Checkpoint Blog #1 (3/18/17)

     My group and I decided to focus on gender equality. Specifically, on the strict dress code that women and girls alike are expected to follow while their male counterparts seem to have none. Our short skit will ridicule this idea by showing a girl being kicked out of school on a hot day for something absurd such as unbuttoning the top button on her shirt. In contrast, we will also be showing how the school seems to be indifferent towards boys and what they wear by including a boy wearing sagging pants and how he won't get in trouble for showing too much skin. Essentially, someone will be reporting this incident and interviewing the rest of the group members (either as the girl being kicked out, the boy, teacher, etc.) to see how they feel about the matter. We plan on incorporating devices such as sarcasm, inversion, and incongruity. Although we have already assigned roles to each person, we are still uncertain as to what we will be wearing to make it appropriate for school. Additionally, even though we have an idea of what we want to say, nothing is certain as we are still in the process of writing the script. Also, we are still unsure if we want to record this and make it a video or perform it in front of the class. If we do decide to record it, we will need to find a person willing to record for us, as well as a time and place where we can all meet together to film it.

"From Words That Work" By Frank Luntz (3/5/17)

     In the piece, "From Words That Work," Frank Luntz explains how powerful the English language can be by showing how the substitution of a single word or phrase for another can completely change the original sentence or thought. Specifically, throughout the text, Luntz gives suggestions of words to "NEVER SAY" such as global economy, globalization, and capitalism and to "INSTEAD SAY" free market economy. Essentially due to the connotations of the word which may bring fear, distrust, or even credibility, certain words are chosen over others. To demonstrate, the term "globalization" represents something foreign, different, and far, thus, people tend to distrust it. For this reason, emphasizing "the value and benefits of a free market economy" would be more advantageous as it does not threat one's personal employment. The same is true with the principles of "capitalism" which would only serve as a reminder of the harsh economic competition where losing or winning is a fate. Meanwhile, the "free market economy" would provide an opportunity to all, allowing everyone to succeed. All in all, the English language can be manipulated through the use of different words or phases. Even if two words or phrases may mean the exact same thing and are basically just synonyms of each other, it is still very important to note their affect on people. Specifically, since certain words differ in their connotations or implications, this can change the whole meaning of the sentence, making it seem more acceptable or "friendly" to society. This is used extensively in politics as it is the voters that matter and therefore politicians would craft their sentences to what wants to be heard. This shows how some words simply work better than others due to how they are perceived.

Response to "Politics and the English Language" 2/5/2017

     In the essay "Politics and the English Language," George Orwell examines and criticizes the "bad," "ugly," and "inaccurate" use of the English language and how political writing/speech contributes to it. First explaining the common fallacies in the English language such as dying metaphors, verbal false limbs, pretentious diction, and meaningless words, Orwell then moves on to say that these things only cause the English language to become inflated with unnecessary words and phrases which in turn inhibits the clarity of the piece. One hypothetical example Orwell gives is of an English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. Clearly stating that the professor can not say, "I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so," Orwell instead proposed a more realistic response, "While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement." When compared to the shorter and simpler response, the longer one full of "fluff" seems to be the more sophisticated and socially accepted one. Although they essentially state the same thing in the end, since the second one consists of more words it loses its meaning and purpose. While the first one, shorter and more direct has a more powerful impact. Therefore, many politicians often use this approach when answering questions in order to avoid and direct the attention elsewhere. Still, even though Orwell considers this approach to be "inaccurate," I do think that it is necessary at times especially when trying to maintain peace, unity, and order within society. Nevertheless, I do find myself using words and phrases for other reasons. Specifically, I sometimes use words because it sounds "pretty." While I know that using big words does not necessarily make my writing more sophisticated, I still find my writing to be cluttered with jargon at times. All in all, it is clear that the English language is flawed, as "wrong" language spreads and more people use it, it becomes socially acceptable within society.

Affirmative Action (1/15/17)

     Affirmative action is a policy that favors those who tend to suffer from discrimination, especially in the fields of employment and higher education. Although it was first implemented to help "level the playing field for minorities" and promote equality, I think the system is very much outdated today. For example, in the article "The Case Against Affirmative Action," David Sacks and Peter Thiel presents an argument that affirmative argument has not succeeded its goal of ending discrimination and thus, it would be best to try a different approach. Specifically, the article claims that "the average SAT disparity between Stanford's African-American and white admittees reached 171 points..." This shows how absurd and unfair the system is, that someone with lower test scores can get into a prestigious university essentially taking the spot of a more qualified applicant. Although I understand that test scores are not the deciding factor in admittance into a university and that there really is no solid way of going about things; I think the difference in test scores is crucial especially at 171 points. This can send a misleading message that working hard to achieve high scores are useless when considering affirmative action. Despite this, supporters claim that this preference is only to promote "diversity" on campus, even if this is the case, it still does not justify how the system is fair for all students regardless of race. As mentioned in the article, if "diversity" were really the goal "preferences would be given on the basis of unusual characteristics, not on the basis of race." While I do agree that "diversity" is an important factor, I do not think that race should be a deciding factor in it. To me, "diversity" means the struggles a person has been through, how they overcame it, the important people in their lives, and how all these factors shaped them as a person. Although race could play a role in this, I do not think that there should be a separate section during tests or applications to highlight this difference. Instead, I think that things such as a college essay is a perfect opportunity to highlight and showcase this "diversity." Ultimately, I believe that affirmative action has changed over the years and has not served to achieve its goal, but instead undermine it.

