What's the Connection? (Winter Break Assignment) 12/27/2016

While doing research on the connection between language, race and gender I came upon many articles that say our language reflects our society's deeply rooted power structure. It establishes a specific gender's dominance over another and gives way to sexist and racist thinking. 

"Language, Gender and Power", written by Sally Raskoff, is an article that reveals our society as one characterized by male power. Raskoff explains how the English language is a sexist language and talks about different terms that set males and females apart and give males the upper hand in situations. She mentions the way we address people formally. While men are referred to as "Mr.", women can be referred to as "Miss" (single or a girl), "Mrs." (married), or "Ms." (grown woman, marital status undetermined), giving them three titles to categorize themselves into while men only have the one. Raskoff also goes on to argue that while there are curse words that are gender neutral, such as referring to one's posterior, there are some curses that specifically target women and their body parts. For example, the "b-word to indicate a crabby female", or the c-word and p-word that refer to a women's genitals. Raskoff explains that even though the words may be aimed at a man or a woman, they have a negative affect on the female gender. The words all correlate to women giving them a bad representation and image. Her last point is that American culture teaches boys early on to be masculine or "assertive, aggressive, strong, a leader, and heterosexual" while encouraging girls to be "passive, nurturing, caring, mothering, and otherwise subordinate." It seems no one wants woman to come up from under a man. 

Language is not only related to gender, it's also related to race. In the article "Hearing Skin Color: The Connection Between Language And Race", written by Nic Subtirelu, Subtirelu explains that physical features are not the only things that categorize people by their race. The language used to describe them or even the people's voices can be used to assign race to others also. The author talks about experiments that were done to see if people can identify the race of a person by just listening to their voice. Subtirelu says that "people's physical characteristics are simply one route we can take to arrive at a judgment of a person's race... language allows us to assign people into different races as well." He discusses the ability of language to signal race and exploit racial stereotypes like is done in The Lion King. The two hyenas in the movie have African American or Latino accented English and they're both thugs, while Simba speaks in Standard English and is a hero. Subtirelu says that things like this give way to racial discrimination and we need to be wary of tones used when speaking about a certain race as well as stay away from racial stereotypes when describing a person in terms of his or her race.

My research to find the relationship between language, race and gender opened my eyes to things I never paid attention to before. I've always known that we live in a male dominate world but I never realized the affects that it has on language and vise versa or the affect of language on race. Raskoff and Subtirelu made excellent points that were both interesting and unfortunately true. I agree with Raskoff when she mentioned the difference in the way men and women are greeted. I don't see why women should have to reveal their marital status while men just get the title "Mr." which says that it doesn't matter what the man's marital status is, it's irrelevant. The title gives a woman a certain identity or image, and informs people about her personal life while a man's title gives nothing away about who he is. I really like Raskoff's piece because it showed out of the box thinking. She mentioned how people use the word 'seminal' "to credit people with creating work so important that it has changed the way we think about something" and then makes the connection that seminal is derived from the word semen, which makes it sound like men create things that are so important that it changes our views on things. I think it's a bit far fetched but I really like that she made that connection. Where did that thought even come from? But then later on she mentions that "men have received credit, even if women were involved in their creation" and I really liked this point because women are sometimes left in the shadows while men get the praise even though I bet no man would survive without a woman, even if it’s his mother. Raskoff's article made it clear that the English language is sexist. Women grow up learning that they're not the ideal image of a particular role because our language uses sexist words, like policeman, councilman, mankind, and fireman and it excludes the female gender in many instances, but for it to change and become gender neutral it would take decades and both genders would need to start using gender neutral words. I have a feeling that that will never happen so there is a very small chance that language will change to be neutral. Many people don't realize how hurtful language can be. The fact that we use words that are offensive to one another in order to show power proves that we have a power struggle in our society. Words definitely impact the way we view one another, whether it be about race or gender. Subtirelu proved how specific genders are perceived and how language further promotes racist thinking. So words certainly have the ability to label us and affect the way people regard us. These articles were very effective in showing me different views of the connection between language, race and gender and I enjoyed reading other people's opinions. I agree that the connection stems off of power and I don't think that it will ever necessarily change but anything can happen. Maybe one-day society will willingly change our language for the better.

http://nortonbooks.typepad.com/everydaysociology/2007/12/language-gender.html

https://linguisticpulse.com/2013/09/08/hearing-skin-color-the-connections-between-language-and-race/

