A fallacy is simply an error in making your argument. The mistake can appear in your claim, your evidence, or in your reasoning. Taking a ride on the fallacy bandwagon will ensure that you have a weak argument that can be easily ripped apart in the event that you have opposition with weak-seeking fallacy hounds. The four main categories of fallacies are:
1. Faulty assertions
2. Flawed evidence
3. Defective reasoning
4. Erroneous responses
Looking at the blip on fallacies in the chapter in addition to looking at the handy dandy fallacy table in the text, I can't help but think that media and all of the people in it are feeding the public fallacies by the earful/eyeful/mouthful. Jeez. But I am pretty sure that I have already had that ranto, so...
Claim-based fallacies stem from an error in basic assumptions or assertions. Types of claim-based fallcies include False Dilemma, Begging the Question, Slippery Slope, and Ad Ignorantiam.
Fallacies in evidence are a result of the evidence being irrelevant, inaccurate, insufficient, or even having nothing to do with the claim. Red herring, Comparitive Evidence Fallacy, Ad Populum, and the Appeal to Tradition Fallacy are types of fallacies in evidence.
Fallacies in reasoning are errors in the way that the speaker links the evidence to the claims. They include the Division Fallacy, the Hasty Generalization Fallacy (the bane of Ents everywhere), the Post Hoc Fallacy, and the Weak Analogy Fallacy.
Finally, we have fallacies in responding, in which the listener makes errors while critiquing a speaker's argument. These include the Ad hominem Fallacy, the Guilt by Association Fallacy, the Straw Man Fallacy, and the Loaded Word Fallacy.
I feel like watching the election coverage is going to get a lot more entertaining with this better understanding of fallacy in argument.
Friday, April 27, 2012
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Recent Discussions In Which I Have Been Charmingly Persuasive
Huh. Well of course I am drawing a complete blank here. I feel like I don't do a lot of arguing/persuading nowadays, though I am sure that my room mate would say otherwise. In reading the text, I probably use all of them, and probably more often than I think. I took a Critical thinking class with Alastair Moles a number of years ago (totally recommend that class) and I learned quite a bit about logic, as well has how to make more solid claims. But I think I am a lot better at unraveling other people's flawed logic, and pointing out fallacies in other people's words. Because, well, that kind of stuff tickles me.
If I had to narrow it down I would say that I probably use causal and analogical reasoning the most, and I tend to try to appeal to logos and pathos more often than not. I think they are what I respond to the most, and therefor I feel like they are more powerful tools for me personally. I like facts and statistics. I like information to be well sourced. When someone makes a claim but they can't back it up I usually don't pay attention to it. I think that appeals to pathos can be very strong, but that it is also very easy to manipulate people emotionally, so one needs to be careful in their appeals to pathos, and also be wary when someone uses your own emotions in order to sway your opinion. I like causal reasoning because I like If-Then statements, and they seem to follow the causal train of thought, though I suppose you can really do anything with If-Then statements. And i like analogical thinking because i can relate concepts to other concepts easily enough, which can make it easier to make my point to someone who perhaps relates to things differently than I do. All I have to do is find out what they geek out on and relate to that.
An Example being last night in my Tai Chi class. We had a new guy come in and the instructor was having me work with him for the class. After going over a few positions and movements, as well as addressing the gentleman's posture, my instructor stopped us and asked us to tell him what the differences were in three or four stances that he showed us, all from different martial arts styles. The guy starting saying that the hand placements were slightly different, and the feet had different angles to them, but I knew my teacher was asking a trick question. There were all the same stance. I said as much , and the new student was having a hard time wrapping his brain around that, as clearly the hands were in a different position in each of them, and yadda yadda yadda. After listening to my teacher try to explain the concept for a few minutes and not get anywhere, I said, "it like putting Monet, Picasso, and a woman in a red dress all in the same room. If you have Monet and Picasso paint the exact same woman, they will still come up with hugely different paintings. It's the same subject, but their styles are so incredibly different that you would wind up with two very distinct pieces of artwork." And that cleared it up right quick.
