EDU T&L 108.01 Discussion Board

I agree with Saynab that war is a bad thing. Firstly because war cause many deaths in this world. Even though people might say that war doesnot target on the innocent people but still, the statistic shows that the ratio for innocent people to soldiers who died in the war is nine is to one. I cannot imagine that people are dead on the street and nobody cares for them because everyone is scared and try to protect themselves and their families. Secondly, war is very costly. As all of us know that U.S and Soviet Union spend billions of dollars to compete in making more atomic bombs. Besides the weapons and equipments of war, the buildings that are destroyed take a long time to be rebuild and money is wasted again. Thirdly, war causes pollution to the air. In Second World War, U.S bombed Japan with thwo atomic bombs and many people are dead from radiation. During that time, Japan must have wasted a lot of money to buy medical from another countries. Lastly, war doesnot solve a problem. For example, the Israel and Egypt war. Both countries had some misunderstanding and they declared war. In the end, they just realized that they have misunderstood each other. Others may claim that war prevent evil from happening, but evil cannot be prevented from happening. If people want to avoid evil, then they must avoid war because war is evil. At some point, I feel that war makes sense for the country to be more advance. But I refused to believe that it is just for human greed over other people’s properties. However, I think we should avoid war as much as possible and imagine that how great it will be if everyone lives peacefully and harmony.

The four articles talk about war. The first two articles by Mead and Hanson talk more about the definition of war and how people view wars. Mead believes that war is an invention by human while Hanson believes that war is like a natural thing, war always happen. Hanson believes that war cannot be prevented because it is natural. The next two articles are more on argument whether the author agree or disagree with war. As for Bennett, he feels that war is a need to solve a solution and also to avenge the wrong doings and prevent something bad or advancement of good to happen. Bennett also says that if people think that war is something bad, then what credits do the heroes who had died in war get? Ury does not agree with Bennett. He feels that war causes many deaths, damages and doesnot solve a problem. He brought up an example that negotiation is the better way than war. He says the example of the Israel and Egypt war. Both of the country war for Sinai. Egypt wants to get back Sinai but Israel insisted on getting a third of it. After a negotiation between these two countries they just realized that actual Israel wants a warning from Egypt if any danger is coming. In the end the two countries become peaceful. Another example that he brings up is Nelson Mandala who decided to work together with the white minorities and in the end, the economy becomes stronger again. Nelson realizes that war doesn’t solve a problem. Ury also mentions that if a husband and wife wants to be in control and nobody wants to give in to each other, it will result in divorce. Many competitive companies have merge together and become stronger in economy. I myself feel that war is cruel and we should avoid war.

Anthony mentions that in Bennett’s and Ury's articles didn’t agree with war, however, they believe that war is necessary if there is no choice. I do not agree completely with this sentence. I think Ury was more a pacifism and he do not believe in war. Anthony didn’t think war is the solution of the problem. I did not agree with him because I think sometimes war is necessary to lead to peace. It is true that when war happens many would die and mmost of them is not soldiers. However, sometimes when peace is needed and couldn't be found elsewhere, war could be the only way to lead to peace or freedoom. For an example, when a country is under attact by another country, if we try to use peace and the other country do not except it, there is no other way except going to war in order to keep their freedoom. I believe that war is the last resource to be use when other ways could not lead to peace. However, war has to be done for a good purpose.

All four articles talked about war in different ways. Mead and Hanson talked about the definition of war and how war existed in human's life. On the other hand, Bennett and Ury talked about whether war is necessary or not. In Mead's article, she believed that war is an invention. As human's knowledge advances, war becomes more and more exist. Mead gave many examples such as the Balinese. These people did not know the definition of war; therefore, whenever there was a conflict between two people, they went to the temple and found the solution in there. It can be argue that the solution can be that simple because they were undeveloped culture. Therefore, as a culture or a nation become more and more knowledgeable, war become more and more inevitable. However, in Hanson's article, he believed that war is inevitable. He said that war is not an invention; instead it is a human's nature to go to war. War would always happen whenever the situation is. In Bennett's article, he believed that sometimes war could be the answer to a problem. He said that sometimes war is not the worst thing that can happen. Ury's article talked more about peace. He believed that war is not the answer to a problem. He said that war would lead to both losing because most of the time 9 out of 10 people that died in the war is innocent people. I like Bennett's article the most because I believe that sometimes war is necessary to solve a problem; however, I am not an advocate of war. I would prefer peace as the solution; however, sometimes peace could not be found. Therefore, I would encourage peace for the first option, but when peace could not be found, maybe war could be use as the last resource.

Yes, Seon Cheol. I totally agree with you idea about the war. The meaning of War is that mentioned in Ury’s article. It is a Lose-Win mentality. There are different answer come out. “Win-lose”, “Both Win” or “Both Lost”. In his article, he tells, “What became clear overtime war that a nuclear war would bring only losers.” I truly believe that sentence because we can have a war but I can’t use the nuclear bomb or weapon in the war. It is the consequence of using this kind of weapon will become really bad, that we can not immigrate and can not afford. Seon Cheol, I have the same idea with you in the case of Koran. Actually, not only the North and the south Korea have spend a lot of money in the army, but also in every country in would, they spent a lot of money on army too. If they use those money or source on the education, economic, and people health, everyone will have a wonderful life. In some situation, do believe that we need war to find peace, however, if we can find peace without war, it will the better solution to solve the problem.

