I'm a little unsure of what Blakeley's exact thesis after reading her piece. However, I think it could be somewhere along the lines of the fact that motherhood isn't always about being a feminist, or even a mother, and that kids teach their parents the significant values of life sometimes.
Rhetorically, I think I could make a thesis that says 'Blakely uses her relationship with her son versus her son's relationship with wrestling to develop a metaphor about understanding life and its values. She does this by heavily utilizing her audience, and a strong ethos and pathos appeal to relate with her readers.'
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Monday, September 12, 2011
Response to 'A Wrestling Mom'
Mary Kay Blakely 's piece about wrestling really touches on many important issues, such as motherhood and the bond between mother and son as son grows older. Her main claim is that mothers cannot teach their sons everything they need to know, and that children teach their own parents the values of life sometimes.
I found myself thinking that this piece would be easy to analyze because of its profoundness mostly. The author used the extreme bond between mother and son, to mother and teenager, to ease her way into the heads of every mother reader she will encounter. Obviously she can use the fact that she is a mother and has had experience to appeal to her ethos and give her credit. She uses a very logical structure, starting by explaining wrestling to the reader, then goes all the way to explaining why it's so important to both of them (the emotional appeal). I think I could appeal to this well because I can understand where the author is coming from, and because she uses a variety of rhetorical approaches in the rhetorical triangle, such as audience and reader to get her point across effectively.
I found myself thinking that this piece would be easy to analyze because of its profoundness mostly. The author used the extreme bond between mother and son, to mother and teenager, to ease her way into the heads of every mother reader she will encounter. Obviously she can use the fact that she is a mother and has had experience to appeal to her ethos and give her credit. She uses a very logical structure, starting by explaining wrestling to the reader, then goes all the way to explaining why it's so important to both of them (the emotional appeal). I think I could appeal to this well because I can understand where the author is coming from, and because she uses a variety of rhetorical approaches in the rhetorical triangle, such as audience and reader to get her point across effectively.
Response to CR Texts
CR Piece #1: The Wreck of Time: Taking Our Century's Measure
Annie Dillard makes considerable points in her piece about the human population and the amount of people who have died in past years. Her basic claim is that 'while a single death may be considered a tragedy, a million is a statistic.' She definitely enforces a pathos approach when referring to tragedies such as Ted Bundy's murders, and the 138,000 people who drowned in Bagladesh. This tactic points the reader towards a deeper thinking about the world and individualism. She asks the reader questions about certain events like 'Where were you when this happened?' and 'What did you feel in that moment?'
To expand her ethos appeal, she uses many different cases and examples to support her argument, like a quote by paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, or the many statistics she uses about human population. These things help appeal to her accreditation as an author and they help the reader grasp what she is trying to say.
I think I could analyze this piece rhetorically because Dillard uses so many rhetorical tactics: ethos, logos, pathos, examples. Her language helps shape her argument because of the way she can relate her text to anyone who reads it. Her argument in itself is incredibly fascinating, and I think she does a really good job of carrying it out, making this piece a prime source of rhetoric.
Annie Dillard makes considerable points in her piece about the human population and the amount of people who have died in past years. Her basic claim is that 'while a single death may be considered a tragedy, a million is a statistic.' She definitely enforces a pathos approach when referring to tragedies such as Ted Bundy's murders, and the 138,000 people who drowned in Bagladesh. This tactic points the reader towards a deeper thinking about the world and individualism. She asks the reader questions about certain events like 'Where were you when this happened?' and 'What did you feel in that moment?'
To expand her ethos appeal, she uses many different cases and examples to support her argument, like a quote by paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, or the many statistics she uses about human population. These things help appeal to her accreditation as an author and they help the reader grasp what she is trying to say.
I think I could analyze this piece rhetorically because Dillard uses so many rhetorical tactics: ethos, logos, pathos, examples. Her language helps shape her argument because of the way she can relate her text to anyone who reads it. Her argument in itself is incredibly fascinating, and I think she does a really good job of carrying it out, making this piece a prime source of rhetoric.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
SWA #6: Womb for Rent: For a Price
Goodman's point in the article is that surrogacy is a growing international economy that should not be taken lightly- in fact, it should be thought about in great context. She thinks surrogacy is probably unethical in most situations- depending on the situation, of course. She uses different point to illustrate her opinions, such as the fact that women in third-world countries are using surrogacy as a way to pay for their own lives, as well as the lives of their children,and that it's hardly ever 'a gift from one woman to another' anymore. She says that surrogacy is the closest we can get to selling ourselves into slavery in this day and age, which is primarily true.
