blog #9 & 10

We had a lot of readings some interesting and some not so interesting. I think the most important text and chapters that we've read in class are the Goffman reading, the C.R.A.P principles, and the slaughter chapter in The Omnivore's Dilemma. Who would of thought Goffman's ideas would be found everywhere. I used to watch television without noticing any of Goffman's proposals. Now when I see a commercial, television show, or movie I can easily recognize things such as Goffman's feminine touch, relative size, the family and etc. Not only am I capable of seeing this on television but also magazines. I'm not too big on magazines like I used to be but recalling back I remember there were so many pictures of families that would demonstrate the principles that Goffman put across and also relative size on run way pictures for events. When I'm driving I also stumble upon this on billboard advertisements. I can think to my self "Oh they're demonstrating Goffman's Ritualization of Subordination." Does it make sense if I say past the advertisements, television, and all media, that I can detect this in daily life? I think that we live in a society that Goffman totally gets because he has describe thoughts that fit so well with mine. Am I the only one who agrees that we live in a society that is fixed upon these ideals. I have always agreed with Goffman's views because I believe they are truthful. I feel if someone did not recognize this and agree with this that they are blinded because this is everyday life summed up. I thought this was significant than the other readings in class because to me it actually has a purpose to serve and widen up my knowledge. Now I can define those thoughts and views that I am exposed to daily by saying that is Goffman's work. I can even narrow it down and tittle each by stating it is relative size, the feminine touch, function ranking, the family, license withdrawal, or ritualization of subordination. That's why I find that completely important that it was good to learn for this class. Now the C.R.A.P principles are important as well. I find that being it is an english course that we learn these principles. These principles consist of contrast, repetition, alignment, and proximity. These were a great bunch of principles to help us with the project. I feel that everyone has followed these principles in order to make their Rhetcard look the best. Outside of the class room world I feel that major company follow these principles as well. They can use this to help market their products. Some companies use it as well as to compete with other companies that sell the same product. They use the C.R.A.P principles to help appeal to their consumers hoping that it will affect their franchise by producing an up rise in their marketing strategy. This was also extremely helpful because in class we can use this to demonstrate "compare and contrast" with the same product, different brand. Finally, the last topic that I believe was important in this class was the Slaughter chapter in The Omnivore's Dilemma. I was happy to get my rhetoric presentation on this so I can bring up a topic that is both interesting to me and that I feel some concern for. In the chapter to summarize, Pollan describes a situation on the farm he visited and how they killed chickens. When reading this I was in complete shock of how they did it. It was a learning experience through text because you got to feel like you were there from the goriness or if you didn't know how it was done, there it was in text for you to read. I believe this chapter is a real issue that is everyday life as well. For example, look at how we have live in a society full of of people include on the PITA. I think all three topics link together because they include everyday life and our society as well. They all reflect back to an everyday life cycle.

blog #8

When I was little my mother always used to tell me these stories of how she lived on a farm in the Philippines. I don't remember the stories completely but I knew they had plenty of animals. Well two years ago I went to the Philippines for the first time and we got to visit my mom's homeland. Though I couldn't get the full experience and view what she had been telling me about because the volcano erupted there before I got there and destroyed majority of the land, we went to her brother's which had also been affected by the volcano but they still had little land left. They also still had their barn with pigs. I have never seen pigs this big. I pretty much am disgusted by pigs which is ironic since I am Filipino and one of our main dishes is lechon, roasted pig, which I don't eat by the way. I never understood why there was a whole pig with the head still on and feet laying across a long plate with vegetables around it as a design and decorative purposes on the table. It's expensive and I was never really around it in my household until we went to another Filipino gathering where they served food and it was the main dish. I remember seeing the pig for the first time, I was terrified. I remember this feeling when I went to the Philippines and saw the slaughtering of pigs just to prepare a traditional dish. It bothered me deeply that they cruel way they slaughter animals just to provide food for the human race. In relation to Pollan, my perspective is simply how animals on a farm are treated. I didn't like what my uncle and his workers had to do and could not bare to watch it. Going back to my presentation in class which was related to chicken slaughter and the view that I had that it didn't bother me completely, I think I've come to a conclusion. In conclusion I think that there is no humane way to kill these animals because they make it quick and without suffering and that they do this to keep us alive. This is our source of food and without these animals, we would have none because majority of people are not omnivores, and they do need meat for we are mostly all carnivores.

