When I was preparing my section of the discussion for the graduate symposium, I came up with the line, "Communication is the currency of commerce," which suggests that there's a lot to be gained from effectively communicating with people with whom there was initially no felt need to do so. Based on this core thought, I am going to look at two broad themes for my research:
1. Is the English language versatile enough to reach out to even those individuals who cannot speak it? This extends beyond the concept of hybrid languages such as Spanglish (Spanish-English) or Hinglish (Hindi-English) and examines how individuals incorporate English words and phrases into their everyday communication. What motivates them to do this, and how does the language facilitate this process?
2. Using plurilingualism as a tool for promoting diversity: There is considerable evidence that language proficiency in corporations—or the lack thereof—broadly impacts operations and results. The impact of the language barrier cannot be evaluated using simple measures such as dollars spent on interpreters or days lost in translating documents. Instead the true cost needs to be seen in terms of the way it distorts and damages relationships. These in turn impose pressures and constraints on the strategies pursued by the company. The key areas that may be negatively affected by such issues are buyer/seller relationships, foreign market expansion, joint ventures, and staffing policies.
In short, I am going to examine how divergence can in turn lead to convergence, and determine the best possible ways to facilitate the process of inclusion within the organizational context.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Editing Access to Healthcare
Editing Healthcare Project Proposal
Topic
I want to study the language surrounding access to healthcare system in the United States among marginalized populations.
Observation
Different populations have greater access to healthcare over others. Other than the healthcare providers there are other agencies out there to help facilitate during this process of finding adequate and proper healthcare. Now that a new healthcare bill is being implemented, there will have to be multiple strategies to reach the large audience of the general public without excluding particular populations.
It is important to advertise and educate everyone our nation on how to adequately access the new healthcare system. Why? Language has a powerful impact on how people percieve and understand the healthcare system and the support that it offers. Vice versa, language can serve as a powerful tool that can exclude certain populations that do not understand or are unaware of what is availible.
Purpose
To create a system that uses a language that is more exclusive to increase access to the healthcare system.
Research Question
How can we create a system with greater access to healthcare?(through the language we use) And is it the responsibility of health careproviders, other organizations, media campaigns, or education to help consumers find access points to healthcare.
Research Angle
For my research, I want to specifically look at the language of healthcare's impact on consumer perception and knowledge of heathcare access. Also, I want to see test the use of information and communication technology to provide more informed health literature. My research will include studies on the effects of language on people's understanding of research and gather more information on movement's like the plain english campaign.
Communication During the Editing Process
While looking for articles along the lines of communication during the editing process, like some of you mentioned, I have been attempting to narrow my topic. The idea for my topic came from the work experience that I talked about in class the other day. Some of the articles that I chose are more about workplace teamwork and collaboration in general but dedicate some discussion to editing specifically. For example, one of the articles that I selected from the Business Communication Quarterly deals with a "process-oriented approach to teamwork". Although, this article is not written about editing per se, it does mention the use of track changes and the difficulties encountered when they are not used.
As with Jessi's and Lindsay's projects, I also plan on addressing how technology with the introduction of various editing software programs and tools, such as track changes, has affected collaboration in the editing process. One article, "Learned Correctors to Technical Editors" details the progression of the technical editing profession. I would like to include this article to show issues that editors have faced in the past and the solutions that were offered to correct them. Similarly, I plan to include a few articles that discuss different approaches used by editors and the varying levels of effectiveness with each. I realize now that it may sound like my topic is too broad, but I think where I am going with this is "Here are the problems editors have encountered in communicating during the editing process" and "Here are some possible solutions and pros and cons of different methods".
My overall theme is going to be communication and collaboration during the process of editing documents using a computer. The book that I borrowed from Scott titled "Electronic Literacies in the Workplace" includes a chapter ,"Online Editing, Mark-up Models, and the Workplace lives of Editors and Writers", which is directly related. Also, another article titled "A Model of Norm Development for Computer Mediated Teams" deals with teamwork in general. All of these articles includes lessons that when taken collectively would make for an effective editing process. While I realize that this topic is nothing groundbreaking, I am interested in this research so that I will know what to expect if I were to hold an editing position and so that I will be able to employ various editing approaches depending on my workplace's preferences. From this research, I will hopefully be in a position to make suggestions during the process. I think this research could also be extended to other professions that require group collaboration (as do most) and would be helpful for students entering into the workforce.
As with Jessi's and Lindsay's projects, I also plan on addressing how technology with the introduction of various editing software programs and tools, such as track changes, has affected collaboration in the editing process. One article, "Learned Correctors to Technical Editors" details the progression of the technical editing profession. I would like to include this article to show issues that editors have faced in the past and the solutions that were offered to correct them. Similarly, I plan to include a few articles that discuss different approaches used by editors and the varying levels of effectiveness with each. I realize now that it may sound like my topic is too broad, but I think where I am going with this is "Here are the problems editors have encountered in communicating during the editing process" and "Here are some possible solutions and pros and cons of different methods".
My overall theme is going to be communication and collaboration during the process of editing documents using a computer. The book that I borrowed from Scott titled "Electronic Literacies in the Workplace" includes a chapter ,"Online Editing, Mark-up Models, and the Workplace lives of Editors and Writers", which is directly related. Also, another article titled "A Model of Norm Development for Computer Mediated Teams" deals with teamwork in general. All of these articles includes lessons that when taken collectively would make for an effective editing process. While I realize that this topic is nothing groundbreaking, I am interested in this research so that I will know what to expect if I were to hold an editing position and so that I will be able to employ various editing approaches depending on my workplace's preferences. From this research, I will hopefully be in a position to make suggestions during the process. I think this research could also be extended to other professions that require group collaboration (as do most) and would be helpful for students entering into the workforce.
The Perils of Research
Did you know practically every scientific article includes the words "editor" and "language" ? Perfect.
It is fascinating how the culture of technology changes language—everything from the recognition of emoticons to the speed of marketing has changed. For editors, this language shift is especially important as the expectations of audiences are shifting as well.
Thus far in my research, I have yet to find anything that directly embraces the change technology has had on language, and on editors themselves. An article published in 2005 by Blake Morrison establishes that editors are losing control in “this market.” It seems however, that few article writers like to establish what this market is, how it has changed, or ways in which editors have to change their own ways.
There are a handful of articles from around 1997 that are all about how writing has changed because of Word Processing. This is interesting, but we are a little beyond this point now. We’re not questioning how fast a reader must move across a screen or how writers have to write in choppy, quick statements to make up for an audience with a technology driven attention span (a.k.a. a short one). We can already embrace these facts. But have editors embraced this? How do they feel about wikis and the negative attitude toward editing from the freedom of technology philosophy? How have our cultural standards changed?
There is no question that a huge shift is forcing people to recognize how writing is changing and the job of the editor. In Jerome McGann and Dino Buzzetti’s article, "Critical Editing In A Digital Hemisphere", for example, the authors are focusing on the tools that change editors’ jobs. Does editing software challenge the professionalism of the editor’s mind?
As I am left with eight semi-related articles and more questions than answers, it seems that the research here is off to a good start. As to why I picked this subject, I can only say that I find Twitter fascinating—journalists are writing news briefs in 140 characters or less (check out http://jprof.blogspot.com/2009/01/writing-for-twitter-good-journalism-in.html). How do we control ourselves now?
It is fascinating how the culture of technology changes language—everything from the recognition of emoticons to the speed of marketing has changed. For editors, this language shift is especially important as the expectations of audiences are shifting as well.
Thus far in my research, I have yet to find anything that directly embraces the change technology has had on language, and on editors themselves. An article published in 2005 by Blake Morrison establishes that editors are losing control in “this market.” It seems however, that few article writers like to establish what this market is, how it has changed, or ways in which editors have to change their own ways.
There are a handful of articles from around 1997 that are all about how writing has changed because of Word Processing. This is interesting, but we are a little beyond this point now. We’re not questioning how fast a reader must move across a screen or how writers have to write in choppy, quick statements to make up for an audience with a technology driven attention span (a.k.a. a short one). We can already embrace these facts. But have editors embraced this? How do they feel about wikis and the negative attitude toward editing from the freedom of technology philosophy? How have our cultural standards changed?
