Final Blog

My writing skills, and my knowledge of knowing how to write well have increased dramatically. The things that helped the most on learning how to write properly are all the in class things that we did like going over all the assigned readings and summarizing every paragraph together. The little prompts that Rachel would give us to describe what our papers were suppose to be about also really helped me because when I was stuck and didn't know what to write about it would re inform me on the assignment topic. I think that the expectation that I had for this class was met. All I wanted out of this class was too become a better writer and learn new things about writing, and I did that. I learned three different kinds of writing. So in the end I grew as a writer and am taking a lot of new knowledge from this class with me throughout the course of my college career.

Hunting

I chose a topic that I ‘am very familiar with and that I think that I could have a strong argument and good reasoning. I chose to talk about hunting and ask the question of “why do people oppose hunting so strongly, what is wrong with it?” I know a lot about this topic because I have been hunting since I was a little girl. I know what is the different between hunting and poaching. I know the proper things that one needs to do to be able to hunt where ever one pleases and I also know the rules and regulations to being a safe and law minding hunter.
The questions that I need to research however are things like, what are the reasons why people despise it so? Why do people care if people are hunting as long as they are doing it lawfully? In what states it this the biggest issue and why? And what are other people’s opinions on why hunting is so wrong? Why is hunting opposed stronger in some states than others, or in some countries than others? Would people rather the hunters stop and let the animal population grow, and eventually be an over population, which would in turn make the animal’s pest? So to conclude my proposal is going to be on hunting and why it is so strongly opposed.

The Men We Carry In Our Minds

After reading the essay, I came to find that Scott made a very compelling arguement on the contrast between the lives of men and women. For example, when he descibes the back breaking labor that most men have to go through and the way that it affects their bodies. He is correct in the sense that most women will never have to go through things like that, but I disagree with him that mens lives are so much harder than men. He makes points about men who go to war and die for their country and he explains how women don't have to worry about that struggle. But what about when the husbands of those woman go to war and leave their wives to maintain the house hold, watch the children, work to make ends meat for her children, sow the feilds, and take care of everything while her husbands away. What about that, Yes women do not have to go to war, but when they are left alone to fend for themselves in a world that mostly revolves around a man, its almost like they are put into a war to survive. He also states that when he attended college he had a women say to him that men were guilty of having all the joys and privledges of the earth for themselves. He responds to this accurately, but he didnt look at the whole picture. He didnt think about how women couldn't vote and men could. How women were not considered equal to men, when they are just as capeable of doin the same things that men can do. Lastly, he also doesnt take in to account all the things that men put women through. For eample, treating their wives like they are dogs and beatin because they arent obeying their husband, or what about men who dont have a job and rely on the women to make the money. Even though he did comment on the fact that men take from their wives and daughters he missed a lot of other key points about what women have to go through and what men do not.

Grubb's Argument

Attending SFCC is a place where one can accomplish goals and do so by taking the right courses to achieve such goal. At SFCC I plan to take the required courses to attain my A.A and transfer to the University of Washington. Where I intend to graduate and attend medical school where i would like to become an ObGyn. SFCC was my choice for my degree not just because of the courses but also because of the environment. Most of the other students here have the same goals as me, and most of my friends attend too, which makes it a lot easier to get work done and have a conversation when you run into someone that you know. Also its a lot easier to make friends. The whole reason that I am attending college in the first place is to better my education in the occupation that I have been pursuing ever since I was in high school. College and any schooling for that matter is not just to teach kids the basic skills of math, reading, and writing, but to help them decide and prepare for what they want to be when they grow up, and give them the necessary tools to become whatever they want. What I got out of Grubb's argument is that more high schools should incorporate volcanism in their teaching so that students are more prepared for future occupations that they wish to acquire. This is true because most of the students in college are only going to school to further their education to pursue that certain job that they want. If they use volcanism in high school then more children will be able to decide early on what they want to be or major in after high school. Cause most high school student have no idea what they want to be when they grow up or even if they want to further their education. Grubb's argument and my goals in school relate on a high level because my goal is to go to school to gain experience in my occupation and that is what Grubb is trying to push more to make students better prepared for their future.