I was assigned 8 bites to do a presentation with my group. I was really hoping it wouldn’t be a complex piece like some of the other works in that collection, and it wasn’t. I found 8 bites to be relatively easy to understand, at least the main points, and the nuances needed more analyzing but after calling with my group mates and discussing some of the key things in the text, I felt pretty good about my understanding and ability to lead a discussion on 8 bites. It was interesting to see what my groupmates thought was significant to raise as a question compared to the points that I thought were key moments. Nobody was incorrect but it was nice to see that some parts that I didn’t give much thought about, were actually much deeper. I thought my group led the discussion well, it was a plight scene in the class with half the people that usually talked missing, however we still managed to get a good discussion and we got to provide more of our input to help get the discussion moving. I started the discussion by asking the class to give a quick summary of the reading to get people refreshed on the story. That in itself caused a discussion which I was not expecting but nonetheless grateful. I then asked the question that I thought was most significant and after a discussion of that question, which I also contributed to, everyone else in our group was able to ask their questions as well. I think I could have provided a more specific follow-up question to my original question that made people think about the points that i wanted to raise but i didn’t because the discussion was going well anyways. Even then I think I should have mentioned it. I took this reading the most seriously compared to others in the collection which helped me with the in class essay if I chose to use 8 bites as one of my stories used for evidence.

I didn’t use 8 bites on my in class essay, I chose the husband stitch instead because the prompt about how marriage/relationship affected the narrative came easier to me and the husband stitch provides many answers to this prompt. I already knew some of the key moments in the husband stitch that I could use for my in-class essays so I looked through the book and noted them down. I reread the book briefly before planning out my essay during my gap periods. I just used a google doc, I knew that the 5-6 paragraph essay with an intro, 3-4 body, and a conclusion would be easiest for me so I structured my essay in that manner. I wrote my introduction fully, trying to use a hook and thesis statement. Then I listed my 4 main points and bullet pointed out some key things I wanted to mention about those points as well as the evidence supporting my argument and why it supports it. I didn’t write anything about my conclusion, and my conclusion in the essay was also lacking which I hope to improve in the future. I had plans for the conclusion to relate the theme to society and give examples but I didn’t have time. I think the reason I was barely on time was because the outline felt like a double edged sword; it was helpful to help me remember my main points but I kept getting stuck trying to write my essay exactly as outlined. My ideas would be more streamlined and quicker to write if I hadn’t done that. I hope to improve my pace and quality of writing in the future. 

I was thinking about the topic I would choose for my op ed on my train ride back home after I knew I had to write one. I thought about the opinions that I held most strongly and began thinking about my political views and beliefs. In light of the recent political climate, I decided to write about my opinions on “Trump’s Gaza” and his imperialistic plans surrounding the region. I knew I had prior knowledge about this topic and I felt really strong about it so it was the perfect topic.

I wrote it all in one sitting during a long gap I had between classes. I had already read a few articles about the topic because I was invested in it even before the Op Ed so I decided to bookmark those articles and write it down for my citation in the Op Ed. I wasn’t really sure how strictly I had to follow any citation norms for the Op Ed so for my first draft I just used quotation marks without even citing the articles explicitly. After receiving feedback from peers, I decided to make it clear where I was getting my information from for a few of my citations.

As for the structure, I kinda just followed an essay format with an introduction that provides a thesis statement, supporting body paragraphs and a conclusion. In hindsight I feel like a different more unconventional structure may have gotten my point across better so if I had more time, this is definitely something I would experiment with.

I like my line of reasoning, I believe I had very strong points supporting my argument about why Trumps plans for Gaza only serves to benefit the rich imperialistic investors that greed for the land and how it would be devastating for the Palestinian who are trying to gain a foothold in their own land even after relentless attacks. What I would and should have expanded on is how the opinions of zionists and the president pushes a false narrative and shapes a dangerous belief for common people that justifies the atrocities happening in Gaza. I regret not including a section talking about this because my Op Ed is meant for regular people and targeted to a broader audience that may have mixed views about be Israeli Palestinian conflict. If I had more time, I would take more time to analyze my rhetorical situation and change my framework for my ideal audience. The purpose of my op Ed was not only to inform but also change the minds of people who may have initially thought otherwise. This relates to more then just an Op Ed but any rhetorical work that I have to do in the future. I think planning out my writing and thinking about rhetorical situation before I start writing would better my writing and make it more persuasive.