There is no question that a huge shift is forcing people to recognize how writing is changing and the job of the editor. In Jerome McGann and Dino Buzzetti’s article, "Critical Editing In A Digital Hemisphere", for example, the authors are focusing on the tools that change editors’ jobs. Does editing software challenge the professionalism of the editor’s mind?
As I am left with eight semi-related articles and more questions than answers, it seems that the research here is off to a good start. As to why I picked this subject, I can only say that I find Twitter fascinating—journalists are writing news briefs in 140 characters or less (check out http://jprof.blogspot.com/2009/01/writing-for-twitter-good-journalism-in.html). How do we control ourselves now?
Nicole's Final Project
I'm still ironing out the details, but for my final project I know I want to look at language usage in health communication. Specifically, I want to look at the way pharmaceutical drugs are marketed to the general public. At first my topic was too broad, and now, as I've begun to research, I'm fearing its too narrow so comments and responses are welcome.
For a long time I've been interested in the way we talk about medications and vaccines. In the United States we have pharmaceutical reps who sell certain drugs to doctors, but we also have medicine that is marketed directly to the common population. We often see TV commercials that are targeted to the general public asking us to self-diagnosis ourselves. "Do you suffer from tiredness or disinterest? You may be suffering from depression. Talk to your doctor about this drug." These advertisements are often written to sound like more of a public service announcement and less of an advertisement for a product. While I think talking about medicine this way has certain ethical issues, these advertisement writers know what they are doing because the ads are effective. I imagine pharmaceutical reps who are trying to sell the same products to doctors use very different language, and different persuasive techniques. I would love to look into this more, but I'm afraid the topic is too broad for this assignment.
Even when marketing drugs to people, different language is used for different populations. I'm thinking specificially of the Gardasil vaccine and how it is marketed to young women. Gardasil is a HPV vaccine recently introduced into the market. Women between the ages of 9 and 25 are encouraged to get the expensive three dose vaccine - it may even become a government mandated vaccine in a few years. It is supposed to prevent most types of cervical cancer - the kinds you can get from sexual activity. I've heard advertisements for Gardasil that sound VERY MUCH like a public service announcement. I've noticed that these ads sound different depending if the target audience is a 20+ sexually active woman compared to a preventative precaution for (hopefully not sexually active) nine-year-olds. I've seen print advertisements for college-aged women, high school women, and I've also seen literature that is obviously directed to mothers of 9-12 year-olds. I am interested in looking at these ads specifically, but, like I said, this topic may be too narrow.
I'm also interested in the way commercials use language like "4 out of 5 doctors agree" in their ads and how this has changed over time. I know that some doctors endorsed cigarettes thirty years ago.
For a long time I've been interested in the way we talk about medications and vaccines. In the United States we have pharmaceutical reps who sell certain drugs to doctors, but we also have medicine that is marketed directly to the common population. We often see TV commercials that are targeted to the general public asking us to self-diagnosis ourselves. "Do you suffer from tiredness or disinterest? You may be suffering from depression. Talk to your doctor about this drug." These advertisements are often written to sound like more of a public service announcement and less of an advertisement for a product. While I think talking about medicine this way has certain ethical issues, these advertisement writers know what they are doing because the ads are effective. I imagine pharmaceutical reps who are trying to sell the same products to doctors use very different language, and different persuasive techniques. I would love to look into this more, but I'm afraid the topic is too broad for this assignment.
Even when marketing drugs to people, different language is used for different populations. I'm thinking specificially of the Gardasil vaccine and how it is marketed to young women. Gardasil is a HPV vaccine recently introduced into the market. Women between the ages of 9 and 25 are encouraged to get the expensive three dose vaccine - it may even become a government mandated vaccine in a few years. It is supposed to prevent most types of cervical cancer - the kinds you can get from sexual activity. I've heard advertisements for Gardasil that sound VERY MUCH like a public service announcement. I've noticed that these ads sound different depending if the target audience is a 20+ sexually active woman compared to a preventative precaution for (hopefully not sexually active) nine-year-olds. I've seen print advertisements for college-aged women, high school women, and I've also seen literature that is obviously directed to mothers of 9-12 year-olds. I am interested in looking at these ads specifically, but, like I said, this topic may be too narrow.
I'm also interested in the way commercials use language like "4 out of 5 doctors agree" in their ads and how this has changed over time. I know that some doctors endorsed cigarettes thirty years ago.
Writing for the Web
Studies of how users read on the Web found they do not actually read: instead, they scan the text. A study of five different writing styles found that a sample Web site scored 58% higher in measured usability when it was written concisely, 47% higher when the text was scannable, and 27% higher when it was written in an objective style instead of the promotional style used in control condition and many current Web pages. Combining these three changes into a single site that was concise, scannable, and objective at the same time resulted in a 124% higher measured usability.
My goal has always been to become a web interface designer or web developer once I graduate JMU. As a graduate student, I have tried to create my own path throughout the program to better my Web skills, through programming, graphics, and interface design. One of the only areas I have not had the pleasure of experimenting or researching with is Web writing. As an undergraduate, I was taught that it was different from academic writing mostly because of its purpose. Like the first paragraph states, users normally aren't going to a website to spend a lot of time. We are busy individuals and don't always have the time to read each and every word. Therefore, we scan.
For my final, I want to take a closer look of the differences between academic writing and Web writing. Is there a format to Web writing, besides the obvious ingredients of audience and purpose? Some individuals scan print writing as well; what is the difference between the two? These are only a few questions that I hope to explore. Mostly, in the end, I hope to learn and produce another piece that I can show for not only the comprehensive exam in the Fall, but also to future employers my vast experience with the Web.
My goal has always been to become a web interface designer or web developer once I graduate JMU. As a graduate student, I have tried to create my own path throughout the program to better my Web skills, through programming, graphics, and interface design. One of the only areas I have not had the pleasure of experimenting or researching with is Web writing. As an undergraduate, I was taught that it was different from academic writing mostly because of its purpose. Like the first paragraph states, users normally aren't going to a website to spend a lot of time. We are busy individuals and don't always have the time to read each and every word. Therefore, we scan.
For my final, I want to take a closer look of the differences between academic writing and Web writing. Is there a format to Web writing, besides the obvious ingredients of audience and purpose? Some individuals scan print writing as well; what is the difference between the two? These are only a few questions that I hope to explore. Mostly, in the end, I hope to learn and produce another piece that I can show for not only the comprehensive exam in the Fall, but also to future employers my vast experience with the Web.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Communicating in Virtual Organizations
In her book "Communication in a Virtual Organization," Sandra Collins describes collectivism as a key feature of virtual organizations, because they "recognize the value of collaboration and networking rather than relying on pure authority" or traditional bureaucracies (p. 7). This focuses on human dynamics, and recognizes the need for these dynamics to remain in the forefront of our communication practices, not the technology used to facilitate it. Collectivism also demonstrates the difficulties that may arise in the implementation of the ideal "new" organization, which is flat, flexible, networked, global, and diverse. Such organizations emphasize greater flexibility, speed, and reliance on networked structures and de-emphasize traditional hierarchical structures.
Communication in the virtual form is expected to be rapid and customized in response to specific, ad-hoc demands at any given point in time. This means that communication content and direction are likely to be more temporary, as links between various entities within the organization and outside it are formed and dissolved over time. Consequently, a likely tension in the virtual form will be simultaneous needs for more and richer communication, on the one hand, and pressures for greater transaction efficiencies, on the other.
Learning how to communicate effectively is an important element in technical communication, where there's not just the transmission of information, but the addition of value in interpreting the message and making it comprehensible to a specific target audience. Breaking a message down is a critical step in the communication process, because a simple message facilitates easier and quicker dissemination of information, leading to the ability to make better decisions, ones which are probably more robust due to the fact that there's more visibility to the environment that the decisions impact. I believe that adding this kind of tangible value, particularly in a virtual organizational context where information overload is the norm, is an example of a key success factor in the communication process.
Communication in the virtual form is expected to be rapid and customized in response to specific, ad-hoc demands at any given point in time. This means that communication content and direction are likely to be more temporary, as links between various entities within the organization and outside it are formed and dissolved over time. Consequently, a likely tension in the virtual form will be simultaneous needs for more and richer communication, on the one hand, and pressures for greater transaction efficiencies, on the other.