If I had to narrow it down I would say that I probably use causal and analogical reasoning the most, and I tend to try to appeal to logos and pathos more often than not. I think they are what I respond to the most, and therefor I feel like they are more powerful tools for me personally. I like facts and statistics. I like information to be well sourced. When someone makes a claim but they can't back it up I usually don't pay attention to it. I think that appeals to pathos can be very strong, but that it is also very easy to manipulate people emotionally, so one needs to be careful in their appeals to pathos, and also be wary when someone uses your own emotions in order to sway your opinion. I like causal reasoning because I like If-Then statements, and they seem to follow the causal train of thought, though I suppose you can really do anything with If-Then statements. And i like analogical thinking because i can relate concepts to other concepts easily enough, which can make it easier to make my point to someone who perhaps relates to things differently than I do. All I have to do is find out what they geek out on and relate to that.
An Example being last night in my Tai Chi class. We had a new guy come in and the instructor was having me work with him for the class. After going over a few positions and movements, as well as addressing the gentleman's posture, my instructor stopped us and asked us to tell him what the differences were in three or four stances that he showed us, all from different martial arts styles. The guy starting saying that the hand placements were slightly different, and the feet had different angles to them, but I knew my teacher was asking a trick question. There were all the same stance. I said as much , and the new student was having a hard time wrapping his brain around that, as clearly the hands were in a different position in each of them, and yadda yadda yadda. After listening to my teacher try to explain the concept for a few minutes and not get anywhere, I said, "it like putting Monet, Picasso, and a woman in a red dress all in the same room. If you have Monet and Picasso paint the exact same woman, they will still come up with hugely different paintings. It's the same subject, but their styles are so incredibly different that you would wind up with two very distinct pieces of artwork." And that cleared it up right quick.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Oh, Speech Buddies....
Let's hear it for this week's round of speech buddy videos.
Lisa's blip on breast cancer was pretty short, but what I did notice was that she was doing a pretty good job relating the topic to the audience. Bring it on home, honey.
Brandi on not feeding the wildlife: While I thought her narrative was alright, I thought it was a little long to be a part of the introduction. At least it seemed to be the introduction. I thought it was kind of like pulling out the big guns a little too early. Also, I found her voice to be rather flat, and she breezed through everything really quickly, making me feel as though she was more reciting information instead of being an "expert" on the topic.
Hans gave me the impression that he himself needed to cut back on the sugar. Settle down there Hans. I found his speaking approach to be a little too contrived, and it made me feel like I was being patronized. I feel like his speaking style would have been appropriate had he been presenting on Sesame Street, but not to a group of adults. I couldn't focus on the technicalities of his speech because I was too focused on how much I didn't like his speech pattern. Which was actually good food for thought. Though I have to say that I am not in the habit of talking to small children like they are small children, much less adults.
I thought Dixie did alright with her pro homeschooling speech. She outlined her points well enough, everything had a nice flow, she seemed well-researched. Her voice was a little boring, but that's just me being picky. I thought she made her point quite well.
In contrast, I didn't care for Robert's cons of homeschooling speech at all. His whole speech felt vague and put together with a generic formula, rather than organized and professional. I also completely disagreed with him, and I thought that he could have gone a hundred different routes to make a better argument against homeschooling than, "We just can't expect parents to do their job and raise their kids, that's what teachers are for." I do think, however, that Robert's points did an excellent job of highlighting how skewed our perception is of how education "should" work. Education starts in the home, and while I don't expect every parent to be able to teach Advanced Placement Chemistry to their kids, they should be able to handle teaching their kids the basics of our society. And I have a huge problem with the whole "Should parent's be expected to give up their careers just so they can teach their kids?" mentality. It is not okay to just dump your kids off at school and expect the teachers to do all the hard work for you. If you are a parent, you damn well better be taking an active role in your kids life as it is. And that's what I think about that.
And hooray for having one more speech done. Only one left to go! Wahoo!
