In a society where everyone has their own perceptions and opinions,the use of punctuation is changing in order to more effectively convey ideas and creativity. The freedom from punctuation dogmas give writers the ability to express their emotions and perceptions more effectively. Whether using simple applications of punctuation, less common types of punctuation for excitement, or eliminating punctuation as a whole, a writer uses punctuation to reflect tone and emotion. In fact, varied applications of punctuation is often used depending on different writing styles. Emily Dickinson, an acclaimed poet, support the notion that people should have the freedom to apply punctuation to their individual pieces of writing. The different types of writing that a writer utilizes, poetry in Dickinson's case, is a freedom that every author has. Dickinson believes that her freedom to write without being limited to certain aspects of language allows her to "dwell in Possibility." She is free to explore different types of writing that strays from typical grammar rules and allows her to discover infinite possibilities. Her type of writing avoids the confines of punctuation rules and is "more numerous of Windows." Dickinson believes that her methods of writing poetry allow her to see more just like a window allows people to see more. These "windows" allow her to look out, see, find, and discover more with her style of writing. Not once in her piece does she use a period, a semicolon, or a comma. Rather, she separates each of her thoughts with dashes to elaborate on how her writing and her use of language separates herself from the binding rules of punctuation and how it truly allows her to dwell in possibility.

"The damage done was total. She spent her days, her tendril, sap-green days, walking up and down, up and down, her head jerking to the beat of a drummer so distant only she could hear. Elbows bent, hands on shoulders, she flailed her arms like a bird in an eternal, grotesquely futile effort to fly. Beating the air, a winged but grounded bird, intent on the blue void it could not reach-could not even see-but which filled the valleys of the mind."
This exert, as well as the entirety of the novel, has been an emotional roller coaster for me. This book is one of few that has changed my perception of the world, and this paragraph offered a range of dismal emotions for myself.
In this passage, we witness the future Pecola, I had to look up the definition of a tendril, which is illustrated below.

The moment I saw an image of a tendril, I couldn't help but relate the endless curls of the plant with Pecola's life. Walking back and forth in an infinite cycle, Pecola lives a life of emptiness and lack of love. Consequentially, she is both mentally and physically drained. I disconvered the most grieving instance when Morrison describes Pecola as a bird that fails to fly. Pecola, who has always wanted to be beautiful, who yearns to have blue eyes, but is raped and shunned from society, is incapable of escaping the judgement and racism of others. She is unable to achieve her "blueness," her beauty, and while she has wings, she is grounded. Her life was not set to fail, but her circumstances and society's loathing of blacks lead to her downfall. And although none of her oppression was her own fault, the hatred that whites have for blacks and the self-hatred that the blacks have of themselves lead Pecola to become a flightless bird who has no one to love and support her.

This week we discussed different characters in The Bluest Eye. We analyzed several black characters whose age wealth varied. Throughout the novel, blacks encounter racial prejudice and other hardships that target them because of their race.

One of these characters is Pecola. She is teased at school and, being a black girl, is at the bottom of the demographic hierarchy. Her family is poor and her parents often neglect her. In contrast, we also are introduced to the character of Geraldine, who comes from a community where black women strive to manifest an identity epitomized by white standards. She constantly worries "about the edges of [her] hair" and is taught about the "careful development of thrift, patience, high morals, and good manners";however, she is incapable of experiencing love in her life with her husband and even her own son. Her life, like Pecola's, is filled with rejection and inability to fit the standards of society. 

However, Pecola and Geraldine are very different in the sense that Geraldine, unlike Pecola, is a wealthy adult. 

What struck me as sad is that in The Bluest Eye, all of Morrison's characters experience oppression. I came to a disappointing realization about society in the novel; if you are black and poor, you lose; if you are black and rich, you still lose. The oppression that the characters experience made me feel a sense of hopelessness. I wondered what the cause of this could have been and after pondering for some time, I realized that the oppression isn't due to wealth or age, but rather the white standard of beauty that blacks have.

One particular part of the novel that I found disheartening was when Pauline, a black woman, calls her own daughter ugly. Like the rest of society, even Pecola's own mother marks her as someone who is ugly. Even blacks in the novel have succumbed to white beauty standards. In a society where being black automatically deems one as ugly and less superior, there is no way to live a life free of oppression because of genetics: something that no one has control over. 

A Twisted, Sexualized Society
Earlier during the week we analyzed a piece titled "Our Barbies, Ourselves". This piece discussed how Barbie has made women have impossible standards for their physical characteristics. One part that I found particularly compelling was when Prager introduces the fact that Barbie has "humongous breasts," but her male counterpart, Ken, only possesses a "truncated, unidentifiable lump". She states that Barbie, with her big breasts and perfect physique, urges females nowadays to feel the need to show off their bodies for men, who are protected from the need to divulge their "lumps". Prager believes that this stigma has lasted even in today's world- a world with "movies and videos... filled with topless women and covered men." 
Prager claims that women feel the need to expose their bodies to please men. She suggests that men have expectations that their girlfriends and wives feel pressure to fulfill. However, in many instances in today's society, the opposite of Prager's claim is true; men nowadays are put in a position where they must please the expectations of women. 
Take for example a Twitter post depicted below. As I was dragging through my Twitter feed, I stumbled across a post that brought up a very good point. In the tweet, Nick Jonas and Miley Cyrus are compared, introducing a double standard that proves that men are victims of sexual exploitation. 



















