Henrik Ibsen’s words are true today in some societies. His said this quote during the 1800s and since that time a lot has changed. Many of the countries in the developed world no longer suffer from issues like this where a woman cannot be herself. Society has developed from a more masculine society and has become more inclusive in many places about women and women’s rights. One country, for example, is the United States. The United States is a country where people have the right to protest and freedom of speech. Throughout the past few hundred years since Ibsen’s time women’s rights have become an issue that has been talked about and now jobs are almost equally split between men and women. 47% of the US workforce are women. Mothers are the primary earners for around 40% of houses with kids under the age of 18. In 1960 this was 11%. So yes I do believe that a lot has changed since Ibsen’s time regarding society to be primarily male, however, there are a lot of countries, especially those still developing that have neglected women’s rights. one country, for example, is Saudi Arabia. This is a country that is known for having harsh restrictions on things that women can and cannot do. Some of the restrictions include(d), not being able to drive (lifted), requiring male guardianship when requesting access to travel abroad and obtain legal information as well as not being able to have medical procedures without their male guardians who may be a brother or father. This is one of the ways that society has not changed from the time that Ibsen wrote about because it is still primarily a masculine society is Saudi, however, change is happening and we can see that small rules are slowly being lifted. Another factor that has played a part since Ibsen’s time is religion and political beliefs which shape the way that people act and think. This is very masculine run as indicated through TV and other media forms and this is one of the reasons that places like Saudi are extremely conservative with what they allow women to do and what jobs they allow them to have.
(1.5.56) “Look like th’ innocent flower, but be the serpent under’t.”
This is an example of a simile. LM tells M to act like an innocent flower but underneath be the serpent. This is set before he kills Duncan. I chose this because it is a good example of a simile and shows Macbeth’s true intentions.
(2.3.52-53) “Some say the Earth was feverous and did shake”
Example of personification used to show how the earth shook. I chose this quote because it shows how Lennox says the world had a fever last night and many bad things happened. this is before they are aware of Duncan’s death.
“There the grown serpent lies; the worm that’s fled Hath nature that in time will venom breed, No teeth for th’present.”
This is a metaphor that talks about how the witches prophecy stated that Banquo’s descendants would also be king one day. this is also an example of foreshadowing for the future because Macbeth tries to kill Banquo and his son Fleance. The serpent is referring to Banquo and his family and how they will overtake Macbeth one day.
In Macbeth, Shakespeare uses a variety of dramatic functions in Act 1 to grab the readers attention and to create an interesting plotline. He uses similes as a dramatic function in order to show that Macbeth is easily read, his face is open like a book and his intentions are clear all the time. This is important for the readers because Shakespeare is showing the readers what kind of a person Macbeth is as well as the type of person that Lady Macbeth is. Lady Macbeth also says that Macbeth should “look like the time” deceiving him by greeting him the way that anybody would expect him to, as a guest in his home. There is also another example of a simile where Lady Macbeth says “look like th’innocent flower” a reference telling him to act as if nothing is wrong and as if they are not planning anything. (1.5.60-64)
An example of dramatic irony is when Duncan comes to Macbeth’s castle as a guest. This is an example of dramatic irony, specifically foreshadowing because Macbeth and Lady Macbeth are planning on murdering Malcolm but he suspects nothing and believes that he is going to have a short and safe visit. Shakespeare sets the tone when Duncan says “This castle hath a pleasant seat” (1.6.1) which is the first instance of foreshadowing. (1.6.1-30)
Society labels criminals differently based on the belief that they will never change. When criminals are released from prison or from rehabilitation centers, people do not expect them to change their behavior; the mentality from society is ‘once an offender, always an offender.’ Christian Perrin, a criminal psychologist who works at the University of Liverpool and is currently based in Singapore quotes. “I don’t think society treats ex-offenders well, [however] I don’t think that it’s society’s fault. The media has a lot to do with the way that they portray offenders as this influences the community’s personal perspectives.”
Everyone has a fascination with crime in some way, and the media is the way that people access the news. The news is not only a place to understand current events, but also a place where anyone can write what they want about a certain topic and publicly express it.