Lisa's blip on breast cancer was pretty short, but what I did notice was that she was doing a pretty good job relating the topic to the audience. Bring it on home, honey.
Brandi on not feeding the wildlife: While I thought her narrative was alright, I thought it was a little long to be a part of the introduction. At least it seemed to be the introduction. I thought it was kind of like pulling out the big guns a little too early. Also, I found her voice to be rather flat, and she breezed through everything really quickly, making me feel as though she was more reciting information instead of being an "expert" on the topic.
Hans gave me the impression that he himself needed to cut back on the sugar. Settle down there Hans. I found his speaking approach to be a little too contrived, and it made me feel like I was being patronized. I feel like his speaking style would have been appropriate had he been presenting on Sesame Street, but not to a group of adults. I couldn't focus on the technicalities of his speech because I was too focused on how much I didn't like his speech pattern. Which was actually good food for thought. Though I have to say that I am not in the habit of talking to small children like they are small children, much less adults.
I thought Dixie did alright with her pro homeschooling speech. She outlined her points well enough, everything had a nice flow, she seemed well-researched. Her voice was a little boring, but that's just me being picky. I thought she made her point quite well.
In contrast, I didn't care for Robert's cons of homeschooling speech at all. His whole speech felt vague and put together with a generic formula, rather than organized and professional. I also completely disagreed with him, and I thought that he could have gone a hundred different routes to make a better argument against homeschooling than, "We just can't expect parents to do their job and raise their kids, that's what teachers are for." I do think, however, that Robert's points did an excellent job of highlighting how skewed our perception is of how education "should" work. Education starts in the home, and while I don't expect every parent to be able to teach Advanced Placement Chemistry to their kids, they should be able to handle teaching their kids the basics of our society. And I have a huge problem with the whole "Should parent's be expected to give up their careers just so they can teach their kids?" mentality. It is not okay to just dump your kids off at school and expect the teachers to do all the hard work for you. If you are a parent, you damn well better be taking an active role in your kids life as it is. And that's what I think about that.
And hooray for having one more speech done. Only one left to go! Wahoo!
Friday, April 20, 2012
The Ethics of Persuasive Speaking
Did anyone else's Dashboard explode into a Wonkafied color-tastic display?
It's really easy for the speaker of a persuasive speech to only supply the facts and evidence that support their claims. As persuasive speakers, we have a responsibility to provide a wide range of information to the audience to allow them to decide for themselves. Persuasive speakers provide their audience with all of the evidence, not just the evidence that supports their claims.
One must also represent research for what it is, and not what the speaker would like it to mean. Personal or professional bias shouldn't necessarily come into play, even though you should clearly be advocating your point. I see this a lot in the media. particular with nutrition research. There was one study that came out not too long ago about red meat consumption, and once the media got a hold of it, they did the typical "Red Meat Will kill You!' spin. The media didn't bother to take into consideration the fact that the percentage of participants who consumed red meat also had a higher tendency to smoke and not engage in physical activity. Additionally, sedentary smokers often have a crappier diet than people with an active lifestyle. So while a correlation between red meat and mortality was made, none of the evidence was taken into consideration before these claims were made. Super frustrating, and a great example of the media attempting to manipulate the public.
Manipulation also come in the form of an abusive of power. I liked the books example of a doctor overstating dire health consequences for an uncooperative patient. Also, I happen to be reading The Devil Wears Prada, ( I just finished the A Dance With Dragons, the fifth Game of Thrones/Song of Ice and Fire Book, and I needed something light after the whole epic fantasy thing...) and it is a perfect example of a manipulative boos with her assistants wrapped tightly around her pinkie finger through the threat of her displeasure. It's a great light read, I'd recommend it.
Persuasive speeches are just like persuasive essays. Clearly represent the pros and cons of the the topic, and leave out personal bias while advocating one position or another.
It's really easy for the speaker of a persuasive speech to only supply the facts and evidence that support their claims. As persuasive speakers, we have a responsibility to provide a wide range of information to the audience to allow them to decide for themselves. Persuasive speakers provide their audience with all of the evidence, not just the evidence that supports their claims.
