Well, Freud says this and this guy says that.

Before commenting on the text, after reading countless essays like these, I have to ask myself why. Why are we doing this? What is the ultimate goal? Maybe I am crazy but before I set out to do something I sit and think is it possible to achieve whatever it is im trying to do. Like the other day im sitting in the lunch hall in Queens and a guy comes up to me and says "Do you want to donate money to help world peace?" I couldn't help but laugh just a little bit, not in his face, but inside. I didnt even ask how he would bring upon world peace and maybe I should have but the point is, in all honesty, is walking around Queens College asking for money from middle class to lower class kids going to bring world peace? No, is the answer. And that is kind of what I feel like when I read things like this and essays about changing the world. Each person is an individual, and it all comes down to that. If one women wants to get married, stay home with the kids and raise a family - she will. If another wants to go to college, get a degree and get a job - she will. I totally understand where women want to be treated equal and I have no problem with them fighting for that, but it's getting to a point now where I don't get what they are fighting for. This is a blog and we are supposed to type our thoughts and questions here, so I hope this isn't coming across close minded because I'm really trying to understand the purpose for all this. (And I'm not talking about this class, I mean this particular subject matter.)

In the introduction the point that is being made is, "The combination of unique individuality and common human essence coheres around the idea of the sovereign self, whose essential core of being transcends the nets of environmental and social conditioning. Poststructuralism has drawn on linguistics, psychoanalysis and political theories to disrupt this man-centred view of the world.." I think that this is something that feminist have been trying to do for some time now, and it reminds me of 'reading like a man' and it's also something I have a problem with understanding. I have never heard of this term before this class and it is something to think about, but even when I read a book written by a women, am I reading it from a man's view also because I'm reading it or a women's view because she wrote it?

Helene's writing was intresting because she was dealing more with the grouping aspect of it and that is something I think should be looked into more often. It all comes down to groups and trying to fit eveyone into a specific place and it can't be done because we are all different indivduals. But it goes to talk about how "In philosophy, woman is always on the side of passivity." I don't know that for sure because I have never studied it but what is said makes some sense but I don't know enough to comment on it fully.