Oppression by Choice- Cudd- Parts 1 and 2

Part One
The paper seeks to address several questions about oppression.

1) Can a structure be oppressive if the "oppressed" are oppressed because of their own choices
2) Why do the "oppressed" sometimes seem to help in their own oppression

To answer the first question, Cudd points out that it is not that people don't have choices- it's that they don't have any GOOD choices. Her example is this: you're being robbed. You have two choices- give up and losing your property, or fight back and maybe die or being harmed. You have a choice. Your oppression will result from your choice. But you don't have a GOOD, non-oppressive choice. You're coerced into this.

Marxism also follows with this idea- "the working class is exploited or oppressed through its limited choices".

The second question of why the oppressed seem to help in their own oppression might be answered by the fact that, in the example of women, they "are shaped by society to see their situation as natural, inevitable, and some times even preferable." When one doesn't see any better choices, the options all seem to reinforce one's own oppression. There's no real out.

Part Two
Criteria of Oppression
1) needs to have physical or psychological harm, although the oppressed don't need to recognize it as harm
2) oppressed group identifiable independent of oppression- one suffers oppression just by being a part of this group- it's a part of self image
3) some group benefits from oppression- there is a group who suffers and a group who benefits from oppression
4) oppression must involve some coercion or force- it can, however, be subtle and not recognized

Black Oppression of Black People- Last Walker, I promise

The final point that really jumped out at me from Walker's essay was the part towards the end where it talks about the oppression of blacks, namely black men. The wife reads statistics about how black men were oppressed after the Civil War, how many were abused during what time periods, etc.

There was one line that she skips over pretty much, but that jumps out at the husband. It was, "There were also a number of Black women lynched." Walker then says that maybe the wife didn't dwell on that point because in a way, she is still the more oppressed gender of the race- and so she can't dwell on the fact that, for her, the situation really hasn't changed so much. The man can look at the idea of women being lynched from a distance, because he is much less oppressed. For her, it is still reality.

The point comes up that the power relationships have changed dramatically. Where in the past, it was whites over blacks, now it is men over women. There is still some of the racial elements. But if you look within both the white community and the black community, it is male power over women. This transcends the racial category, suggesting that gender imbalances are stronger than racial imbalances. "...[W]omen... have in a sense become uppity niggers. As the Black man threatens the white man's masculinity and power, so now do women."

Some more Walker

Additionally, there was a large segment of the piece regarding lesbianism. It was interesting to read how people can view lesbians in one context and approve, while in another, the opposite view is taken. For example, the husband doesn't mind looking at "phony lesbians" in the context of porn- in fact, it's kind of a forbidden fantasy, something that really captures his attention. However, when his wife is reading to him, he accuses the author of being a "dyke" and basically says all her words are discredited because of her supposed sexual orientation. This struck me as one of the double binds that Frye talked about- what are women allowed to say or be in certain circumstances.

Another example of the double bind is when the husband is looking forward in life and imagines that he can no longer be with his wife. Because she spoke her mind, she isn't sexually attractive to him anymore. But if she didn't speak her mind, she wouldn't be true to herself. She doesn't have a good option at this point.

Also in that paragraph, the husband thinks, "He feels oppressed by her incipient struggle, and feels somehow as if her struggle to change the pleasure he has enjoyed is a violation of his rights." This goes back to Frye's point that people can struggle and suffer and have aspects of oppression present in their lives, without truly being oppressed. I feel that this is an example of that. He had one bar of the bird cage placed in front of him... she lived with all the bars. Back to microscopic vs. macroscopic views of oppression.

Coming Apart by Walker

I felt like with this story, it was easy to see many of the things that Frye talked about in her piece "Oppression"... in the format of a story. The tool of oppression in Walker's piece is pornography.

On the first page, the woman recognizes that her concerns won't be taken seriously... her husband responds with "You are being silly/a prude and/ ridiculous. You know I love you." It made me think of when Frye talked about women's physical restraint. This is an example of verbal restraint- she's not going to say anything or push the issue because she'll just get mocked. It doesn't benefit her... it benefits him.

Throughout the whole piece, there are so many examples of where women are treated as things... white and black women, by white and black men. But especially horrible, to me and to Walker, is the treatment of black women by black men.

The first example is when the wife is standing a little ways behind her husband. She immediately gets questions about her "working"... is she for sale? Her husband struggles at first, but then gets his head around the idea that this is a compliment- his wife is good looking. The second example is related to the first- she's behind him a ways because she stopped to stare in disgust at 4 life size plastic dolls. Women are toys, for the man's pleasure.