After I read those articles about war, there are different opinions between those articles. In Bennett’s and Ury, both of them don’t agree with war, however, they believe that war is necessary if there is no choice. It is right to take a war in order to get peace. On some situation, I agree with their idea. Actually, I didn’t think war is the solution of the problem. I am prefer the pacifism rather than to advocate war. People can use the other way to solve the entanglement between them. In the first articles, Mead thought that war is an invention, not a biological necessity. In some points, I agree with him, however, he gave many examples, such as Eskimo. In those articles, I would like the second one the most, “War will be war”, Hanson tells that can can’t be avoided. I truly believe his idea. He also gave us an example. Although it is not a real war, it is the direct cause of the war between Iraq and America. I agree with this, War can not be avoided in some situation. He also show how strong of American Army, however, the 911 can not be avoided. In those articles, there is a idea that all the article agree with. It is war is necessary or cannot be avoided if it can make a peace. This is my idea after I read those article. I hope everyone can do well on the final.

From Yuki’s response that I disagree to drop atomic bomb to Nagasaki and Hiroshima is a wrong decision. Before the United States drop atomic bomb to Japan, China, the US or many Southeast Asia countries already lost thousand of soldiers and innocent peoples because of Japan’s invasion. In that time, only the United States has ability to fight with Japan in Asia. According to the distance between the US and Japan, the US is difficult to send troops across the Pacific Ocean to fight with Japan. The US government wants to end the war as soon as possible, so they decide to use atomic bomb on Japan. This decision for Japanese may be too cruel; however, it saves more people in the Southeast Asia countries and the US troops. If the US did not use atomic bomb on Japan, then the WWII may need to continue many years. Then would be more innocent peoples and troops die in WWII, and the number of them is beyond the people die under atomic bomb many times. So I think in 1940s, drop atomic bomb at Japan is a right decision. People may argument that decision nowadays, but we are not in the war right now, and people cannot feel that situation that during the 1940s. People who did not have experiment cannot understand how war hurts them, so they always use their situation which they are living right now to justify previous events. This is unfair for people who fight against enemy and die in the battle field. We all know war is bad, so now; our responsibility is to avoid it happen again and not to justify the event that happened decades ago because it doesn’t help for each people. We can recall the tragic event to warn us to prevent it happening again.

These four articles show different opinion about warfare. Mead thinks that war is an invention. If you live in underdevelop country, you will not know what war is. For example, eskimo culture who thinks that war as an invention. Secondly, Hanson thinks that war cannot be avoided. It will happen in each countries. It is also part of the human condition. If the country has more gun or power, they will win the war. Thirdly, Bennett thinks that war sometimes is a solution of the problem. In paragraph 2, war is for a just cause-that is a cause that avenges wrongs or rights an injustice. In paragraph 15, "some things are worth fighting and dying for." ANd lastly, Ury does not agree with war. She thinks that war does not solve the problem and war is not the solution of the problem. For me, I do not agree with war because war is only satisfy people's ego which can danger other people's life.especially civilians who do not participate in the war. Also, war causes a lot of money to buy weapons, pay tthe soldiers,etc. we can clearly see that most of the time the country which has more power and more money can win the war easily.

Saynab said “war is not a solution in any time, any where, and in any condition.” Yes it is absolute true but some war can bring peace. Some war occurs because of preserving peace. After War always left and caused huge problems. Saynab said we can see three different reasons why war is occurred. I love her pointing out. She said “1) Unprofessional leadership, 2) Materialism: people who want to occupy another land because of their natural resources and their raw material, 3) and tribal problem.” It is true. I think Materialism is one of the biggest reason why people make war. People always want more and more. People always do not satisfy. She also provides bad sides of war behavior. Many people lose family, many people died, and everything was destructed. She said “I think the major reason why the United States government took military action in Iraq, was only for their oil because the American technology has been growing very rapidly for the past two decades , and they won’t be able to find enough fuel for their technology.” I also think this one also reason to US government took military action Iraq but I think this is not the only reason.
Saynab point out best way to make peaceful world is negotiate each other. I also think we need negotiate and understand each other. We need moderation (self restraint) and forgiveness. War’s consequence is “From Win Lose toward Lose-Lose”; this mean is no matters you win or lose both countries lost.