blog #7

"The blessing of the omnivore is that he can eat a great many different things in nature" (Pollan 287) I believe Pollan is showing us that we have an abundant variety of ways to get nourished. We are entitled to more than just meat. We have vegetables and along with veggies, fruits. Besides basic foods like these comes other things like various snacks. For example, chips, cookies, candy, and etc. I think the Omnivore's dilemma is having to choose from so many different kinds of food. The problem I see is "What should I eat?" Giving some people too many choices makes it harder for some to pick. I believe that giving too many options provides a more confusing difficult decision. I experience this almost everyday. There's never any food in my house so I always have to go out and get food. When I realize I have to get food that I can't decided where I'm going to eat or what I want to eat. My decisions also get harder because I live by almost every type of food. There's three diners not even three minutes away from each other, three popular fast-food franchises near me, two health bars, the supermarket, pizza joints, and chinese. When I do pick a place they also give you more options on what you in particular want. There is so much food too choose from which makes it a dilemma and making the choice even more narrow, more dilemma!

blog #6

When I look up the term organic, it is defined as relating or belonging to a class of chemical compounds having a carbon basis. (wordnetweb.princeton.edu) When I think of the word organic I think fresh.  My mind also draws an image of a farm.  Organic to me is looked upon as fresh products from the farm that isn't contaminated with such harsh chemicals that draw attention to some people.  I personally don't recall trying anything organic to contrast the taste between the two.  Although when you think of organic it seem like a healthy term.  I believe that organic got ethos of being "healthy" because the fact there are no chemicals used when farming or harvesting organic foods.  A Whole Foods shopper in The Omnivore's Dilemma described when buying organic products he is "engaging in authentic experience." (Pollan) I think that the term organic is rhetoric because organic is not defined as healthy but a product made without chemicals.  Yes, it may seem that organic is better because there are no chemicals in the food but majority of the world doesn't eat anything organic and do not suffer from anything serious.  So people who shop organic, I don't believe receive an "authentic experience."  Fruits and vegetables are all grown in the same place, the choice using chemicals or not is the only difference.  My apple I ate last night didn't poison. So what's so bad about not eating organic?  What's authentic about having something organic?

blog #5

A) What is a tool? A tool can be defined as an implement used in the practice of a vocation. (wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn)  I think this definition can fit to my theory of Pollen's quote. Pollen states "Men have become tools of their tools." I believe that the first time he mentions the term tool refers to a new definition in our society known as being useless or a slacker but the second time he uses the term tool refers to that vocation.  Vocation is also known as a call or promise.  In this case as if the term was being used to mean a calling.  I think that men have a calling of being strong and powerful as in being a leader.  I also think that a tool can mean an instrument, for example leadership.  People view man to provide a leadership rather than woman.  So replying back to Pollen, my opinion is that he means that men have become useless of their strength and leadership and perhaps are not using it for things that are important.

B) Majority of people are concerned about their diet and body image.  Those who aren't concern have thought about their body image before.  A lot of reasons to these people's concerns are because they care about what others think.  No one wants to be judge on a negative appearance.  Being fat is considered negative for reasons like the media displaying that being fat is not good looking.  As well as women, men also have concerns towards diet and body image. Although the male concerns differ from a woman's concern.  Males are known to be fit or muscular.  Having a muscular toned body is considered manly and is a goal for some.  Guys like to look muscular as well because it gives them a trait of being strong compared to someone who is small and weak.  They relate to women because even though some are sloppy, some present their self neatly and work on their bodies to achieve an image that will attract women.

blog#4

Asimov and Sedaris share with us their own personal experience.  Both of their stories are similar.  They both compare themselves to other people.  Asimov speaks about how he thinks he's real intelligent until he goes to his auto-repair man.  His auto repair man shows him that, he is too educated and book smart to even relate to a joke.  The communication (language) was not understood by Asimov.  Sedaris's experience is about himself and an actual foreign language that is he in school for.  He has a hard time speaking French and also his teacher is hard on him and the whole class.  Sedaris's end point shows us that speaking a language and understand it is completely different.  Both show that knowing different languages helps you communicate better and also an easier way to connect with others.

blog #3

A) "... women nuzzle children but men apparently do not." (Goffman 79)  I think that Goffman tries to show the point that women nuzzle children through an example as a mother with a newborn baby or any baby.  Majority of advertisements or commercials show a woman nuzzling with an infant.  This gives you the idea that the infant might be the offspring of the woman or real close like family.  I find this significant because it is true that you never see men nuzzle.  No ads, pictures, nor commercials show a man nuzzling with an infant or a woman.  Women do also nuzzle with men and objects.  Men also do not show affection or a public display of it more than woman do.  I believe women show more because of the attention from it.  Goffman believes that men can show theirs by a different tactic.  For example, men could lay their hand to show a woman support, they can use verbal interaction, parent-like affection by laying of the hand and etc.