Learning how to communicate effectively is an important element in technical communication, where there's not just the transmission of information, but the addition of value in interpreting the message and making it comprehensible to a specific target audience. Breaking a message down is a critical step in the communication process, because a simple message facilitates easier and quicker dissemination of information, leading to the ability to make better decisions, ones which are probably more robust due to the fact that there's more visibility to the environment that the decisions impact. I believe that adding this kind of tangible value, particularly in a virtual organizational context where information overload is the norm, is an example of a key success factor in the communication process.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
How to Use a Semicolon: The Most Feared Punctuation
I don't know about you, but I've always feared a semicolon. The only time I'm certain when to use it is before a conjunction, like "however" and "therefore". Other than that, I would never use it to just break apart of sentence. The Oatmeal says differently.
The Oatmeal says the point of semicolon is to connect two independent clauses, two complete thoughts. Semicolons eliminate the pause created by a period without using words such as "and", "but", "nor", or "yet". It is recommended to use a semicolon when you'd like to form a bond between two statements, typically when they are related to or contrast with one another. Or use a semicolon as a super-comma, like if you need to make a list of items that are separated with a comma. This often occurs when listing locations, names, dates, and descriptions.
A good way to think about it is the difference in pauses. A comma creates a brief pause. A semicolon creates a moderate pause. And finally, a period, which creates a complete stop.
For more information, check out the website below for the amusing graphics and entertaining dialogue:
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/semicolon
The Oatmeal says the point of semicolon is to connect two independent clauses, two complete thoughts. Semicolons eliminate the pause created by a period without using words such as "and", "but", "nor", or "yet". It is recommended to use a semicolon when you'd like to form a bond between two statements, typically when they are related to or contrast with one another. Or use a semicolon as a super-comma, like if you need to make a list of items that are separated with a comma. This often occurs when listing locations, names, dates, and descriptions.
A good way to think about it is the difference in pauses. A comma creates a brief pause. A semicolon creates a moderate pause. And finally, a period, which creates a complete stop.
For more information, check out the website below for the amusing graphics and entertaining dialogue:
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/semicolon
The Confederacy
So, our Governor decided to change policy and declare April "Confederate History Month." I thought, since my first foray into this blog was about the politics of Virginia, that it made nice symmetry for my last to do so as well. I think this is also a chance to look at what people do and say in reaction to events such as these, and how the government decides them.
Since we did not have a chance to get to our cultural editing unit, I'm not really sure if this is appropriate, but as someone who grew up with a very Southern family, I'm excited that we are acknowledging this part of American, and Virginian history, and culture. The Proclamation by the Governor is not very long, but it is interesting reading.
I am particularly fond of this section, "WHEREAS, this defining chapter in Virginia’s history should not be forgotten, but instead should be studied, understood and remembered by all Virginians, both in the context of the time in which it took place, but also in the context of the time in which we live," as it seems related to the news items of the day, such as Virginia asserting State's Rights in the suit against the Federal Government over the new Health Care policies. Considering that the previous two administrations did not endorse Confederate History Month, I wonder if our Governor did this for his own beliefs, or as a strategic political move. It is a question with no real answer, but my reading of the words leads me to wonder.
Looking at the Washington Post, I was fairly certain I knew what reader reaction was going to look like, and I was not disappointed. Those who commented at all were overwhelmingly negative about the entire deal, with objections ranging from the fact that the Proclamation did not mention slavery, to just outright calling McDonnell a hillbilly.
"Just exactly which constituency is he playing to, however you look at history, there is no question that the Confederacy stood for treason because they took up arms against the government of The United States. Nice job Virginia, you've really picked a winner with this nut bag!
Since we did not have a chance to get to our cultural editing unit, I'm not really sure if this is appropriate, but as someone who grew up with a very Southern family, I'm excited that we are acknowledging this part of American, and Virginian history, and culture. The Proclamation by the Governor is not very long, but it is interesting reading.
I am particularly fond of this section, "WHEREAS, this defining chapter in Virginia’s history should not be forgotten, but instead should be studied, understood and remembered by all Virginians, both in the context of the time in which it took place, but also in the context of the time in which we live," as it seems related to the news items of the day, such as Virginia asserting State's Rights in the suit against the Federal Government over the new Health Care policies. Considering that the previous two administrations did not endorse Confederate History Month, I wonder if our Governor did this for his own beliefs, or as a strategic political move. It is a question with no real answer, but my reading of the words leads me to wonder.
Looking at the Washington Post, I was fairly certain I knew what reader reaction was going to look like, and I was not disappointed. Those who commented at all were overwhelmingly negative about the entire deal, with objections ranging from the fact that the Proclamation did not mention slavery, to just outright calling McDonnell a hillbilly.
"Just exactly which constituency is he playing to, however you look at history, there is no question that the Confederacy stood for treason because they took up arms against the government of The United States. Nice job Virginia, you've really picked a winner with this nut bag!
Posted by: wsblount | April 6, 2010 1:47 PM"
The above quote was the first comment on the Post's "Political Voices" page, and I was really upset by it. After all, the Declaration of Independence supported the idea of removing, seceding or changing government when it no longer works for the people. If the Confederacy felt this was the appropriate action, then it is odd to see it labeled "treason." But then again, we are preparing to remove Thomas Jefferson from the history books of our high school students, so who's to judge?
Perhaps I've strayed a little bit from the idea of cultural editing, but I mainly wanted to point out the oddity that is American culture. Do we really even feel we have one anymore? I'm hard pressed to believe that we can agree on nearly anything. Even more importantly, I understand the polarizing effect of the Civil War, and the impact it still has on the thinking of our nation, but to see people so brazenly want to disregard it, as with other portions of our history is a strange case to make.
Enjoy the reading. I found it very painful.
Grammar Software: Where there's smoke...
We've been learning and reviewing grammar rules along with context and style considerations, presumably, in order to apply our writing skills to a career in which we are clear, concise, and professional writers, at a minimum. However, there is a software program called "WhiteSmoke" that from first glance appear to negate the need to retain these skills (http://www.whitesmoke.com/) or may possibly result in a reluctance to consistently adhere to good writing practices. I know that, for me, the use of spell check has brought about a diminished aptitude for spelling because I can resort to it if I type a series of letters that even closely resembles the word for which I intend to use.
This software goes well beyond the call of duty of your standard grammar and spell checking functions with an "innovative style checker [that] enhances sentences." Their webpage includes a list of FAQs, which includes inquires such as, "WhiteSmoke missed an error in my sentence. Why?" My answer: Well, because WhiteSmoke's Natural Language Processing (NLP) does not replace something known as the Broca’s area of the human brain. However, if an oversight of the software were to occur, one would be able to report the mistake to the company, and they would consider the information for future revisions. What has society resorted to if one would choose to use their time writing the makers of a software program that is intended to replace human intellect instead of taking that time to educate themselves and eliminate their dependency upon a software program to write well?
I had never heard of this software until I conducted an internet search on grammar this evening. Perhaps, you all are familiar with it and its uses. For all I know, this software could be widely accepted for its use in professional writing. Surely, companies wouldn't elect to use this software in place of editors who are able to access the context, determine the tone, and analyze sentences structure with a much higher level of reasoning. Ideally, this tool would be (as it may be) used to aid in the final revisions of a document and not relayed upon as an authority for writing. Obviously, software companies, such as this benefit from employing people who possess the skills that we are learning – something to keep in mind.
This software goes well beyond the call of duty of your standard grammar and spell checking functions with an "innovative style checker [that] enhances sentences." Their webpage includes a list of FAQs, which includes inquires such as, "WhiteSmoke missed an error in my sentence. Why?" My answer: Well, because WhiteSmoke's Natural Language Processing (NLP) does not replace something known as the Broca’s area of the human brain. However, if an oversight of the software were to occur, one would be able to report the mistake to the company, and they would consider the information for future revisions. What has society resorted to if one would choose to use their time writing the makers of a software program that is intended to replace human intellect instead of taking that time to educate themselves and eliminate their dependency upon a software program to write well?
I had never heard of this software until I conducted an internet search on grammar this evening. Perhaps, you all are familiar with it and its uses. For all I know, this software could be widely accepted for its use in professional writing. Surely, companies wouldn't elect to use this software in place of editors who are able to access the context, determine the tone, and analyze sentences structure with a much higher level of reasoning. Ideally, this tool would be (as it may be) used to aid in the final revisions of a document and not relayed upon as an authority for writing. Obviously, software companies, such as this benefit from employing people who possess the skills that we are learning – something to keep in mind.