Mead, Hanson, Bernett and Ury in their writings are talk about the war or warfare. Mead writes about definition of war from history perspective. She points out that war is a invention since thousand of years ago; however, it still continue evolve. War now exists in many different patterns. Mead uses a lot of example to show different types of war. She also adds that war sometimes not so called a war. It may jus a stress or strain which exists between peoples. Then in Hanson’s article, He shows that war is unavoidable. Since human exists, the war also has been found in human history. He says that war is part of human condition, and it happens in any civilization. War sometimes is a good way to solve problems. War can be uses as means. Some countries need war to help their government protect their authority. Some countries need war to help them to fight off invaders. So Hanson points out that war is not always bad for people. Next, Bernett shows that some people believe peace equal to no war, others show that war is an answer or conflict resolution. She shows Christian belief that peace equal to no war, or war equal to no peace. She points out this belief is too extreme. Sometimes war is the way to find peace. War can create peace also. She did not agree to solve problem by using war every time. She states that people should be a peacemaker, and try not to use war to solve conflict situation. Finally, Ury in his article points out that war cannot solve every problem. Most of time, war create a win-lose or lose-lose situation for both side. He suggests people trying to avoid using war. Without using war, people can easier to have a win-win situation. Win-win result is the best answer for each other. So people should not avid using war in order to have both gain final result.

Personally, I agree on Hanson’s article because I also think war is inevitable because people always want more and more. War is part of our life and part of human condition. Therefore they want plunder somebody’s good things. This is reason why Japan attacked Korea or why England makes so many colonies.
This is one reason why war is occurred and another reason is people should protect themselves like September 11 US attacked by terrorists therefore they depend themselves from terrorist because they don’t want to more attack. We can also see opposite side of opinion. From William J. Bennett said “War is certainly hell” (687). And William L.Ury also said “An eye for eye and we all go blind” (694) .They are true. War is such a big disaster. I know because my country also has a terrible war; it brings really bad situation in my country. Many people died and everything was destructed. This is war’s consequence to both (win and lose) countries. However, we can not just endure ourselves. Human is not that kind of species. We are not saint. If somebody do bad things to you, people naturally they want to revenge and defend.

When I read the four articles Mead, Hanson, Bennett, and William Ury. They argued in different perspective ways and they defined different words in terms of war. In my point of view war is not a solution in any time, any where, and in any condition. War never solves the problem except it creates anger, hatred, and grief. War is the ugliest thing which human can think to do. There are different reasons that can cause a war. 1) Unprofessional leadership, 2) Materialism: people who want to occupy another land because of their natural resources and their raw material, 3) and tribal problem. War is only part of human nature and human addiction. There are ten of thousands people who are dying every day without any reason except a bad practice of mankind behavior. There are innocent children who lost their love ones and don’t have any one to protect them or feed them. For example, the war in Iraq was unjustified; the United States government claims that Iraq has nuclear power. The United States attacked Iraq without any approval of the United Nations, and at end they didn’t find what they were looking for accept shame, hatred and anger around the world. On each single day there are 15 to 20 people including children dying in Iraq without any explanation what so ever. In my opinion, I think the major reason why the United States government took military action in Iraq, was only for their oil because the American technology has been growing very rapidly for the past two decades , and they won’t be able to find enough fuel for their technology. For that reason, they want war and destroyed their reputation around the globe “Blood for Oil”. If we go back into the history the longest war on the universal was ended after hundred years later (England and Italy, 1337-1453) they never found any solution to their problem except many casualties and wreak. Finally, war makes only history and taught for us who we are, but the best way to find a peaceful life is to negotiate with each other. However, war is only evildoer action

When I read his article I agreed with him the way he thought about war. Cheol mentioned in article war is a natural condition. I strongly agree that war is a part of human nature and it destroys strong government and people. It only causes starvation, lack of treatment, and it increases the illiterate people. Cheol explained that war divides one nation into two enemy people. He talks about how his country divided into two enemy nations. I feel sorry for him because I have been through that situation too in my own country and I faced difficult situations in my life. The only way we can think about is to establish a sensible manner to solve our problem and to look forward peace. And to start negotiation with each other, and hope for the best and. According to William L. Ury in “Getting to Peace” he explains war is not the answer “Even smaller wars proved hard to win for the powerful nations on earth. The Vietnam War became a cruel education for the United States, as did the war in Afghanistan for the Soviet Union”. In this circumstances, indicate that war never proves any positive solution. In my opinion, we have to believe in peace that through we can reach our dreams.

According to Seon Cheol’s article, he wrote that the fight is a natural condition and also an inevitable concomitant of development of state. He supported that Korean War in the middle of 20th century divided two pieces in one country after the warfare. Still now, these two countries spend a lot of money to protect each of them. If this expenditure money for the army moved to another area such as welfare or for a citizen, this country can improve and develop more and more. Basically, I agree his opinion, because I was in the army for 2 years and experienced and saw a lot of money spending for maintaining army. However, in the world, most countries manage following for their profit and benefit. In the Gulf War, why does America attack Iraq? Is it just for the world peace? I think that it was not for world peace. During the war, America sold many weapons to Mid East Asia and made huge profit. Also, it gave helping to America economic development. Of course, the war causes many disadvantages such as losing a home, losing one of family and everything. But, I think all countries in the world always check other’s countries and always think that how to make profit to use others country. Base on this circumstance, the warfare is necessary and inevitalble.