Later in the piece, the husband begins to feel disgust for himself, because he realizes he's bought into all the things the porn industry has been telling him about women, and about himself. Women are things to be had; what's worse is that white women, while something to be had, is at least displayed as a human creature... black women are displayed as inhuman things. Furthermore, as he states, he is only as good as "the size, readiness and unselectivity of his cock", as a black man.

More Frye- benefits, meaning, internalized/self-monitored,

A few more points which are important for Frye's argument:

Benefit- Frye says that all people can encounter aspects of suffering, or even oppression, but that one must look at who benefits in the situation to decide if one is a member of an oppressed group. She gives the examples of the rich white playboy etc. who breaks his leg. He suffers, but isn't oppressed. Her second example is of racial ghettos- they keep people in and people out; both are oppressed by these rules. But the out people generally make the rules for their benefit. They can't go in and their actions are restricted, but not to their detriment.

Meaning- She talks about prison walls for this example. Walls keep people in and keep people out, but they symbolize something entirely different for the two groups. For the people out, it means protection. For the people in, it means confinement and limitations.

Internalized/Self-Monitored behavior- This ties back in to benefit. Frye notes that most of the time, men and women follow in line with what is socially required of them. But that it is men who require it. She gives two examples. For men, they can't cry in front of other men. It's required by men. They're rewarded for this behavior. It benefits them. For women, she talks about posture/physical restraint. It is also required by men, but women don't get rewarded for this behavior. Instead, they get mocked/punished. It is not for their benefit, but they're caught in the double bind of following this, or being seen as not a woman.

Oppression- Marilyn Frye

According to Frye, the word oppression needs to be more carefully used. Her article isn't about saying who is and who isn't oppressed, but rather, what is and what isn't oppression.

Oppression, for her, is about having one's options regularly and structurally limited, often with the idea of the double-bind... meaning that one may have a few options, but all have serious disadvantages. Her examples for this include the idea that oppressed people generally are made to think that they have to have a cheerful attitude, else they're bitter nasty people.

She also expands upon the idea of a bird cage- her preferred metaphor for oppression. Individual acts of oppression don't appear so when examined individually, but when looked at in context, it is clear that the oppressed is trapped. She says we all need to "take a macroscopic view" in order to truly see what is oppression and what isn't.

An example of the micro- vs. macroscopic view of oppression involves door opening. It looks nice, an individually, it is. But Frye argues that this is a symbol of something bigger- that this service is done to those who can't do for themselves, implying that women are incapable. Furthermore, when and where women really need help (child care, house keeping), men aren't helping... so door opening shows a true disregard for the needs of women. Finally, Frye says that it mocks women and their predicament, because usually servants open the doors for masters, and this tradition is more of an inverse of the typical male-female relationship.

Eddie Izzard... or something like that

This post is about the film we watched on the last day of class... the piece by Eddie Izzard (which I still think would be a great name for a lizard).

To be honest, I didn't realize he was actually a transvesite until after the film. I thought that was just part of his routine.

There were some links between gender and violence, but what I saw more of was religion and violence, which we didn't really get into in this class. I think a reasonable link could be made between gender and religion, making religion a patriarchal organization (at least Christianity and several other big religions). I think we read some articles about this in the beginning of the semester but we didn't really dive too deep into them. From there, with the link between religion and violence, an indirect link can be made between gender-(religion)-violence. However, the comedian didn't really go into this too much.

It would be interesting to see if he has any other related routines.

Language in real life

So the other night I was playing racquetball with some of my friends- it's usually me, one other girl, and 4-6 guys. We were taking a break after an intense round of playing, and trying to figure out new teams before we started another match. (Can you tell I'm new at the game? I don't know if they're matches, rounds or games...)

Anyways, one of the guys asked who wanted to be with the chicks. I somewhat jokingly said, we're not chicks, we're girls. (Chick has always been my least favorite word for a girl.... well, one of them.) He laughed and said it was just a word, and I said, ok then you're a rooster. He replied, touche (or however that's spelled) and we divided into teams.

Later he said something like, you know I was just kidding right? And I replied yes, obviously.

But the point is still there... where do we get names for boys and girls, and why are some acceptable and others not? I was just teasing when I raised a fuss about it, but where is the line between just letting it go because it wasn't said with malicious intent and standing up for something that bugs you?

