quote "Vox populi, vox Dei." - The voice of the people is the voice of God. I appreciate your respect in responding to my comment. I still find the irony between your dialogue with the rest of the bloggers here, and their responses, to fit perfectly with the quote. However, this is a digression from the topic of the post, and I don't mean to create a long debate over one wikipedia article, nor do I mean to offend you if I have done so.

Also, since I'm rather mentally...convoluted, shall we say, in some of my internal understandings of things, I wasn't sure what vox_dei meant, so I looked it up on wikipedia and this is what I got:

"Another early reference to the expressionomal is in a letter from Alcuin to Charlemagne in 798, although it is believed to have been in earlier use.[3] The full quotation from Alcuin reads:

Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, Vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.[4]

English translation:

And those people should not be listened to who keep saying the voice of the people is the voice of God, since the riotousness of the crowd is always very close to madness."

.....Irony? Anyone? Bueller?

No problem! I had already typed out this whole big long post and then it wouldn't even let me put it up...so I kind of felt I needed to put it up, and prove that I was stronger than intense debate. It's the little things in life :-)

I would definitely recommend reading "The Feminine Mystique" although I thought it was the most boring book I ever loved. It took me about 6 months of passing out with it on my face to get through it. But hey, if you're suffering from insomnia...

Hmmm...good posting Jordan. I had put this up on angel, but I'll just put it up here as well. What would Socrates say about someone that gives negative input like this, in terms of his orientation toward the good? Is this someone that we could still take seriously, as his posting does contain relevant material, and is apparently (although loosely) attempting at providing correct information for all of the people on the blog to see?

...Could we possibly connect this to my post on mob mentality?! Hhahah..just kidding. Kind of. I mean, vox dei does mean "voice of the people". If this is a member of the class, is he expressing his anger here because he's unashamed of doing so in front of the mob that is our digital dialogue?!

Hi Anna, good question! And I'll add another female presence to this one haha.

I actually had a really, I guess radical, instantaneous answer to your question. I took it to be asking whether or not someone could be sexually gratified just from being mentally/emotionally in love. From a physical standpoint, wouldn't that mean one would be able to "think" him/herself to....gratification? Would that bring us right back to the leaky jar idea of it not being a lasting gratification?

Hey Kit, I had a few bones to pick with you but Intense Debate was seriously being a pain in the behind. I'll just post what I had thought out anyway, to give some insight to another female point of view.

First, I wish I weren't so behind in blogging - this is a great dialogue that you guys have got going here. I also think its awesome to see mainly men discussing the issue of feminism, and not coming up with a one sided argument. Bravo, guys!

BUT. I don't know how many of you have actually read primary sources on feminism. Tony - great reference to bell hooks. As for "The Feminine Mystique," I would like to point out that it brought up the problem in society of gender roles, but not as one that women had especially "allowed" to happen. The book is composed of chapters that individually attack various issues, stereotypes, and phenomena, within the 1950's- and earlier - household society. It's been about 5 years since I read the book, and I should brush up on it, but the part that stuck out in my mind concerned the medication of women for depression. Many women were seeking psychological help, and any other forms of outlet for this feeling of being trapped in a stereotype, and were simply medicated to feel that they no longer had a problem. I would say that this is in no way the woman "allowing" herself to be placed in a situation like this. That brings up the question of how society was reacting to the woman trying to change her own position - and I think we've got the ball rolling on that enough.

Also, on the slavery issue, there was a fair amount of Africans selling out their tribesmen to avoid entrapment themselves. But after having just done a paper that involved the slave trade in Africa, I've come across large amounts of information that focus on the involuntary capture of slaves. A French book called "Voyage au bout de la nuit" [Voyage to the end of the night] by Ferdinand Celine, discusses the violent overtaking of African territories in order to make them colonies, along with the forced emigration of tribesmen and women as slaves to European countries. The Africans generally adopted the theory of surviving in any way possible, rather than giving up their lives in order to avoid being enslaved -although some chose this route.

But ignorance is knowledge! Or, was it the other way around...hehe anyway, that's an interesting point about the capitalization - maybe something to bring up in class tomorrow?