According to four articles, four writers show different conception of the warfare. Mead and Ury prove that warfare is just a bad invention and take everything such as money, job, and even family. In the Eskimo society, even though, there are many fights, theft of wives, and murder, there is no the warfare in their society, which means it is possible to sustain their life without the warfare. Also, after the warfare, there was remaining not “win-lose”, but “lose-lose” all of countries. However, Hanson and Bennett wrote that the warfare is sometimes necessity and part of the human condition. I think that the warfare is necessity in the world. Most of countries in the world and most of society in each country are running to follow their advantage. For example, in Korea War in the middle of 20th century, many countries in the world, especially America and USSR support and help two countries, South Korea and North Korea. However, what is the purpose to support two countries, South Korea and North Korea? Is it for world peace and just pure helping? The answer is base on the benefit of their country. After the Korea War, America control the government of South Korea and USSR control the government of North Korea. Still now, U.S Armies are staying in South Korea and control the Korea Army and Korea Government with priority. Thus, all countries in the world operate and manage their government with following the law of the jungle; the strong eat the weak. Because of this, the war always has probability to happen in the world

Hi, Yuki Shimizu. I will reply to you, because I like to develop the argument through replying like this, so it could be my counter-reply to you. And, I am concerned about your thought "The US helped for Japan not to be colonized from many nations such as the Soviet Union. The US have helped Japan to recover and build up own nation again". Do you think it is really? You should know 1. The united states made The Constitution of Japan(made for just 1week, so easy constitution), 2.Japanese were not permitted to compalain and argue about it. If the constitutions came from their own contries tradition, culutures, and value, Japan is occupied by U.S. Also, U.S army occupies several area in Japan, especially, Okinawa, and in addition to that, U.S announced that they will put many U.S armies there to strengthen the pacific area. However, Japan cannot complain it, you know why? The Constitution of Japan made by U.S made Japan rely on the U.S army, for example, U.S banned Japan to esatblish missile protection systems. And, when Japan proposed U.S to reserch new fighters, U.S just took advantage of Japan's money with pretending co-oporation. So, military strength and information strength needed for military lacked so much. Therefore, we Japan do not have storng position to speak out in the world, and we could not have enough information to save Japanese kidnaped by north korea. We cannot say "NO" to America. If America intended to make Japan to say "NO", I do not think U.S helped Japan. Also, you said U.S dropped 2 atomic bombs because of Japan's hesitation to surrender, I do not think so, because it is the surface answer to the U.S action of dropping bombs. It is really clear that Japan did not have power to fight against U.S at the end of WW2. U.S should have known it. Also, one day before Japan's attack to the pearl harver, Roosevelt decided to reserch and develop the atomic bomb, called Manhatton plan. U.S already knew that Japan will attack the harver, because it was easy to decode a code "Tora Tora Tora" with advanced U.S inforamtion tech. So, what I want say is U.S bombing in Japan is not because of Japan's hesitation.

I can not understand why Japanese emphasize they are the victim of atomic bomb in the world, and why Japanese do not think over committing an act of brutality toward Asian countries during World War II. William J Bennett says that war should be for a just case. However, what is a just case for war? As you know, Germany raised World War II, but no one agreed to Germany’s logics for war. Germany might think that their war was just case, but other’s side thought Germany’s logic was a sophism. So justification of war is totally wrong and any type of war can not be justified. Japan also occupied Korea during World War II. Japan’s just case was protecting against Russia, but we should know what Japan did in Korean at that time. Think about Vietnam War. The U.S entered the war with a just case of protecting South Vietnam against North Vietnam, but in the position of North Vietnam, the U.S was the enemy against their reunification. The U.S and North Vietnam had the just cases each other, but whose just case was right? So any kind of war should stop in the world. We should find a way for the win-win strategy.

I agree to Margaret Mead and William L. Ury’s arguments. I also think that fight is a natural condition. It is an inevitable concomitant of development of state. William L. Ury states that a win-lose mentality can wreak havoc in any domain of human life. I think he defines exactly the war. As you know, in the middle of twentieth century, Korean had experienced devastating civil war. It was the conflict of ideologies between democracy and communism. The final result was merely truce that divided our home land into two nations. This fact explains William L. Ury’s argument explicitly. If two Koreas committed to the conflict of ideology, one Korean would be the member of G-8 now. South Korea is the one of the countries that spends a lot of money for the military defense annually. If Korean spend this military expenditure toward education or public health care, Korean will be a welfare state. However, Victor Davis Hanson says that war is eternal and it is part of the human condition, and he also states that overwhelming force wins. The situation of confrontation between North and South is like Hanson’s definition. Every year, two countries’ military conflicts happen, and South Korea spends ten percentage of whole GDP to buy missiles and other ammunitions of the U.S, and North Korean also spends about fifty percentage of its GDP. Unfortunately, North and South Korea adhere to Hanson’s argument. They are also seeking the three criteria of Aquinas in order to justify 50-year confrontation, but no one can justify war, war should be transformed into peace. When I read the article of William L. Ury, his writing explains the solution of two Korea’s problem. Each Korean should recognize that current irreconcilable situation does not benefit each other and it can make worse the future of next generation.