This image, which shows the headlines of two different articles, illustrates the crude differences in how the bodies of women and men are demanded by society. Miley Cyrus is criticized for showing off her body, but Nick Jonas is praised and even receives a "You've Gotta See This New Pic!" This article headline is relatable to the constant buzz for One Direction or Five Seconds of Summer or of course, everyone's favorite wildcat. Twitter profiles like "Total Man Candy" constantly post pictures of half-naked men.
 It seems that in "Barbie's world," Miley is simply doing what every woman in today's society strives to do; but she gets criticized constantly and gets ridiculed when she does put clothes on. In Prager's piece, women are forced to expose themselves to appease the standards of men. But if you ask me, these two articles show that the opposite is true. Contrary to Prager's claim,  it is evident that men have become objects of the impossible expectations for the boy-band fan girls and the "Man Candy Monday" followers. 

Synthesis Essay: Something New
Like others in the class, I decided to write a body paragraph in the form of a synthesis essay. Because I wanted to be cool and I didn't want to conform, I decided to write a piece that challenges our prompt that we received during the week about how the othering people leads to the dehumanization of the oppressed and the oppressor. However, I am not sure if it is all that great. Anyways, I decided to give it a try.
Sidenote: This body paragraph does not necessarily support my actual views in real life. Also, I found it difficult to incorporate a picture that fit the paragraph so I decided to post a picture of Ellen, cause who doesn't love Ellen.



However, very often it is not always others who lead to the dehumanization of the oppressor and the oppressed, but the oppressed themselves. Unlike in Staples' and Hawthorne's pieces, in "There is No Unmarked Woman," the separation of a group of people from society results from Tannen's observations. The idea that women do not have the freedom to be unmarked shows that the female race is oppressed. Tannen reaches this hypothesis by scrutinizing each of the physical traits a group of women have. She examines the makeup, clothes, shoes, and hair of each women,but she does this in a way that objectifies them. She refers to them as "No. !", "No. 2," and "No.3" (Source C). By doing this, Tannen oppresses females. Rather than calling them their names, Tannen assigns each woman a number. She, rather than other people in society, becomes the source of the females' dehumanization.Whereas in other pieces where white women oppress black men and society oppresses Hester, Tannen leads to the dehumanization of the female race.

Dimesdale and Uncle Creon
This past week in class we had a brief discussion about who the protagonist of The Scarlet Letter is. Although Hester is the main character in The Scarlet Letter, the class discovered that she remains very static throughout the novel. She seems to possess confidence and beauty, but we never see a change in her personality nor do we see her experience an epiphany. However, we see Dimesdale experience a dramatic change in character from the beginning of the book to the end. Through the death of Dimesdale and the revelation of his scarlet letter, Hawthorne teaches his audience to take responsibilities for their actions and to refrain from secrecy. Ultimately, the audience discovers the theme of The Scarlet Letter through the actions of Dimesdale, despite the fact that he is not the main character.
This occurrence also appears in Antigone by Sophocles. Last year in 10 Honors we learned that although Antigone is the central character of the play, Uncle Creon is the tragic-hero. Unlike Antigone, Creon changes his views and experiences an epiphany. Whereas Antigone remains rebellious and obstinate, Creon becomes aware of his wrongdoings, which eventually leads to the death of Antigone, his son , and his wife.


When Ms. Valentino referred to Dimesdale as the character that teaches the audience a lesson, I immediately made the connection to Uncle Creon. I found it interesting that often, it is the character that experiences consequences  that conveys the theme more than the main character does. Although some may believe that authors utilize the central character to convey theme, very often the character that experiences a change of heart more effectively teaches a lesson.

Feminism
In class this week we analyzed a piece titled "There is No Unmarked Woman". In the conclusion of this piece, the author explains that it is difficult for women to avoid "marking oneself as either feminist or anti-feminist, male-basher or apologist". The author of this article is an example of a feminist who refrains from male-bashing. She makes sure that she avoids remarks that may make her exhibit hatred of men and making women seem like the "dominant" species, but not all feminists do.
Many feminists today believe that we live in a very male-dominant society. To them, women are the victims of many societal conflicts. Feminists strive to gain equality in the world. However, in my opinion, some of the females that I know that consider themselves feminists strive to make women seem "better" rather than "equal".

In school children are taught that a guy can "never hit a girl". In society, this policy applies to domestic violence, an issue that many feminists take a stance on. When it comes to physical violence between a man and a woman, the woman is always seen as the target. Feminists are often sickened when news of a man beating his wife becomes known, but what about the other way around? People are taught to never hit girls, but I've never heard a policy about hitting boys. Rather than having opposition against the men who are violent to their spouses, can't feminists oppose violence altogether?
To me, many feminists nowadays strive more to convince others that women are targets than to make women equal. Rather that teaching people to treat women better, Feminists should teach people to treat everyone better, no matter what the sex. Instead of striving to create a world where women are seen as more dominant, feminists should attempt to create a world where both genders are truly equal.