Who(m) created this rule?
I learned the "rule" for when to use whom and when to use who when I was in elementary school. The correct word usually comes naturally now, but if I'm unsure, I can quiz myself with a quick question as I encouraged all of us to do in class on Monday:
Is who/whom referring to she, he, we or they? If so, use who.
Is who/whom referring to her, him, us, or them? If so, use whom.
As much as I hate simplifying these terms to masculine terms, its even easier just to remember to match up the "m's" on the end of him and whom or them and whom. For example:
To whom does the car belong? It belongs to him.
To whom do you wish to speak? I wish to speak to them.
Who is your best friend? He is my best friend. (no m's in this one!)
Even though I am comfortable with the who verses whom rule, I know this is a point of frustration for many. I googled "whom verses who" and thousands of responses popped up (obviously - its google) but I found different explanations on ehow.com and ask.com. Its funny to me that people look for quick answers to grammar questions on Wikipedia rather than searching in a legitimate online grammar source.
Even though this rule works like second nature for me, I know that these tricks may not work as easily for some people. I've been thinking about the grammar rules we create to remember the right way to do things, and how some work really well for some people and are ineffective for others. I know that I am an auditory learner. If I can make something rhyme or make sense orally, I'm good. For example, I've never forgotten that FAN BOYS stands for For And Nor But Or Yet So or that i comes before e except after c or when it sounds like "A" as in neighbor or weigh. Still, these rules have their limitations.
I think one reason the whom/who rule is most frustrating because it is almost outdated. Whom has been nearly eliminated from our oral conversations and vocabulary in general. In a way, I think this is a good thing because the English language is far more complicated than it needs to be, and if we can simplify the rules that seem arbitrary or confusing, we might as well. Until its completely gone, though, I say use the she/he/we/they verses her/him/us/them rule.
Is who/whom referring to she, he, we or they? If so, use who.
Is who/whom referring to her, him, us, or them? If so, use whom.
As much as I hate simplifying these terms to masculine terms, its even easier just to remember to match up the "m's" on the end of him and whom or them and whom. For example:
To whom does the car belong? It belongs to him.
To whom do you wish to speak? I wish to speak to them.
Who is your best friend? He is my best friend. (no m's in this one!)
Even though I am comfortable with the who verses whom rule, I know this is a point of frustration for many. I googled "whom verses who" and thousands of responses popped up (obviously - its google) but I found different explanations on ehow.com and ask.com. Its funny to me that people look for quick answers to grammar questions on Wikipedia rather than searching in a legitimate online grammar source.
Even though this rule works like second nature for me, I know that these tricks may not work as easily for some people. I've been thinking about the grammar rules we create to remember the right way to do things, and how some work really well for some people and are ineffective for others. I know that I am an auditory learner. If I can make something rhyme or make sense orally, I'm good. For example, I've never forgotten that FAN BOYS stands for For And Nor But Or Yet So or that i comes before e except after c or when it sounds like "A" as in neighbor or weigh. Still, these rules have their limitations.
I think one reason the whom/who rule is most frustrating because it is almost outdated. Whom has been nearly eliminated from our oral conversations and vocabulary in general. In a way, I think this is a good thing because the English language is far more complicated than it needs to be, and if we can simplify the rules that seem arbitrary or confusing, we might as well. Until its completely gone, though, I say use the she/he/we/they verses her/him/us/them rule.
A Dash of Style and yes I know the title is not mine
Just to a quick follow up on my recent presentation, here is the book I was referring to in the title of my presentation. I recently acquired this book so if you are interested in reading it just let me know. This is more so a guide for creative writing and less about creating an actual rule book. You can find a lot of other neat stuff from Noah Lukeman's website with media and preview actual excerpts from his book at http://www.adashofstyle.com/
Here is a preview from his introduction of his book. I really appreciate that he takes the angle of looking at punctuation as an art or stylization in writing. Certainly, there are some rules that qualify their usage for clear writing but a writer can use punctuation to really infuse a paper with his or her voice!
Excerpt from his into:
"Of all the subjects which engage the attention of the compositor, none proves
a greater stumbling-block, or is so much a matter of uncertainty and doubt . . .
as the Art of Punctuation."
—Henry Beadnell, Spelling and Punctuation, 1880
This is not a book for grammarians. Nor is it one for historians. They
can turn to Lynne Truss’s Eats, Shoots & Leaves or a host of other excellent
punctuation books written for them. This book is for the audience that needs it
the most and yet for whom, ironically, a punctuation book has yet to be written:
creative writers. This means writers of fiction, non-fiction, memoirs, poetry,
and screenplays, and also includes anyone seeking to write well, whether for
business, school, or any other endeavor.
Most writers do not want to know the 17 uses of the comma, or ponder
the 4th-century usage of the semicolon. Most writers simply want to improve
their writing. They want to know how punctuation can serve them—not how
they can serve punctuation. They have turned to books on punctuation, but have
found them painfully mundane. Unfortunately, many of these books tend to
ignore anyone hoping to use punctuation with a bit of style.
This book will offer a fresh look at punctuation: as an art form.
Punctuation is often discussed as a convenience, as a way of facilitating what
you want to say. Rarely is it pondered as a medium for artistic expression, as a
means of impacting on the content—not in a pedantic way, but in the most
profound way, where it achieves symbiosis with the narration, style, viewpoint,
and even the plot itself.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Split Infinitives: To Boldly Go Where No (Wo)Man Has Gone Before
I recognize that the above statement is cheesy, but hopefully you can catch on to the point. Perhaps it should be “To go boldly where no man has gone before,” but really, would it be as memorable? Split infinitives typically crop up in my writing—I am one to lean toward the wordy styles of English majors, and worse, the relaxed style of fiction students. In WRTC, however, it seems that split infinitives get me more often than not.
So, a little history regarding the split infinitive:
According to the American Heritage Book of English Usage on Split Infinitives, the first split infinitive appeared around the Norman conquest of Britain when the English was greatly influenced by the French language. The earliest split infinitives appeared around 1250, but interestingly enough, Shakespeare only used one in his career: “Thy pity may deserve to pitied be” (Sonnet 142)
Of course, in the 1900’s some grammarians chose to demonize split infinitives, though according to Joanne Asala at CompassRose.com, now the taboo can be helpful for clarification. This source also connects the negative viewpoint of split infinitives to the Renaissance writers who focused on Greek and Latin forms of speech. The format of Greek and Latin cannot include split infinitives due to the structure of sentences. It seems that people went back and forth on the subject, though note those famous individuals who used the split infinitives to their advantage: Abraham Lincoln, William Wordsworth, and Willa Cather. More recently, scholars seem to be split on this subject. (No Pun Intended)
This is what OWL says:
Split infinitives
Split infinitives occur when additional words are included between to and the verb in an infinitive. Many readers find a single adverb splitting the infinitive to be acceptable, but this practice should be avoided in formal writing.
Examples:
- I like to on a nice day walk in the woods. * (unacceptable)
On a nice day, I like to walk in the woods. (revised) - I needed to quickly gather my personal possessions. (acceptable in informal contexts)
I needed to gather my personal possessions quickly. (revised for formal contexts)
Above all, here, I think it’s necessary to recognize the flexibility of language. It is an organic concept that moves with culture so that, if we ever do go back to Latin, we can move with the times. The chance of this happening is pretty slim, of course. I suppose we are more likely to talk in Javascript someday. But, there is something to say for style and the comforting nature of literature that is written in the way that we speak. Should we take this relaxed response in every piece we write? Probably not. Should we judge those who split their infinitives? Probably not, though we should probably instruct them to checkout OWL. Regardless of all of the notes on my papers, regardless of the reinforcement of this rule, I can’t help but note the fact that I seem to consistently revert back to what I am accustomed to.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Bridging the Gender Divide
Based on our discussions in class, and our analysis of language, culture, historical gender roles, and even advertisements, it's clearly evident that a gender divide exists. But despite the attempts of most societies to bridge this divide, why have these differences persisted?
I decided to look at "upstream" inputs, or ones that influence the way in which mindsets are formed.