One must also represent research for what it is, and not what the speaker would like it to mean. Personal or professional bias shouldn't necessarily come into play, even though you should clearly be advocating your point. I see this a lot in the media. particular with nutrition research. There was one study that came out not too long ago about red meat consumption, and once the media got a hold of it, they did the typical "Red Meat Will kill You!' spin. The media didn't bother to take into consideration the fact that the percentage of participants who consumed red meat also had a higher tendency to smoke and not engage in physical activity. Additionally, sedentary smokers often have a crappier diet than people with an active lifestyle. So while a correlation between red meat and mortality was made, none of the evidence was taken into consideration before these claims were made. Super frustrating, and a great example of the media attempting to manipulate the public.
Manipulation also come in the form of an abusive of power. I liked the books example of a doctor overstating dire health consequences for an uncooperative patient. Also, I happen to be reading The Devil Wears Prada, ( I just finished the A Dance With Dragons, the fifth Game of Thrones/Song of Ice and Fire Book, and I needed something light after the whole epic fantasy thing...) and it is a perfect example of a manipulative boos with her assistants wrapped tightly around her pinkie finger through the threat of her displeasure. It's a great light read, I'd recommend it.
Persuasive speeches are just like persuasive essays. Clearly represent the pros and cons of the the topic, and leave out personal bias while advocating one position or another.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
The Persuasion Bombardment of Everyday Life
You cannot hope to exist in today's world without being assaulted by people trying to persuade you into buying, liking, thinking, doing, voting, and/or hating. I think the most obvious example of this is the media's constant attack on our senses, but persuasion can happen in interpersonal relationships too. Additionally, persuasive speeches are the foundation of any kind of voting campaign, which we are witness to as this happens to be an election year.
Let's start with the public speaking bit. Candidates for whatever position use persuasive speaking to collect followers of their cause. They tell people that they are the best person for the job, that their opponents butcher puppies in their sleep and that the only hope for the student council/town/country is to elect them as a leader. They attempt to relate to their audience by declaring themselves as "Just another hockey mom," and by identifying with the ideals of their audience. They do their audience homework really well. The solutions to the problems that they cite usually entail being elected, and then some obscure plan of which we never really learn about in depth during the debates. Candidates fill their audiences heads with the belief that life will in fact be better if they are elected. And people seem to believe it.
Inter personally, I can think of a recent example that I had with a friend of mine. I mentioned that I am looking to get a new computer this fall, as well as a scanner/printer, Photoshop, and a good tablet (I'm an artist, and I want to start working with digital media). while I would love love love to get a new Mac, as they are much better for all the art that I want to do and I prefer them any way, they are a little out of my budget. I could get a non-Mac for a lot cheaper and have more money to spend on programs, tools, and devices, and maybe even have money left over. My friend made a face and said that I should go with the Mac. I told her that I agree with her completely, but that it is out of my budget. She went on to say that a Mac was a better investment, and that it will last longer and is a better product, and that really, when you think about how long it will outlast a PC, that it really wasn't more expensive at all. Again, I agreed with her, but maintained my position that I don't have the money for it, and I unfortunately cannot tap into the magic future account where all of the money that I save over the next five years from having invested in a Mac computer gets saved to buy this computer now. She rolled her eyes and acted like I was being unreasonable. And I totally left the conversation trying to think of a way I could manipulate my finances to put that new Mac on a credit card. Persuasion Win.
Last, and I think most obviously, is the aggressive persuasion that we face from the media. Every where you look, adverts make the claim that we are not pretty/thin/fit/sexy/rich/healthy enough, but this adverts product/service is just the thing we need to turn our life around. Beauty advertisements come to mind here. Our eyes/mouths/hair/armpits/legs/skin aren't bright/luscious/shiny/not-hairy/shapely/clear enough, and if we buy "X" product, then not only will our problems go away, but we will look like the 17 year old model in the advert and be coveted by sexy foreign men. It's pretty much why I don't own a TV. And when I do watch TV, I unconsciously want to eat everything in the kitchen and go shopping. BAD TV.
