"...devoted to the equal status of women and its call for the elimination of violence against women in both public and private. The document also named systematic rape and other forms of violence committed against women during armed conflict as human rights violations." (14)

I chose this quote as it reminded me of the idea that "individuals shape systems and systems shape individuals." In this case, individuals (i.e., those who commit heinous crimes against women, such as systematic rape) contribute to a system of oppression and sexual dominance. In lacking laws that protect women in both the public and private sphere, the Vienna Declaration (and the justice system, to that extent) evidently promote domestic violence. Without any consequences to face for their actions, men feel entitled to their violence. Here, we see how the individual and the system are interrelated, and can work together to harm "the equal status of women and its call for the elimination of violence."

This point was very interesting, as it led me to reflect on the pros and cons of anonymizing experts. While Wikipedia's anonymity promotes accessibility, in which anyone can contribute to an article, I realize that that also poses a threat. The fact that anyone can contribute anything is startling. Obviously, people can delete or distort what experts add, turning the article from credible to biased/inaccurate. I understand that anonymity can also "deemphasize markers of authority" for experts, but in my opinion, that makes adding to Wiki less anxiety-inducing. When I have to add to Wiki, I'm comforted by the idea that everyone else working on the article could be a normal, non-expert person, just like me. Anonymity limits competition; I don't have to compare myself to the experts working on the article and feel pressured to write like them.

"Warrant" is a term I've never heard used to describe the writing process. Though this word puzzled me at first, I recognize its significance in substantiating an argument. You cannot move from data to a claim without an explanation as to how you arrived there. That said, I agree that we should refer to the Toulmin model when forming an argument, and spend the most time developing our warrant.

I do, however, question if we should follow the x-to-y steps in the Toulmin model. While this model may be helpful in connecting our data to our claim, I feel like it's restrictive. When I say "restrictive," I mean that the x-to-y model traps your writing into a certain structure that may get repetitive or binding.

This quote caught my attention, as I wondered if it was suggestive of Mead's theory on the preparatory stage, play stage, and game stage. Mead seems to refer to the game stage here, where children begin to recognize the different perspectives between other children and them. If Mead describes game stage here, does that mean the next sentence ("Infants tend to experience…") indicates preparatory stage, when the individual is an infant?

Though I understand what the author's trying to say, I find this line confusing (maybe "misleading" is a more appropriate word). In my opinion, introductions are a necessary component to an essay. Without a paragraph, you lack a clear thesis, and the assignment becomes unconvincing and unstructured. While I agree that the five paragraph format promotes redundancy, and that you should be careful in your introduction not to rehash the same points you make throughout the paper, I don't think that all introductions "reduce the remainder…to redundancy" (169).

"…'impose their world on the rest of us.' Most revealingly, the speech enlisted women to justify American bombing and intervention in Afghanistan…" (784)

Honestly, this quote did not surprise me, though it did disgust me. Using bombing as means for "empowerment" is very typical for American politicians, and it highlights their twisted sense of saviorism. Clearly, Laura Bush's speech does far more harm than good; her use of the phrases "civilized people" and "impose their world" establishes a very "Us vs. Them" perspective.