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.

Blog 6 : Social Media 11/18/16

Throughout the week, we've looked at several pieces that take stands on social media. The clip, "Nosedive," is engraved the most in my memory. The seemingly dystopian future depicts a world of ratings. Virtual reality eye contacts provide users with floating star rankings that ultimately define who they are. Some jobs do not take users under 2.5 stars, and users with 4.5 stars and over are considered the social elite. Some may argue that our reality is far from such circumstances, but there is some truth to it if it has come to the center of our media in the form of network shows. We do have a social elite, caracterized by their millions of likes and followers, who both directly and indirectly shape the minds of the masses who aspire to be like them. The ideals of beauty are shaped by Hollywood celebrities, all of whom dominate social media platforms. Likes fuel our strive, like a false accomplishment. Judging by myself, I wouldn't post something that I knew wouldn't get any likes. If a post is genuinely a thought of that person, why can't it stay as a thought? The purpose of posting it is either to see another viewpoint or validate the original. The other text this week focused on arguments on social media, and how they dont exist constructively. The idea of a screen, or virtual mask, allows the user a no-holds barred approach. Things that would have been bottled up in person are uncorked through the nonexistent meeting of social media. Emotion cannot be displayed on either side of the spectrum: the speaker cannot convey emotion through their words, and the listener cannot convey their emotions in a response. On the other hand, as someone who deleted their social media for over a year, I can honestly say it connects like no other. I am able to communicate with friends I do not get to see regularly, and I've also been exposed to ideas that I did not take into consideration. Social media is here to stay, and ultimately it is up to the individual to make up the majority, and how that majority uses it.

Blog 5: Wisdom of Psychopaths Analysis 11/6/16

I thought this piece was very interesting and promoted claims that I've never thought of before. It concentrated on both sides of psychopathy. Society tends to have a negative denotation of a psychopath. If someone does something incredibly insensitive, one might call them a psychopath. Even the root word is often seen as an insult to demean someone else: "psycho." Movies, exactly labeled "Psycho," have been changing the denotation of psychopath for decades. This article sheds light on what psychopathy really is. Using logos, the piece brings up bomb-disposal operatives, highly important people who prevent terrorism and brutal murder by deactivating bombs. The studies mentioned show that many bomb operatives experience a drop in heart rate while they are doing their nerve-wrecking jobs. This is a key characteristic of a psychopath: a laser focus during stressful tasks. "...There are individuals whose basic biology is so fundamentally- different that curiosly and subconsciously, they remain impermeable to the minutest trace of anxiety antigens." This might take someone by surprise. "Aren't all psychopaths cold-blooded killers?" The answer is a concrete no. The piece argues psychopaths have wisdom, "innate, ineffable function of their being." Surely, our bomb experts are heroes. They prevent catastrophes, and are mentally tough enough to do it ten times over. The minority of psychopaths that are killers is just like any other minority out there. Extremists in every religion and racist cops don't paint the entire picture of religion or police department. Why should killer psychopaths? The bad, sadly, outweighs the good most of the time. It is easy to see a spot of dirt on a white canvas than a spot of white on a dirty canvas. The focus is mostly put on the instances of murder, not the instances where neurosurgeons and bomb experts save lives. This is what backs up the main claim of the text: "Psychopathy is a double-edged sword that inevitably cuts both ways." During our podcast, my group mentioned that there was no pathos in this piece. Ironically, if there was, any psychopath reading it wouldn't understand it. Lastly, I'd like to finish off with a controversial claim that was mentioned on the last page of the piece. After defining psychopathy as a double-edged sword, the writer then labels those edges as psychopathy and antipsychopathy. The killers and slashers on one hand, and tibetan monks and saints on the other. I really liked this claim. With anti meaning opposite, the writer argues that everything is part of the same spectrum, no matter how long or wide that spectrum is. It sums up that we are all human beings, and a lack of empathy, or an overabundance, does not take away our humanity. Psychopaths should not be singled out, and they are a very important part of our society.

