New course BBS first year english important question answer

         Unit :- ONLY daughter

What is Cisneros's thesis? What incidents and details support this thesis?

Answer :-

Cisneros narrates this story to show the social relations regarding the female identity. The daughters, in every societies are taken in the second priority.

Women always and anywhere in the world are struggling to establish their identity. Cisneros, in this story remembers that her father calls her as a son because he has six sons already. She is included as a son. The inclusion of the daughter in to the son does not signify that his daughter Isn't like a son rather a daughter does have her own category.

She calls "Not seven sons. Sixt and one daughter". The one daughter should have more identity because she is the only daughter'. Here, she wants to trace the development of her identity as an adult, as a female, and as a writer. The females want to establish their identity as a separate one not include one', she develops the narrative where she struggles against the father's version of identifying the daughters. She does not like to be treated as a part of the sons butshe shows a difference. Her father simply wants her to get an identity of being someone's wife. He used to think that even after getting so and such education, she was not able to get a husband so she had wasted her education.

Cisneros's thesis is that the daughters are not only to get a husband and be married. She believes that the daughter could be a professional, can be better than the sons can do. The daughter can enjoy their own freedom and identity The daughter would be able to draw the attention of the father who had been ignoring her whole life. She wants to be 'only daughter' who did much than his other six sons really had done altogether.

2. My Mother Never Worked - Bonnie Smith-Yackel

1. What kind of work did Martha Smith do while her children were growing up? List some of the chores she performed.

ANSWER :- 

This narrative shows that how does a women working whole her we in the household is recorded as the "never worked woman in the government record After her death, she does not get the social security benefit. But whole her le was never rest for her. It is ironical that an office going person retires from his job. but a woman never gets retired.

 Martha Smith is an example. Here, I have tried to collect her list of the chores she performed. She began farming after her marriage. She worked in fields. She learned to set hens and raise chickens, feed pigs, milk cows, plant and harvest a garden. She carried water nearly a quarter of a mile from the well to fill her wash boilers in order to do her laundry on a scrub board. She learned to shuck grain, feed threshers, shock and husk corn, feed com pickers. She used to pull mustard plants, raise a new flock of baby chicks. She spaded up, planted, hoed and harvested a half-acre garden 

More than that, she bore eight children. Ironically, she did all but she was never recorded as a working woman. In the winter she sewed night after night, endlessly, begging cast-off clothings from relatives, ripping apart coats, dresses, blouses and trousers to remake them to fit her four daughters and son. She milked cows, fed pigs and calves, cared for chickens, picked eggs, cooked meals, washed dishes, scrubbed floors, and tended and loved her children. In the spring she planted a garden; she dragged a pails of water to nourish and sustain the vegetables for the family. She used to make pillow using feathers she had plucked and she used to do the patch work. She used to make, manage bedding for her family. She used to pluck feathers, made pillows, baked her own bread and every year made a new quilt too.

2. Do you believe that a homemaker who has never been a wage earner should be entitled to a social death benefit for her survivors ?

ANSWER

It is a very serious issue. A home maker mother dedicates all her life for raising the children and rearing the family, I think a homemaker who has never been a wage earner should be entitled a social death benefit for her survivors. Rather than that, the homemakers should get the social security benefits when they are still alive. So they don't feel that the government or the state is irresponsible to them. In Nepal, the state provides the social securities to the disadvantages groups, old age and widow people. The children or the survivors of such helpless people do not get anythings for such homemakers survivals. But on the other hand the wage earner's survivors get such benefits whether they are the children or the spouses.

As we take the example of Martha Smith, the children are expecting for the social security death benefits. They don't get such benefits, they give the details of their mother. They know that the mother is not wage earner. But the essay surprises us about the government's definition regarding the "work". Martha who never spent a day without work, is not defined as a worker. It is shocking that the response of the government's officials is "your mother never worked".

It is not a big issue whether a man wage earner should get the social security death benefit or not. But it is an issue what the "work" really is? Hasn't she dedicated her life working in the state? Hasn't she managed or taken care of the family of a "wage-earner" of the state. So I believe she should get the social security death benefit that she deserves to be awarded after such life. But it might be humorous that she is helping her survivors even after her death whom she served whole life when she was alive.

• Tweet
• Share
• Share
• Share
• Share

About Prajjwal pokharel

"Push yourself no one else is going to do it for you".

Related Post