Persuasion is everywhere. Hopefully looking at it from this angle will allow us to recognize it more and not be so moved by it.
Let's start with the public speaking bit. Candidates for whatever position use persuasive speaking to collect followers of their cause. They tell people that they are the best person for the job, that their opponents butcher puppies in their sleep and that the only hope for the student council/town/country is to elect them as a leader. They attempt to relate to their audience by declaring themselves as "Just another hockey mom," and by identifying with the ideals of their audience. They do their audience homework really well. The solutions to the problems that they cite usually entail being elected, and then some obscure plan of which we never really learn about in depth during the debates. Candidates fill their audiences heads with the belief that life will in fact be better if they are elected. And people seem to believe it.
Inter personally, I can think of a recent example that I had with a friend of mine. I mentioned that I am looking to get a new computer this fall, as well as a scanner/printer, Photoshop, and a good tablet (I'm an artist, and I want to start working with digital media). while I would love love love to get a new Mac, as they are much better for all the art that I want to do and I prefer them any way, they are a little out of my budget. I could get a non-Mac for a lot cheaper and have more money to spend on programs, tools, and devices, and maybe even have money left over. My friend made a face and said that I should go with the Mac. I told her that I agree with her completely, but that it is out of my budget. She went on to say that a Mac was a better investment, and that it will last longer and is a better product, and that really, when you think about how long it will outlast a PC, that it really wasn't more expensive at all. Again, I agreed with her, but maintained my position that I don't have the money for it, and I unfortunately cannot tap into the magic future account where all of the money that I save over the next five years from having invested in a Mac computer gets saved to buy this computer now. She rolled her eyes and acted like I was being unreasonable. And I totally left the conversation trying to think of a way I could manipulate my finances to put that new Mac on a credit card. Persuasion Win.
Last, and I think most obviously, is the aggressive persuasion that we face from the media. Every where you look, adverts make the claim that we are not pretty/thin/fit/sexy/rich/healthy enough, but this adverts product/service is just the thing we need to turn our life around. Beauty advertisements come to mind here. Our eyes/mouths/hair/armpits/legs/skin aren't bright/luscious/shiny/not-hairy/shapely/clear enough, and if we buy "X" product, then not only will our problems go away, but we will look like the 17 year old model in the advert and be coveted by sexy foreign men. It's pretty much why I don't own a TV. And when I do watch TV, I unconsciously want to eat everything in the kitchen and go shopping. BAD TV.
Persuasion is everywhere. Hopefully looking at it from this angle will allow us to recognize it more and not be so moved by it.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Problem/solution and Monroe's Motivated Sequence
While this chapter was helpful, well, it also wasn't at the same time. Or maybe it would be more accurate to say that it gave me too much to think about at a point in the semester where I don't want to be doing any more thinking or make any more choices. Every time I read a new organizational pattern I would go, "oh, that's totally what I am doing!" By the end of the chapter I was just a little bit flabbergasted over which method is the "right" method for my intents and purposes. I am thinking that I may just close my eyes and jab my finger at a page and choose that way. o_0
Anyway, problem solution seems simple enough. You identify a problem, and then you propose a solution. Of course you will probably want facts to support the idea of there being a problem so that your audience isn't relying on your scout's honor. Because that could be construed as manipulation. No, you will want to present the problem, how it relates to the audience and why they should care about it, and then outline a solution. the solution should also be backed up with supporting evidence. A variation on this pattern of speaking is the Problem-Cause-Solution, which is exactly what it sounds like; Outline the problem, discuss the cause of the problem, and then give a solution. Wham bam thank you ma'am.
Monroe's motivated sequence is a five-step process by which you gain your audiences support through an audience-centered approach to persuasive speaking. The five steps are: Attention, Need, Satisfaction, Visualization, and Action.