B) "When did "perfection" become applicable to the human body?" (Bordo 151)  Bordo puts the point across to ask why do people associate perfection with the human body.  I find this appealing because it is most certainly true.  Majority of the population has issues that pertain to this topic.  I am not just saying this for women but for men also.  The media portrays some type of imagine where we believe is "perfect."  But what is perfect?  Why is this term being associated with humans?  It is sure that the media started their own definition of perfect where many try to live up to an expectation of perfect.  This "perfection" also plays a big role when we are talking about appearances.  Magazines, movies, television, news, internet, and etc. show an example of what is "in" and how they think we should look.  Everyone now has a way of living up to this perfection level that has been set for them by expectations of others.  People care too much about what others think.  Therefore society is also to blame for this perfection.

C)Goffman's analysis is true for the most part.  You are more likely to see women than men nuzzling with an infant or object.  When shopping around I do see men nuzzling a child in a photo but only when the photo consist of the man himself and the child.  Goffman's view is right though because men do show protection and concern over the family by being on the outside of the picture.  It also shows this power that the man has and that this is his family.  As for the women Goffman's idea of that this is the way women can show their affection is true.  Ladies are more gentle and show more passion when on the topic of feelings.  Bordo's analysis seems so modern day with the quote I've picked.  His analysis is definitely correct and does hold up today.  The visual images in advertisements have of men and women have not changed.  According to both, both analysis would hold up today. 

blog #2

A) "You know you smiled because your trusted this mask called your face respond! But the face you see in your mind is not the same as others see." (McCloud 206) I like this quote because it can relate to daily experiences.  People everyday go through this.  McCloud's meaing of this quote is that our face and the emotion we give off to people can just be a front guard and that's a disguise for them to see but really the true image and feelings or emotions is gathered in our head.  There are so many examples you can use for this quote.  A simple example is when you have a child who doesn't want to be rude.  On a birthday or holiday celebration, gifts received from family and friends, you are able to use this "mask" as a disguise to hide your true feelings in side.  You fake a smile, this is what McCloud means by trusting the mask.  People tend to believe that they have fooled others by using their mask for a facial response to all and hiding what they really feel.

B) Logical fallacy is an argument that provides poor reasoning to the conclusion.  For example someone saying "All boys are lazy."  This argument is logical fallacy because it has poor reasoning.  Not all boys are lazy.  Everyone has their own interests.  Some boys like sports and some boys don't like sports.  Some guys like to be active while others are lazy, but not all.  It's also logical fallacy because the statement is based on a poor piece of reasoning.

C) If ever there was an idea custom made for a Jay Leno monologue, this was it: The economy today. Isn't that like the biggest problem today? Whatever happened to stability? I happen to sympathize with everyone, though perhaps because we are in a large debt.

blog#1

a) Foss first defines rhetoric.  In defining rhetoric, she defines it in three different ways with different explanations for each.  Foss states that the term rhetoric is commonly used to mean empty, bombastic language that has no substance.  “… rhetoric is defined as the human use of symbols to communicate” (Foss, 4).  The definition given contains three primary dimensions that consist of humans as the creators of rhetoric, symbols as the medium for rhetoric, and communication as the purpose of rhetoric.  Another primary concept in addition to rhetoric is that it involves symbols rather than signs.  Symbols must be something that represents something by association or a relationship.  Foss uses the example of smoke being a sign that fire is present.  This explains that there shows a relationship between the fire and the smoke.  A third definition to this term is that the purpose is communication.  Foss says “in some cases, we use rhetoric in an effort to persuade others---to encourage others to change in some way. (6)” Self knowledge and discovery can be obtained from rhetoric.  I feel that rhetoric has many definitions.  I most understand rhetoric when it is being used as persuading someone.  Recently I had to pick out colleges to apply to and I went to many open houses where they use a dialect of language that is pleasing to hear and supposed to persuade you to have interest in their university.  I think this could be an experience along with the current renovation of my room.  I have been to a furniture store where their speech has to be effective in order to make a sale.  I ended up getting two beds when only planning on leaving with one purchase or nothing. 

b) 

rhetoric: 

1 : the art of speaking or writing effectively 

2. using language effectively to please or persuade

definition sources:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rhetoric

http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/rhetoric