Can Language Influence Our Perception of Reality? 12/31/2016

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/uc/2014/06/can_language_influence_our_perception_of_reality.html

     Language is communication, whether it be written, spoken, or sign language; all play a major role in human survival as it influences our perception of life. Shaped in part by environmental factors, language helps us create friendships as well as cultural ties that simply enables us to learn and grow. For this reason language is very important, however, it can be easily manipulated to "change" a message and thus, communication as a whole. To demonstrate, in a study conducted by Lera Boroditsky, an associate professor of cognitive science at the University of California San Diego (UCSD), language helps shape "many aspects of the world, including space and time." Professor Boroditsky even found that using different words in a sentence can have drastic implications. Specifically, when describing the economy using the word "stalled" as opposed to the word "ailing" (or vice versa) it was found that the difference is crucial. In the case of the economy, the word “stalled” implies the need for a quick solution. As Professor Boroditsky says, “When we use that analogy we’re implying that a short term financial stimulus will help us get the economy going again.” In contrast, when the economy is “ailing,” like a sick patient, it requires constant, long-term care. Essentially, the slight variation of a sentence can completely change its meaning and the way it is expressed to others. This is often used in the media to provoke a specific response or emotion from the audience such as feelings of fear or ease; which in turn can change our perception of reality and the way we view one another. As shown in the image below, word choice is an important factor that can impact our decisions as well as beliefs. Although both papers are from The Wall Street Journal, they obviously have different intentions and positions on the topic at hand. This just goes to show how powerful and manipulative language can be.

"There Is No Unmarked Woman" 12/18/16

     In the text, "There Is No Unmarked Woman," author Deborah Tannen discuses gender stereotypes and the effect it has on society's perception of women. By opening the essay with an anecdote about a past conference, Tannen effectively shows how women and men are treated differently. To specify, she describes how the women chose to dress, style their hair, and their use of make-up or lack thereof and how these decisions were all "marked." For example, she noted that the third woman's hair was "a frosted blond avalanche falling over" and how the "first woman wore facial cover that made her skin smooth and pale." In contrast, when describing the men at the conference, Tannen did not bother elaborating on their clothing or hair, instead stating that it "needed and attracted no attention." This comes to show how women are judged in everything that they do and thus, must take more time to present themselves as attractive or even just confident. This supports the idea that all women are marked, as even the English language distinguish between men and women it further reinforces the idea. As Tannen mentions in her essay, "The unmarked forms of most English words also convey 'male'" and adding "endings like ess and ette mark words as 'female.'" An example is doctor and doctorette. Although the word doctorette has lost its use throughout the years, there are still many that continue to be used such as actor and actress. Essentially, these "marked" words often have negative connotations associated with them. This is most commonly associated with the female gender as being "not quite serious" and "often sexual." This demonstrates the inequality women face in society, even when performing the same job as a male counterpart they are perceived differently. Similarly, even in other languages such as Spanish everything is marked as either female or male even something as trivial as a table. For instance, in school my Spanish teachers put great emphasis on the use of "el" or "la" in front of a word in order to indicate if a word is male or female. I believe that these markers are the result of centuries of tradition and is deeply rooted in various cultures, which all stems from the idea that men are superior to women. By constantly using these marked words I believe that people's perception of women will be impacted whether consciously or unconsciously.

"Pillow Angel" (12/4/16)

     In the article "Pillow Angel Ethics" author Nancy Gibbs discusses the controversial story of a six-year-old girl named Ashley. Ashley was born with a severe brain impairment called "static encephalopathy" as it is a permanent and unchanging condition. Being unable to sit-up, walk, talk, or feed herself, Ashley has been nicknamed "Pillow Angel" by her parents because she always remains where she is placed, on a pillow. Due to this condition, Ashley's parents has become her main caregivers and decided to proceed with lengthy medicinal treatments as well as operations to keep her small and thus, easier to care for. To demonstrate, Ashley has endured "high-dose estrogen treatment...her growth plates were closed and her prospective height reduced by about 13 inches". By doing so her parents are better able to include her in family activities and give her the care and love that she deserves. Additionally, the risk of uterine and breast cancer has been eliminated for Ashley by removing her uterus and breast tissue. These procedures could ultimately "prevent potenial discomfort from menstrual cramps or pregnancy..." Despite this, disibility advocates "have suggested that this course of treatment is an abuse of Ashley's rights'..." However, given the circumstances I do not believe that this is an abuse of Ashley's rights'. Since Ashley is physically and mentally unable to care for herself, as her main caregivers I believe that her parents had the right to decide. It is clear that Ashley's parents love her and want to do what they think is best. In this case, I believe that Ashley's family is more than fit to decide for her, of course, with the assistance of medical professionals. Even though these treatment options may have risks such as "thrombosis or blood clot", I personally believe that with any medical treatments there are always risks that may come with it. This does not mean that one should completely disregard the procedure, it is also important to consider the benefits that come along with it. As of right now the treatments and operations that have been performed on Ashley has only improved the quality of her life and that is all that matters. Overall, I understand the reasons behind Ashley's case and believe that it is justified and ethical.