Dr. David Anderson, professor of economics, and Dr. Mykol Hamilton, professor of psychology at Centre College, KY, have documented that gender bias is common today in many children's books in their research published recently in Sex Roles: A Journal of Research titled "Gender Stereotyping and Under-Representation of Female Characters in 200 Popular Children's Picture Books: A 21st Century Update."
They studied 200 top-selling children's books from 2001 and a seven-year sample of Caldecott award-winning books, and discovered a number of examples of gender bias:
- There were nearly twice as many male as female title and main characters
- Male characters appeared in illustrations 53 percent more than female characters
- Female main characters nurtured more than did male main characters, and they were seen in more indoor than outdoor scenes
- Occupations were gender stereotyped, and more women than men appeared to have no paid occupation
(http://www.collegenews.org/x6773.xml)
By the time children are 3 to 4 years old, they have already formed an image of themselves as boy or girl. Children form these images from parents, teachers, societal members, and the toys and games with which they play. Playing with gender-stereotyped toys is considered to be the beginning of sex role development in young children.
An overview of findings at "Toys R Us" helps expose the hidden sexism that occurs through children's toys. Except for Sesame Street and Fisher Price, who manufacture successful gender-neutral toys to children younger than four years of age, "Toys R Us" actually divides toys into a blue and navy "boys" section, and a pink and white "girls" section. Furthermore, toy packaging exhibited significant color differences. The store aisles contained plenty of pinks, the most popular "girl" color by 95%, yellows, whites, lavenders, reds and pastels. Conversely, the boys' aisles had an array of blue the most popular "boys" color by 95% as well as green, red, black, gray, and brown. In addition to color, inventory also reveals sexism. The female section of the toy store was much bigger than the male side possibly feeding into the stereotype that women have more material objects than men.
(http://www.unc.edu/~dcderosa/STUDENTPAPERS/childrenbattles/toysrusdenise.htm)
A child’s earliest years are critical. During the years from 3~8, skills such as language, social competence, the ability to think critically and the capacity to learn, are developed. Because of entrenched gender bias in many regions, young girls fare less well than boys in many aspects of early childhood, including receiving a worse diet and health care. In fact, there are an estimated 60-100 million fewer women alive today than there would be in a world without gender discrimination and without social norms that favor sons.
Some 121 million children are not in school, most of them girls. If a family can afford school fees for only one child, it will likely be a boy who attends. If someone needs to fetch water or do housework instead of going to school, a girl will likely be chosen. Despite this, numerous studies have shown that educating girls is the single most effective policy to raise overall economic productivity, lower infant and maternal mortality, educate the next generation, improve nutrition and promote health. And mothers who have had some education are more than twice as likely to send their own children to school as are mothers with no education.
(Source: Unicef; http://www.unicef.org/mdg/gender.html)
Although Unicef's "Millennium Development Goal" of gender equality consists of outreach programs in developing nations, it's interesting to note that the problems relating to gender differences exist all over the world. Even more interesting is the fact that the result, namely economic progress, is the catalyst that has brought about the concept of equality in the first place. If it boils down to simple economics, then bringing about gender equality could be as simple as introducing tax breaks for stay-at-home moms who want to run a business from home, or other innovations like loans in Bangladesh that are extended to women at very low interest rates. Based on existing data, women in Bangladesh are much less likely to default on loans than men, and the result of this is, better cash-flow for banks in that country. Diversification has very tangible economic benefits, and it's time we include everyone in the game for reasons that extend beyond mere political correctness.
I decided to look at "upstream" inputs, or ones that influence the way in which mindsets are formed.
Dr. David Anderson, professor of economics, and Dr. Mykol Hamilton, professor of psychology at Centre College, KY, have documented that gender bias is common today in many children's books in their research published recently in Sex Roles: A Journal of Research titled "Gender Stereotyping and Under-Representation of Female Characters in 200 Popular Children's Picture Books: A 21st Century Update."
They studied 200 top-selling children's books from 2001 and a seven-year sample of Caldecott award-winning books, and discovered a number of examples of gender bias:
- There were nearly twice as many male as female title and main characters
- Male characters appeared in illustrations 53 percent more than female characters
- Female main characters nurtured more than did male main characters, and they were seen in more indoor than outdoor scenes
- Occupations were gender stereotyped, and more women than men appeared to have no paid occupation
(http://www.collegenews.org/x6773.xml)
By the time children are 3 to 4 years old, they have already formed an image of themselves as boy or girl. Children form these images from parents, teachers, societal members, and the toys and games with which they play. Playing with gender-stereotyped toys is considered to be the beginning of sex role development in young children.
An overview of findings at "Toys R Us" helps expose the hidden sexism that occurs through children's toys. Except for Sesame Street and Fisher Price, who manufacture successful gender-neutral toys to children younger than four years of age, "Toys R Us" actually divides toys into a blue and navy "boys" section, and a pink and white "girls" section. Furthermore, toy packaging exhibited significant color differences. The store aisles contained plenty of pinks, the most popular "girl" color by 95%, yellows, whites, lavenders, reds and pastels. Conversely, the boys' aisles had an array of blue the most popular "boys" color by 95% as well as green, red, black, gray, and brown. In addition to color, inventory also reveals sexism. The female section of the toy store was much bigger than the male side possibly feeding into the stereotype that women have more material objects than men.
(http://www.unc.edu/~dcderosa/STUDENTPAPERS/childrenbattles/toysrusdenise.htm)
A child’s earliest years are critical. During the years from 3~8, skills such as language, social competence, the ability to think critically and the capacity to learn, are developed. Because of entrenched gender bias in many regions, young girls fare less well than boys in many aspects of early childhood, including receiving a worse diet and health care. In fact, there are an estimated 60-100 million fewer women alive today than there would be in a world without gender discrimination and without social norms that favor sons.
Some 121 million children are not in school, most of them girls. If a family can afford school fees for only one child, it will likely be a boy who attends. If someone needs to fetch water or do housework instead of going to school, a girl will likely be chosen. Despite this, numerous studies have shown that educating girls is the single most effective policy to raise overall economic productivity, lower infant and maternal mortality, educate the next generation, improve nutrition and promote health. And mothers who have had some education are more than twice as likely to send their own children to school as are mothers with no education.
(Source: Unicef; http://www.unicef.org/mdg/gender.html)
Although Unicef's "Millennium Development Goal" of gender equality consists of outreach programs in developing nations, it's interesting to note that the problems relating to gender differences exist all over the world. Even more interesting is the fact that the result, namely economic progress, is the catalyst that has brought about the concept of equality in the first place. If it boils down to simple economics, then bringing about gender equality could be as simple as introducing tax breaks for stay-at-home moms who want to run a business from home, or other innovations like loans in Bangladesh that are extended to women at very low interest rates. Based on existing data, women in Bangladesh are much less likely to default on loans than men, and the result of this is, better cash-flow for banks in that country. Diversification has very tangible economic benefits, and it's time we include everyone in the game for reasons that extend beyond mere political correctness.
Supremacy Issues
I want to apologize for the quality of the site the link I am providing points to, but it as the only copy of this essay I could find online... I also do not believe the essay is entirely complete, but the beginning is complete and it is the part I want to focus on.
Ms. Steinem's article, "Supremacy Crimes"
In the article, Steinem asserts that those members of our society acting out in violent ways are our "sons." She equates the violence seen in male serial and mass killers with a sense of entitlement, a sense of superiority that she says is drilled into them from an early age. She even goes on, later in the article to say, "This is not about blame. This is about causation." All-in-all, it was quite an interesting read. My difficulty lies in the arrangement of information.
Not to be alarmist, but I wonder at the strategic placement of, well, blame, in the article. It is not until the eighth paragraph that any sense of explanation comes into play. The first seven paragraphs are a scathing indictment of males and violence. Is this agenda-driven? If so, what really is the agenda? I was upset by the article until I made it well into the late middle.
Also, and I know this is a painfully generalized assumption, but I wonder, as I think about the scenarios this article is read in... how many readers made it to the eighth paragraph? Imagine you are in the waiting room at the doctor, the dentist, or any other place, and you begin reading this article. You get called into the appointment around paragraph five and you go home thinking that men are horrible killers. Anyone who takes the time to read the entire article gets a better sense of the actual argument Steinem is making, but even then, it is presented in a manner very unfavorable to the subjects it claims not to blame.
