Wrapping it all up!

Here I am writing the final blog in English 111. What are the most important texts I've come across in this class one might ask? Well, I can surely say that 3 of them have changed the way i look at things completely. "Gender Advertising" by Irving Goffman is one of them. In this text, Goffman focuses on how males and females are portrayed in advertisements ranging from social status to feminine touch. The way a man is always shown larger than a woman is something I would have never noticed if it wasn't for Goffman. All these commercials I see on television with women touching their silky smooth hair in a shampoo commercial is exactly what feminine touch is. Now when I look at an advertisement, I notice all these techniques used by advertisers to get their points across.
The second most important text I've read was "What Is Intelligence, Anyways?" by Isaac Asimov. Before I read this, my knowledge on what intelligence really was, was very vague. I figured being intelligent meant you were smart and that's about it. What this text made me realize was that intelligence is esentially dynamic because it's based on one's environment. In other words, you can be considered extremely intelligent in a certain area, but as soon as that changes, you can become less intelligent than everyone else. Being a pilot means you're intelligent in the field of flying planes, but if someone asks you to identify a strand of Deoxiribonucleotide, you wouldn't know a thing. I find this insightful because now I realize that when and if I fulfil my dream of being a dentist, I'll be aware of the fact that I'll be intelligent in the field of dentistry for sure, but maybe not as much when it comes to other fields.
Last but not least, the meaning of rhetoric is something I never thought I'd care about when it was first introduced to me, but now I've learned otherwise. Just like when you buy a new car and suddenly notice it when someone else drives by in it, as soon as I learned what the word rhetoric was, it suddenly started popping up everywhere I looked. Basically, Rhetoric is the art of using ethos, pathos, and logos in order to persuade. Listening to The President give a speech, or even a simple Boar's Head advertisement, I can see how rhetoric is used to appeal to the audience. Ethos, or the appeal to credibility, is a very important factor when it comes to persuasion. Why should I believe what this guy is saying? Well, he's got a Ph.D, that's why! Pathos is the appeal to one's emotions. This can range from portraying beauty to something such as age. Finally, Logos is the appeal using logic. Mainly, statistics are used to convince people. For example, a statistic such as "don't eat fish because statistics show that 90% of people who eat fish regularly won't live past 20" is logical because it obviously shows that people die from fish so you shouldn't eat it. Ofcourse, that quote I made up has no use of ethos, and that's exactly why you wouldn't believe it. This goes to show that ethos, pathos, and logos go hand in hand and if used correctly, will convince anyone to believe you.

Looking at your Meat

In The Omnivore's Dilemma, Pollan looks at eating meat from several different perspectives ranging from industrial, moral, and organic. Pollan has opened my eyes to these perspectives, particularly the moral side. I say moral because reading about the conditions in which most of these animals are slaughtered makes me sick. Thinking about how many turkeys have been killed in the past week for Thanksgiving; probably in the hundreds of millions, makes me wonder if any of them have been living in sanitary conditions and if they've been killed "correctly" instead of inhumanley as seen in parts of the video "Meet Your Meat" by Alec Baldwin. Lately, I've been contemplating on whether or not to switch to being a strict vegetarian and I blame it on people such as Pollan and Baldwin. It's hard to sit there eating a steak and not think about how the cow was killed. Although Organic is supposed to answer questions like such as that and reassure you that what you're eating was happilly running around in a free range farm, Pollan makes me think otherwise. According to Pollan, most of the "organic" meat you find is a lie because of less strict government regulations. For this reason, I've chosen to go with the moral perspective because it's the only one I can trust. For that same exact reason, It's hard to not be a vegetarian without thinking about whether or not you're doing the right thing by eating an animal that not only should have the right to live like you do, but should atleast be killed without pain.

What is the meaning behind "organic"?

Organic; we see this word stamped on lots of produce and meats in the market. Another word you could use for it us natural since it's basically the same thing. It means that everything was grown naturally, meaning there was no chemicals such as pesticides, genetic engineering, or radiation used in the process. For animals, things such as antibiotics and growth hormones are prohibited. In general, organic is good for the earth, the animals, and for us. They promote humane practices when it comes to raising the animals. For example, chickens are cage free. The downside to this is that it's more expensive to us, the consumers. This is because the farmers have to spend more time to make these crops since they can't use cheap shortcuts such as pesticides and genetically modified versions that grow bigger and faster. This means that they're at a disadvantage compared to their inorganic neighbor who produces double the amount.

The word "organic" is rhetorical because it appeals to all of our values. When you try to picture an organic chicken, you think of chickens running around the field freely and they they can't get happier than that. If you look at a why a vegetarian is in fact a vegetarian, you'd see that organic food is supposed to compliment with everything that they believe in. It convinces us that this is much better for us compared to its inorganic counterpart. What we don't know is that 2/3 of it is not really natural if you look into it. Reading this chapter makes you want to go out and buy your food straight from an organic farm where you can see everything going on compared to just following a label at your local supermarket.