Attention: Get your audience's attention by discussion how the problem/idea relates to them.
Need: Establish why the problem warrants their attention
Satisfaction: let the audience know your proposed solution to the problem
Visualization: Show the benefits of your solution and/or the costs of NOT implementing it.
Action: Explain to the audience how they themselves can take action.
Overall, I like the structure of Monroe's Motivated Sequence. I feel like the outline is a little stricter, so that I will have more definite structure as I organize my speech. With assignments like this, I really appreciate having a guideline to follow.
Anyway, problem solution seems simple enough. You identify a problem, and then you propose a solution. Of course you will probably want facts to support the idea of there being a problem so that your audience isn't relying on your scout's honor. Because that could be construed as manipulation. No, you will want to present the problem, how it relates to the audience and why they should care about it, and then outline a solution. the solution should also be backed up with supporting evidence. A variation on this pattern of speaking is the Problem-Cause-Solution, which is exactly what it sounds like; Outline the problem, discuss the cause of the problem, and then give a solution. Wham bam thank you ma'am.
Monroe's motivated sequence is a five-step process by which you gain your audiences support through an audience-centered approach to persuasive speaking. The five steps are: Attention, Need, Satisfaction, Visualization, and Action.
Attention: Get your audience's attention by discussion how the problem/idea relates to them.
Need: Establish why the problem warrants their attention
Satisfaction: let the audience know your proposed solution to the problem
Visualization: Show the benefits of your solution and/or the costs of NOT implementing it.
Action: Explain to the audience how they themselves can take action.
Overall, I like the structure of Monroe's Motivated Sequence. I feel like the outline is a little stricter, so that I will have more definite structure as I organize my speech. With assignments like this, I really appreciate having a guideline to follow.
Friday, April 13, 2012
Shedding Your Word Security Blanket
I have really enjoyed reading Chapter 10, mostly because of they way that it demanded that you think about what you are saying and how you are saying it. I am a big fan of language as an art form, and so ideas like "using language to spark imagination" really tickle me.
But through all the tickling, the one part of the chapter that really stuck out as something I personally need to work on. At the very end of the chapter, right before the review section, is a tiny paragraph called "Don't Get Too Attached To Your Words."
The entire purpose of an extemporaneous style of speaking is to not read from text, and to not recite a speech that you have written in advance. You are to be so well-researched in your topic so that when you get up in front of a group of people you can speak confidently and casually and while you should most definitely practice, you should not tied to a specific order of words to deliver your speech. I totally get caught up here. I really like language and I prepare my speech a lot like I would an essay, so when I come up with a particularly clever way of relating something I am loathe for forget it while I am in the grips of stage fright. "But my genius will be lost on them if I don't recite this exactly the way I originally intended it to be!!" But being too attached to your words can come off as totally rigid, and it also makes you reliant on your words. You become a slave to your words! If something goes wrong i think you are a lot more likely to get lost when you are overly dependent on your language than if you are looser and more able to go with the flow.
I'd like to try to loosen up for this Tribute Speech. In the past I have been overly reliant on my cards, and on a particular set of preordained words. I'd like to take advantage of the more low-key speech type to experiment with letting go of my word security blanket.
But through all the tickling, the one part of the chapter that really stuck out as something I personally need to work on. At the very end of the chapter, right before the review section, is a tiny paragraph called "Don't Get Too Attached To Your Words."
The entire purpose of an extemporaneous style of speaking is to not read from text, and to not recite a speech that you have written in advance. You are to be so well-researched in your topic so that when you get up in front of a group of people you can speak confidently and casually and while you should most definitely practice, you should not tied to a specific order of words to deliver your speech. I totally get caught up here. I really like language and I prepare my speech a lot like I would an essay, so when I come up with a particularly clever way of relating something I am loathe for forget it while I am in the grips of stage fright. "But my genius will be lost on them if I don't recite this exactly the way I originally intended it to be!!" But being too attached to your words can come off as totally rigid, and it also makes you reliant on your words. You become a slave to your words! If something goes wrong i think you are a lot more likely to get lost when you are overly dependent on your language than if you are looser and more able to go with the flow.
