Thoughts on Womanhood (450)

This picture reminded me a lot about what we talked about in class today about womanhood through the lens of this current political campaign. 

On one hand, there is a prevailing opinion that women need to be taken care of. With that come all of these mandates about abortion and about contraception. And to some that makes sense. But it excludes the ability for women to think for themselves. It's like Mary's "Like a Boss" article. A man of status and money is someone that a woman would want to depend on regardless of his understanding of what womanhood consists of. 

That aside, I think this reveals an underlying element of most of the gender-charged things that people have been posting. Women need to be taken care of. Men can take care of women. That line of reasoning includes a hidden point of "logic" that women are stupid and men are not. Women need to be taken care of (because they are too stupid to do it themselves) and men can take care of women (because they are not stupid and know better what women need to be doing). 

It reminds me of the Gorgias reading when it comes up that a rhetorician could persuade an audience in regards to matters of health and diet more than an actual doctor or cookery expert could. The rhetorician wouldn't have nearly the knowledge base, but he could be convincing enough to have his point taken above what is based in fact. That's what these male politicians are doing. They are standing up and persuading an audience to feel a certain way about women's health issues without being a woman or understanding how women's health works. This man doesn't have any idea why someone would want an abortion, but if you ask him if one should have one he will resoundingly say no. He will persuade others to say no. Meanwhile, actual women who want to have abortions will be screwed over by this rhetorician masquerading as a women's health activist. 

Not Political, But Still Rhetorical (450)

This video above is of a young man that is discussing what women are getting wrong. 
It's FULL of enthymemes! And the conclusions that he draws make him look pretty bad, much like the Romney video that we watched in class. As I understand it, enthymemes are largely based in assumption -- assumption that your audience understands your point, assumption that certain ideas are factual, and assumption that you can draw conclusions based on incomplete or missing information. 

Some initial assumptions he makes are that a) women are dressing specifically with men in mind b) the content of someone's Faceook pictures is a critical piece in social interactions in real life and that c) a woman who shows cleavage will never get any guy but a bad guy. Now, all of these are things that he assumes his audience will agree with without explanation. 

When he DOES offer explanation it is in the form making categories. Women are placed in either the body category or the mind category. He claims that you have to be one and you can't be both (and your Facebook pictures should indicate which one you belong in). 

I found it interesting that he blatantly denies having any ethos factor in his little speech. He repeatedly says that he is not one to judge. He relies a lot on logos, or a perceived logos. He says he isn't a credible judge, but he believes that he understands the logical side of what women are doing. 

And then the pathos. Oh, the pathos. He's obviously targeting younger women. He breaks down self esteem in parts using emotional appeals: "you have no one to blame but yourself" and then plays the nice guy to appeal to make the idea seem almost comforting. Here's a guy that finally knows how to make the nice guys fall for me! Yay! 

And then there's the men. Men are not the focus of the video, but he makes a lot of claims about them that are anything but subtle. Women, if you dress like a slut then men will just not be able to anything but have sex with you. That doesn't really speak well of men. Apparently, there is an enthymeme here that a man's factory setting is sex maniac and all it takes is a well placed set of boobs on Facebook to send him into an inescapable libido frenzy. 

The only thing I have to say to this man is...dude, I just critically analyzed your speech with my brain, and there just so happens to be a picture of me on Facebook where my boobs look fantastic. Riddle me that! 

Thoughts on Research so Far (Sci Writ)

http://www.jmir.org/2012/3/e65/

This is the article that I am going to use for my brief assignment. 

When I decided to take this class, I envisioned writing a lot about chemistry, physics, and biology. You know...the "real" sciences. I imagined a lot of people in lab coats with beakers and various toxic chemicals. 

The research that I have done for this has made me really aware of the scientific and research communities. But what it has done most has allowed me to become educated about issues that actually impact me. Who knew! Science has direct impacts on my life.

This journal article is about research done that will quite possibly be very important to me. Right now, I have untreated anxiety. I used to do therapy and medication which is the standard model, but I stopped. This article discusses online therapy which is something that makes so much sense. I kind of already do that via Reddit (haha r/anxiety is my favorite place on the internet). But to have an ACTUALLY qualified therapist? That's huge.  

I had planned on doing a different topic for my interview profile. But now that I have gotten so excited reading about the work being done on anxiety disorders I am considering finding a resource in that area. I don't really know where to look for something like that, though -- especially on campus. 

Practice Science Brief (Sci Writ)

I know this a bit behind schedule, but without further ado: 

Despite being one of the most common psychological disorders, social anxiety disorder (SAD) is one of the most complex to treat because cases are so varied and unique. Usually, a combination of medication and cognitive therapy is the standard approach, but until recently there had been no way of predicting how well these methods will work on a patient.