Offenders are people too and believing that they will not change is a problem that the media has exaggerated to the point where it is impossible for them to re-enter society in the same way.
I believe that criminals and offenders should be given a second chance to be able to repent for their wrongdoings and prove that they want to improve from what they have done in the past. It is hard to accept offenders who have committed crimes that have caused harm to people, but would they really want to do that again? Personally, I believe that one of the reasons that people believe offenders and convicts will never change is because they know society will never accept them, so why change in the first place?
There are thousands of TV shows and movies that revolve around crime and portray stories of scenarios that should not be true. This directly affects people’s perspectives along with the media to put criminals and offenders into a bad light. To me, this is diminishing any chance that these people have of reentering society as a new person and not be judged based upon their past actions. According to ScientificAmerican.com, only 30% of sex offenders globally have ever re-offended. Considering that many people are not involved with offending in the first place, this statistic is incredibly low and only applies to handfuls of people.
I also think that people who do not believe in offenders wanting to change have reasons for that, but the problem is that they are not giving these people a chance to show that they can. I also think that society as a whole is not properly educated on these subjects and are not fully aware of the complete situation. Instead, all that seems to be going through their minds is, “once an offender, always an offender,” which is the wrong type of mentality in trying to fit these people back into society.
The website sexoffenderresource.com is a useful website that provides help to registered sex offenders. There are counseling services, employment relapses and other resources that can help sex offenders to reintegrate themselves into society. There are also useful resources in place that can educate family members of sex offenders on how to help with therapy and reassimilation back into society. This website is a great start to helping people understand how to bring about change for this issue, and is a great start to help sex offenders around the world.
My partner wrote his presentation based upon the foundational story “The Mahabharata” (Aryan)
I was able to identify how his foundational story had been adapted from its original form. There were examples of TV shows that showed different ideas about the Mahabharata. There were more modern settings and environments but still kept to the core values of the Mahabharata. there are also adaptations of books for children and adults to understand the story better through different perspectives.
There is some evidence as shown in his presentation about how there is time change and how the story has evolved from its original state because what has happened is that there is evidence of how history has caused adaptions from one basic version and idea of the story. Take the children’s books, for example, they are aimed at a younger audience paraphrased and adapted to suit the newer generation. This means that the story has been modified and shows evidence of change from when it first orally passed down through generations.
I can see that he has thought about how the Mahabharata has been adapted because it contains so many core values and ideals that many people are represented by and use as a way to guide them through life which is why it has been revisioned and adapted to newer generations.
How does the journalist feel about forced language assimilation (i.e. the view/expectation that everyone in America must learn English) and what does she believe is the relationship between accent, identity, and power?
I think that the journalist feels that forced language assimilation is something that Donald Trump wants to do because he believes that English is the superior language and feels that everyone in his country should speak. However what the journalist said at the end of her article about how Trump believes in forced assimilation because he fears the Spanish speaking community due to the sheer growth and amount of people speaking the language. Donald Trump is scared. The author believes that holds cultural identity and, to many people and many communities across the United States it holds cultural value to them. What Trump is failing to see from this is that Spanish is not just a language that people speak, but it also represents individuals and identifies them by what language they speak and who they might be cultural. Forced assimilation will get Trump nowhere, as the world continues to grow so will the Spanish speaking community as it is already one of the most spoken languages on the planet.
What do you notice about the journalist’s own language? Do you agree with her views?
I notice that the journalist does acknowledge her own language and that she speaks it and that her family has grown up with it in the article. At the beginning of the article, it seems to be more focused on what Trump’s ideas on the situation are until she talks about how her grandmother uses the language. She provides context about how her grandmother lived and lives now and how her culture has kept her who she is. The j0urnalist has, at this point switched to a more personal view of the situation as opposed to the more political view that she had used before. The journalist uses personal experiences to express why her culture matters to her for example when the grandmother would go to see her and her siblings etc. I think that the author believes that she appreciates and feels her culture and that she believes that somebody like Trump can not go around changing that.