As someone who has personally been attacked (and often) about my involvement with Dungeons and Dragons and the "fact" that it will make me commit suicide or become a devil-worshipper, I tend to worry at any argument such as this one. After all, the majority of mass and serial killers may be, statistically, white males. But consider the number of mass and serial killers as a percentage of the entire white male population and you wonder if statements such as, "Even if one believes in a biogenetic component of male aggression, the very existence of gentle men proves that socialization can override it," are truly worthy? After all, the vast majority of men would seem to fall into this latter category, since it is not every day that another angry white man just starts killing.
And even more interesting, Steinem asserts that we don't talk about the causes because the people affected by those causes are "the powerful." Is the assertion here that it is a trap we can't escape because the men in power will refuse to relinquish that power by talking about its negative effects?
It is a difficult piece, and I wrestled with it quite a bit. I still don't have answers for myself that I am happy with, but I certainly think that gender is at the heart of, what feels to me, to be a very strategic piece of writing.
--Michael
Ms. Steinem's article, "Supremacy Crimes"
In the article, Steinem asserts that those members of our society acting out in violent ways are our "sons." She equates the violence seen in male serial and mass killers with a sense of entitlement, a sense of superiority that she says is drilled into them from an early age. She even goes on, later in the article to say, "This is not about blame. This is about causation." All-in-all, it was quite an interesting read. My difficulty lies in the arrangement of information.
Not to be alarmist, but I wonder at the strategic placement of, well, blame, in the article. It is not until the eighth paragraph that any sense of explanation comes into play. The first seven paragraphs are a scathing indictment of males and violence. Is this agenda-driven? If so, what really is the agenda? I was upset by the article until I made it well into the late middle.
Also, and I know this is a painfully generalized assumption, but I wonder, as I think about the scenarios this article is read in... how many readers made it to the eighth paragraph? Imagine you are in the waiting room at the doctor, the dentist, or any other place, and you begin reading this article. You get called into the appointment around paragraph five and you go home thinking that men are horrible killers. Anyone who takes the time to read the entire article gets a better sense of the actual argument Steinem is making, but even then, it is presented in a manner very unfavorable to the subjects it claims not to blame.
As someone who has personally been attacked (and often) about my involvement with Dungeons and Dragons and the "fact" that it will make me commit suicide or become a devil-worshipper, I tend to worry at any argument such as this one. After all, the majority of mass and serial killers may be, statistically, white males. But consider the number of mass and serial killers as a percentage of the entire white male population and you wonder if statements such as, "Even if one believes in a biogenetic component of male aggression, the very existence of gentle men proves that socialization can override it," are truly worthy? After all, the vast majority of men would seem to fall into this latter category, since it is not every day that another angry white man just starts killing.
And even more interesting, Steinem asserts that we don't talk about the causes because the people affected by those causes are "the powerful." Is the assertion here that it is a trap we can't escape because the men in power will refuse to relinquish that power by talking about its negative effects?
It is a difficult piece, and I wrestled with it quite a bit. I still don't have answers for myself that I am happy with, but I certainly think that gender is at the heart of, what feels to me, to be a very strategic piece of writing.
--Michael
Salary Negotiating: Men versus Women
It is no surprise when a man and a woman apply for the same position, and the man gets the job, for him to make more money if the woman had gotten it? Not considering the profession, but why is that? Why are men and women not considered equally?
One theory was discussed in this Washington Post article called "Salary, Gender, and the Social Cost of Haggling by Shankar Vedantam. The beginning of the article does quite a bit of convincing with statistics that during the interview process, a man is significantly more likely to push for a higher salary than a woman. Babcock, the researcher referred to during this article, thinks this may partially explain the persistent gender gap in salaries as well as other disparities in how people rise to the top of organizations. "Women working full time earn about 77 percent of the salaries of men working full time," says Babcock. Again, that figure does not take differing professions and educations levels in account, but when those and other factors are considered, women who work full time and have never taken time off to have children earn about 11 percent less than men with equivalent education and experience. Could this potentially explain why some women are putting off having children longer and longer nowadays?
However, interestingly, the traditional explanation for the gender differences that Babcock found is that men are simply more aggressive than women, perhaps because of a combination of genetics and upbringing. The solution to gender disparities, this school of thought suggests, is to train women to be more assertive and to ask for more. However, a new set of experiments by Babcock and Hannah Riley Bowles, who studies the psychology of organizations at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, offers an entirely different explanation.
Their study, which was coauthored by Carnegie Mellon researcher Lei Lai, found that men and women get very different responses when they initiate negotiations. Although it may well be true that women often hurt themselves by not trying to negotiate, this study found that women's reluctance was based on an entirely reasonable and accurate view of how they were likely to be treated if they did. Both men and women were more likely to subtly penalize women who asked for more -- the perception was that women who asked for more were "less nice".
"What we found across all the studies is men were always less willing to work with a woman who had attempted to negotiate than with a woman who did not," Bowles said. "They always preferred to work with a woman who stayed mum. But it made no difference to the men whether a guy had chosen to negotiate or not."
This would be a very interesting conversation and I would love to hear your responses.
Full article can be found: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072900827.html
One theory was discussed in this Washington Post article called "Salary, Gender, and the Social Cost of Haggling by Shankar Vedantam. The beginning of the article does quite a bit of convincing with statistics that during the interview process, a man is significantly more likely to push for a higher salary than a woman. Babcock, the researcher referred to during this article, thinks this may partially explain the persistent gender gap in salaries as well as other disparities in how people rise to the top of organizations. "Women working full time earn about 77 percent of the salaries of men working full time," says Babcock. Again, that figure does not take differing professions and educations levels in account, but when those and other factors are considered, women who work full time and have never taken time off to have children earn about 11 percent less than men with equivalent education and experience. Could this potentially explain why some women are putting off having children longer and longer nowadays?
However, interestingly, the traditional explanation for the gender differences that Babcock found is that men are simply more aggressive than women, perhaps because of a combination of genetics and upbringing. The solution to gender disparities, this school of thought suggests, is to train women to be more assertive and to ask for more. However, a new set of experiments by Babcock and Hannah Riley Bowles, who studies the psychology of organizations at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, offers an entirely different explanation.
Their study, which was coauthored by Carnegie Mellon researcher Lei Lai, found that men and women get very different responses when they initiate negotiations. Although it may well be true that women often hurt themselves by not trying to negotiate, this study found that women's reluctance was based on an entirely reasonable and accurate view of how they were likely to be treated if they did. Both men and women were more likely to subtly penalize women who asked for more -- the perception was that women who asked for more were "less nice".
"What we found across all the studies is men were always less willing to work with a woman who had attempted to negotiate than with a woman who did not," Bowles said. "They always preferred to work with a woman who stayed mum. But it made no difference to the men whether a guy had chosen to negotiate or not."
This would be a very interesting conversation and I would love to hear your responses.
Full article can be found: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072900827.html
Gender Discrepancies: Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
This article, "Bias Called Persistent Hurdle for Women in Sciences", was published in the New York Times just a few days ago. Although it does not deal directly with bias in writing, it addresses bias on a broader scale: that careers in math and science are dominated overwhelmingly by men. The bias that men are inherently better at some subjects than women is expressed through language, whether spoken, written or implied.
As this article explains, a report by the American Association of University Women demonstrated that the gap is closing between genders, but bias is still prevalent in the sciences. They conducted studies where the actual act of telling women that they aren't expected to do as well as men on a math exercise may have provoked that very result. The women in the study had comparable backgrounds and abilities in math to those of the men. The difference in the control where women weren't told this was minimal: women scored 17 and men scored 19. However, the scores varied tremendously when the women were told that they weren't expected to score as well: women scored 5 and men scored 25. The research suggested that women may be less likely than men to pursue fields in math and sciences as a reaction to this belief that they will not be as successful in these pursuits.
These findings show how great of an impact stereotypical language can have on performance. This reminded me of the comment of the politician in my article on the Canadian national anthem yesterday stating, "There’s lots of things to do for women more important than changing the words of the national anthem." This research suggests that if we continue to use sexist language that discrepancies in achievement will be reinforced. A positive finding in this article is when women are in fact aware of such bias the effect that the bias has on performance is diminished, which is why it is important to explore these topics in an academic setting like we are doing in class.
