The Government's Disguised Pocket of Corruption

First, let's get one thing straight: today while writing my eminent domain essay, I realized how corrupt the government is, and how much it is capable of hiding from us. Eminent domain is a perfect example of so many things - so many ways in which the government has wronged us: corruption, false promises, greed, and lies. Everyone knows the government is somewhat corrupt, but eminent domain takes it to a whole other level.

The fact that eminent domain provides the government with the ability and the power to just kick people to the curb is still so unfathomable to me! I mean that's as crazy as if someone claimed that once upon a time, pink elephants walked the earth! What annoys me the most though, is how the government just makes its own rules and hypocritically contradicts what our country stands for! How can these politicians claim that they work for a country founded on a democracy that stands for equality, when they - the leaders of our country - use things like eminent domain to prey upon racial minorities, the underprivileged, uneducated, and poor?! There is nothing I hate more than a good hypocrite!

I used to wonder how this could all happen, and then I realized: Jesus, these politicians and business people must be really good at using rhetoric to cover up their true intentions from the public - persuading people that they have their best interests at heart. They even convince each other that what they're doing is for good reason and with good intention. I mean I'd like to believe that at least some of them took office with some sanity and morals, and they all weren't originally greedy liars.

Just recently, I also had my eyes opened to how the government makes promises so outrageous, they might as well be saying that one day they can make pink elephants walk the earth! They make promises that they know are impossible - that they don't have the power to keep - just to appeal to the public, get elected, and/or make a quick buck. That's right, if I had absolutely any doubt in my mind before, I certainly don't anymore: everything is about money - especially the government! It doesn't matter the cost of livelihoods that will be taken away from innocent people, it only matters how many zeros come with that land's deal. How ironic that the moral of this story lacks morals! Jesus, that's immoral! 

Who Ever Said Women Don't Need Pockets?!

An Exploration of Gender Roles Utilizing A Raisin in the Sun  

In A Raisin in the Sun, the female characters really reflect the gender roles of the time period. Ruth represents how women would succumb and submit to those society assigned roles, whereas Beneatha represents how women would try to break the mold. 

During the 1950s, the mass media was very "whitewashed" and African American women were hardly portrayed at all. But just like Walter wanted what whiteness represented for men, (because he saw all the successful business men were white), Ruth wanted the same thing... but for women. 

Rich white women were most often and most commonly portrayed in the media as wives and mothers, because that was actually the reality for the majority of them. This led to African American women desiring that life too - the one that Ruth is desperately trying to emulate in any way possible - the latest attempt being the action of moving into a bigger house. To Ruth, that is one small step towards achieving the American Dream and becoming more like a wealthy white family. Maybe if she has a bigger house she will be able to raise her kids better, maybe the role of "stay at home mom" will become slightly easier with more space. But the reality is that Ruth can never have the life of a rich white woman and '[pack] up [her] suitcases and [pile] on one of them big steamships" (Hansberry 44), because she doesn't have the money to do that. Societal racism has trapped her in a box, and the economical factors of that box hinder her from having the freedom of stereotypical white women. She can't just be a stay at home mom and a wife; she is forced to sacrifice every day of her life to work to provide for her family. The way in which she conforms to her societal imposed gender and race biased role though, is believing that she can only do domestic work. During her desperate plea to Mama she says, "I'll work twenty hours a day in all the kitchens in Chicago... and scrub all the floors in America and wash all the sheets in America if I have to..." (Hansberry 140). This is all domestic housework - which she automatically goes to - assuming she can't do anything else. We don't know for sure that Ruth can't do anything else because we don't know if she got an education that allows her to get another job, but if she doesn't have a good education, would it be that far fetched to think that she doesn't due to the segregation of schools? 

The other thing worth noticing is that Ruth announces to Mama that those are the sacrifices that she will make so that her family can still move and pay for the house, even without the rest of the insurance money. Yet Walter - the one who actually lost the insurance money, never announces what he will sacrifice to fix his mistake. The only argument that could be made, is that Walter was willing to sacrifice his pride in order to get the money for the house back. But by doing that he was also taking away his family's dreams. His idea to sell back the house and collect the money... still had selfish intent behind it. He wanted to fix his mistake, rid himself of his humiliation, regain the pride he would be sacrificing in the act by fixing it, and then use that money for his own investments. In this way, it is just assumed that "when the world gets ugly enough – a woman will do anything for her family" (Hansberry 75). Who decided that it was a woman's role to sacrifice everything for the family?! What is Walter going to do?! Wasn't it his mistake?! Isn't it his family too?!

There are still gender bias roles that society has assigned today. More minor and a stretch for the sake of the title of this post, but still very irritating to almost any woman out there, is the fact that fashion designers still don't think that women need pockets - or should I say BIG ENOUGH pockets! Why does society believe that it is a woman's "role" to carry a purse - maybe full of the childcare products she is supposed to have because she is supposed to be a stay at home mom?! A woman should be able to wear a pantsuit (yes I said a pantsuit) with big enough pockets to fit... maybe her phone!? At least her phone would be nice! See, I got the idea for this post and its premise (OH, there I go using vocab) while sitting in my chem class and watching my chem teacher take at least five dry erase markers out of his pocket! In the process of watching this, I saw his hand reach a FOOT down his leg as he reached into HUGE DEEP pockets that he could fit a puppy in, and I realized; not only do men have pockets, but they are WAY bigger than any women's pockets that I've ever seen! I mean they still make leggings with little tiny pockets for iPods - which are so outdated now, that it's just comical! No one takes their iPod nano on their run anymore Under Armour and Nike, so can you please make your pockets big enough to fit five dry erase markers, a puppy, and my iPhone 11 Pro Max please?! Gah-leee, where is Beneatha when you need her feistiness to help your cause?