MIT researchers, using MRI technology, looked at the brains of non-medicated SAD patients as they were exposed to pictures of angry or neutral faces. What they found was that, looking at a patient’s brain, medical professionals could more accurately determine the factors present in each case of SAD. When a case is better understood, it can be better treated. The study resulted in more than a 40% variance in results compared to patients used as control subjects.

The results indicate that it is possible to determine biomarkers that substantially indicate how successful psychological treatment can be for a particular socially anxious patient. Additionally, if these biomarkers exist for SAD, then perhaps similar screening could be used in the treatment of similar psychological disorders. 

http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1356542

Campaign Speech (450)

Jill Stein: People's State of the Union
Above is the link to the transcript of a speech by Jill Stein, the green party candidate for president. 

I have been doing a lot of reading lately about the presidential campaign currently taking place. I have noticed an interesting trend in opinions. A surprising number of people have equated voting this time around to picking the "lesser of two evils". With our two-party system, a lot of voters feel that they MUST pick one of the two. We often forget that there are actually other people running for president as well. 

I took an online quiz recently that was intended to tell me which candidate my opinions most closely aligned with. I was matched with Jill Stein. Ever since then I have been doing quite a bit of research about the third party candidates. That is how I found this speech. 

I am posting this because I think a comparison could take place. I think looking at this speech and those of more well known candidates could be interesting. How does this differ rhetorically from campaign speeches that more people heard? Is there a noticeable difference between candidates that are striving towards an office that they might actually win, and those, like Stein, that have little to no chance of campaign success.  

Ooh! Another Story Idea (Sci Writ)

I would be incredibly interested in learning about the science of religion. There are a lot of historical and philosophical work done on religion, but how about scientific? I don't entirely know where that would end up going. I also think I may need to more closely define "science writing" before I begin. Does anyone know how "science-y" one has to get to be a science writer? Is historical or sociological research under that umbrella?

Story Ideas (Sci Writ)

My blog had a conniption recently and apparently did not save the post that I did detailing my story ideas. Me and technology do not mix well apparently. 

I am interested in trying to work with a story about anxiety. It is a topic that has a lot of current research. Studies of the brain and how it works are always fascinating, especially when well written. Additionally, information about medications and their effects is equally interesting in my opinion. 

The "story" element would be fairly easy for me because I happen to have a severe anxiety disorder. I initially worried about working with a topic when I have "a dog in the fight", but as of right now I have little to no knowledge about the topic. And I don't really have any strong feelings towards any of the current medical opinions being thrown around. 

I am curious as to whether writing science writing in the first person can ever be a good idea. Is that too much of a personal investment? Or can a narrative carried by the author be more relate-able to a reader? 

Gorgias Questions (450)

The question that I kept coming back to during the reading is rather convoluted and philosophical, but hey! we're reading Plato so that's probably ok (if not encouraged). 

Plato's writing is rhetorical. His rhetorical purpose is...to....discredit rhetoric? How the hell is that working. He clearly does not like or approve of rhetoricians and their art, and uses what they preach in order to tell us that. 

My question then is whether this is on purpose or not. Is Plato ignorant that he is utilizing exactly what he claims to be simultaneously defeating? Or is he demonstrating rhetorical weaknesses? Or is Plato a crazy dude who actually secretly has a thing for rhetoric and does it all the time? I just don't get how this can all work. 

Also, it took me an absurdly long time to figure out what cookery is. 

Intro for Rhetoric (450)

My blog has been rather temperamental lately, so I apologize that this is so late. Also, from now on my blog posts for this post will be followed by (450) so that you know what of this mess you actually have to look at :)

I like Pina Coladas and getting caught in the rain. I'm not much into health food. I am into champagne. 

I'm a Junior studying Writing, and whenever somebody asks me what I plan on being later in life with a degree in English I generally respond with "homeless", "the President of the United States", or "trophy wife". I actually want to be Johnny Depp in Secret Window before John Turturro shows up. Or, in other words, I want to live in a kick-ass cabin in the woods and write short stories in my bathrobe.

Before I was an English major my dream was to study psychology and work with violent sexual offenders with the Behavioral Sciences Unit of the FBI. Although I didn't go that route, I can still tell you almost anything you want to know about most serial killers, which I have found makes a lot of people uncomfortable and is not a good conversation starter at parties. 

I was raised in Alaska, and rocked the stereotype by being a competitive sprint dog musher for most of my younger years. Nowadays, I like reading, writing, playing mandolin, and spending time with people I love. I also like Pilates. I don't actually do it. I just think it's a good idea.