Blog 4: Hazlitt Analysis 10/23/16

Hazlitt's piece about money is seemingly simple, taking up only three sentences, yet complex in detail. He lists all the reasons why money is the at the core of every problem he can think of. This type of syntax is interesting, because it almost makes the reader think he did not prepare much for his argument. Hazlitt has one sentence, taking up about two paragraphs, listing numerous reasons why a lack of money and an abundance of money lead to problems. These problems are connected with commas and semicolons, yet there is not much glue holding them together. There is no underlying scenario or story that ties in all of these reasons. The idea of a distraught, young boy who really wants ice cream and is ready to tell you every reason why he deserves it, came into my mind as I read this piece. Hazlitt wants to paint the picture, and he doesn't leave much assumptions for the reader as he goes. His rapid fire of reasoning has a funny effect. Yes, he does provide many situations, but no, he does not use examples to back them up or provide any credibility as to whether they would actually happen. Though Hazlitt's claim is not directly stated, his character is. He is someone who does not like the idea of money. He uses second-person, "you," to place the reader in the midst of the situations. It is not just theoretical; it can happen to anyone, he says. I noticed that although the piece is wordy, no extra words are there. Following Zinsser's advice, he uses words as words and not clutter. Every situation is different, there are no repetitive examples, and it seems as though he is passionate yet having a good time telling us about his argument. Hazlitt knows what he wants to say, and he says it. This is a strength of his piece. His interesting and even secret turn-around happens around the second paragraph, when he uses the word "or." This comes as a small surprise. The first sentence, it seems, establishes that Hazlitt believes money provides a good living. Then, out of nowhere, he comes back around and starts bombing down the idea that more money is more problems. It reminded me of the video about alcohol we saw in class, with both the positives and negatives listed in one advertisement. By showing the big picture, Hazlitt builds his ethos through objectivity and truth. He does not sugarcoat anything. He tells it as it is, and does so effectively.

Blog 3: Advertisement Analysis 10/09/16

I vividly remember the advertisement of Ambien Cr. With no personal bias, I believe this was an absolute success as an advertisement. To the naked eye, the subliminal changes in behavior of someone before and after taking the pill jab at every aspect of a successful day. The dimly lit and sullen mood of the morning before the actor takes the pill relates to anyone who has trouble sleeping. The rooster symbolizes the insomnia or any other sleeping disorder that forces people to wake up in the middle of the night. The actor wakes up abruptly, the opposite of a peaceful morning. The introduction already has the audience hooked. Anyone with a sleeping problem can relate to such a morning and so this is a text to world connection. The advertisement then sets Ambien Cr apart from any other medication by providing somewhat meaningless information about the layers of the pill. Meanwhile, underneath all of this action, "Dramatization" is written, yet purposely not said. The tone of the narrator stays optimistic and positive throughout the advertisement, even though the majority of the time is spent listing the numerous negative side effects. After the pill, the actor is stretching, smiling, and is evidently feeling much better. Her hair is combed and her skin is clear, yet it is supposedly just after waking up. Without looking through a critical lens, who wouldn't want to wake up that peacefully? I definitely would. She is seen walking confidently through her office and is taking a dominant stance while answering a call, igniting the thought of success and motivation in the audience. The phrase "It has some risk of dependency" is written, a nice and clever way of avoiding the negative connotation of addiction. The narrator swiftly talks through all the negative side effects and then slows down the emphasize what a lovely pill this really is.  The logos of the piece appeals to anyone suffering from lack of sleep and makes them question why they haven't already went to their doctor to get this life-saving pill. The drastic before and after reasons with the audience. The ethos is the actual actor, and yet who is she? Someone getting paid to be in the advertisement shouldn't let anyone believe that this is the real scenario. I found little to no pathos. Overall, with a little personal subjectivity, it is a cunningly deceptive piece that plays on the exact keys of the audience. . Without a critical lens, anyone is subject to being swooned by this advertisement.

Blog 2: Nomination Speech Analysis 9/25/16

        Trump's speech was much more effective in my mind because he heavily relied on pathos and almost "abused" words for their connotative meanings. He knew his words would develop themselves and linger in the audience's minds. He also used many statistics and percentages, developing his logos. Clinton was more straightforward and her words were direct and denotative. She used ethos to her advantage, citing her experience as a First Lady and Secretary of State. She builds her credibility for the position of President. She had little to no logos and I found her pathos to be weaker than Trump's. Trump's diction incorporated colorful language and he used his experience as a reality television star to his advantage.
         Mr. Trump appeals to the citizen that fears an imminent threat and wants action right now. He appeals to fear, which has a more urgent reaction in the mind than the love that Clinton appeals to. Trump's tone is filled with nationalism and he genuinely sounds like he wants to make his country the best. Clinton uses a motherly tone and begins her speech with greetings to the Democratic party, letting the people know that everyone is supporting her. Ultimately, Clinton appeals towards ethos and direct pathos while Trump has more effective pathos and logos.

Blog 1: Bush's 9/11 Speech 9/18/16

        Bush's speech was very effective at a time of disunion and fear. He uses pathos, logos and ethos to properly engage the American people. Bush speaks as the president of the nation and already has ethos, yet the speech is filled with promises of defense and revenge against the terrorists, promises that he can make true. He uses his authority to fill the people with security. With logos, Bush addresses the victims, who were all family and friends of the nation, and the deliberate attack on the freedom of the USA. He verbalizes the situation with concise sentences. Lastly, Bush uses pathos to sympathize with the people and to unify them with a mutual anger and grief. He uses informal phrases to let the people know he is one of them. He finishes the speech with a sense of nationalism and a need for strength within the public. The perfect balance of rhetoric incorporates the president, the disaster, and the people during a crisis, and lets America know that despite what has happened, the terrorists have failed to shake the country into fear.

Quote 9/15/16

Excuses sound best to those who make them.