18525 research outputs found
Sort by
Elementary school-based speech-language pathologists\u27 perspectives on the management of pediatric feeding and swallowing disorders
Full text linkSpeech-language pathologists (SLPs) frequently serve autistic students in the school setting. Research reveals a correlation between autism, sensory processing, and pediatric feeding disorder (PFD). As a result, autistic students may have compromised nutritional health and safety, which stands to impact their ability to access the curriculum. PFD is under the scope of the school-based speech-language pathologist’s practice. However, data has shown a perceived lack of confidence and a limited number of support and resources in the educational setting for SLPs to carry out interventions. This qualitative study will seek to understand the perspectives of elementary school-based SLPs regarding the implementation of feeding and swallowing interventions at school
Arsenal of femininity: Women, relationships, and gender roles during World War II
Full text linkPopular imagery of Rosie the Riveter has colored our collective consciousness to assume the women entering manufacturing jobs during World War Two permanently expanded the gender roles of women in American society. However, historians Leila J Rupp, Susan Hartmann, D’Ann Campbell, and Maureen Honey have shown that during the war, publicly espoused gender roles continued to restrict women to the point of “going back to the kitchen” once the war ended. Their research focuses on societal expectations of women but not how women responded to these questions in their personal lives. Reading correspondences between men and women after the attack on Pearl Harbor can help answer the question of why women’s gender roles did not continue to experience change after the war and gives a unique insight into the little-studied realm of the private lives and relationships of women during World War Two. Hand-written letters, a common way for those serving in the military to stay connected to their loved ones at home, describe daily life, jobs, leisure activities, dating partners, and the expectations men and women had of each other, even when they were continents apart. By analyzing these letters written between family, friends, and lovers, this paper shows that women valued their femininity and chose to highlight this within their personal lives, which in turn influenced societal expectations of women and limited any significant and lasting change to the roles of women after the end of the war
Muriel Rukeyser at Sarah Lawrence College
No full textA day in Honor of Muriel Rukeyser, December 9, 1978, Sarah Lawrence College. Muriel Rukeyser is present in the photograph, sitting with her nephew Louis Rukeyser and the writer Grace Paley to her left and the writer Alice Walker standing to her right, facing her. Alice Walker was a former student of Muriel Rukeyser at Sarah Lawrence College
Richard Eberhart in hat standing with a woman
No full textRichard Eberhart, poet in a side embrace with an unidentified woman, at a poetry event, date and location still to be determined
Bollingen Poetry Prize Selection Committee
No full textDated 1954, a photograph of the Bollingen Poetry Prize Selection Committee. A group photograph (from the back row, left to right) Wallace Stevens, Randall Jarrell, Allen Tate. (Front row) Marianne Moore and Muriel Rukeyser
Letter from Rukeyser to Kertesz, October 10 1975
No full textOriginal handwritten letter, dated October 10th, 1975. The letter is from Muriel Rukeyser to Louise Kertesz. Rukeyser thanks Louise for reading her work, Theory of Flight, with the deepest understanding - and for the grace of your work. Rukeyser states that she will answer Louise’s questions, and asks if she has sent them. Rukeyser just came back from Korea and is trying hard, with P.E.N., for Kim Chi Ha. Muriel ends the letter by saying that Louise’s book means a lot to her
Letter from Kertesz to Rukeyser, August 25 1976
No full textOriginal handwritten letter, dated August 25th, 1976. The letter is from Louise Kertesz to Muriel Rukeyser. Louise begins the letter by saying that she was happy to hear from Rukeyser and receive her letter with reviews for Body of Waking. Louise also thanks Rukeyser for her fond wishes for her and her family; they are almost settled in their new home, which they like. Louise is sending Rukeyser, under separate cover, Chapter 3 Part 2, Chapter 4, and the beginning of Chapter 5 of her book. Louise has not finished totally with Waterlily Fire, since there are several reviews she has not obtained. Louise will also have to stop working for a while, in order to prepare for her classes. Muriel had asked Louise on the phone if the manuscript was a thesis, which leads Louise to think that it might sound like one. Louise assures Rukeyser that she will make sure it won’t sound like a thesis. Louise had written a thesis on Thoreau and Mythology some years ago, since she has a Ph.D. in English from the University of Illinois, and she will work on the style of the manuscript when she begins to revise for coherence. Louise is sending Rukeyser a few more questions. She would like to see Rukeyser again, perhaps during Christmas vacation. Louise will continue writing while she can, beginning with The Orgy. The high point of her fall will be writing about The Gates. Louise states that she is surely among those most eager to see the new poems. On the back of the letter is what looks like the fragment of an essay Louise may possibly have written during Graduate School