I feel like I know the answer to this question but I want to expand my thoughts and be clear on it. The presence is obviously metaphorical. The story portrays it as a physical blob of flesh with no eyes or limbs or senses, just a blob. It is clearly a reference to the part of herself that the narrator cut off during her surgery. I was wondering what the point of the flesh was in the story and it slowly got clearer towards the end. The presence represents more than just a physical thing, it is a metaphor to the part of the narrator that she can’t quite erase, no matter how hard she tries. And she does try very hard to erase it by beating it, kicking it, gnawing parts of it out and throwing it against the wall, yet the presence is ever so resilient, still treating the narrator kindly.

The presence is symbolic for the self hatred and shame that the narrator faces even after the surgery, I’d argue even more so after the surgery. And this never ending standard of always trying to look a certain way, eating less and less to fit into society’s unfair expectations of proper body image never leaves the narrator, even after the surgery. It doesn’t leave even after her death and realization of where she went wrong because the narrator herself mentions that the presence will live on even after her death. The presence represents the never ending self doubt the narrator underwent due to her efforts in maintaining the looks. It’s significant also due to the time at which it formed. It only formed after the surgery, which leads me to believe that her feelings of self doubt and hatred became stronger after the surgery that’s supposedly supposed to fix everything in her life. She herself referred to her body as more honest before the surgery. In conclusion, I think the author implements the presence to highlight the narrator’s feelings about her body, her past self, and her scumming to society’s expectations. 

I was curious as to what kind of surgery the narrator went through exactly. She mentions bariatric surgery resting to weight loss which when I searched it up, gave me this image. It just made me think about the extreme that the narrator went through to fit a certain body image caused by the negativity surrounding her, especially in terms of how a woman should look.

One of my first thoughts while reading “Mothers” was why Machado chose to create the the story between two women rather than a heterosexual couple. I personally think the author chose this dynamic to challenge traditional gender norms regarding motherhood. In almost all stories about the struggles of motherhood, the power imbalance in the relationship if often due to assigned gender traits. Like the man being dominant and abusive, or absent while the mother is left to endure the abuse for the child’s sake. However this piece challenges that structure. By making the story about two women, the author makes the readers really focus on the aspects of motherhood instead of the gender dynamics. It also shows how the abuse on mothers doesn’t necessarily have to be physical, as you may expect in a toxic heterosexual relationship, because the relationship between Bad and the narrator was insanely abusive but more so on a emotional scale. 

It was also very significant that the roles are almost reversed in this case as Bad, the dominant and manipulative partner was the one that bore the child, yet the narrator was forced to raise it. I think the author purposefully chose Bad to be the one that got pregnant to highlight how sometimes the responsibility of a mother doesn’t necessarily fall to the person that bore it. In fact we see Bad using the fact that she got pregnant to push the child away and excuse herself from having to raise it, instead guilt tripping the narrator into assuming all responsibility. This sheds light to the fact that sometimes motherhood is forced onto a woman, that it may be so unexpected yet the mother is expected to raise it without protest. It also challenges the stereotype that caring traits inherently come to mothers, because we clearly see Bad avoiding all responsibility while the narrator tries her best to raise the child even though she has reservations on weather the child is even hers. 

By creating a non traditional gender dynamic in her story, Machado portrays the deeper complexity of motherhood by making the readers question their preconceived notions on what a mother is, who the role is assigned to, which helps the readers see how a mother deals with the power imbalances and the emotional trauma of raising a child.

This picture portrays the traditional nuclear family dynamic with the mother cooking while the father comes home from work. This often represents the idealized version of motherhood and its nature. I chose this picture because it contrasts with the nuanced idea of motherhood portrayed by Machado’s work.