"...Tools of their tools"

In The Omnivore's Dilemma, Pollan states that "men have become tools of their tools". What exactly does this mean? Well, the way I see it, Pollan is trying to say that although men do use tools for everything, they've become so dependent on them that without them, they'd come to a screeching halt. A taxi driver's tool is a taxi. Without it, he wouldn't be anything. The same thing goes for George Naylor, the Iowa farmer if you take his 1975 tractor away. For those tools to get something done, the operator must use them correctly. It's a term that can go both ways really. When you look deeper into it, you realize that how men use the tools is what really matters. The tool is the "constant variable" while man is the "dependent variable". In other words, the tools are the same for everyone, how you choose to use them is all up to you. Here's a silly example; You could have a car as your tool. You can choose to use it as a taxi to make money, or you can race it for even more money.

Physical appearance versus everything else. Isn't that what it's all about these days? I think it is, at least for women that is, or they say... The perfect body, flawless face, and the smooth hair. Isn't that all associated with women? Sort of. When you look at physical appearance, you usually think of the women you see in those magazines. The skinny body compared to the fat one. Men face this problem too, but society doesn't realize it. If you look in any advertisement, it's always the big, muscular guys that get the role. This puts pressure on other men making them think that if they don't look like that, then society won't accept them. It's the same problem for both men and women, but women get more attention when it comes to this issue compared to men.

Language (Asimov and Sedaris)

According to Sedaris and Asimov, you can be extremely intelligent, but it probably won't work for you when it comes to the different situations you're in. For example, you could be a genius when it comes to science, and if someone asks you a question about it, you'd be able to answer it immediately. If they asked you a question about mechanical engineering, chances are, you wouldn't have a clue on how to answer. The same thing applies to an English teacher. If you try talking to him/her in Arabic, they wouldn't have a clue what you're saying. Yeah, they might be smart when it comes to that specific language, but when it comes to other things, they could be as clueless an anything.

Reality (Goffman / Bordo)

One quote from Goffman that intrigued me was when he says "the point here is that it appears that children and women are pictured on floors and beds more than are men" (Goffman, 41). This quote had me thinking about the traditional view of women staying at home to cook, clean, and take care of the kids. Out of curiosity, I researched about how much the average stay at home mom would earn and came across a site called "salary.com". According to their study, the average US stay at home mom would earn a whopping $134,121 a year if they would get paid for it. I find this interesting because the average household income is only $55,000. A housewife makes well over double this amount, meaning their job is not easy. Trying to make women look inferior to men by picturing them on the floor and beds just doesn't make sense.

Bordo mentions that "my 56-year-old forehead will now be judged against my neighbor's, not just Goldie's, Cher's, and Faye's". This caught my attention because I think people nowadays are forgetting what real beauty is. Beauty in general is natural. How disappointed would you be if you found out the girl's face you've been eyeing for the past few weeks is all Botox and plastic surgery? I don't know about you, but that's a huge "no no". Just as much as you want her to have real hair instead of a wig, you want her to have real skin. That's what real beauty is. It's purely natural.

Honestly, I don't think Goffman's words hold up much today, but when it comes to Bordo, it fits today perfectly. Today, women are portrayed as independent. They've developed the attitude of "if men can do it, we can do it". This generally started during World War II when women took over their husband's jobs but you see it today more than ever. In advertisements, you'll see women dressed up professionally and running their own business. Also, studies have shown that the average age for marriage has went up by several years. This is because more and more women are staying in school to finish up their degrees and start up a career. The men are no longer the main income in some households. This income allows parents to leave this kids at home with a babysitter or send them to child care. On the other hand, Bordo's words go along with lots of celebrities and other women today. Plastic surgery and Botox is getting very popular. More and more commercials and advertisements have shown up recently, hence the news about a new celebrity reconstructing a part of their body every day. People have forgotten what true beauty really is. Like I mentioned before, its all natural!

Amplification through simplification... (McCloud/Logical Fallacy)

McCloud writes, "the fact that your mind is capable of taking a circle, two dots and a line and turning them into a face is nothing short of incredible! But still more incredible is the fact that you cannot avoid seeing a face because your mind won't let you!" (McCloud, 202]. Basically, McCloud is saying that something as simple as a circle, two dots, and a line will give you the same meaning as a much more complex drawing of a very realistic face. When it comes to delivering messages to the audience, simplifying a picture doesn't mean it won't be as effective as its complicated, well-detailed counterpart. The more simplified the picture, the more general it is. If someone shows you a picture of Steve Jobs for example, would you be able to imagine yourself in his position? Probably not, because it's specific. On the other hand, if you're shown a picture of a circle, two dots, and a line, you can see yourself in it. A picture of Steve Jobs is a picture of Steve Jobs. You might have a few people around the world that look like him, but it's rare. A picture of a circle, two dots, and a line applies to all 6 billion of us. Our mind can interpret the simplest of things and transform them into something as real as life.

Because last winter was so cold, Global Warming is a hoax. This is considered a logical fallacy because its a false interpretation of what Global Warming really is. Global Warming is mostly a long term affect and will have a much greater impact on the environment 100 years from now compared to today.

If ever there was an idea custom-made for Jay Leno monologue, this was it: Possession of nuclear materials . Isn’t that like retarded? Whatever happened to the old bow and arrow? I happen to sympathize with some of these countries, though, perhaps because they know other countries are ready and armed with it.