Another thought about Carrillo's poem

So I've had a second thought for Jo Carrillo's poem, "And When You Leave, Take Your Pictures With You", floating around my head. I asked a question in class, and Celia gave an answer, but it's still been in my head.

My question had to do with the fact that Carrillo points out that the "white sisters" only see a part of reality when they look at the pictures. I asked if perhaps the reverse could also be true, that when they look into the white world, they only see parts of it. Celia said that this is unlikely, because their survival is dependent on their understanding of the other half. And I can understand that in some contexts. For example, in the Old South, with slavery. I've read stories of household help knowing all the secrets of their mistresses, and so I can see Celia's point.

But I guess I was thinking more along modern day, and on the international level. Do workers in Honduras, who make clothing for the more well to do in the United States, have to have an understanding of how the white people live? From my own experience, I've had people in Haiti and the Dominican make comments about how being white means being rich and not having to work. And from their perspectives, perhaps this is true. However, many Americans work for their money, doing real work- teaching, farm work, trash collecting. This is valid work, to earn a valid wage. I wonder if sometimes, the US is portrayed as too rosy.

When I Was Growing Up by Nellie Wong

I love poetry, and the poems we read a few weeks ago really grabbed me. This one talked about how when the author was growing up, she so longed to be white. To me, this speaks of the greatest form of repression. And we talked about this some in class. How once it's been internalized, the dominant group really doesn't have to work too hard. The oppressed group oppresses themselves, because they have internalized all these ideas- that they're not good enough, that the others are better, that this is the "right" way to be....

And I guess I just wonder if it has stopped for Nellie Wong. The poem is in past tense, talking about when she was a kid growing up. Does she see things differently now? And if so, how did she make that transition? If she can see that who she is is truly beautiful, has that been as thoroughly internalized as the things she internalized as a kid? It would be interesting to know about her life, past and present, personally, after having read this poem.

And When You Leave, Take Your Pictures With You

I really liked this poem. To me it was very powerful, to read the words of a woman addressing the issue of development and how it's viewed by US white women. It also reminded me a lot of the various accounts I've read in my politics classes.

The poem talks about how we see the parts of the world that we want to see, the pretty parts, the easy parts. But they also aren't the real parts. In one of my other textbooks, it was criticizing an ad that was for fair trade cotton. In the ad, there was a young hispanic looking woman "Maria" with even white teeth and a nice smile, her hair combed neatly and dressed in pretty clothes. But in reality, the women who pick cotton aren't smiling about it, they aren't beautiful as far as our public standards would call beauty. Their lives are hard and their bodies are abused.

Another criticism of US trade policy had to do with some piece of legislation that sought to end child labor in sweatshops. It said that the US could not import cloth (I think) that had been made by children. Unfortunately, all this legislation did was remove the legal restrictions on sweatshops. Children still worked there but now without any legal rights, because they were illegal.

When we try to impose our standards on other people from essentially different worlds, we tend to push them further away, further down. What's more, is that when we do choose to look at them, we only look at the parts that make us feel better about ourselves.

Money issues

A couple weeks ago, we watched a video on economic development and the role that gender plays in how different organizations go about trying to increase development in an area. It's been pretty well documented that women spend money on developmental target areas, like education, small business, and health care. Whereas men don't, to the same degree that women do. I guess I still wonder why. Some argue that it's because women are more maternal, that they care more about the family. Still goes back to is that natural or is that taught. I haven't decided, although I now feel I can decently argue both sides of this issue. There's also the question of what do women see as development's purpose- profit or sustenance? I think by and large, women see it as a means to keep the family healthy and secure, not necessarily as just a means to make money. Money is necessary for those two goals, but it's not the end all be all that it can sometimes seem.

Mulan

As we're getting down to the details of our presentation, I was looking at Disney movies and the songs in them. Mulan is one of my favorites, and is pretty good for young girls, in my opinion. The hero is a young woman who is very independent and brave. Not like the dainty princesses of most Disney films. But when I was looking for gender stereotypes, it hit me that even in this film, which seems to support the adventurous spirits of young girls, there are some serious drawbacks to being a girl.

She has to hide her gender, her sexuality. As a kid watching the movie, it never really bothered me. But now looking back, it seems to teach girls that there are some things you can't be simultaneously. You can't be a girl and be brave; you can't be a girl and fight for what you believe in; you can't be a girl and break social rules.