Dear Yuki. Actually I do not know that atomic bomb killed tons of people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is wrong or not. I guess the reason why the US drop the second one in Nagasaki came from hesitation that Japan did not want to surrender. Anyhow, I appreciate the way the US took to treat Japan after the WWI. There are the only two countries in Asia which have not been colonized. One is Japan. The US helped for Japan not to be colonized from many nations such as the Soviet Union. The US have helped Japan to recover and build up own nation again. However, we never forget that Japanese killed many people and Japanese also was killed and suffered from the war. Now that more than fifty years have passed after the war, the impact of the war is weaken and easy to forget. Especially our generation, the information about the war is limited and the awfulness of warfare is only from papers. I want them not to involve in any warfare never ever. As you said, we made history which is awful, ugly, and terrible. Even if Japan defeated Russia, China, or whatever, there is no reason Japan can prude ourselves from the war. Rather, it is shame, I guess.
Concerning about the U.S. they are acting like a hero or a judge in terms of warfare. The attack against Iraq may tune to be like Japan. It may help to rebuild up their country. However, nobody make it sure that It will turn out to be good. As the country which have not experienced the war in own home land, the US may not realize awfulness of the warfare yet. I want them to know the ugliness of warfare before too late like Japan.

Every four writers agree that war is wrong. However, how to interpret war defers person to person. Someone say that war is wrong, but it happens. Throughout history, I guess that there is no time exists in which people did not fight against people. Also, someone may say that war cannot make anything beneficial to human. It may be true. There is the injured that have to suffer from it until he/she will die. Here are the people who have to undergo the hard time because of loss of husbands or sons. Not only the people, but the country must have to have a difficult time to recover from warfare which made them had used up all money and resources. The other people may say that it is the most awful, ugly, and terrible thing man can do. It could be true. Human have been seeking the own benefit such as money, land, prestige. Also, many regions have been related to warfare all the time and it have made them crazy. Or People may have used the religion for the best excuses of warfare. The revenge could be another reason which has made people to start involving into warfare. The sprit of “an eye for an eye” may seem to make sense and may the best way to solve the problem. Actually, the issue of warfare is really hot topic and the writers of these essays point out that war may be needed sometimes, not always. Because they said that it may provide something to people. However, in my case, I cannot hurt or kill people no matter what happened, even if my family member is killed, my girl friend is killed, or my country is destroyed.

In “Building a Better Dad”, Adler states that fathers, now days, spends more time with their families. He mentions that in a Newsweek poll, seven out of ten American fathers spend more time with their children than their own father did. Additionally, he says that some studies have shown those fathers today are more involved with their children. But the results are small compared within the reality.
I agree to some Adler’s founding and opinions that fathers, now days, spends more time with their children and become more involved with their children. But to some degree also, I could argue that fathers’ role in spending time with their children is not a ritual day to day basis. Like most wives, they do all the routine, taking care of the child’s need on daily basis. For example: the father can go to their children’s Saturday football game, but, on the contrary, the mother has to take care the children personal belonging before they go to the football game.
Adler can argue that today, fathers are more and more sensitive to their child needs. But I could sadly say that their involvement do not really help to ease their wives in doing the household chores or even taking care of the children. I think, fathers these days really need to catch up with what their wives do in term of household responsibilities.

The authors, Mead, Hanson, Bennett and Eyad, defined and argued about war in each way. Mead defined war as two types as invented product by human and instinct. Whereas Hanson descibed war as "" War is eternal. It is part of human condition" (pp.680) in her essay. Those of four authors do not say that we have to seek for peaceful solution, not by war in the way just like stupid idealists want to adovocate. War should not be admired, but also should not be denied without knowing the meaning of war. In the sense, I agree with Bennett who said "I would not be surprised if, in historical retrospect, the Afghanisttan campaign were to qualify as one of the most just wars ever fought" in her essay. She underastand that wars only to kill innocent people should be forbidden, but war to fight for certain circumstances should be justified. Idealists, or pacifists just look at war itself, and they just blame for the result especially after the war. However, she insisted on the justification of wars, and without saying, she gave opportunities to think about the fact war made history just like 1789 France revolution or so etc, which we may forget. I know someone may claim that the murders could be justified if they were in certain circumstances. I do not intend to say that murders should be justified in any case, and in war. Murders do not make anything, except for anger, and grief, and they do not shape new history. That is the big difference between them. Therefore, I would like to regard justified wars as the ones that made our history.
My country, Japan is the first and hopefully last country to be attacked by the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. After that, we Japan surrendered to U.S and other allied coutry like U.K. If I can borrow Benett's word, the atomic bomb both in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not necessary, at least, Nagasaki after Hiroshima should not be attacked because U.S should know that Japan will surrender to U.N anyway, even if U.S do not attack by atomic bombs. Japan had lacked of their army power during Midway sea battle. However, U.S has another reason to experient atomic bombs power(thats why 2 different bombs used for Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and show the army power to the rest of world. The war, attacking by evil purpose should not be justified because it does not make anything. On the other hand, some may claim that Japan should not have fought with America, but Japan decided, rather had to fight with a big country even if Japan knew it was stupid. However, Japan had the reason to fight. Before Parl herver,
Japan knew the war for a certain purpose could make history. In history, Japan was the first Asian country that won the whites, in the battle with Russia, and that made Asian countries colonized by European countries fight for independence, so Japan's war made history. In WW2, Japan fought for Japan itself. U.S sent the notorious Hal notes to Japan, and that said that Japan have to surrender to us, leaving all right for areas Japan had fought for bty sacrificing many lives. Japan had history to be defended for itself, so decided to fight. The war has meaning and should be justified in a sense. Therefore, I really agree with Bennett.