The author uses pathos to convince the reader that surrogacy should be considered precious both to the future mother and to the woman carrying the baby. She appeals to the feelings of the reader by talking about motherhood, mentioning Army wives, and asking 'What obligation does a family that simply contracted for a child have to its birth mother?' This question definitely hits the reader hard, because it refers to the bond between families. The appeals to family and feelings enhance her argument because anyone with a moral background can agree that having a baby should be a special thing, a bond between mother and child and family in general.
Something that really struck me as the reader in this argument was when the author asked 'what control should contractors have over their employees while incubating 'their' children?' And I agree with the point she's trying to make. It is, in fact, strange to hire someone to carry your baby. The lines are blurred. Yes, the baby may have your genes, but it quite literally is someone else's baby. This question just made me wonder where to draw the line- does a contractor get full say authority over the employee and baby? Does the employee ever get too attached? The author has a lot of good points here that are worth discussing and that definitely made me think.
The author uses pathos to convince the reader that surrogacy should be considered precious both to the future mother and to the woman carrying the baby. She appeals to the feelings of the reader by talking about motherhood, mentioning Army wives, and asking 'What obligation does a family that simply contracted for a child have to its birth mother?' This question definitely hits the reader hard, because it refers to the bond between families. The appeals to family and feelings enhance her argument because anyone with a moral background can agree that having a baby should be a special thing, a bond between mother and child and family in general.
Something that really struck me as the reader in this argument was when the author asked 'what control should contractors have over their employees while incubating 'their' children?' And I agree with the point she's trying to make. It is, in fact, strange to hire someone to carry your baby. The lines are blurred. Yes, the baby may have your genes, but it quite literally is someone else's baby. This question just made me wonder where to draw the line- does a contractor get full say authority over the employee and baby? Does the employee ever get too attached? The author has a lot of good points here that are worth discussing and that definitely made me think.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
SWA #5: Lady Power
According to Bauer, the source of our 'age-old investment in norms of femininity and masculinity' is the media. What we see on TV and in the news is who we want and need to be- that's how it's always been. We need people telling us who to be and how to look and what to do.
The 'genius' of Lady Gaga is, in fact, the point she makes every day with every flamboyant outfit she dons and every controversial song she produces. Gaga is telling young girls that it's okay to be both yourself, and an object of sexual desire. It seems contradictory, but Gaga is doing something that women have been trying to do for years and years. It tends to complicate natural views of feminism, because the principals of feminism are not to give in to the opposite sex. Femininity is questioned as well, because women like to think of themselves as feminine, and so does Lagy Gaga. But what they see when they look at Gaga is a girl in a meat suit, or dressed up as a man. Gaga is changing the rules, and people are getting confused.
When Bauer claims that 'women are still heavily rewarded pleasing men.....we get what we want, or at least what we thought we wanted.' Men will give women anything, as long as they get what they want, and women fall into this trap all the time. Bauer references the age-old college 'hook-up hangover', which prompts a woman to do what a man wants her to, and still feel feminine and powerful. It's a vicious, confusing cycle. We think what we want is power, but what most women really want is respect. This point does a lot to advance her argument because it brings her claim full-circle, proving that in this day and age, sexuality and respect are coming closer together.
The 'genius' of Lady Gaga is, in fact, the point she makes every day with every flamboyant outfit she dons and every controversial song she produces. Gaga is telling young girls that it's okay to be both yourself, and an object of sexual desire. It seems contradictory, but Gaga is doing something that women have been trying to do for years and years. It tends to complicate natural views of feminism, because the principals of feminism are not to give in to the opposite sex. Femininity is questioned as well, because women like to think of themselves as feminine, and so does Lagy Gaga. But what they see when they look at Gaga is a girl in a meat suit, or dressed up as a man. Gaga is changing the rules, and people are getting confused.
When Bauer claims that 'women are still heavily rewarded pleasing men.....we get what we want, or at least what we thought we wanted.' Men will give women anything, as long as they get what they want, and women fall into this trap all the time. Bauer references the age-old college 'hook-up hangover', which prompts a woman to do what a man wants her to, and still feel feminine and powerful. It's a vicious, confusing cycle. We think what we want is power, but what most women really want is respect. This point does a lot to advance her argument because it brings her claim full-circle, proving that in this day and age, sexuality and respect are coming closer together.
In Class Writing: Catherine Beecher
http://newman.baruch.cuny.edu/digital/2001/beecher/catherine.htm
After researching Catherine Beecher, her article on housekeeping makes a lot more sense. Learning that she grew up in the early 1800s makes me feel like her article was a lot less oppressive towards women, and more truthful in general. In that time, a woman's place really was in the home and no where else. Since women had so little options of where they could go and jobs they could have, it makes sense for Beecher to want to have some rules for creating the 'perfect home' under her cheerful tones and rules. This 'cult of domesticity' was the main doctrine for women in that day. Her mother died when Catherine was young, so Catherine had a lot of practice taking care of her home. What I read explained a lot to me about her background, and it provided grounds for the arguments she tries to make about women and their respective 'niche.'
