English 1302

Soojin Yoon

English 1302

Prof. Sowa

2/1/07

Summary Response 2: Bernard S.

In his 1991 cartoon displayed in The New Yorker Magazine, Bernard Schoenbaum playfully allows his viewers to acknowledge that even in our modernized generation, sexism continues to remain an inevitable part of our everyday lives. Using a situation his readers can identify with by focusing on a car salesman speaking to a potential customer, Schoenbaum chooses to point out sexism’s disregarded existence by simply switching the original gender to the other in the popular custom of referring to automobiles as though they are women. He humorously drags such commonplace bias out from our nearly subconscious awareness of its presence in order to address the reality of vast gender discrimination surrounding our daily lives. Schoenbaum’s relatable choice of background for his cartoon appeals to a mature audience with experiences and insights that would enable them to fully appreciate his parody as well as understand the world’s self-believed dilemma of growing sexism.

Proving himself to understand our society’s current habit of disregarding the fixed outlook of disapproval towards any form of distinct sexism as well as how to draw the viewer’s attention, Schoenbaum’s cartoon cleverly succeeded in allowing his educated readers to clearly distinguish how different genders may strongly affect the way they see certain situations. For example, an object such as a car that is defined by femininity could be considered in our minds to be more stylish, elegant and even weak compared to a masculine car that would be more readily pictured as bulky, large and more powerful. He used his artistic creativity and innovative wit to make a significant statement that we have ultimately failed to eradicate sexism despite all our previous dedicated attempts to maintain a community of gender equality. By offering the inverse of the common sexist personification of cars in such a light and inoffensive manner, Schoenbaum may have also subtly hinted at the idea that we should refrain from being too sensitive about sexism as many gender classifications continue to be meant positively.

Despite the fact that it can immediately portray its full point to its viewers, the drawing managed to retain my attention for some time as the raw humor ebbed away and soon it was clear to see how well it illustrated our lifestyle’s saturation of both distasteful and flattering gender discrimination. The manner in which he chose to address the subject of sexism interested me in its honest simplicity and I was drawn by the hidden depth of the picture’s single quote, “you’ll just love the way he handles”. His argument concerning the existence of such an inescapable discrimination was well-presented and served as great material for deeper analysis as his twist on the familiar saying accentuated the thought that overuse of certain phrases and ideas have caused us to become desensitized to its “intolerable” sexist language. Schoenbaum was able to successfully provide humor alongside the serious issue of sexism as well as avoid the negativity that tends to eagerly go hand-in-hand with the heated topic.

Schoenbaum’s cartoon helped me to become more aware of the blunt irony we currently tend to ignore everyday due to our lack of attention towards the lingering presence of sexism after all past generations’ efforts to oppress it in hopes of completely eliminating such an “atrocity”. It also helped lead me to consider the possibility that perhaps our past of consistent discrimination has left us, although some more than others, with the impression that gender equality is the only acceptable condition. Ultimately, I was left to debate whether such an old, traditional belief among those such as feminists would be strong enough to oppose all possibility of an option that may include taking advantage of our presently dulled sensitivity towards sexist language as well as including the chance that our sense of humor and the ability to accept some differences between the two genders may be able to better benefit our currently bitter situation of sexism.

Lang Chao
Engl1302
Prof Sowa
January 30, 2007
The Fight for Women
Deborah Tannen in her book Cross Talk argues that women and men have completely different ways of communicating with the opposite gender due to gender issues. Using a rhetoric analogy, Tannen is able to show how men seem unable to fully understand a woman’s request due to mans uncomfortably “in a subordinate position” (391) causing miscommunication between men and women. Tannen wrights to the a more political field and educated feminist activist in order to help promote feminist rights