The common idea about these three essays is about men and women have expectation to their spouses. For example men should work more time and more money for the family. On the other hand, women expect that men should do household chores. Like in the Adler article, it shows that man can do household chores. In these couple years, father starts to spend time with his children and do some of household chores. For me, I agree that man should help some of household chores; however, I agree that women should responsible if there is something wrong with the household chores. And, I know that traditional family still works in my city. Men should earn money and work full time, on the other hand, women earn second income or smaller income and should take care the household chores. This is different with the article of “Why I want a wife”. In that article, it is impossible that women can work full time, doing household chores perfectly. I think women also need leisure time and do any activities besides household chores.

I agree on Amelia’s idea. Everyone has higher expectation to their spouse but actually they do not think about each other’s expectations to them. That is right Brady’s husband’s expectation of wife is too high. I think nobody want to be wife. Being a wife and mother is the hardest job ever. They should think about husband and children before think about them. I think Brady really want that kinds if superwomen to do her work or she criticize her husband about high expectation’s of wife. I also think family need balance. Traditionally father and husband is like king of family. They control everything but nowadays family should respect each other’s view and situation. Its relationship is like Vertical to Horizontal. I think I should see “the stepford wife.” because I never seen this movie before.I really like Amelia’s saying “i think between husband and wife there should be a commitment and willingness to compromise each other. ”
I think it is absolutely true.

First of all, Judy Brady’s Article “Why I want a Wife” and Sylria Ann Hewlett’s “The second shift” are women’s point of view articles. These articles were written by women therefore they discuss and speaking for how hard to be a women (wife and mother). They give understandable and appropriate reasons to support their view. I am a woman so I really agree on their opinion. However, “Building a Better Dad” is written by Jerry Adler. This article is definitely written by men. Author talks about how hard it is being a man. I think this article also good because this article gives me a new idea of men’s situation. I never thought about men’s problem. I think always a woman is more hard work than men because hey shouls do house work and their job's work. However, it seems not true. Men also have a lot of responsibility to house like women does. This article helps me to understand men’s situation. It gives new image of men who are concern and love their child unlikely their father.
I think three articles is really good source to support my Rogerian Essay. They are really good sources. I think this kinds of men and women’s problem is never end because Men think I am harder work than you but women think absolutely oppositely. I think most good way to overcome this kinds of argument is they should think about each other’s side deeply and try to understand each others situation.
Fortunately, Men try to more concern and love to their child and house work. It is never happened past 50 years; therefore, we can predict better future.

When I read the three articles I found it some differences between them. Brady’s article was based on some reality stories that every men needs, every man want to his house to be clean when he comes from his work because some men are reliant on their wife’s. There are some men especially in the third world countries who believe that women should be in charge of the household chores because there are some men who still believe that they only should be the decision maker. While, woman does all the household chores; but in America it’s different because every woman in this country supports herself without depending on any one. However, women are the vital to every family particular when it comes to household chores. Usually women are good at indoors chores while, men are perfect for outdoors chores but some men are still expecting women can do all the household chores without any one helping. Hewlett’s article showed that some date base that based on the percentage between men and women in their household responsibility and every time the highest number were the women who take prime responsibility for their chores. It’s something that we all know men and women don’t share equally their household chores because, men expectation toward the women are potentially still high; but in this modern world everything is changing and more women are not depending on their husband’s any more. It’s more important spouse must share their household chores equally because some women have outside jobs and it will be hard to do both chores, the couples must negotiate their time and they have to help each other, as the Somalian say “One finger can’t wash the whole face”

i agree with Vonny that it is impossible to find a "perfect" wife in this world because as we all know, no one is perfect. however, i dont think all men want to look for a perfect wife, some men just have very little criteria for the women that they might marry. as long as they can get along well and have a lot in common with each other, i think they are okay with that. i also agree with vonny that a husband and wife must help each other because it is not fair for the wife if she is the only one who do all the household chores and work full time too. i think a wife is there to help the husband and vice versa. i agree that deborah can feel very irritated when someone always mess up the place because women are more emotional than men and they get irritated very easily. as for me, i will get annoy if the person that i live in cannot keep the place clean. i also agree with vonny that everyone is born the same, there is no reason that men cannot do household chores but women can because God created women the same as men. if women can work and find a job like men, then men also can do household like women. as an example, many restaurants have men as the chefs. it shows that men can do household too and even better than women.

