Steroids Aren't Just for Illnesses

When Pollan wrote “Men have become the tools of their tools”, he was trying to draw attention to how reliant people have become on the aids they use to enhance their lifestyles. In regards to corn farmers’ lifestyle, the most obvious aid is the corn itself. The farmers become reliant on their crop to provide a living for themselves. The farmer then finds himself a slave to his crop because “a farm family needs a certain amount of cash flow every year to support itself, and it the price of corn falls, the only way to stay even is to sell more corn (54). Another aspect of this reliance is the use of chemical fertilizers. The fertilizers enable farmers to have high yield harvests. As “bragging rights go to the man with the biggest yield, even if its bankrupting him (55), it stands to reason that farmers try to capitalize on this new resource. Unfortunately, they find themselves caught up in this vicious cycle, undoubtedly leaving them feeling awfully similar to the tractor and other tools they use to till their land.

Women are usually in the spotlight when it comes to issues of physical appearance, diet and beauty. However, what about the men and their self image? Men and the pressures they feel are often left to the wayside. Stereotypically speaking, men are viewed as powerful authoritative figures, so it is expected that they have the physique to match. Just as thin females with perfectly toned bodies are pasted all over ads as ideal, tan men with bulging muscles and infinite muscle definition are the symbol of perfection. Sorry boys, but if you don’t have 37 pack washboard abs-that’s right thirty seven, clearly visible arm muscles when you are not flexing and the inability to turn your head more than 45 degrees in either direction due to bulging shoulder, neck and back muscles… then you are not a real man.

I is Rhetorical Master

Asimov admits that his, “intelligence, then, is not absolute, but is a function of the society [he lives] in and of the fact that a small subsection of that society has managed to foist itself as an arbiter of such matters” (2). Asimov is hesitantly proposing that his “intelligence” may not be so much universal as it is a function of the language at his disposal; language that is useful within only a small subsection of said universe. Furthermore, he implies that higher education impedes access to the alternative intellectual understanding and routes, leaving one vulnerable to the jibes of a mere auto-repairman. Sedaris continues Asimov’s epiphany with a realization of his own, “Understanding doesn’t mean that you can suddenly speak the language. Far from it. It’s a small step, nothing more, yet its rewards are intoxicating and deceptive” (295). Here, Sedaris contends that understanding language is nothing more than the bare minimum requirement for intellectual exchange. More to the point, he asserts that such understanding, is liable to induce unwarranted confidence and create situations in which one is even more vulnerable to rhetorical abuse. Asimov and Sedaris present similar commentaries on language in that they openly recognize its shortcomings through the use of examples from personal experience. Though Asimov is surely well versed in academic thought, he was effortlessly duped by his auto-repairman, “Why, you dumb jerk, He used his voice and asked for them” (2). Likewise, though Sedaris believed he was skilled enough in the French language to take on his cunning instructor, his response, “I know the thing what you speak exact now. Talk me more, plus please, plus” (295) demonstrates otherwise.

A Moment of Silence

One line of Bordo’s text in particular struck a chord within me and caused me to think more critically about the effect of advertisement in my life. The quote is as follows, “The Jezebels and geishas are still with us; and, although black male models and toddlers are allowed to have locks and “naturals,” straight hair-straighter nowadays than I ever thought it was possible for anyone’s hair to be-seems almost mandatory for young black women” (160). I have had chemically straightened hair since the approximate age of 10. My mother has had chemically straightened hair since she was 10 years of age. And just about all the black females I know have chemically straightened hair. None of us can imagine our hair being any other way for two reasons. One, that our hair is so naturally coarse that it is far easier to manage when straightened. Two, we all realize that the retro age has passed and afros are still out of style. Were I not so conscientious of television ads and their portrayals of the ideal, maybe I’d be sporting an afro to class instead of some more Caucasian hair style.

It seems as though the reading for this blog was hand tailored to parallel my life. A quote by Goffman echoes yet another social struggle in which I have found myself. “Selective mating then enters to ensure that very nearly every couple will exhibit a height difference in the expected direction, transforming what would otherwise be statistical tendency into a near certitude (28). This quote refers to the tendeny for males to be taller than females in heterosexual realationships. If my classmates have not noticed already, I am rather tall. Not only do I rank above the average female height of approximately 5’6”, I outshine the male’s average, 5’10”, at a whopping 5’11”-- 6’ on the days I’m feeling confident. When I was young I found my height to be very exciting; however, as I aged and began to tower over the midget boys my age, the novelty wore off. Background information aside though, I’ve continued to defy the stereotypical height arrangement for couples. I’ve been taller than each boy I’ve dated in the past, going shorter and shorter, as the years pass, with my current boy friend ranking in at an all time low of 5’6”, right at my chin. Perhaps I'm trying to make amends for my straightened hair.