There's also the songs in the movie. Some of the ones that jump out at me are "I'll Make a Man Out of You" and "A Girl Worth Fighting For". There's also the whole scene at the match maker's... there's a song there too but I don't remember what it's called. Look over the lyrics and see the immense amount of proof of what girls can and can't be, what they can and can't do, and even how boys/men are supposed to be. It's crazy.

Frederick Douglass and Sojourner Truth

I found these two excerpts to be very interesting given the backgrounds of the authors, as people of color during a time of slavery. I'd like to compare the two pieces on gender identity.

Douglass- Douglass found/asserted his identity by his ability to stand up to physical oppression and abuse. I found this interesting in light of Truth asserting her identity by words; Douglass used physicality. I wonder if this was because of the options available to him, the prevailing definition of manhood or his personal beliefs about what men are/should be.

Truth- Although short and difficult to read due to the dialect, this was one of the few pieces that made me proud to be a woman. So many of our readings are crazy feminists who are far too radical for my taste. Truth's statements are basic, yet bold. She asserted her identity as a woman by using logical arguments (the origin of Christ being God and a woman--- men had nothing to do with Him) against the men's statements of the inferiority of women (pretty good for someone with a lesser intellect, I should say).

Claim/Assumption Paper

I found the claim/assumption thought paper assignment really interesting and while I don't feel like rewriting the paper, kind of want to explore some of the notes that Celia wrote in the margins.

The claim I tried to uphold was that men are taught to be more focused on their own interests, on their physical selves, while women are taught to focus more on others. I went at the issues from a heterosexual standpoint, with the assumption that there are only two sexes, men and women. Through the paper I worked on identifying the source of this behavior (I decided it was learned, primarily from parents, and other adults that form society) and what boys are taught about gender roles and what girls are taught about gender roles. Both are taught by the mother, generally, that the female takes care of the children, putting children's needs before her own in the form of feeding, education and staying at home to care for the child when and if that is required. Whereas the father works outside the home to provide food and finances, and potentially discplinary actions, which I did not define.

At this point, Celia commented that early socialization is the key- I agree. Yes, I think that what you learn from watching your parents interact with each other, what roles they play in the family, the manner in which they provide for the family, all of these things shape how young boys and girls view their gender role as well as the opposite.

I look at my family and how my brother and I view our future roles and the roles of our future spouses. My mother outranks my father in terms of level of education but he outranks her in terms of financial contribution. When Alex (my brother) and I were little, it was my mother's job (at home... she was a school teacher at the same time) to make sure we had all our basic needs taken care of- breakfast lunch and dinner, brushed our teeth and bathed, clothes appropriately for school, had our homework done. She was also responsible for laundry, cleaning, cooking and shopping for our family needs. As far as discipline went, the ultimate threat was "Do you want your father to know about this?". She would spank us, put us in time out, ground us from certain activities we enjoyed, but that question, if nothing else, put us back in line real quick. My father, from my childhood memories, worked away from the home, usually in another state. He would come home on the weekends and would usually play with us on Saturday and attend church with us on Sunday before he would head back to work in another state. My mom took care of us; my father took care of her and us financially but was not involved in our daily lives.

What does Alex expect from his wife? Well, I'm fairly certain he expects her to clean, cook, do the laundry and take care of the kids, because that's what my mom always did. And he'll work. I don't know if he plans on working in the same town/state in which his family lives.

What do I expect from my husband? What do I expect of myself as a wife/mother? This is something that concerns me. I don't know. My mom was willing to be very domestic and still pursue her career as a school teacher. However, that career was fairly suitable to raising school aged children, especially since we all went to the same school. But my dreams are very different from her's. I want to work abroad, in developing nations. Where I have been are not areas suitable, in my opinion, for raising children. I don't want to raise children in a conflict and/or war zone nor in a place where child mortality is outrageously high. Yet, I can't see myself doing what my father did and seeing my children for 2 days a week (I would see them even less with international not just interstate travel being the issue). Besides that, where would I find a man who would be willing to be the domestic half of the equation. I have been taught that the mother/wife needs to be more of the day to day caregiver and fix her work schedule around her family schedule. Yet I have dreams that completely contradict that. I have yet to find a balance between what I have been taught and what I want. It's an uncomfortable place to be. Most days I decide not to think about it- I still have plenty of time to find the answers, right?


My paper continued, but that was the big question, for me, that remains unanswered and undefined. The second question Celia brought to my attention was the definition of the self. I'll save that discussion for a possible future post.