After researching Catherine Beecher, her article on housekeeping makes a lot more sense. Learning that she grew up in the early 1800s makes me feel like her article was a lot less oppressive towards women, and more truthful in general. In that time, a woman's place really was in the home and no where else. Since women had so little options of where they could go and jobs they could have, it makes sense for Beecher to want to have some rules for creating the 'perfect home' under her cheerful tones and rules. This 'cult of domesticity' was the main doctrine for women in that day. Her mother died when Catherine was young, so Catherine had a lot of practice taking care of her home. What I read explained a lot to me about her background, and it provided grounds for the arguments she tries to make about women and their respective 'niche.'
SWA #4
Based on this piece, I think that Beecher would want the reader to form a completely different definition for the word 'housekeeper'. My new opinion of the term after reading the essay would be someone who not only takes care of the house, but someone who nurtures the children, cares for the father, and puts everyone before herself while remaining to pertain a strong and dependable, yet still cheerful facade/ Beecher is very stern about the housekeeper having a 'equable and cheerful temper'. This is important according to Beecher because the housekeeper, mother, wife, etc. is the one ultimately steering the house. If she can't have a 'good' disposition, it affects everyone else. She is the glue that holds the house together, whether she receives that recognition or not.
The 'considerations that may aid in preparing a woman to meet her daily crosses with a cheerful temper' include regarding her duties in a household as dignified, important, and difficult, to be in such a state of preparation that the evil will not come unawares, to form all plans and arrangements in consistency with the means at command and the character of those around, that system, economy, and neatness are valuable only so far as they tend to promote the comfort and well-being of those affected, and that a woman can resolve that whatever happens she will not speak, till she can do it in a calm and gentle manner. Basically, she should complete her duties with a sunny disposition no matter what, and do so in a dignified manner that can please everyone in the household.
Beecher assumes that a wife and housekeeper and mistress are all the same, and all have the same duties to achieve. These assumptions complicate Beecher's implied definitions of 'woman' and 'housekeeper' because in this day and age, they are not the same at all. You see these assumptions playing out in the chapter when she says things like 'A housekeeper should feel that she really has great difficulties to meet and overcome.' This doesn't have to be true: women have things to overcome, but so do men. Being in the house is hardly a challenge compared to what happens outside in the real world. Overall I think Beecher's piece was interesting, but I am in no agreement of her oppressive definitions of 'housekeeper.'
The 'considerations that may aid in preparing a woman to meet her daily crosses with a cheerful temper' include regarding her duties in a household as dignified, important, and difficult, to be in such a state of preparation that the evil will not come unawares, to form all plans and arrangements in consistency with the means at command and the character of those around, that system, economy, and neatness are valuable only so far as they tend to promote the comfort and well-being of those affected, and that a woman can resolve that whatever happens she will not speak, till she can do it in a calm and gentle manner. Basically, she should complete her duties with a sunny disposition no matter what, and do so in a dignified manner that can please everyone in the household.
Beecher assumes that a wife and housekeeper and mistress are all the same, and all have the same duties to achieve. These assumptions complicate Beecher's implied definitions of 'woman' and 'housekeeper' because in this day and age, they are not the same at all. You see these assumptions playing out in the chapter when she says things like 'A housekeeper should feel that she really has great difficulties to meet and overcome.' This doesn't have to be true: women have things to overcome, but so do men. Being in the house is hardly a challenge compared to what happens outside in the real world. Overall I think Beecher's piece was interesting, but I am in no agreement of her oppressive definitions of 'housekeeper.'
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
SWA #3: Am I My Brother's Keeper?
Technology and the media inform us about the sufferings of our ‘brothers and sisters’ every single day. Most of the time we either choose to ignore what we see, or we let it make us feel something –sympathy, pity, sorrow, whatever. However, very rarely do we let these sights and destructions actually make a difference in our lives. We don’t start a charity to raise money for the homeless, and we don’t speak in public to raise awareness for hurricane-struck victims. This is just a generalization, but the majority of the time it is true. We may hear about tragedy in the news on evening, and by the next morning we’ve forgotten all about it as we move along with our days, anticipating the next bit of depressing news we could find out any minute.