Link to Article Below:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/science/22women.html?ref=science
As this article explains, a report by the American Association of University Women demonstrated that the gap is closing between genders, but bias is still prevalent in the sciences. They conducted studies where the actual act of telling women that they aren't expected to do as well as men on a math exercise may have provoked that very result. The women in the study had comparable backgrounds and abilities in math to those of the men. The difference in the control where women weren't told this was minimal: women scored 17 and men scored 19. However, the scores varied tremendously when the women were told that they weren't expected to score as well: women scored 5 and men scored 25. The research suggested that women may be less likely than men to pursue fields in math and sciences as a reaction to this belief that they will not be as successful in these pursuits.
These findings show how great of an impact stereotypical language can have on performance. This reminded me of the comment of the politician in my article on the Canadian national anthem yesterday stating, "There’s lots of things to do for women more important than changing the words of the national anthem." This research suggests that if we continue to use sexist language that discrepancies in achievement will be reinforced. A positive finding in this article is when women are in fact aware of such bias the effect that the bias has on performance is diminished, which is why it is important to explore these topics in an academic setting like we are doing in class.
Link to Article Below:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/science/22women.html?ref=science
Monday, March 22, 2010
Broads and Chicks
I want to draw attention to the term "chick," which is seemingly comparable to the old term "broad." I haven't found very credible sources for the origins of these words. It seems that "broad" is derived from the slang for a circus ticket back in the 18th century. Thus, the woman was the ticket to the show-- not only an objectification of females, but also a reference to prostitution. Of course, you don't hear the term "broad" all that often these days, except for when you're checking out old movies on ACM or if you happen to pull out Who Framed Roger Rabbit.
"Chick," on the other hand isn't disappearing. It's not uncommon to hear the terms "chick lit" and "chick flicks." The question is whether or not women should embrace this cultural concept. We really seem to make this term our own, and yet it's a rough concept to accept. Some connect "chick" to the common British term "bird" in reference to a woman. Some say the term is taken from a Sinclair Lewis novel, Elmer Gantry from 1927:
He had determined that marriage now would cramp his advancement in the church and that, anyway, he didn't want to marry this brainless little fluffy chick, who would be of no help in impressing rich parishioners. But that caution he had utterly forgotten in emotion, and her question was authentically a surprise, abominably a shock.
But, unlike "broad," "chick" has been accepted and even recirculated to mean something else. It represents femininity in a stereotypical sense, and it may not seem as negative as it should. I wonder how much we should care. Is "chick" wrong? Should we teach our daughters to roll their eyes at the term "chick lit"? It's offensive, and yet the genre sells so well.
Just as we talked about the concept of "old wives tales," it seems that the term "chick" has come to represent a cultural force that is not necessarily negative. Can one truly deny a concept that celebrates feminine media? Won't this naturally be singled out from the rest? I suppose that I can't be upset about the terms "chick lit" and "chick flick," but I can be upset about the poor quality of both. It wouldn't be nearly as negative if the "chick" media lines produced something that had more depth. I particularly consider "chick lit" in this way. Should women hold their entertainment to a higher standard? Or perhaps women have just found their equivalent to the bad action movie or the poorly written science fiction that is geared toward men. Too bad we don't have a term for those.
I used the following:
http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=20000612
http://www.chickculture.com/
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/From_where_did_the_slang_use_of_the_word_chick_originate
"Chick," on the other hand isn't disappearing. It's not uncommon to hear the terms "chick lit" and "chick flicks." The question is whether or not women should embrace this cultural concept. We really seem to make this term our own, and yet it's a rough concept to accept. Some connect "chick" to the common British term "bird" in reference to a woman. Some say the term is taken from a Sinclair Lewis novel, Elmer Gantry from 1927:
He had determined that marriage now would cramp his advancement in the church and that, anyway, he didn't want to marry this brainless little fluffy chick, who would be of no help in impressing rich parishioners. But that caution he had utterly forgotten in emotion, and her question was authentically a surprise, abominably a shock.
But, unlike "broad," "chick" has been accepted and even recirculated to mean something else. It represents femininity in a stereotypical sense, and it may not seem as negative as it should. I wonder how much we should care. Is "chick" wrong? Should we teach our daughters to roll their eyes at the term "chick lit"? It's offensive, and yet the genre sells so well.
Just as we talked about the concept of "old wives tales," it seems that the term "chick" has come to represent a cultural force that is not necessarily negative. Can one truly deny a concept that celebrates feminine media? Won't this naturally be singled out from the rest? I suppose that I can't be upset about the terms "chick lit" and "chick flick," but I can be upset about the poor quality of both. It wouldn't be nearly as negative if the "chick" media lines produced something that had more depth. I particularly consider "chick lit" in this way. Should women hold their entertainment to a higher standard? Or perhaps women have just found their equivalent to the bad action movie or the poorly written science fiction that is geared toward men. Too bad we don't have a term for those.
I used the following:
http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=20000612
http://www.chickculture.com/
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/From_where_did_the_slang_use_of_the_word_chick_originate
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Gender Resource for Technical Writers
I stumbled upon this website as a resource for technical editors. This website specifically focuses on the need for editing gender issues. Check out http://www.jeanweber.com/newsite/?page_id=55! Most everything we have discussed previously in class, but it is a nice little checklist of things you should think about before submitting your final revisions.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Chain Email - "If Women Controlled the World"
I just received a "forward" email that absolutely made my skin crawl because of its gender stereotyped language and images. I won't include all of the images here, but if you would like to see the whole email, let me know and I will send it to you.
The first section of the email is called "Men can fix anything." It is full of funny pictures of makeshift repairs such as a bicycle's missing wheel being replaced by a shopping cart, a mailbox consisting of a jar duct taped to a piece of wood, and lawn sprinkler made out of a water hose and two-liter bottle with holes poked in it.
These images aren't doing much for the male community. While these images reinforce the redneck "there i fixed it" stereotype, these images are not completely degrading because they portray men as creative and resourceful human beings.
The second section of the email is labeled "If Women Controlled the World" which, of course, implies that men currently control the world. Although some of the pictures are funny, they suggest women are stupid and incapable of functioning effectively in a so-called man's world.
Here are a few of the pictures with my commentary:
This one implies that women know nothing about cars beyond being able to distinguish between two colors. Even as more women are being recognized as mechanics, race car drivers, and people who sell cars from a car dealership (I tried really hard not to say car salesmen there), women are constantly fighting the "bad driver" stereotype and images like this one do not help.
In case you can't tell, this is supposed to be a computer mouse with a built in compact. While this may seem like a handy device, there are many implied ideas here. Looking at this mouse, I'd imagine the woman using this computer is more concerned about her personal appearance and may be using a computer for shopping or catching up on the latest fashion magazine. This image definitely does not lead me to think about women who are computer scientists, computer engineers, or even professional journalist who work on a computer. On a better note, computer engineering Barbie hit the shelves last month:
http://www.impactlab.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/barbie.jpg.
Again, this image reinforces the women-and-cars-do-not-mix stereotype, but does so in a very different way. Here, women are not only ignorant about classifying cars, but they are also bad drivers. This image further suggests that that women can not convert numbers into speed, and that they react foolishly in dangerous situations (closing eyes and biting lips while driving at high speeds).
I'm glad we have computer engineering Barbie to break this stereotype, but this image goes on to imply that men created computers and women do not know how to use them.
This image is a little funny, but I chose to include it because of the title. This title, implies women do NOT control medicine.
I acknowledge that these images come from an email that was created for the purpose of humor, and were not intended to make a statement. These words, labels, and images reinforce a negative idea that women and men are at odds with each other and competing for "ownership" of the world. The most bothersome point I wanted to make is that even in these "dumb men" images, men are portrayed as resourceful and capable while women are portrayed as weak, stupid, and in need of assistance.
The first section of the email is called "Men can fix anything." It is full of funny pictures of makeshift repairs such as a bicycle's missing wheel being replaced by a shopping cart, a mailbox consisting of a jar duct taped to a piece of wood, and lawn sprinkler made out of a water hose and two-liter bottle with holes poked in it.
These images aren't doing much for the male community. While these images reinforce the redneck "there i fixed it" stereotype, these images are not completely degrading because they portray men as creative and resourceful human beings.