Men's definitions

So a few readings ago (it was the Marking the Difference reading, by Hatty, if you're curious) I was really intrigued by the apparent differences in men's perceptions and my own (I'll probably just call it a woman's perspective). Things like the what is a man or a woman, how do you know someone is a man or woman; what is masculinity and femininity; are masculine and feminine behaviors learned or innate; and what is the ideal body for a man and a woman; as well as opinions on the body as a weapon, and women in the military. I found the reading to be so very different from what I believe that I decided to ask some male friends (who shall remain anonymous) what they believed. I think they all answered pretty honestly, but you can never be sure I guess. So anyways, here are the questions, and their responses (not word for word, because I'm a little lazy). Read and enjoy.

What is a man? How do you know if someone is a man?
A- By the hair, shoulders/build
B- Someone who's masculine [when asked what that was, he said it was being a man] and by the build of the person
C- Appearance, based on clothing primarily- jeans, hoodie, polo

What is a woman? How do you know if someone is a woman?
A- Anatomy, specifically having a vagina
B- Someone who's feminine [again, no definition beyond being a woman] and by hair as well as build (should be curvy)
C- Appearance based on jewelry, makeup, accessories, shoes, and longer hair usually done up, the build of the person as well as the manner of walking

What is masculinity?
A- little to no emotion shown- stoic; physical strength
B- Physical build
C- Being a man/guy [when asked, said it's based on a range of factors including activities, candor, expression, social abilities]

What is femininity?
A- Exact opposite of masculinity [when asked to elaborate, no further definition]
B- Based on physical build and personality
C- Being a woman [when asked again for more, same response as to previous question, said there is no difference between gender and sex]

Is this a learned behavior, and if so, where is it learned?
A- Learned from society, identified movies/media as a primary source
B- Learned from parents, specifically the father figure
C- No answer [when asked again, responded that he just believes these things, but doesn't know where he got the ideas- doesn't know if it's a social construct or natural]

What is the ideal female and male body?
A- no answers [when asked if he just didn't want to tell me, he said no, he just didn't have an answer]
B- Female body should be curvy; male body should be muscular
C- Very detailed answer- female body should be well toned overall with specific mention of legs, stomach and butt; symmetrical and proportionate in regards to face and breasts. Male body should be very fit, with specific mention to % body fat, abs, legs and arms, should not look like one is trying to be "manly"

Is the body a weapon?
A- possibly- as a sexual tool, or a physical fighting tool
B- can be if it is taught to be
C- not every day, but it can be- based on words, expressions and actions

How do you feel about women in the military?
A- "Nothing against it"; feels there is little difference between a man and a woman; should be based on ability to complete tasks, not sex/gender
B- "It shouldn't be any different than men"
C- "Go for it"; denied any reservations


There you have it- male perspectives on a small variety of issues. I found it interesting.

Feminist Thought

In my opinion, this is why feminism has such a bad reputation. I could barely get through my chapter. Everything was so extreme- I didn't agree with anything. And I got really tired of reading that it was because I was trapped in a patriarchal society and mentality and that if I was really a freethinking woman, I would agree with the writings.

So what did I have problems with.

I really got annoyed with how both the radical libertarian and the radical cultural feminist seemed to think men/males are the devil. They were often referred to as dominating, controlling, intentionally oppressive, etc. Is it possible that this is also a social construct?

I guess the thing I hated the most was that everything seemed to be a blanket policy. All men are this way. All women should want to be something but they can't because the situation is always like this....

For example, the huge section on motherhood. Some women want to raise kids- some of them want to raise their own, and some of them want to raise others. Some women don't want kids at all. Why is that a problem? Isn't that part of what women's liberation is about? The ability to choose what you want to do? Why do we have to say that all real women would want to do one thing or another? I guess I see that as just women limiting or restricting women, which isn't any better than men limiting/restricting women.

Gendered conflict definition

A few days ago, we talked in class about what is gendered conflict. For me, I see it as using gender or sexuality as a factor of traditional violence. Examples that came to mind would be rape, against men and women, other forms of sexual exploitation, and targeting based on gender/sexuality. I also think of the targeting of homosexuals by Hitler in WW2.

However, I think I have a problem with my own definition. I see gendered conflict as somehow worse than other forms of conflict. But should it be? Should gender be a factor in defining or evaluating the severity of violence? Things should be right or wrong, bad or good, based on the rightness or wrongness of it, not based on gender.

If violence should be abhorred, it should always be abhorred, and abhorred completely, regardless of who is harmed. It should all be the same.

