Tavris

1) What perspectives does Tavris present that are different from those of Richard Cohen? What ideas in her essay are similar to those in his?

Tarvis is defending men saying that womens realtionships are just shallow and dont really mean anything. Cohen is saying how men cant have real friends and how women are correct in their views on friendships. both essays compare men and women's friendships.

2)In your own words, paraphrase both Cohen's and Tavris's definitions of friendship. Then, write your deffinition of friendship, in which you explicitly agree or disagree with the ideas of Cohen and/or Tavris.

Cohen says that friend ship is based on what each person tells one another. and how comfortable they are expressing their emotions with one another. Tavris is defending men saying how they are based on expierience not just talking. she sees womens friendships together more as shallow and sell them out as soon as something cute walks by. I Really agree with the fact that men do not share their feelings, very easily. it takes a bit to get it out of them and i dont think men are really that interested in each other enough to want to drag it out of them. women seem to feel that if somehting is off it must be fixed imeadately. a woman hates to have anything wrong. she will bug a man till he breaks and spills the beans on whats going on. Some women will sell out their best friends for a guy but that is not all women nor will all men keep every thing bottled up. I had to make a choice once between my friend and a guy i picked the guy and me and my friend did not talk for a year and ahalf. but then we reconnected and now all is good and i have both my friend and my boyfriend

3) How does Tavris suggest classifying peple as either "mature" or "immature"? Why does she make this distinction? What other characteristics would you say define someone (male or female) as "mature" or "immature"?

She says that one cannot judge if someone is mature or immature because there might be a different side to the story, it is not fair to judge someone else on if they are mature or not on what you belive to be mature because to someone else you might look just as immature. Maturity is more something that is present when it needs to be it is fun to be immature because look at little children they get to run around and be immature and then boom they are told to grow up and become mature. how that works i am not sure. noone can judge if someone else is immature or not becuase chances are they are not any more mature then the one they judge.

project one edited

I believe that having a learning difference is a great strength rather than a weakness. My main reason for believing this is because in sixth grade I was diagnosed with attention deficit disorder. When I was in fifth grade math I could not keep up. I was falling behind and I really just did not understand why everyone else could do the math but me. My teacher would tell me to just look at examples and try to figure it out. This frustrated me because it all looked like a foreign language to me. When I got to the sixth grade, I began attending The Hill Center, a special school for children with learning differences. The Hill Center helped me develop skills I needed to succeed. I did not have a 504 to explain to my teachers about my LD. I had to go to my teachers at my other school and explain the help I needed by myself. I became I a very good self advocate. In the ninth grade I had a great science teacher; he was all about helping me even without my 504. This was a relief, because I was worried that the public schools would not help me with my LD. In my junior year I was not as lucky with my teacher in chemistry. He did not believe in learning differences. This made things very hard I would go in for extra help, and he would tell me that I was doing it wrong. Yet he would not explain how to do it any other way. He would just tell me that I was doing it incorrectly this really frustrated me. Being told that I was wrong but not being told how to fix the problem. I kept going to him for extra help every other day; he even told me I was incapable of learning. I would come home really upset at this point my mom knew she needed to get involved. She set up an appointment with my counselor and the teacher. We all sat there and talked about how we could resolve this problem. We came up with a couple solutions. After that nothing changed it was as if we hadn’t had the meeting. I passed the class with a C. I was proud but worried about what colleges would think about me getting a C in chemistry. My senior year was better not as good as ninth and tenth grade. This teacher did not like to give extra help, but the class was easier so I did better. Going through two years with teachers who would not help me, and making me advocate the help I needed really made me a stronger learner. I had to listen to people tell me I could not learn, and discourage me. I knew differently I knew I could do anything I put my mind to. The Hill Center taught me that having a learning difference does not mean that you are dumb or cannot learn, but that you just learn a different way. I am so grateful for having had the opportunity to attend such a wonderful school like The Hill Center. If I had not attended The Hill Center, I would never have learned to become a strong advocate for myself. Having a learning difference is a great strength of mine; I can tell people exactly what I need. This skill has been very beneficial for college. My LD has shown me that I have to take care of myself no one else is going to do it for me, if I need something, I have to get it. I see my LD as a challenge, not a setback. I am a stronger person because of my learning difference.




i know that it doesnt make much sense to be going from a math LD to a LD in science but math and science sorta go hand in hand not sure

cohen

1) According to Cohen, what are the properties of men's relationships? Why does he think that these properties do not fit a definition of friendship?
He says that men cannot have real friends, he says that they do not express themselves like women do therefore they will never have real friends. they are more buddies, chums, pals, but not people they will ever express any feelings to one another. They do not talk like women do they wont express things that are bothering them. They keep to themselves.
2) What fundamental distinction does Cohen make between men and women? That is, how does he classify men and women? Do you agree with his classification? Why or why not?
Women will straight up tell you how they feel if they are having a bad day or a great day. they will vent till your ears fall off. men on the other hand you have to practically drag what ever is bothering them out. you cannot simply say hey whats wrong no it takes much more. Men/boys have been brought up to believe that it is not right for men to express emotion and or feelings. so they keep to them selves. i agree men are very secretive and women are not.
3) Examine the kind of evidence that Cohen offers in paragraph 5 to support his thesis. Would his argument be stronger if he had talked about, or named, specific men? What are the risks of generalizing about human behavior?
he has a very strong argument. naming specific men he knows just makes it seem that he only knows this of his friends. then again generalizing men all into one makes it hard because some men do express their feelings. Generalization is hard, because no two people are exactly alike and so makeing a general statement just makes it harder to believe because it is more likely that it is not true all the way through.

Trooper

I am not sure if it was a racil act or not but I think the trooper might have gotten caught up in the moment and hit the man on purpose if the suspect had pissed off the trooper the trooper might have been angry and wanted revenge. I really do believe that the trooper should get the ten years and the fine. many times cops, sheriffs and state troopers get let off on things when they "screw up" but because they were "doing their job" they get off wich is complete b.s. they should not be treated any different. if they commit a crime they should not be protected by a badge. there have been many things like this but atleast this trooper gets locked up. if the president killed someone would he be punnished. just because they have a badge does not make it acceptable to commit a crime