The second section of the email is labeled "If Women Controlled the World" which, of course, implies that men currently control the world. Although some of the pictures are funny, they suggest women are stupid and incapable of functioning effectively in a so-called man's world.
Here are a few of the pictures with my commentary:
This one implies that women know nothing about cars beyond being able to distinguish between two colors. Even as more women are being recognized as mechanics, race car drivers, and people who sell cars from a car dealership (I tried really hard not to say car salesmen there), women are constantly fighting the "bad driver" stereotype and images like this one do not help.
In case you can't tell, this is supposed to be a computer mouse with a built in compact. While this may seem like a handy device, there are many implied ideas here. Looking at this mouse, I'd imagine the woman using this computer is more concerned about her personal appearance and may be using a computer for shopping or catching up on the latest fashion magazine. This image definitely does not lead me to think about women who are computer scientists, computer engineers, or even professional journalist who work on a computer. On a better note, computer engineering Barbie hit the shelves last month:
http://www.impactlab.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/barbie.jpg.
Again, this image reinforces the women-and-cars-do-not-mix stereotype, but does so in a very different way. Here, women are not only ignorant about classifying cars, but they are also bad drivers. This image further suggests that that women can not convert numbers into speed, and that they react foolishly in dangerous situations (closing eyes and biting lips while driving at high speeds).
I'm glad we have computer engineering Barbie to break this stereotype, but this image goes on to imply that men created computers and women do not know how to use them.
This image is a little funny, but I chose to include it because of the title. This title, implies women do NOT control medicine.
I acknowledge that these images come from an email that was created for the purpose of humor, and were not intended to make a statement. These words, labels, and images reinforce a negative idea that women and men are at odds with each other and competing for "ownership" of the world. The most bothersome point I wanted to make is that even in these "dumb men" images, men are portrayed as resourceful and capable while women are portrayed as weak, stupid, and in need of assistance.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Virginia Politicians
Here is another one from the Virginia political establishment. I thought it might be interesting when we talk about gender editing.
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/state_regional_govtpolitics/article/CUCCGAT05_20100305-182601/328592/
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Today
An additional note from today:
While walking on the commons, I was yelled at by one of the many groups trying to raise money:
"Would you like to sign this petition to end the use of the "R" word for disability awareness month?"
I can appreciate someone following a cause, but who is controlled by a petition controlling speech and writing? Isn't this such a backwards way of going about this?
--Jessi
While walking on the commons, I was yelled at by one of the many groups trying to raise money:
"Would you like to sign this petition to end the use of the "R" word for disability awareness month?"
I can appreciate someone following a cause, but who is controlled by a petition controlling speech and writing? Isn't this such a backwards way of going about this?
--Jessi
Are Political Correctness and Diversity Mutually Exclusive?
In 1987, the Associated Press Stylebook contained an entry under "handicapped," a first for this category. The appearance of the category was the result of work by organizations for people with disabilities to change the way in which reporters and editors wrote about disability.
Since then, many organizations that support people with disabilities have produced sets of guidelines for avoiding demeaning and sensationalized words and phrases when writing about people with disabilities. The fact that so many groups see this as an area for concern should alert journalists to the fact that the way they use words does matter.
At the same time, there is an increasing focus on encouraging diversity within organizations. Doing so results in divergent ways of thinking which can lead to more robust ideas. This is in stark contrast to like-minded people who come up with convergent ideas. Along with diversity, sensitivity training has also become important. It is seen as a way for members of a given community to learn how to better understand and appreciate the differences in other people. The goal in this type of training is more oriented toward growth on an individual level. Sensitivity training can also be used to study and enhance group relations, i.e., how groups are formed and how members interact within those groups.
The critics of sensitivity training claim that such training is not really designed to help people be more sensitive to other people's ideas and feelings, but it actually changes one's attitudes, standards and beliefs. These critics argue that sensitivity training merely wears people down until they conform to the mentality of the group, and forces people into complying with community directives to conform to standards of political correctness. Political correctness has been defined as "avoidance of expressions or actions that can be perceived to exclude or marginalize or insult people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against" or the "alteration of language to redress real or alleged injustices and discrimination or to avoid offense." While political correctness seems like a good thing, opponents of the political correctness movement argue that it represents a totalitarian movement toward an ideological state in which there is 100% conformity.
Many employees who go through sensitivity training sessions feel that only certain groups were being asked to be sensitive of the others. On the other hand, proponents of the PC movement assert that it makes each of us a bit more sensitive to the challenges that our fellow citizens may face on a daily basis. Despite these differing points of view, sensitivity training will continue, and employers and other organizations will continue to assess whether its effectiveness warrants the costs.
http://www.ragged-edge-mag.com/mediacircus/styleguide.htm
http://www.americasbestcompanies.com/blog/senstraining.aspx
Since then, many organizations that support people with disabilities have produced sets of guidelines for avoiding demeaning and sensationalized words and phrases when writing about people with disabilities. The fact that so many groups see this as an area for concern should alert journalists to the fact that the way they use words does matter.
At the same time, there is an increasing focus on encouraging diversity within organizations. Doing so results in divergent ways of thinking which can lead to more robust ideas. This is in stark contrast to like-minded people who come up with convergent ideas. Along with diversity, sensitivity training has also become important. It is seen as a way for members of a given community to learn how to better understand and appreciate the differences in other people. The goal in this type of training is more oriented toward growth on an individual level. Sensitivity training can also be used to study and enhance group relations, i.e., how groups are formed and how members interact within those groups.
The critics of sensitivity training claim that such training is not really designed to help people be more sensitive to other people's ideas and feelings, but it actually changes one's attitudes, standards and beliefs. These critics argue that sensitivity training merely wears people down until they conform to the mentality of the group, and forces people into complying with community directives to conform to standards of political correctness. Political correctness has been defined as "avoidance of expressions or actions that can be perceived to exclude or marginalize or insult people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against" or the "alteration of language to redress real or alleged injustices and discrimination or to avoid offense." While political correctness seems like a good thing, opponents of the political correctness movement argue that it represents a totalitarian movement toward an ideological state in which there is 100% conformity.
Many employees who go through sensitivity training sessions feel that only certain groups were being asked to be sensitive of the others. On the other hand, proponents of the PC movement assert that it makes each of us a bit more sensitive to the challenges that our fellow citizens may face on a daily basis. Despite these differing points of view, sensitivity training will continue, and employers and other organizations will continue to assess whether its effectiveness warrants the costs.
http://www.ragged-edge-mag.com/mediacircus/styleguide.htm
http://www.americasbestcompanies.com/blog/senstraining.aspx
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Writing on Disability in the Context of Literature
This syllabus (link below), which I found by searching “writing about disability”, describes the course "Topics in Literature and Society: Writing on Disability" at Columbia University. It follows none of RTC guidelines or any other guidelines that we have encountered. In this paragraph, the professor repeatedly ignores RTC’s suggestion on people-first writing by using "eccentric bodies" in conjunction with "disability". He does mention the historical shift from viewing disability as "heroic”, but then uses the word "cripple" with no quotations. His blatant omission of following the guidelines led me to examine the appropriateness in this context - an introduction to a literary course on just that: writing about disabilities.
In reading the professor’s profile at Columbia University (see link below), I noticed his emphasis on medieval literature and that "He has approached these issues through the optic of original manuscripts" and his "new research on the cultural imagination of disability in the Middle Ages". I concluded that the professor uses these negative terms in order to familiarize students with the portrayal of people with disabilities in literature. After all, the titles of required reading included "On Being a Cripple" and "Sideshow USA: Freaks and the American Cultural Imagination."
We have discussed the importance of context in evaluating the best language to use in a given situation. If the purpose of using words such as “cripple” is to educate students through literature, then this may change the intent associated with using this terminology ─ as long as this distinction in usage is emphasized. As with the educators in Michael's topic, this professor also needs to consider that students with disabilities may be in the class. However, the difference here is choice since this course is at the college level. Considering that the context of this professor’s writing, does this constitute a justifiable omission of guidelines? Or should this professor have adhered to the guidelines in posting this syllabus at least?
Syllabus: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/english/syllabi/4917baswell.pdf
Faculty Profile: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/english/fac_profiles.htm
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)