I'd like to try to loosen up for this Tribute Speech. In the past I have been overly reliant on my cards, and on a particular set of preordained words. I'd like to take advantage of the more low-key speech type to experiment with letting go of my word security blanket.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Underlying Sexism in Language
Do you ever have themes in different areas in your life reoccur in other, separate areas of your life? For instance, maybe a coworker will talk about an old kid's show that they used to watch, say Fraggle Rock, and then the next day all of the kids in your art class are talking about Fraggle Rock. This kind of stuff happens to me all the time, and it makes me feel as though I am in some sort of sitcom, and I am waiting for that transcending moment where the sitcom writers give me a catharsis via the lessons that can be gleaned from Fraggle Rock.
Or, more simply put, funny that you bring up sexism in language, because it's been on my mind a lot lately. And the more I think about it, the more I see it everywhere.
I basically agree with what "eye eye eye" is saying about sexist language, but I think that she (he?) didn't do a great job of articulating the point. I also can't stand it when people don't have good sentence structure, or when they use "U" instead of "You." Oh, it drives me nuts.
But back to the point. Typically in society today, a group of females is referred to as a group of "girls," and not "women." I think that eye eye eye is right in saying that this portrays women as children subconsciously, and insinuates that we are naive and incapable of adult thought. You'll see this a lot in media as well, with women being portrayed with larger, child-like eyes, childish hairstyles, and often modeling clothing that is more often geared towards little girls. Models in adverts are often shown with submissive body language. And our culture today has idealized the female figure as it is at age 12, an age where the hips and breasts are not fully developed and the bodies of girls and boys are often indistinguishable. Furthermore, the media does it's best to convince us that our worth is wrapped up in our size, and most women inwardly strive to hit that size zero, or in other words, a size nothing.
To me, being referred to as a "girl" on some level implies that I shouldn't be taken seriously. That I am all sugar and spice and everything nice, and that I can't be mechanically inclined, I can't open jars, and that I need someone to hold my hand through the big, scary world. Irony being that I occasionally refer to myself as a girl. DAMN YOU SOCIAL CONDITIONING!
I also realize that most people, when using this kind of language, aren't consciously thinking of demeaning women when referring to them as "girls." Again, it's just a byproduct of social conditioning, and ultimately it's leftover from a time when it was perfectly okay to objectify women. But it's 2012, and I personally open all of the stuck jars for my male room mate. So let's get with it and cut the girl talk.
Or, more simply put, funny that you bring up sexism in language, because it's been on my mind a lot lately. And the more I think about it, the more I see it everywhere.
I basically agree with what "eye eye eye" is saying about sexist language, but I think that she (he?) didn't do a great job of articulating the point. I also can't stand it when people don't have good sentence structure, or when they use "U" instead of "You." Oh, it drives me nuts.
But back to the point. Typically in society today, a group of females is referred to as a group of "girls," and not "women." I think that eye eye eye is right in saying that this portrays women as children subconsciously, and insinuates that we are naive and incapable of adult thought. You'll see this a lot in media as well, with women being portrayed with larger, child-like eyes, childish hairstyles, and often modeling clothing that is more often geared towards little girls. Models in adverts are often shown with submissive body language. And our culture today has idealized the female figure as it is at age 12, an age where the hips and breasts are not fully developed and the bodies of girls and boys are often indistinguishable. Furthermore, the media does it's best to convince us that our worth is wrapped up in our size, and most women inwardly strive to hit that size zero, or in other words, a size nothing.
To me, being referred to as a "girl" on some level implies that I shouldn't be taken seriously. That I am all sugar and spice and everything nice, and that I can't be mechanically inclined, I can't open jars, and that I need someone to hold my hand through the big, scary world. Irony being that I occasionally refer to myself as a girl. DAMN YOU SOCIAL CONDITIONING!