While I definitely think that the post modern visual context of advertisements is very different from the images portrayed in years past, I don’t think the advertisement industry has quite managed to tear itself away from sexism. A subtle and slightly confusing example of such a similarity is the Heineken advertisement played last class. I was offended at the portrayal of a female robot with the expressed purpose of producing,via birth canal, and serving perfectly chilled Heineken beer from a Draughtkeg to her targeted male audience. This is just one example of the sneaky tactics used in modern times to inject female subservience and sex appeal into commercials. The designers thought they’d throw me off track with the hip techno music in the background, their “innovative” new beer , the sexy fashion sense of the robot and the shiny colors but I’m too smart for that, for their modern sales schemes- which is exactly why I still chemically straighten my hair. Let us have a moment of silence for my pride...

Simply Oversimplified

McCloud writes, “Words are totally abstract icons. That is, they bear no resemblance at all to the Real McCoy.” (198) The concept I think this statement is striving to elucidate is the vast range and usage of icons in everyday life. I find this quote interesting because it provides commentary on the use of icons, or symbols, and their elasticity, in terms of the potential range of application. Furthermore, it intrigues me because it touches upon an idea mentioned in Foss’ writing, the fact that words themselves are symbols. I have used the words icon and symbol interchangeably thus far; however, I feel it is pertinent to point out a distinction I have noticed. It is my understanding that symbols are words, people, places, ideas and/or images that represent something else. Icons are different in that they are “any image used to represent a person, place, thing or idea.” (McCloud 198) This means that spoken language is not an icon. This is slightly ironic as the words themselves are icons. An example of such an icon is the word “blog”. It is an image, or many parts, when written down, used to represent internet journal posts. However, when read aloud, it seems that it would lose its iconic value, simply because it's no longer an image. What then? Does the blog turn into a symbol instead? Is spoken word considered a symbol? Or must the blog’s, now separate, contents be analyzed in a different manner and with a different set of terms? If so, what terms?

Here is an example of a logical fallacy. The solution to poverty is very simple, just print more money. This is an example of oversimplification. This is fallacy because it presents a simple solution for a problem that is clearly more complicated than presumed.

If there was an idea custom made for a Jay Leno monologue, this was it: Global Warming. Isn’t that like the most ridiculous idea since Y2K, “The End of the World”? Whatever happened to glaciers melting simply because it’s hot outside? I happen to sympathize with the poor Global Warming cronies, though, perhaps because their events always have great air conditioning...

I personally don’t think Global Warming is a crock, but I know others who do. Being clever is clearly not my specialty, but I tried. I hope it wasn’t too painful to read.

A Rhetorical Question

Foss defines rhetoric as “the human use of symbols to communicate,” not the “flowery ornamental speech” or ill substantive language it is often considered to be. (8) Upon reading the common misconceptions about the true meaning of rhetoric, I reached my first point of contention. I do not necessarily agree with the idea that “flowery ornamental speech” is in antithesis to the definition of rhetoric. It is my understanding that rhetoric relies upon the use of symbols to convey and expound upon meaning. Symbols in this regard can be people, places, words and ideas that elucidate some concept not directly related to its source. In a sense, symbols are akin to connective tissues, they provide a means for a higher level of functioning. Without symbolic understanding, all that remains is the bare skeleton, the cup without the actual word “cup” to reference it.** Upon reading this article, it brought to mind a thought I had when I was younger. I recall saying the word “king” and thinking that it sounded very odd. I said the word over and over again and began trying to create a direct connection between the word itself and the image of its actual meaning. I was unable to create any sort of direct relationship between the word “king” and the stereotypical image of a regal looking man sitting at his throne. This left me quite perplexed. It then occurred to me that someone created the word “king” to describe the real world representation of such a man, which means that words themselves are symbols. If the very tools we use to communicate are symbols of matter, phenomenon, ideas etc. in reality, and “symbols are the medium for rhetoric (Foss 8), then how can any use of language not be considered rhetoric- flowery ornamental language included?

Definition #1: using language effectively to please or persuade

Definition #2: grandiosity: high-flown style; excessive use of verbal ornamentation

**Is my usage of the cup example considered plagiarism? Is a citation necessary?

testing

Testing testing 123