The text being written is Cross Talk by Deborah Tannen. The reader for the text would feminist activists, political figures, and the normal average Joe. The Author for the book was Deborah Tannen, who is Linguistics professor at the University of Georgetown in Washington. She writes the piece of work in order to show how men see women as lower than them just because males think that they are superior and are afraid to be seen as a subordinate of women. The constraints on the writing could be the fact that lately Feminist Activism has grown in proportion and has been slowly gaining more rights. Also the fact that many men are slowly changing the way they view women as more and more demonstrations and rallies appear. Tannen was motivated to write this book due to the way that women are treated and misunderstood just because of their sex, in addition to what each sex hopes to achieve through communication, such as that women use it as a way to share data, while men use it as a way to show dominance over each other. I chose this story out of the other ones because of the fact that it seems more realistic in the since that unlike the other essays/pictures seems to portray a more realistic point of how women and men are different in their social status and ideals. The others seem to make a mockery of women and have them made to look as if they are lower than their male counterparts, while this book written by Tannen seems to portray the most politically correct way to depict the female role in the eyes of men. Additionally Tannen doesn’t intentionally put women below men and downgrade women to an extreme. She seems more for a realistic picture rather than an exploded one that shows an outrageous difference between men and women. I learned many things about arguing from this article. Tannen treats her opponents fairly. She doesn’t make those that oppose female rights outrageously dominating, rather shows a more calming version of a normal guy that just doesn’t seem to fully understand how a female’s mind works. This works in her favor because this way she doesn’t insult those that would attack what she writes, rather she allows room for her to be criticized by the criticizer and is willing to make changes if it is necessary. Additionally Tannen is engaging in a dialectic debate, which is a debate that is more for searching for truth rather than winning. This way Tannen is able to see the viewpoints of both sides of the argument rather than being one-sided and making hypocritical errors and trapping her opponents in a corner, she is able to allow a free exchange of arguments that will benefit both sides of those arguing because it allows them see have a more clear understanding, rather than random outburst of name calling and yelling just trying to prove the other wrong. This way of arguing seems amazing since instead of going for the win, Tannen goes for the learning experiences that is able to be gained.

Jessica Oler

Professor Sowa

English 1302

2 February 2007

Secret Sexual Harassment

Leslie Heywood, author of the 1999 article “Despite the Positive Rhetoric about Women’s Sports, Female Athletes Face a Culture of Sexual Harassment,” persists that sexual harassment toward female athletes is a common occurrence that is being overlooked, causing women to be subjected to ridicule and torment. By using examples in which female athletes have come forward to accuse coaches of sexual harassment, Heywood shows the repercussions to female athletes that are victimized and later ridiculed by fellow athletes for coming forward. Heywood cites examples in order to show that sexual harassment is an existing problem being ignored that needs to be eradicated. Writing to college and university administrators and faculty, Heywood’s tone is calm and collected, but a keen reader can easily detect her outrage toward sexual harassment in women’s athletics.

The main purpose of Heywood’s article is to show the reader that while women’s athletics have come a long way since Title IX was enacted, there are still serious problems that plague female athletes. Female athletes are stereotyped as lesbians if they show too much athletic skill, coaches require mandatory weigh-ins, and female athletes are relentlessly criticized about their bodies past the point of harassment and into torment. Throughout the article, Heywood is trying to inform the reader of the atrocities that are occurring in female sports and the consequences that those who speak out face.

Heywood, a college professor, writes this article to bring awareness to her peers in the collegiate education system. She easily establishes common ground with her readers since they share the same career. The enlightened, economically sound readers of this article would be hard pressed to deny or object to any of Heywood’s claims. To object or dismiss the claims would look poorly on the professors and administrators reading the article. By choosing a highly educated audience, it is easier for Heywood to make her argument and not find too many objections.

While the fact that Leslie Heywood is a female might be a partial reason for the sexual harassment toward female athletes article; Heywood’s gender does not come across as the motivating factor behind the article. At no point in the article does the author come across as an overzealous women’s lib. supporter. It appears more so that Heywood’s gender helps her to understand what the athletes could be facing such as: the fear of chastisement for confronting coaches, the disbelief and lack of support of fellow athletes, as well as possibly facing defeat and giving up a beloved pastime. The sophisticated article encourages alternative coaching antics that could come with sensitivity training or seminars that would enable coaches to better adapt their training styles toward female athletes.

In writing this article the main constraint that Heywood would have faced would be the public relations factor. How would her colleagues take the article? Would her male colleagues be able to see her argument from the view of a female writer? Facing these constraints, Heywood took on the challenge of writing a controversial article. At the risk of losing respect from colleagues, Heywood wrote an intellectual article and was able to cultivate reader empathy regardless of gender.