February 29th

So I was at the doctor's office yesterday (to get a shot... why do they always stick needles in me when I go there?) and they had all these magazines in the waiting room. I was flipping through and found something interesting, related to Leap Year.

Traditionally in our culture, women were supposed to wait for the man to pop the big question and propose. But so the story goes, on Leap Year Day (?), women were allowed to propose, without the social no-no sentiment. Why? Legend holds that in Ireland in the 5th century, St. Bridget complained to St. Patrick that men take too long (surprise surprise) and that women should be given the opportunity to propose and hurry the whole marriage thing up. Apparently, one day a year, every four years was supposed to take care of this issue.

Apparently, it was even illegal in some countries for women to propose, except on this day. In England, Feb 29th wasn't legally recognized, but was believed to be a day where you could fix past wrongs and injustices... one of them being that women couldn't propose.

In 1288, in Scotland, this tradition became a law. Women were legally allowed to propose on this day. Also, legally, if a man turned down a proposal on this day, he would get fined. The fine was anything from a kiss to a silk dress to a pair of gloves. Who decided the fine, I don't know.

Although women can now propose, without a lot of social restrictions, I think it's really interesting that we used to regulate this. Like, it was in law books! That's crazy. But apparently, they could recognize the unfairness of legislating who could propose and who couldn't, so did make it legal on a certain day. But what's also unfair is that men could be fined for turning a woman down.

Why all the rules? Why can't we just let happy, loving people alone? Don't get me started on Valentine's Day... that's a whole different rant.....

El recado

In my intro to hispanic lit class, we had to read a short story, called El recado (the message). The story is set in a working class neighborhood in Mexico in the 1960's. A young woman goes to the house of the man she's in love with and basically just sits on his doorstep. The whole time you're reading the story, you thinking she's writing it down in a letter to Martin (the man she loves) and she describes what's going on around her, how she feels, how she misses him, just wants to see him, yada yada. You get to the end of the story, and she writes to him, "Te quiero" (I love you) and that there is nothing else written on the page. And then she says that she's not giving him the paper, she'll just ask his neighbor to mention she stopped by. After she had just spent the entire afternoon and evening sitting on his doorstep waiting for him.

So how does this relate to our gender and conflict class? We talked (in Spanish of course) about this woman's actions in the context of her society and time. And really, if this young woman had gone to this guy's house and waited for him all day, she was breaking all sorts of social norms, and people would have seen her as a tramp. But she has this need that she can barely express. She can't say the things she feels... she doesn't have the words, or even the thoughts. There is a strong sense of sexual desire in the story, but it's never directly addressed, even in her thoughts. It would have been so inappropriate in her context; she didn't even know how to think it. So she just says she has to see him, she doesn't know why.

Another thing that we brought up in class is that this was the only choice she had. Women were just supposed to wait- wait for the man to notice them, to make the first move, to make all the moves, to ask for the girl's hand in marriage. She was supposed to wait for him to come around and see her. By going to his house, she was breaking all the rules of her society. But she couldn't do anything more- she couldn't leave the letter, or ask the neighbor to do anything more than mention she had stopped by. (Only imagine what the neighbor was thinking after she had spent the whole day waiting on this guy...)

She was supposed to leave a very passive life, always waiting on the men in her life... and she was very unhappy with her role. At one point she says, "A veces quisiera ser mas vieja..." (Sometimes, I wish I was much older). It's such a sad line for a young woman to say. She wanted to skip all the pain and struggle and confusion that she couldn't do anything about. If she was older, she would be married and all the questions would have their answers. And because she was so limited in what she could do/control, she just wanted to skip it.

OK, so that's that.

Choice

A few days ago we sort of touched on the issue of choice, during the Barker reading. I was very interesting in looking at this a little closer.

So supposedly we have freedom of choice. But where do our choices come from? What if we don't like the choices presented to us? I remember when I was a kid, my mom would ask me if I wanted grape jelly or strawberry for my sandwich. A little example, yes, but what if I didn't want a sandwich in the first place? I didn't really have that choice. I think the same idea can be applied to truly important decisions in our lives. Another example from my life- when I was applying to colleges, for the most part I could pick which ones I wanted, what I might want to study, those kind of things. But it was not a choice of if I would go to college, or if I would go to college immediately following high school. That was already decided for me by my parents. I could help pick the details, but the main decision was already made.

I could recognize that this decision was already made. But are there situations in our lives that we don't recognize, don't see, where we can only pick the details, not the decision?