Photocopy of letter from Kertesz to Rukeyser, June 24 1979
No full textPhotocopy of a typewritten letter, dated June 24th, 1979. The letter is from Louise Kertesz to Muriel Rukeyser. Louise begins the letter by saying that she enjoyed talking to Rukeyser again, and that she had missed that. Last night, Louise had remembered a letter that Rukeyser sent her long ago. Louise is enclosing it in the envelope to remind Rukeyser about it. Louise had forgotten about it and her reply because Louise had decided some time ago to give no details in the manuscript about the birth of Rukeyser’s son that were not given in the poems. Louise did not mention his father’s name as his father. His name was only mentioned in the list of people in California that Rukeyser knew. Louise encloses xeroxes of the galleys on which Muriel’s son’s birth is mentioned. Rukeyser should remember that she had seen the material before in the manuscript. Rukeyser had given the statement that the father “did not recognize the family.” If Rukeyser still wants that material, Louise would be glad to offer it. Louise hopes that Rukeyser’s son will not find it objectionable because it would be hard to alter at this point. Louise sends the information to Rukeyser now to honor her agreement and to allay any anxiety on anyone’s part about what will appear in Louise’s book. Simply put, nothing will appear in my book which was not said in the poems. Louise ends the letter by saying that she hopes that Muriel has a good visit in California and that the birth of another grandchild will bring her great joy
Letter from Kertesz to Rukeyser, October 24 1979
No full textAn original, typewritten letter dated October 24th, 1979. The letter is from Louise Kertesz to Muriel Rukeyser. Louise begins the letter by saying that she had phoned Rukeyser earlier today, but she was told that Rukeyser was out of town. Louise hopes that Rukeyser is doing well. Louise asks Rukeyser if she has received the page proofs. The proofs were in such poor shape that Louise requested that she will be the final proofreader for the corrected page proofs. The press went with electronic composition for her book, which is their first experience with computer set type, and they have had many problems. The galleys were full of errors. Louise received the reviews that Rukeyser had sent her a few weeks ago, and she wonders how she could answer them, since her book is an answer to all of these reviews. Louise was particularly shocked at William Prichard’s review in The Hudson Review, and amazed at the “...shallowness, the stupidity I encountered from time to time in reading past reviews of your books.” There is a rich vein of that running in contemporary \u27criticism.\u27” Louise then states that B.R. Cohen, in [her?] review in the Buffalo Newspaper didn’t read attentively, and seems to be paraphrasing recent reviews of your books. Louise sent copies of these reviews to Michael True who said he would try to place a review of her book in The Chronicle of Higher Education. True will see that the reviews that Rukeyser sent Louise are like several others documented in Louise’s book. Louise hopes that True will reference these reviews in his review of Louise’s book. She is also mailing to Rukeyser at her 50th St. address a copy of Moving to Detroit. There is a shorter version at 90 pages. Louise is now querying publishers, with a sampling of the poems. Louisiana didn’t want the manuscript, saying only that it was too long. It took five and a half months for them to say that. Perhaps they didn’t want to offend Louise, but Louise is sure that Rukeyser will be more candid. She is looking forward to Rukeyser’s response, when she gets time to read it. Louise ends the letter by saying that she is thinking of Rukeyser, and she hopes that all is well
Letter from Kertesz to Grace Paley, June 9 1981
No full textDated June 9th, 1981, a typewritten letter from Louise Kertesz to Grace Paley. While there is no name after the valediction sincerely at the end of the letter, it can be assumed that this letter is from Louise Kertesz to Grace Paley. In the letter, Louise states that she won’t be cashing in the check that Grace sent for her book because she got some extra copies of the book from the press. Louise wrote to Grace because she is upset that the first review of her book, published in American Literature, “doesn’t acknowledge the importance of material in the book and so doesn’t adequately call readers’ attention to a very important fact in Muriel’s life: for years her work and often her person were disparaged and even vilified in print. In one of the last letters Muriel Rukeyser had sent Louise, she had enclosed two negative, even vicious reviews, one from Hudson Review, the other from Buffalo Courier-Express, and asked if Louise would answer those reviews. At the time, Louise reassured her that her book would be the answer. Louise then goes on to say that it is not true, as the American Literature reviewer states, “that now people recognize how stupid and ugly was a great deal of the response to Muriel’s work, it’s not true that that response was largely ignored by those who knew better.” Louise believes that “it was important to document and to try to analyze and respond to that stupidity (especially on the part of influential people like Randall Jarrell, R.P. Blackmur, M.L. Rosenthal, Louise Bogan, Joseph Warren Beach, etc.) because it persists and because it shows how steadfast Muriel was.