I Want A Wife 12/17/2016

These past weeks we've been discussing gender stereotypes in class, and one essay that caught my attention was "I want a Wife" written by Judy Brady.
"I want a Wife" is an essay about the demands required of a wife. Brady's purpose was to show the impact of double standards and emphasize the obvious difference and inequality between the roles of a husband and wife. She mainly uses irony and exaggeration to achieve this purpose and informs her audience of the injustices that wives face. Brady writes "I want a wife who will remain sexually faithful to me... and...who understands that my sexual needs may entail more than strict adherence to monogamy." She explains that women must stay faithful in their marriages because men don't have time to be jealous and worry whether or not their wife is cheating, but men don't have to be faithful and their wives should understand that. Brady describes how wives are regarded like objects, or property, that can be replaced by men when she says "If, by chance, I find another person more suitable as a wife...I want the liberty to replace my present wife with another one." She also shows how wives are treated like maids when she says "I want a wife who will have the house clean, will prepare a special meal, serve it to me and my friends, and not interrupt". But the most ironic part of Brady's essay is that she writes all the roles of the ideal wife that men want so that men are "left free", but men are already free since the wives do everything anyway and the men say they want to be independent, but they're dependent on their wives for everything.
I found this essay to be very effective. Brady uses ethos and establishes her credibility as a wife when she explains that she belongs "to that classification of people known as wives" and lets her readers know that everything she's saying is true. The structure and repetition in her text makes it difficult to read, because she uses long sentences without many pauses, which makes her readers realize how difficult it is to be a wife. There were a lot of moments in the text that made me angry and say "excuse me?" because the men in my family are very old fashioned and expect these things from their wives but it's because of that connection that I honestly loved this essay. Because if you can have someone to do everything, except eat, sleep, and use the bathroom for you, "who wouldn't want a wife?"

Pillow Angel Ethics 12/03/16

Pillow Angel Ethics is an article written by Nancy Gibbs about a treatment that has raised serious ethical concerns. The treatment in question is called the "Ashley Treatment" and was named after the procedure done on a 6- year old girl named Ashley, who suffers from brain damage. The article discusses Ashley's circumstances and what was done to "improve" her quality of life. She was given a high dose estrogen treatment to keep her from growing and doctors removed her uterus, to prevent potential discomfort from menstrual cramps and pregnancy in the event of rape, and her breast buds, because of the family's history of cancer and fibrocystic disease. Ashley's parents felt that as Ashley grew bigger it would be more difficult to care for her so they thought keeping her small would benefit both Ashley, by making "it more possible to include her in typical family life and activities that provide her with needed comfort, closeness, security and love", and her caregivers, by not letting her be an inconvenience to them. The author used a lot of viewpoints from many doctors and important medical facts about Ashley's case and therefore developed logos in her article. Gibbs mentioned how many doctors found that the benefits of the treatment outweighed the cons but others found the treatment to be dangerous. The high dose estrogen treatment has never been used on a child this young and therefore there was no guarantee that it wouldn't harm Ashley and put her life at risk. 

The article was very effective in letting the readers decide for themselves whether or not the treatment given to Ashley was ethically correct. It was not biased, and did not lean toward any particular side of the controversial topic. I have not been able to form a decision on whether or not Ashley's treatment was ethical but morally I found it was wrong. Yes, there was consent from her parents since Ashley is not 18 yet and yes, the doctors did a lot of research before doing the procedure to see if it was harmful in any way, but the treatment violated Ashley's human rights. She may not be able to make the decision for herself but that does not make it right that the parents speak about her as if she is an object to bring along to places. I felt that the treatment was done out of convenience for the parents and by removing parts of her body the doctors and parents took away Ashley's self identity.

Logical Fallacy 11/27/2016

A logical fallacy can be defined as faulty reasoning, or an error in reasoning, that makes an argument invalid or unsound. Logical fallacies are often unintentional but writers can use them intentionally to mislead or manipulate an audience. An example of a logical fallacy is black-or-white. Black-or-white fallacy is when two opposing arguments are presented as the only two options, even though there are obviously other options that exist. There's no compromise or, in other words, it's either black or it's white, no grey area. This logical fallacy makes it seem as if there's only two sides to an argument forcing an audience to choose either or, but it's effective because it creates an illusion that there's no middle ground making the audience feel pressured to side with you. Black-or-white fallacy is often seen in political cartoons, speeches, and social media. George Bush was known to use this logical fallacy in his speeches and in his campaigns. He would say a phrase like "You're either with the standards, or your with the terrorists!" He used it so often that political cartoons were made with him saying "You're either with us or against us" or other misleading phrases that give people no space to choose on their own. Instead it felt to his audience that they were required to side with him, always. Black-or-white fallacies are also very commonly seen in social media. for example when two friends are fighting in a group of three forcing the third friend to have to choose a side. If you think about it black-or white fallacies are very common; we've all experienced them. Growing up I was told "Valerie you either eat your food or you watch tv, you can't do both!" I never understood this reasoning. I always thought of it as killing two birds with one stone. I'm already sitting at the table with a tv in front of me, why can't I eat and enjoy it while watching a movie? There's always a compromise that can be made but when someone is forcing you to choose sides and makes it seem as if there's no other possibility, it's difficult to see that.