Wiesel states that technology lets us know more than ever about or brother and sisters in need throughout the world, but sometimes is can overwhelm us to a point where we become numb to tragedy, family, poverty, terrorist attacks, war, and any other devastation that could possibly happen to us. He implicates that the media and technology is leading to this, and I couldn’t agree more. Technology is a fabulous thing, but not in excess. When we’re bombarded with 20 tweets an hour on our phones about the war in Iraq and the devastation of hurricane Irene, we can’t take it in fast enough to care about any, let alone all of it. ‘How can you care for your brothers and sisters if they’re already beyond repair?’ is what most people think. And it’s perfectly true. We dismiss more than we should because there’s too much going on in the world for us to care enough about all of it.
According to Wiesel, we can deal with this conundrum by only focusing on small measures one at a time. No one has the power to fix everything in one fell swoop- and that’s how it should be. As long as we concentrate on one problem at a time, each small act of grace, caring, and kindness can get us where we need to be as a human race- caring for at least one other human being we can consider our brother or sister. According to Wiesel, we can deal with this conundrum by only focusing on small measures one at a time. No one has the power to fix everything in one fell swoop- and that’s how it should be. As long as we concentrate on one problem at a time, each small act of grace, caring, and kindness can get us where we need to be as a human race- caring for at least one other human being we can consider our brother or sister.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
In Class Writing 8/30/11
I would say my family has about an average relationship with technology. We don't use excessive technology, but we don't use very little either. All six of us have cell phones, but no one in my family has an iPhone. Almost all of us have laptops. We use a computer at home as well, but it hasn't been updated in a couple of years. My dad just got his first Blackberry, and it took him about 2 full weeks to learn how to use it - probably much longer than it might have taken the average teenager in this generation. We use our phones to call and text each other all the time, and our computers for schoolwork, email, facebook, music, and movies. My brother is probably the most 'technology driven' in that he plays a lot of video games and watches more than his fair share of sportscenter, and can be cranky when he doesn't get to. We do have Tivo, which probably leads us to watch more tv than we should, since we record a lot of shows. We have a 6 or 7 tvs in our house total, and only 3 real computers. I think my siblings and I have become expert multitaskers in recent years, but we're still teaching our parents how to do a lot of things on the computer. We all have Facebook, but my parents hardly check their accounts. We get along surprisingly well for not having all of the most up-to-date gadgets.
Monday, August 29, 2011
SWA #2
“Technology is rewiring our brains.” This is one of the many claims made in Matt Ritchel’s article ‘Hooked on Technology, and Paying a Price.’ In the context of the article, Ritchel means to
say that the way we think has been changing over the past 50 years, whether it’s for the better
or worse. Our brains have been ‘rewired’ to multitask constantly, adapting to each different
technology that comes on the scene as we ourselves have grown and changes. He states that
instead of the maybe 5 hours a day the average person would spend in the ‘multimedia world’
in the 1960s, we spend about 12 hours a day consuming media: most of the time we are awake
and functioning during the day. People have become adaptive experts at multitasking, without
even knowing it- and that’s what makes our generation so different from that in say, the 60’s.
Ritchel mentions the Campbell family multiple times throughout the article, using them as the contention for his argument. The reason he does this is to lure the reader in using pathos to
establish a relationship between reader and family. We can all relate to this ‘takeover’ of
technology. I know my mom has a rule, at least, that we’re not supposed to text at the table
because it’s considered rude and intrusive on family time. Whether your parents have
established rules like these or others, almost any audience member can relate to the fact that
his or her family uses technology maybe more than they’d like to admit. The Campbells are no
exception. By telling the story of Mr. Campbell, his semi-neglective attitude, forgetfulness, and
general distraction from his family, Ritchel establishes a connection between what goes on in
the Campbell household, and what may be going on in households all over America. It may
shame the reader, but it gets a reaction, and more than that, it gets a response. If the reader knows that
this particular family is not necessarily benefiting from having so much technology in their home, he or
she may be more likely to recognize the same situation in his or her life and to take action against it.
‘The myth of multitasking’: This is the argument that people who so-called ‘multitask’ are in fact better at multitasking than those who, persay, do not consider themselves multitaskers. It is
proven, in at least this one experiment, that multitaskers were worse at juggling more than one
thing and changing jobs than non-multitaskers. This evidence had no effect on me as a self-
considered multitasker, because I know that I am able to handle more than one thing at a time,
and I do believe that technology has taught me that. All the experiment proved was that non-
multitaskers could recognize new information quickly. While it may take multitaskers longer to
switch between activities, the jobs still get done with ease. Between Facebook, homework,
music, and texting, my brain has been able to adapt to thinking about more than one thing at a
time, solving problems simultaneously. While this makes me sound like superman, I’m far from
it. I simply agree that technology can provide advantages to certain people and disadvantages to
others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)