It is difficult for young men in Guinea to get married. A married young man symbolizes adulthood and shows he can become a respectable member of society. The responsibilities that come along with marriage in Guinea are building a house with enough space for family members to live and a site for retirement (McCurdy, Shandy, & Spradley, 2016). There are few educational opportunities in Guinea. The men are expected to make enough money to café for a wife, other family members, and children. Very few opportunities are available in Guinea, so these men plan to leave the country for a while to make enough money to meet these expectations. The problem is that VISA restrictions are strict, and it is difficult to migrate to prime countries such as Europe and North America. The men are forced to find work in neighboring West African countries for minimal wages, leaving barely enough money to care for themselves (McCurdy, Shandy, & Spradley, 2016).
Is it difficult for young men in Guinea to get married?
Another issue is that the younger women are few and hard to come by because the older men are established and have more ability to care for them and afford them. “As Muslims, they are also permitted to marry up to four wives, as long as they can support them” (McCurdy, Shandy, & Spradley, 2016). Few young men are getting married in Guinea because they cannot afford to.
Marriage has changed in some way over the years. But in some places and even the United States marriage is not always looked at as a serious commitment. It is looked more like a joke in the United States with the age of reality shows such as Married At First Sight, The Bachelor, and Bachelorette. These shows look at marriage as an experiment. Marriage in the early years was usually done for political or financial reasons. Most marriages were also arranged by the parents for the reasons of social, financial, and political standings.
In so many countries even the United States a woman has to live with her parents until marriage they are still controlled by their parents and so it may look at as they are still considered children, not an adult. Marriage is a clearer sign of social adulthood in other countries, such as Guinea. In Guinea, an unmarried man or woman cannot be recognized as an adult. (McCurdy, 2016) In Guinea, you could say that marriage is the girl’s coming out party.
Agee believes that the point of education is to develop the potential of the student. It is to shape an individual and the human race’s “liberty, health, and joy (255).” In fact, Agee states that it is the “business of education to cleanse the brain of” “law, property, sexual ethics, fear, doubtlessness, and even authority (256).” Agee does not believe that the Alabama education system is successful in these goals regarding the education of the tenant farmers’ children, however, he is careful to say that he feels he would be mistaken to decry the school system as there were many reasons why their hands were tied, particularly the teachers’ hands. He questions whether it is a worse evil to subject the children to multiple years of this schooling which, in his opinion, would only be a disadvantage for them, or to have no schooling at all, or to just have the little they do have. All are disadvantageous. He is more critical of the way school is taught in general, as opposed to just the inadequacies of rural Alabama schools. He is angry with the fact that innocent potential is brought into the school system and brainwashed by the system into accepting the teachings of the world which can be corrupt. He hypothesizes that this type of teaching may be just as poisonous as the poisons that teaching would “presume to drive out (256)”. He believes that this form of education would only lead to broken hearts, and he even equates it with murder. He states that if the “guiding hand is ill qualified, an instrument is murderous in proportion to its sharpness (259).” It’s almost as if he believes that it is better to have no education than a poor one.
Clothing is vital to one’s sense of self, and can define us, impact how others view us, add confidence or bring shame. The clothing of the tenement farmers’ children can be described as merely “clean” and very basic (Agee 231). The adults had more variety and varying degrees of clothing. Mrs. Grudger makes lots of effort and has a nicer wardrobe than Mr. Ricketts who makes little effort and does not have much to make an effort with. Granted the farmers made themselves the most presentable on Sundays and often bathed only once a week.
Our clothing serves as a first glimpse of a person’s interests (sports teams, etc.), values (modest or promiscuous), associations (companies, teams), or often religion (priest, nun, pastor, etc.). Clothing also serves as a way to hide or show ourselves off.
This section is credible as it clearly and specifically depicts the tenement farmers attire through the report of Agee. It seems a bit biased, as the poverty in the southern United States during this era is saddening and Agee seems affected by this as well.
I am a strong believer in workplace discussions excluding religion, race and, politics because of the sensitive nature in which these topics affect each individual. I have been in scenarios where these topics led to aggressive responses which have ultimately led to physical confrontations. I share these situations with my fellow classmates because recently I have added another topic to my “workplace discussion exempt list” which is Covid-19. Over this past year the world has faced an enemy that no one can see but everyone can definitely feel. With millions sick and millions more dying, governments across the world scrambled to find a cure subsequently the best option available has been wearing a mask and or taking a vaccine. Of course with all life altering situation which require government involvement you will have people who conspirer to discredit any information to support their own beliefs. I’m sure by now most of you have heard the theories of economic crashes or the virus isn’t real it’s just a ploy by government to minimize populations but have you heard the theory that the vaccine is actually Nanobots to control the minds of mankind? I have a coworker who emphatically believes the virus is a hoax to get everyone to take the vaccine so the world order will inject mechanism into your body to control ever population on a global scale. This coworker is in fact a Covid survivor who endured the worst symptoms yet he still believes we are under attack by governments across the globe. His beliefs though unsound are that once injected with vaccine all electronic device will cease to operate and malfunction when you are close to them because your body is now magnetized by Nanobots. This coworker has gone on to show fellow coworkers videos of other theorist placing cell phones near the vaccine point proving their theory that your electronic device will malfunction. In addition to our bodies malfunctioning electronics he believes that any metal objects would instantly stick to our bodies because of the vaccine. Although the videos may show someone laying a quarter on their chest and it didn’t move I didn’t feel like that was a valid enough example to support his hypothesis. So I began to question the knowledge behind these test and eventually I challenged these theories. Me personally I have been vaccinated since April and I’m pretty sure I’m not a robot but for educational purposes I wanted to test my curiosity. When the discussion arouse again and the opportunity presented itself I challenged my coworker’s theory by placing my phone near my arm that received the shot. My phone continued to function as it normally does, in addition I placed a quarter and a car key on my bare skin to test his other belief and nothing happened. Afterwards I could kind of feel the tension with my coworker but I was ok with that because if I was in the same position, I would have to accept the outcome if proven false. I would say that my coworker’s fallacy is a mixture of appealing to popularity and appealing to ignorance: argumentum ad Ignorantiam. In conclusion everyone is entitled to their own beliefs but if you chose to force your beliefs onto others you must be willing to accept when someone challenges those beliefs.
My family and I went to dinner with my dad and stepmom recently, and over dinner we somehow came upon the topic of electric cars. My husband mentioned something about the charging stations for electric cars and this sent my stepmom into a spiral about how inconvenient electric cars are and how you won’t be able to take long road trips and on and on (all of her comments were without any valid information to support her claims, I might add). My dad mentioned that his employer will be replacing his current work-provided vehicle with an electric version and this snowballed into people being forced into getting electric cars in the future. The fallacy here is the idea that because electric cars are becoming more common, that we will all be forced to get one, we won’t be able to take them on long distances, and we will all be utterly miserable for it simply because my stepmom thinks she will be. It also seems that using language like “forcing us to get electric cars” could also be fallacious because it is used to stir up emotions about our our liberties being infringed upon and we are therefore distracted from the real relevance of the argument and instead are focused on this idea of our freedoms being stripped of us.
I noticed this error in her argument from the start, but I am not well-versed on electric cars or the politics that might be at play if we are eventually “forced” (likely not real force, maybe just a slow transition of auto manufacturers moving away from making traditional cars and more toward energy-efficient ones, is my guess), so I didn’t bother arguing the issue. I like to pick my battles wisely and I wasn’t really up for having a debate that evening).