This is a great way to summarize the idea of our growing agender society. Certain things aren't gender specific but gender specificity isn't human.

Yes. Literally yes.

In a way, this still perpetuates a gendered-society. Why does it have to be a makeup line specifically for males? Why can't it just be a makeup line that anyone can use? Granted, men can use every pre-exisiting makeup that women use now. We don't have to 'invite' them to this game with their own line so they can feel like they're not using 'feminine' products.

Feminism for the win! There is a small problem though, I believe, with using this concept to combat the 'dominate male world'. While feminism refers to the equality of the sexes, we do not know if the circumstances surrounding these male dominated areas actually include inequality. Maybe there are more males in the tech world because we aren't promoting technology jobs to girls. That doesn't involve feminism as a solution; that involves a deeper, more meaningful look at how we gender things in our society.

This is a concept that comes up a lot within all subjects - politics, movies, etc. While the world is becoming a more gender-diversified place, men still dominate.

This is what 'they say'. Basically a thesis statement.

I would love to see if there have been any psychological studies involving this theory.

I wonder if this is still true even with the rise of technology. Can we truly get a full, natural experience if we have our phones in hand? Even without technology, do many students even spend much free time outside besides the time it takes to walk from one building to another?

I literally think about this concept every single time I'm on the AU campus. I feel like I'm in a mini city. You could live on campus and sustain yourself for quite some time. But, does this maybe create a kind of false sense in students? If they feel like they have all their basic needs, then what is their motivation to leave their immediate environment?

This is where we begin to see some environmental barriers built - possibly for the good?

So they technically wanted to secluded people on the campus from the community, but allow the community in? That seems kinda contradictory. What are the effects of this seclusion? Have college students become less secluded with the developments in transportation (shuttles, Metro, Uber, etc) and, therefore, more distracted?

This connects back to what we have been talking about in regards to networks! I had never considered the idea of our campus being a network.

I wonder why we expect campuses to look different. I kinda feel like we get this predisposed idea of what they are supposed to look like (from media or people we know) so that frames our expectations.

Thesis - they are basically arguing that the landscape of a campus has effects on how students learn (they need nature).

Strong opening statement - right to the point.

According to Wikipedia, Guy Debord was a Marxist theorist from France. He wrote famous book called "The Society of the Spectacle" which sparked the Situationist International movement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Debord

This point is definitely relevant within today's cities. People visiting tend to focus on the spectacle of the 'attractions' and don't appreciate the simple neighborhoods or places not on a map. There's little exploring if you don't live in that particular city. (connecting to why we're doing this project - getting out into less traveled parts of the city)

theory 1 intro. Doesn't Marxist have something to do with communism?

This is a super interesting point. There is almost no stable network between humans and their dwellings. Also, how much does our housing define us within our society?

Introductory phrase. IC

IC, fanboys, interrupting phrase thing, DC

Introductory phrase, IC

I don't exactly know what to call this comma pattern. Maybe it's an interrupting phrase? s,, v?

IC, DC.

DC, IC.

DC, IC.

transition

transition

transition

transition

Topic sentence, introduces her point about scholars in relation to rhetorical pedagogy (their thoughts)

I found the whole idea of inquiry to be questionable. When someone is passionate about a topic, it creates a totally different body of work than someone who works with the same subject and has no interest in it at all. It brings up the question, is work of inquiry as valid or meaningful as work pursed because of caring? Does it depend on the subject and the person? Or maybe what they are writing/creating in result? (As a note: I'm not discrediting the work of inquiry. I'm more interested in looking at the differences between the of work of inquiry vs. work of passion.)

"the art or science of teaching" (dictionary.com) http://www.dictionary.com/browse/pedagogy

After reading this point, I looked up the history of US highways and when many were created. The Interstate Highway System was created in 1956, so the idea of the policymakers deciding to route highways to avoid black neighborhoods seems very probable. I also wonder if there was a safety side to making the highways that way since highways are big, congested, and can be quite dangerous for citizens. Also, highways might have been built in those routes because most people driving on them were traveling to the center of cities for work (less looking to go into smaller neighborhoods or non-white communities - especially since most people who bought cars back then were wealthy whites).

http://www.history.com/topics/interstate-highway-system

I wonder what that exact reasons were for rejecting that proposal. Is the author inferring that our communities still actively and intentionally put up barriers to keep people out? I feel like the absence of the exact proposals and rejection reasons makes this point weak.