As a female that has participated in competitive sports from a very early age, I can easily identify with all that Heywood writes about. The critiques of coaches on physical appearance, coaches attempts at social involvement with players, fear of speaking out and being shunned by the team, and the heartbreak of walking away from a game that you truly love is very real, and something most female athletes have encountered first hand or seen a friend struggle with. By analyzing the text, reader, author, constraints, and exigence of this piece, a reader can easily appreciate Heywood’s article whether or not he or she agrees with Heywood’s position.

Brittany Fairchild
English 1302
Professor Sowa
February 1, 2007
Summary/ Response #2
Beverly Gross, in her 1994 essay “Bitch,” argues that the word bitch is “still ‘the most offensive appellation’ the English language provides to hurl at women” (382). Using specific examples of her students’ opinions, passages that utilize the abusive word, as well as various connotations of the term bitch as defined in published dictionaries, Gross establishes the differences between socially unacceptable expressions. Gross illustrates the impact of using such a word in order to emphasize the importance of mutual respect between both men and women. Initially writing to the students at Skidmore College, while leaving room for debate among the educated, Gross keeps a mature, yet clearly biased tone.

While it is important to understand the underlying purpose or preferred outcome of a piece of literature, it is also very important to gain a basic understanding of the different perspectives and elements of the argument. In Beverly Gross’ essay “Bitch,” there are many elements which can be further examined to better understand the purpose of her argument. The text itself is most obviously written to emphasize the growing popularity, yet unacceptable use, of the word bitch. The text has a variety of different purposes, mainly to inform, but also to provoke further assessment. As the word bitch is so widely used and unnoticed throughout our society, many do not realize the impact such a word has on certain individuals, and many do not consider how the word is used in context, referring to the way it is targeted towards women only. Therefore, the audience includes a wide range of individuals, not just woman or advocates of feminism. This essay was written to an educated people including both men and women, but not including children or even young teenagers. Gross’ essay provokes much thought based upon experience and prior knowledge of the word bitch, which is typically not used in the presence of younger children. While the audience includes both men and women, women would most likely be more inclined to promote the eradication of such harmful terms. The author of this essay is, in fact, a professor of English at City University of New York who teaches a class that analyzes women’s writing and literature. She is most definitely knowledgeable and establishes her credibility as an expert on offensive terminology through the use of specific examples from a variety of outside texts and sources. The author, while writing to a magazine which would therefore limit the amount of space provided, did not experience many constraints. Gross knew exactly what she wanted to say, and she expressed her opinions appropriately. Upon further analysis, probably the most obvious yet easily overlooked constraint would simply be using the word bitch. Depending on the actual audience, the term bitch might be offensive towards those who do not take the time to fully comprehend Gross’ message. The exigence of the author stemmed from a class debate, a normal everyday occurrence. Upon discussing the reasons for declaring Mary McCarthy a bitch, Gross further assessed the word. While the word bitch is more commonly used in today’s society, Gross feels that despite its context, the word itself is unacceptable. This is due in part because bitch is derogatory solely against women. Women are unfairly subjected, and men are in no way affected.

After completing this exercise, I learned that while TRACE might simply be a made up acronym, it is a useful tool and extremely beneficial for better understanding the elements of an argument. Determining the rhetorical situation can be a long process, but it is helpful to comprehend the purpose of the argument, why the author wrote the text, as well as the specific objectives of the argument, regardless of any constraints.

Brittany Fairchild
English 1302
Professor Sowa
January 23, 2007
Summary/Response #1
James Gilligan, in his 1998 essay titled “Reflections from a Life Behind Bars: Build Colleges, Not Prisons,” argues that there should not be “prison reform, but prison replacement; not prison construction, but prison deconstruction” (552). Using his own experience as a prison psychiatrist, Gilligan establishes the confirmed belief that a proper education decreases criminal activity. Gilligan illustrates the dramatic change in prisoners’ and criminals’ behavior in order to emphasize the importance of a suitable education. Writing to individuals concerned with crime and punishment, Gilligan maintains a professional, yet distinctly opinionated tone.

