Blog 14: Language Police Analysis 3/5/17

Blog 12: Bad Language Analysis 02/05/17

Blog 11: Affirmative Action 1/15/17

Affirmative action was first implemented to combat the segregation of minorities in the education and work forces. It was a sort of compensation for the years of inequality and discrimination. Considering what the goal of affirmative action was originally, I think it was accomplished successfully. The percentages of women and minorities in universities and companies has grown over the years, with positions being held specifically for these applicants. I think the current day argument is ironic and outdated. While the intent is pure, it upholds the idea that race separates human beings. While race is definitely crucial to one's identity, it should not be what makes or breaks an application or resume. It is not something that should either bring benefits or take them away. The idea of being "just" and for "equal opportunity" shouldn't be rooted in a set percentage of applicants being of that minority. That is just grazing what the real problem is, and that is the enormous gap in socio-economic status. The socio-economic status is what needs to be at the core of affirmative action. Affirmative action should provide opportunity in a holistic approach, taking in students with various backgrounds but providing appropriate funding for those students. There are millions of aspiring young adults in impoverished areas of the world that just don't have the network nor means to fulfill their potential. Providing scholarships to students like these will help sow the gap between minorities and majorities. There will also be no more arguments against affirmative action that state minorities who are put into a position amongst others who have had opportunities their whole lives might feel like they are not good enough, since these students would be just as bright as their peers. I liked what Morgan Freeman responded when asked how do we end racism. He said, "Stop talking about it." The emphasis on race and nothing else shines a spotlight that isn't going anywhere. The real problem is an increase in tuition and a decrease in the affordability for low-income students who just need the right push. While some action is needed, it is not the affirmative action that we know connotatively. The new understanding should be an equal opportunity for all students despite background, not a "special spot" for a lucky minority who might just be there for the statistic. That is demeaning.

Blog 10: Winter Break Assignment 1/3/2017

The question of whether oppressed groups can reclaim a word deemed racist intrigued me and instantaneously brought me to the subject of the N word. As a white man, I have very little insight as to what this word means today for the black community. I don't regard myself as someone who has the right to say it, or the right to argue it shouldn't be said.  The word has become prominent in stand-up comedy, music, specifically rap and hip-hop, and everyday speech. I have heard it countlessly in the halls of Midwood, from one African-American to another, in a way that suggests no threat or negative connotation but as a substitute for a greeting or companionship. I have heard it over and over in the songs that have dominated today's top music lists. I have read it all over Facebook and I have also become desensitized to seeing it, however, nowhere near desensitized as African Americans who have endured a long and brutal history with this word. There is an entire interactive project on washingtonpost.com dealing with the debate. Everyone knows the origin of the word, in the times of severe oppression, slavery, and hate towards blacks. Nowadays, except for cases with an intention of actual hate, the term seems to be thrown around almost like any other. I have seen white people saying it, among every other race and color. An article on PBS.org states, "Some claim that the word can be defused through reclaiming it." The once very racist word can be seen as a a neutral word with a connotation of unity and camaraderie when used amongst the black community, given that it is used with an -a rather than an -er. I think it is really interesting that just the last letter or two of a word can completely reverse the connotation from negative to neutral-positive. I think that it is something that should be talked about, but as a white man, I do not know if I am the one who has a right to ask, given the circumstances to how the word was first used. I have questions that I would love answered, but I don't know if now is the time to find the answers. Is it fair for the older generations to hear this word, who have endured actual hate with this word? Should it be normalized within cultures and continue to be used so heavily in social contexts? Does it still hold an invisible barrier between the races and continue to divide people in a time when unity is crucial? Does it provide strength for the black community? Given that many black communities are still facing discrimination in social and economic factors, if America can actually achieve 100% equal opportunity for all races, will this word disappear?