I also realize that most people, when using this kind of language, aren't consciously thinking of demeaning women when referring to them as "girls." Again, it's just a byproduct of social conditioning, and ultimately it's leftover from a time when it was perfectly okay to objectify women. But it's 2012, and I personally open all of the stuck jars for my male room mate. So let's get with it and cut the girl talk.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Minutia In Speech
This week's chapters are all about the subtleties of inclusive language and voice tactics. Unlike ideas like researching your audience, or making sure to cite your sources, I feel like these concepts in speech giving are more... sophisticated, I guess. Like now that we have established some sort of techniques, let's go ahead and refine it.
First up is using language that makes your audience feel included, and it is aptly referred to as "inclusive language." Using inclusive language allows for the audience to not only relate to what you are talking about, but to feel like a part of what you are talking about. In contrast, uninclusive (disclusive?) language will segregate your audience, and give them a sort of "Us vs. Them" mentality, which as it so happens is the exact opposite of making your audience feel included. Unless of course the Us vs. Them idea is exactly what you are going for, but I think that kind of language is reserved for dictators and religious zealots.
Anyway. use plenty of "us, we, all," and "you" language to make your audience feel included, and try to avoid using language that will create a social rift.
Next we come to the subtleties of voice usage. Well, okay, if I delivered my next speech at the top of my lungs that wouldn't be terribly subtle, but controlling our rate, pitch, and volume to speak as though we were having a conversation with a friend is no easy feat. Even if we speak reasonably well in front of an audience, chances are that we still sound a little "speechy." And for the most part, I don't necessarily see anything wrong with being "speechy," but I do consider the practice of grooming your rate, pitch and volume to be an exercise in refinement.
Also, try not to have huge, gaping pauses during your speech, and articulate and pronounce your words properly so that your audience thinks you know what you are talking about.
I felt that the videos for these chapters all focused on kind of small portions of the chapters themselves, and in that regard I suppose that I didn't find them as useful as they have been in the past. Not that I need for those videos to understand the subject material, but more that I found these chapters to be really interesting in addition to being helpful, and the videos touched on such a small portion of what the text was talking about that it was a bit deflating.
Or maybe it's just a rainy Wednesday and all I want to do is crawl into blanket fort with a plate full of warm peanut-butter chocolate-chip cookies and read comic books all evening. So it goes. Shrug.
First up is using language that makes your audience feel included, and it is aptly referred to as "inclusive language." Using inclusive language allows for the audience to not only relate to what you are talking about, but to feel like a part of what you are talking about. In contrast, uninclusive (disclusive?) language will segregate your audience, and give them a sort of "Us vs. Them" mentality, which as it so happens is the exact opposite of making your audience feel included. Unless of course the Us vs. Them idea is exactly what you are going for, but I think that kind of language is reserved for dictators and religious zealots.
Anyway. use plenty of "us, we, all," and "you" language to make your audience feel included, and try to avoid using language that will create a social rift.
Next we come to the subtleties of voice usage. Well, okay, if I delivered my next speech at the top of my lungs that wouldn't be terribly subtle, but controlling our rate, pitch, and volume to speak as though we were having a conversation with a friend is no easy feat. Even if we speak reasonably well in front of an audience, chances are that we still sound a little "speechy." And for the most part, I don't necessarily see anything wrong with being "speechy," but I do consider the practice of grooming your rate, pitch and volume to be an exercise in refinement.
Also, try not to have huge, gaping pauses during your speech, and articulate and pronounce your words properly so that your audience thinks you know what you are talking about.
I felt that the videos for these chapters all focused on kind of small portions of the chapters themselves, and in that regard I suppose that I didn't find them as useful as they have been in the past. Not that I need for those videos to understand the subject material, but more that I found these chapters to be really interesting in addition to being helpful, and the videos touched on such a small portion of what the text was talking about that it was a bit deflating.
Or maybe it's just a rainy Wednesday and all I want to do is crawl into blanket fort with a plate full of warm peanut-butter chocolate-chip cookies and read comic books all evening. So it goes. Shrug.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)