The last paragraph of Gilligan’s essay, while short and seemingly unimportant, is extremely significant and possibly the most controversial idea presented in the whole paper. Throughout the essay, Gilligan forms a simple argument regarding the belief that prison is not, in fact, beneficial to society. The reason most attributed to this conviction is the notion that violence must stem from something, whether because of an act of violence towards oneself or an act of violence taken out on someone particularly meaningful to another individual. In other words, those who have been attacked physically or emotionally by another or those who take others’ unfortunate situations to heart tend to lash out as a form of consolation or, more likely, revenge. Therefore, regardless of the reasoning behind others’ acts of violence, these individuals are all created equal in the eyes of the legal system. They are sent to state prisons or high-level penitentiaries. But looking back at Gilligan’s essay, the primary idea is not that prisons are horrifying or degrading, rather the author states that prisons are, in fact, for the punishers’ pleasure of gaining revenge. These so-called punishers range from the plaintiffs and corresponding lawyers, jail guards themselves, and quite possibly society in general. Gilligan claims, “nothing corrodes the soul of the vengeful person as thoroughly as his own vengeful impulses” (552). In other words, nothing could possibly be worse than an individual’s desire to intentionally reprimand another human being out of spite. Expanding on that idea, Gilligan subtly argues that there is both legal and illegal violence. Obviously illegal violence includes acts that physically harm another individual, such as rape or murder. But how is it possible to have legal violence? Legal violence is established as the violence that others inflict upon criminals for their wrongdoings. Legal violence can be interpreted in two ways: most commonly, it is the punishment the people of the law, such as officers or jail guards, inflict upon those engaged in misconduct. While acceptable by law, any violence is unacceptable. Legal violence might also suggest that the relocation of any individual to prison presents an act of vengeful behavior. And as already discussed, any act of vengeance is far worse than the actual crime itself. Depending on the circumstances, a crime might simply develop from being at the wrong place at the wrong time, or it could very well be an act of selfishness. Crimes may be committed for a variety of reasons, but regardless of the circumstances, vengeance is purely selfish behavior stemmed from low self-esteem. After examining the criminal justice system from a different perspective, I now wonder which system would be more beneficial to society and the elimination of violence.

Sarah Earley
English 1302
Angela Sowa
January 23, 2007

Summary Response 1
James Gilligan, in his 1998 essay “Reflections from a Life Behind Bars: Build Colleges, Not Prisons” claims that educating criminals will cause a dramatic decrease in crime rates. Gilligan has been a prison psychiatrist for 25 years giving him first hand knowledge of the ins and outs of prison life. He wants to expose the faulty prison systems and replace them with a system to reduce crime rate. Writing to Americans everywhere, Gilligan is professional yet passionate throughout.
Gilligan includes facts, reasons, and opinions that support his claim. He uses statistics, personal experience, and past history as evidence. Gilligan’s personal experience helps him paint a vivid picture of the prison system in America. He uses statistics of the murder rates over the last 40 years to show that the crime rate has doubled. He attributes the increase in crime rates to the increase in harsh child punishment.
Gilligan clearly makes his point known. He states the problem and then gives a concise way to fix it. He explains the prison system like a viscous cycle. Child who are put through harsh punishment become violent adults who are abusive towards their children. We put these criminals in prison to keep them from society but not for rehabilitation. And so the cycle continues.
Gilligan compares our prison system and crime rates to other nations to prove his argument. He shows that nations that have equal economic systems (Japan and Sweden) have lower crime rates. This supports his claim that economic systems were their are small differences between income have less crime. Nations with large differences in the economy like the United States have very high crime rates.
Throughout Gilligan’s whole essay he makes excuses for these prisoners. He blames parents for disciplining their children and he also blames society’s economy. People have the right to choose. Environmental factors do add to the pressure on a person but they still have a choice. People need to take ownership of what they have done. People take credit for the success in their life but want to attribute their failures and bad decision to another factor. Stand up and take credit for what you do in life; the good and the bad.
As a college student; I find it enraging that a criminal can get a bachelor’s degree for free. They are a predator to society and they get everything free. I graduated with honors and have a huge family and I receive no money from the government. I have had to take out loans and work to cover my tuition while (under Gilligan’s theory) criminals get a free education.
Gilligan did argue his case effectively. He used statistics, personal experience, and facts to prove his case. He presented all the evidence in a manner that was professional and made an you think about the prison system we have in place. Gilligan’s purpose of this paper was to sway people to his point of view, but also to reveal a side of prison that many people choose to ignore. Although I have differing beliefs Gilligan’s piece made me think about them in a different way and soften some of my beliefs about criminals.