Blog 9: Feminism and Masculinity 12/19/16

        The "There Is No Unmarked Woman," by Deborah Tannen, and "I Want A Wife," by Judy Brady, pieces we went over this week summed up the gender inequalities, roles, and stereotypes prevalent in the later 20th century, that continue even to this day. "I Want A Wife" uses many hasty generalizations to help the reader picture a model of a superior male. This male has all the prerequisites to be a stereotypical dominant man who treats his wife like an inferior. He doesn't associate her with his sense of self, and he expects her to do everything when he wants. Brady uses repetition of "I want a wife..." to emphasize on the tasks that wives have to do for their husbands. She also uses the Strawman logical fallacy to phrase the wants of men in her own words. She takes an extreme take on gender roles, and even goes into saying, "...my wife will arrange and pay..." even though if she was keeping constant with gender stereotypes, the man would be paying.
        "There Is No Unmarked Woman" lists the various markers that the identity of a woman is defined by. Whether it be her clothes, her hair, her posture, or her make-up, every choice she makes seems to be a marker to society. I like this text, because it uses the comparison of the unmarked man. A man can go outside in black shoes, a suit, parted hair and not be judged for how he chose to look that day. However, an automatic profile of a woman is made regardless of what she wears.  Tannen uses extended metaphors to show the difference in gender stereotypes.
        I liked both these pieces because they summarized the struggle of being a woman in society. Although slightly over-emphasized, these situations may still happen today. Having both an older sister and a younger one, I've seen my older sister succumb to the standards of today and so I want anything but that for my younger sister. In psychology, a study showed that people of one opinion or value understood the other side best when they were asked to "Consider the opposite." I think that men have to consider the opposite. They should place themselves in the role of women, who are scrutinized for any action done and expected to be less of a role in society. This awareness might reveal the hardships of being a woman, but it can also reveal the hardships of being a man. Awareness is the best way to change the way society makes gender roles out to be.

Blog 8: Pillow Angel Ethics 12/4/16

The case of the pillow angel has been widely controversial. Taking the criteria of selflessness, application for the future, and consent, this case is entirely unethical. The "portability" of the patient is reminiscent of an advertisement for some kind of technological appliance. Her breast tissue was removed on the basis of a family history of cancer rather than convenience for the child. There was no previous evidence of what would happen to a young girl with such a high dose of estrogen. Essentially, with no evidence, this is a case of human experimentation. Adjust for small factors, and this is a court case that ends the careers of the doctors at hand and throws the parents in jail. This 50-50 gamble might have landed on the right side, but if it hadn't, this argument would never be made again. With severe brain damage, this patient would not even register what is happening to her. Taking away this side of the equation, who is left? The parents. Only the parents are benefitting from this case. Medicine is for treatment, not for personal convenience. The surgery also brings up the concept of self identity. If her body is drastically changed, is the patient the same person as before? Ultimately, this is a medical fix to a social problem, where parents do not know what to do with a child born with disabilities, and a health care system that does not properly take care of such instances. For the future, where will the line be drawn? Now that sex-change operations are prevalent, what will stop parents from disfiguring their children? Adjusting length, width, and tissues, this makes the upbringing of children into a Mr. Potato Head concept. This is a pack of C4 just waiting to explode. With these parents undergoing no punishment for performing surgery without consent, no one can know to what extent these surgeries could go. Using the principles in this case, cited as "convenience" and "portability," why can't other parents keep their babies the same size forever? Surely, taking care of a 3 foot child is likely to be more convenient than a 5 or 6 foot adult.

Blog 7: Logical Fallacies 11/27/16

I had no idea that logic could be so innacurate until this week's plethora of fallacies. Reflecting, I remember both using them and having them used against me. Ad hominem and Strawman are the most prominent in my memory. Ad hominem, or a personal attack irrelevant of the argument at hand, provides the user with a fall sense of logic and lays a cracked foundation for further points. It is a last resprt, something to lean on when there is no support left. Telling someone they failed a math class in an argument about world politics would be an example. Strawman, or citing a misinterpreted or false claim and striking it down as if it were an original of the other, is used more insightfully than Ad hominem yet probably more prevalent in "proper" argument. I did not know Strawman is any counter argument citing what an opposing side would say. I have used this technique countless times, without ever realizing this logic is a fallacy. If someone is building a case against the fast food industry, and I say they are against a capitalistic society, I am using Strawman. The fallacy my group and I used in our project was circular reasoning, where the end stage of the argument is already being used for the beginning stage, creating a loop. This logic is easy to spot becauase all points made are essentially derived from the same claim. Circular reasoning is weak because it includes no outside reasoning and promotes the idea of a lazy arguer who doesn't feel like incorporating new information into their claim. A store brand being the simple choice for consumers would count as a circular reason, ending with the claim that the choice is simple. Being aware of these fallacies can promote new, concrete forms of logic that can only continue to improve my writing. It can also help me break down points that don't have good foundations, making me a better critic and all around writer.