Q: “Woolf begins by observing tartly that a truthful dialogue between them may not be possible. For though they belong to the same class, “the educated class,” a vast gulf separates them: the lawyer is a man and she is a woman” (Sontag 1).
C: This is something I don’t agree with. The extent of war and how to resolve it has traditionally been left to men, but that is wrong. The conversation between men and women is to be equal, regardless of gender. A woman’s input is valid, and intelligible to the situation. To say that war is in the hands of men because they create war can be considered true. The male strong personality and nationalism that past male leaders have possessed has caused war. We have never experienced female leadership to see another perspective.
Q: What would happen if we were to have a female leader, would the suffering and conversation surrounding war be different?
Q: No “we” should be taken for granted when the subject of looking at other people’s pain” (Sontag 7).
C: there should be no opinion that gets disregarded when looking upon war and suffering. There is a solution that requires an all hands on. To separate, categorize who is “allowed” to have opinion, or feel something towards the suffering of others, is cruel. It is inhumane to outcast someone for their emotions. The emotions of a man and woman, regardless of any other quality, has the right to their own emotions and shared opinion. It should not be taken for granted, but be appreciated that another perspective can be offered.
Q: How do we intentionally vs. unintentionally categorize/prioritize the emotions of those around us; especially in conversation about social issues i.e. war?