When I read Yuik’s reaction toward the three article’s, I strongly disagree with his believes. Yuik talked about men and women and he used some examples about men earn more money than women. First, the definition of marriage isn’t about money; it’s about everything love, passion, and children. When you get married with some one else you will be expecting you will stay that person for the rest of your life. Second, what is the definition of ideal man? I didn’t understand what you meant that but in my point of view ideal man means a man who can understand everything. Third, couples must share their household chores. You mentioned your reaction “If wives were out when men comes back to their houses, what do they think of meaning marriage”. Next, there is no constitution that is saying women have to be full responsible. As I told you before, the marriage is not about the money; men have to take their responsibility and must share their household chores with their wives. The household responsibility is something you could not finish all your lifetime and it’s something we need day in and day out. I also disagree with you the way you explained about the marriage “When I consider the reason men want to get married, some men seems like to look for the place for their relieves for fatigue after work”. But I strongly refused that, why are men getting married if they want to only a place to stay; the marriage is something very human being needs in their future and every person wants to his/her own house and kids but if the marriage would be a place to have relax time when you are tired their would be no human growth

"Why i want a wife" talks about the expectation everyone wants for their soul mate. Brady wants to have a wife who is so called "superwoman" who will do everything from working to taking care of the children. another reason maybe her husband expect her to be some kind of a superwoman. i think in a family there should be a balance. if only one person give a contribution for the whole family, it is unfair and the marriage will not last. this essay reminds me of the movie "the Stepford wife" where they create dream wives for all the men. i think it is a very selfish act and unreal. As a husband and wife, they should respect each other and willing to give in to each other. the essay "the second shift" talks about the statistic of women doing more household chores than men. it also gives an experience of a a woman name Deborah who finds it very annoying that her husband cannot keep the house clean and neat. as she become more high paid and get a higher income than her husband, she started to feel fed up. i think between husband and wife there should be a commitment and willingness to compromise each other. the essay " becoming a better dad" state that men are becoming more sensitive to taking care of their children. for example, many successful men sacrifice to spend their time with their children instead of work.

I completly agree with Songhoon that men stereotyped about women a lot of time. There are some men that want a wife in a certain way and expect their wives to do most of the chores around the house. When I read Songhoon's response I noticed that he was right about men forgeting their responsibilities as a father for his children and a husband for his wife. Some men were married based on love and after a few years, sometimes they forgot about their duty as a husband. Some men thinked home as a resting place where they should relax and enjoy their time after a whole day of hard work. What they do not realize is that to maintain an enjoying home, they first have to do the chores, otherwise, the house would not be clean, the clothes would be washed, ect. Sometimes men expect to come home and see the finish product without doing it at all; therefore, most of the time, the wives have to do most of the chores. However, now days, many women also have full time jobs; therefore, they also feel tired when they come home then why should the men get rest while the women prepare the food and clean the house? Fortunately, now days men are starting to realize this issue and they began helping their wives in doing the chores.

"The Second Shift" talked more about what women felt about household chores. The example that was used, Deborah, showed how a woman felt when she has to do the chores even though she has to work and support the family. Deborah said that it would drive her crazy when she had to do all the chores after working longer hours than her husband. Sometimes women feel this way when they work the whole day and bring more income than her husbands and still have to do most of the chores around the house. A lot of women feel that their husbands do not help them with the chores or do it poorly. In my opinion, the excuse that her husband gave about teaching an old dog is only to defend himself. I think everyone are given the same brain and as long as they learn in, they should be able to do it. "Why I Want a Wife" talked more about what women wished to have. In my opinion, Brady was summarizing in general what socienties' expected from wives. She said that she want a wife for her social needs, physical needs, and sexual needs. Most of husbands would want wives that can fullfilled all their needs. I would say that perhaps Brady's husband demanded her to be the wife that she wished to have in her essay. I think it is impossible to find a woman that can be the wife that Brady talked about. "Being a Better Dad" talked about how husbands sacrificed their jobs in order to spend time with their kids. Alder compared fathers in the 50s with husbands in these days. In my opinion all three essays are connected in some point that people would have to give up something in order to finish the chores; however, finishing this duty is one of the responsibility of having a home. When you live alone, all the burden of the chores fall in yourself, but when you share a home with other people, then you have to share the responsibility. All three essays showed that responsibility of the chores could not fall only to the wives; however, husbands have to help the wives in order to keep a happy family.

Yes.. Men should change their stereotyped thinking, but our society should be changed before changing men. Our society is still man-centered one, and everything is controlled by men. Why? Maybe no one can answer this question easily. Our society force women’s sacrifice one-sidedly. So this is the time to listen to the voice of women. First, we should learn how to share the role of men and women Men should understand women’s part, and women should know men’s part. They should understand each other in order to make better life. Men and women are open-minded. Mutual understanding is the key to solve the problem. Second, I want to suggest the change of our education. we need to change the educational system. Education now has to teach men and women’s differences in proper way. In Korea, our education still teaches separation on men and women. We do not have many coeducational schools, still separated men and women dedicated schools prevail, so that many youth can not have chances on how men and women think over each other. Third, we have to find the way to increase women’s employment rate. The more job women have, the more men can share the housework with women.

