Contextual Analysis Thesis Sample

Monson discussed the fear of leaving the home when he wrote that “Do not go outside, on dates, or to the store, alone.” He discussed this phobia because he felt that a person is safer inside his or her house. But I think that it’s impossible to not leave the house. Everyone must leave home for some reason everyday and that main reason is to make a living for adults and to obtain an education for children and youth. The author wants to show that nobody should leave home because it’s a scary world outside and life is better lived inside the safety and comfort of one’s abode. This concept has truth to it but people shouldn’t live in fear because they will never enjoy the fullness of life if they do. Life is about taking risks and every day we wake up and step outside the door, we face a number of risks. I agree with the author to a degree but I cannot complete concur with his notion on not leaving home because it’s simply not realistic.
Maximum security assurance within the home will create a safe haven for the person who takes measures to remain safe within the house according to Monson. He recommends that one should “Install alarm systems on every window, every doorway in your house.” In this way the home will be fully secure for the person who is afraid of leaving the home. It will become a safe haven, which is what Monson was trying to demonstrate. I think that alarm systems can help prevent the burglary and theft but it is not 100 percent guaranteed to do so. People who have alarm systems in their houses still encounter robberies and, in some cases, may face abuse or murder. We can take measures to protect our homes, families and worldly valuables but we still live in a world where crime runs wild and life is fragile.
Slender, single teenage women are prime targets of sexual violence because the media portrays this notion rampantly in its crime-based TV dramas and in daily news reports of victimized young women. Thus Monson illustrated this in the text: “You are single, seventeen, and thin. You are a thing made for television, for the nights of drama crime.” He revealed the real danger that female adolescents face in this world. Date rape, sexual harassment, and domestic violence are some common examples proving the vulnerability of female youth. They are not totally safe in a male-dominated society where crime continues to spiral out of control according to histrionic media coverage. Viewed as the weaker gender, they lay prey to the predatory forces of greed, gratification, and godlessness from their male counterparts, which Monson indicated. Therefore, I deem it imperative for women to avoid all avenues that would cause them endangerment by any means necessary.
Weapon ownership is another means to maintain one’s safety. Monson advised that we “Do carry mace, or pepper spray, or a bowie knife. Do carry guns if you can get them. A crossbow. A blowgun.” The more people are physically equipped to protect themselves, the better off they will be inside and outside the home. Perhaps Monson supported the purchase and sale of guns and he opposed rigid gun control laws, a hot topic in Congress at the moment. It’s definitely a controversial issue but will it really solve problems of crime and violence in society if we ban all guns? What if the issue is deeper than that? I can see the point Monson is trying to make but do we really end violence by using violence or more politely worded ‘self-defense’? Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. endorsed the nonviolent resistance movement and his plan worked to end American segregation during the Civil Rights Movement. In summary, I cannot embrace the author’s directive to acquire weaponry.
Monson wrote about the avoidance of deep sleep: “Do not sleep deeply.” People must not involve themselves in plethoric sleep because they need to remain alert at all times inside the home. Otherwise their lives could be at stake if they slept abundantly and peacefully. Heaven forbid, a robbery takes place inside the home, someone who sleeps too heavily would be easily victimized and very life could be jeopardized as opposed to someone, a lighter sleeper, who would perceive the danger at hand. Generally speaking, we are more vulnerable to peril when we are asleep. But deep sleepers are at an even greater risk as Monson wanted to indicate. I certainly support his argument. It is essential that we watch over ourselves because we are the only ones who can ensure our own physical security. No one can optimally rest if they want to remain in a condition of attentive prowess. Sleep at your own risk.
Finally, I believe that confronting the reality of death is the last thing that Monson wanted to discuss. He used metaphor in the statement, “Still you will be killed. You’re born for it. Your life is a tree meant to be torn apart by weather and electricity.” When it’s all said and done, all the effort put into staying alive seemed to fail because our fate is already determined. Nobody cannot escape the predestination of death, the knowledge that everyone will cease to exist in human form someday. Life is lived everyday in preparation for death and in expectation of it at some point upon which she has no prior knowledge or control of. Life is but a vapor, here today and gone tomorrow as the Holy Bible so eloquently proves. In short, I totally harmonize my views with the author’s sentiments on death and the brevity of life yet in a positive way in which humanity will learn to live the best life possible.