A World Without Stars

     What truly distinguishes a man from being either marked, or unmarked? Paul Theroux mentions the theory of the 'male myth' throughout an article he published. He portrays men to be those stereotypical ones in shows, the ones with suits and ones who are compelled to act sophisticated and 'manly' or you'd be disdained by society. Men have to be obedient and military-like, people without feeling, and in his opinion, this portrait of men that society has drawn, is purely insulting. In my opinion, I disagree with his claim that within our community, men are despised if they don't meet the status quo; I say this because today, people are more accepting of others than ever before. We see others for their personality and for their character rather than what we should judge them to be. However, as for this may be the case, we have to consider the time period in which this was written, which is the year 1983. [logos] During that time frame, women might have been more judgmental and critical towards men based on their occupation and character, whether or not they're manly or petite, weak or strong. Theroux might have been struggling through immense amounts of criticism throughout his entire life, that he was picked on for not being what others want him to be. Another perspective of this is derived from women's views, that they 'fear' not picking the right man in the manner that in the future, others will belittle him. [pathos] Basically, rather than love, someone would pick their partner due to their looks and structure rather than their true personality and character. This thus promotes insecurity in both men and women, which is not what we want society to be. Although, with this being said, I also believe that even though in this present time, we don't denounce men as we did back then, as for we are more open and accepting nowadays, we can't deny the fact that we are still judgmental, and everyone is, but in the end we just have to open up and put our distasteful traits aside or it will do us an injustice.

     Would you want your child to suffer, or would you rather her live life freely without worry? The Pillow Angel Ethics article specifically pointed out the situation with Ashley and her parents that her parents would do obscure things such as disabling Ashley. An example of this is that Ashley received high-dose estrogen treatment in order to reduce her height and weight, since she has brain damage, this will make it easier for them to take care of Ashley. The parents also made the doctor remove Ashley's uterus in order to prevent discomfort from cramps and pregnancy, and her breast tissue, in order to aid in her health in the foreseeable future. In my opinion, I do not agree with the fact that her parents gave Ashley this surgery. I believe it is a violation of standard human rights, that Ashley should be able to make decisions on her present, as well as her future. Her parents should not be deciding what she can or can't do. I understand that they want to protect her and care for her, but she is only a mere child, that doesn't give them any authority to disable her, and make her extremely petite. Many people would argue that it was for the benefit of Ashley, and others would argue for her basic human rights. The author of the article, Nancy Gibbs, uses ethos in order to address both sides of the claims, as she includes quotes from ethics committees and hospital workers. These committee members had contrasting viewpoints, some are for her sterilization, and the rest are against her sterilization. This situation was so controversial that it pressured ethical people to go against each other, fighting for which decision was more ethical. When I first read the article, I was disgusted by the fact that the parents would even think about making a disabled child even more disabled in order to satisfy themselves. In the end, I believe that it is unethical to sterilize Ashley because this makes her unable to age or have a baby in the future, therefore it is robbing whatever dreams she may have, and destroying her future. Is it really worth it to protect a child from any potential dangers to only unload the burden of her parents and to eradicate someone's foreseeable happiness?