In the Brady’s article “Why I want a Wife”, there’s some expectation from her that a woman should be like a robot whom never gets tired or never complained for the task that she is been given by her husband. The first time I read this essay, I remember the movie Stepford wives. Where the wives of Stepford have a secret that is their husband deserve the best! Of course the wives of Stepford take the easiest way to perfection. They take the short cut. Just following their tips and tricks, you can be everything that your husband wants you to be. You’ll have the stress-free life and your husband will want you more. The conclusion is that in Stepford, all of the wives are far too perfect and the entire husbands are way too happy. Is this the scene that every wife longed for? I guess it is. But in the real world, being the perfect wife is hard work. You’ve tried Yoga and Pilates, but still cannot get rid of cellulite on your thighs. You’ve tried Kama Sutra, but cannot quiet get hang of the horse movement! Hopefully, every husband realizes that their wives are not superwoman. They still human with plenty of mistake and are willing to share their dreams with the one she loves.

____I agreed with Seon Cheol’s response that women gradually change after WWII. However, I think another important factor that women obtain education accelerate this movement. After WWII, more and more women have educations in the high school, college and even graduate school. An education or knowledge change woman’s thinking, and also change their life. Because of that, women know what lifestyle they want, and also understand how to enjoy their life. Women had education are more independent than women who have no education because they can easier to find a job to support themselves. Women who did not have education are more dependent if they did not have skills to find a job, then they need their husband to provide their need. According to women can have education, their social class also became higher than before. For example, women cannot study in engineering at college because of the traditional notion that women should focus on non-engineering majors. Now many women study in engineering and have outstanding achievements. This shows that women can be engineering like men do. Another example: more and more women participate in politics because many active and famous female politicians or councilors exist in the congress.
____Another important factor is male hood also changing. Because women became more independent, men also adjust their role to fit into this movement. Men became more soft, sensitive or emotional than before. Now men can be a househusband to take his children and to do all household chores. The society does not despise these househusbands because the society also changed. According to these movements, our society becomes more and more sex equality. In many countries, culture or custom makes women may still have lower social class than men, but I can expect they will change in the so future because no one can stop this movement all over the world.

According to Yuki, the expectations between men and husband are different. Also, being ideal husband and being ideal men depend on women’s thought. He says that there are two kinds of women in the world. One is a woman who expects to her husband with earning much money and support a family well, another is a woman who wants to share and work together of household chore and taking care of their children with her husband. That is, it is depend on women’s expectation to their husbands. He also believes that many numbers of men expect that their household chores are decreased after they get married. For example, when they go back to their home from the office or working area, men make a dream that taking a rest with watching TV, not washing dishes. Finally, according to Yuki, the meaning of a marriage for men guarantees the comfort life without household chores. However, I think that when men and women consider about a marriage, they think how much they love each other, not calculate the duties and responsibilities about household chores. If they calculate those things, what differences are between a roommate and a husband/wife? Once men and women, who love each other, get married, they respect each other and make concession about household chores. That is the best way to lead successful marriage to them.

What is the role of a husband and a wife in a home? What is the role of a father and a mother in a home? What is the suitable position of men and women in a society? Adler, the writer of Building a better dad, wrote that many women still have more responsibilities of household chores than men in a home, even though many numbers of women is working at a society in these days. According to his article, 16.3 million American children were living with just a mother in 1994 and 40 percent of those had not seen their father in at least a year. Also, American fathers are about average in parental involvement, spending on average 45 minutes a day caring their children by themselves; American mothers, by the way, spend the most among women of any nation studied, more than 10 hours a day(460). I believe that many men still think women have responsibilities about household chores. In other words, a home meaning to only men is a resting area that nothing to do and work. I think that men forget their responsibilities as a father for his children and a husband for his wife. Many numbers of women get a job and were involved in a member of a society in these days. Compare with past period, the spending time gap out of a home is decreased between men and women. Thus, men should recognize the changing position of women in a society and should try to share and divide the household work. For example, in a weekday, women have a responsibility to prepare a meal for their family and men have a responsibility for their family during a weekend. Everybody agree that the position of women is changed. So, men should not stay the stereotype about women any more.

____From three articles, “Why I Want a Wife,” “Building a Better Dad,” “The Second Shift,” I found some common ideas between them. These three articles are point out those modern women became more and more independent traditional women because they obtain better educations, and also modern men became more sensitive and emotional on their family. From Brady’s article, she shows that men expect their wife should look like a superwoman. They want their women can take of everything that he or his family need. Then from Adler’s writing, we can look at the family responsibility from men’s perspective. His article points out that man became more sensitive and emotional on family especially on their children. Finally, form Hewlett’s article, she shows that modern women need to spend a lot of time for household chores after their full time job. They expect their husband to share the responsibilities of household chores.
____These three articles also given us a notion that traditional women are more dependent than modern women because most of them rely on their husband’s financial supporting. Traditional women take full responsibility of household chores, and they seems not have right to ask her husband to help them for sharing it. However, modern women work full time and they contribute part of family financial. Also modern know what kind of lifestyle they want, so they try to educate people that women are different than before. Nowadays women are not servant or housekeeper because they have thoughts or opinions. Modern women will talk with their husband for sharing household chores because they want to have their own private time, too. Furthermore, I agreed with Adler’s ideas that men became more sensitive and emotional on their family. I think modern men spend more time on their children because their childhood experiences. Previous father focus on their business or job, and did not spend too much time with their kids. Now these kid grow up and became father, they don’t want their kids have similar experiences, so they rather to stay at with kids than overtime working at office.