Don't Fight Flames With Flames 11/19/16

"Don't Fight Flames With Flames", written by Nick Bilton, is an article in the NY Times that argues that no one can ever win a social media argument. Bolton started off the article telling his readers that he once made the mistake of engaging in an argument online thinking that he should share his opinion on a matter, only to then be bombarded with hate messages calling him "ignorant" and "stupid" for his opinion. He goes on to explain that "trying to discuss an even remotely contentious topic with someone on social media is a fool's errand" and that many journalists believe that "the rule about engaging is that you should never engage". Nothing good comes from social media arguments and most of the time they have no purpose. 

I believe that Bilton's argument was effective and I agree with his claims. He built his credibility by mentioning that he himself has engaged in a social media argument and this helped further his argument and gave him the reliability to argue against involving yourself in a social media altercation. The author's use of anecdotes also helps make his argument effective. Everyone has either seen or been in a social media argument and we've witnessed how no one ever wins these debates because there is never an end. First off using social media to argue with someone is a problem in and of itself. Your argument is public allowing anyone who sees it to join in and that causes the argument to go on longer than it was meant to. There's also the problem that when having digital arguments you can't "detect tone, facial expressions, and, most of all, sarcasm" which, usually, leads to miscommunication and makes the argument last longer and get more heated. And even though many people know that the smart thing to do when someone is attacking you is not to respond, the impulse to defend yourself when being cursed out or called bad names causes you to attack the person back. Social media arguments can't be won because even if you know your opinion has been proven wrong you don't admit it and continue to drag the fight out. There's never a compromise made in these situations. And even if the argument gets placed to rest there will always be that one person who comes upon it three months later or so and starts the fight all over again. 

Why You Should Fear Your Toaster more than Nuclear Power 11/3/2016

Taylor Pearson, in his essay, "Why You Should Fear Your Toaster more than Nuclear Power", explains that nuclear power plants don't pose as much danger to us as everyone thinks they do. In fact a toaster, which is a common household item, poses more danger to us than any nuclear plant can. He proves this by saying "Over three thousand people died from toaster accidents... and they still cause around fifty accident-related deaths every year in the United States." Pearson mainly uses logos throughout his essay to support his claim; we need nuclear energy. He uses real life incidents to sum up the amount of deaths caused by nuclear power plants and to prove that nuclear plants should not be everyone's main concern. "The actual number of deaths...have been few. Take the Chernobyl accident- the worst and most lethal nuclear incident to date. As tragic as it was, the incident has killed only eighty-two people." He uses logos to put in perspective that nuclear power is one of the least dangerous means of production in the United States. "According to the U.S. Department of Labor, coal mining currently causes about sixty-five deaths and eleven thousand injuries per year, while oil drilling is responsible for approximately 125 deaths per year in the United States." Compared to this, nuclear power is especially safe. Pearson goes on to describe radiation, which is another aspect of nuclear energy that everyone fears. He uses logos to state that a brick wall emits more radiation than a nuclear power plant. Pearson says "...a wall emits about 3.5 milligrams of radiation per year," while "a nuclear power plant gives off about .3 milligrams per year." 

I feel that Pearson was effective in writing his essay and revealing to his readers the common misconceptions about nuclear energy. He proves to us that we need nuclear energy, which was his purpose in writing the essay, by describing that nuclear power has the potential to save our plant. He proves to us that we have been mislead by fear and are missing the benefits of such a safe and clean resource. But I also believe that people will still fear nuclear power and Pearson's patronizing tone in his essay was insensitive and uncalled for. When trying to argue his point of view he should have been more focused on connecting himself to his audience rather than sounding like he's judging the fact that they ever believed that nuclear energy is so harmful. The essay was very interesting because it revealed things about nuclear power that I have never heard, especially about the toaster and brick wall. It was extremely insightful.

The Santa Ana Winds 10/22/2016

Joan Didion, in her writing "The Santa Ana Winds", describes a usual yet bizarre phenomenon known as the Santa Ana's. Her purpose was to convey how violent the winds can be and emphasize the strange and altering effects that they have on everything, especially human behavior. Didion uses words like "eerie", "screaming", and "surreal" in the second paragraph to express the uneasiness that the Santa Ana winds bring as they pass over. Her word choice gives the text a very moody and suspenseful tone. It catches the readers attention because it reads like a mystery novel only to then switch tones at the end when Didion starts stating facts about what happens in Los Angeles when these winds hit, all backed up by science. Didion also uses vivid imagery when she mentioned that a "husband roamed the place with a machete". This evokes an image of insanity, especially when she points out that "meek little wives feel the edge of the carving knife and study their husbands' necks". Normally these women would cave to their husband's every command, yet the days that the Santa Ana's are blowing through the city the wives feel empowered and start contemplating murder. It further proves that the winds have an effect on people's moods and personalities. 


I feel that Didion was very effective in her writing because she evoked a mysterious vibe and it definitely interested me. She used the rhetorical techniques to her favor and it left the reader with the realization that circumstances outside our control may determine our moods and actions. The text ends leaving the reader uneasy when Didion says, "no one seems to know". Ending on such a mysterious note illustrates the fact that no one will ever know how and why these winds affect people the way they do. And even though the text reads like a fiction novel, the Santa Ana winds are a real occurrence.