| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

Whitefoot

Page history last edited by fr1495@... 9 years, 4 months ago

Project 4

Kelly Whitefoot

Project 4
Eng 1020
Todd Breijak
12/2/14

                                             Pay Equality           
     For years woman have been fighting to get the same rights as men
, and some may argue that woman do have the same rights as men, but there is still a major thing that we need to deal with: woman being paid less than men. Statistics show that woman are paid 77 cents for every man’s dollar, which is much less than they should be making. There are many theories behind why this is, but when it comes down to it, those reasons shouldn't leave woman with less money, nor do they really justify it. There is a very simple solution for this, and in this paper, I will explain why we should use this solution and why this is a problem in the first place.
            Woman getting 77 cents of every man’s dollar is a problem that could lead to more problems down the line
. There are many reasons that people came up with to why woman make less than men, though. The biggest one, I've noticed, is that woman end up pregnant and end up leaving the work force. So, woman should make less money because they now have to take care of a child? This seems a little back words, especially if they are a single mother relying only on her job for income to take care of said child. A woman should not be punished for reproducing. In one article, it said that we don’t have the same leave benefits as most developed countries do, such as paid leave, saving the woman’s spot, and still allowing her coverage. It was also said that woman pick lower paying jobs because they are more flexible, so that they can take care of the child, and only work part time, but this is not always the case. What about the woman that don’t end up married or with children? What is the reason for them being paid less, since the primary reason seems to be taking time off to take care of a child?

            There is also the great impact that social media and sexism of long ago had on women and what they want to do. A woman will take a lower paying job because long ago the jobs that became ‘woman’s work’ became lower paying jobs because people realized that a woman could be paid less for doing the same work as a man, and that’s why woman end up taking lower paying jobs. There is also that the higher paying jobs are predominately male workers, so when a woman joins, it can be a very hostile environment. Not only that, but women from a young age are told by the older women to take on more ‘womanly’ jobs, which will ultimately get you paid less. So it’s not that women choose to work lower paying jobs, but that they feel obligated to do so.
            This would also explain why women typically are the ones that stay home and take care of the children and do the housework
, because social media and older women tell them that it’s the more womanly thing to do. Years ago it was all men going to work and taking care of the family, and the woman would stay home and take care of things around the house; cook, clean, take care of the children. And a lot of men still think that, too, so it could even be dangerous for a woman to work in a predominately male area of work.
         
On top of this, women that aren’t working usually are at home taking care of children and cleaning and the like, so they do work. So the ‘women have less work experience’ excuse is not really valid. On average, a housekeeper makes about $21,820 a year, which is actually more than what most girls probably make, due to being pushed into low paying work.

            I found that woman that don’t get married or have children make about 96 cents per every man’s dollar, which is better, right? Even though it’s better, it’s still not right, and it’s certainly still unfair. Why should a woman that is probably doing the same amount of work make 4 cents less than a man? It may not seem like much, but over the course of a year, that 4 cents per hour really adds up. There was another claim that woman have less work experience than men do. If you get into the same job as a man, it means that you would have had to have gone into the same schooling, and had the same training, so how does the ‘having less experience’ really make sense? This also seems to just circle back to the needing to take time off for children.

            While all of the above reasons made it seem like a child is what is causing woman to be paid less, it’s really not. Men take time off work to be with their children, too, and sometimes the wife goes back to work and the father stays home with the child. He doesn’t get the ‘less work experience’ or ‘he took time off work’ excuse. This is because studies show that 40% of why woman make less than a man is unexplained. Meaning, 40% of the reason woman get paid less is because of some sort of misogyny, subconscious or otherwise. This means that some of the morals and values from when woman didn’t have the rights they have now still exist today, and we need to at least try to get rid of that.

            Okay, but now why is this really a huge issue? First of all, woman are humans just like men, and should be allowed to make what they make. Second, it would be very hard for a single woman to keep up a family with houses and food becoming more and more expensive. This may not be a huge issue for married woman or woman with no kids, but a lot of woman and children become homeless because they can’t keep up with bills due to not having enough money. While there is still a chance that with that extra 23 cents that this would still happen, it sure couldn’t hurt. This could lead to other problems, too, such as woman not wanting to leave abusive relationships because they rely too much on the man.

            While this problem may not affect working men, it sure impacts woman and some children. There is a solution, though, a very simple one. The Paycheck Fairness Act is an act that makes it so that you have to pay everyone the same amount for the same amount of work, no matter what. So basically, it takes away all outward discrimination when it comes to paychecks. We could get this act passed using petitions, writing our government officials explaining why this is a problem and why we think this is a good solution to it, using some of the examples and reasons that I said above, or protesting until woman get equal pay.

            An act, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, was signed years ago, and nothing has moved, but if all people bond together to protest and petition it to move, and get the Paycheck Fairness Act signed, we could really move the wage gap, getting it either closer to closing or closing the gap altogether. We just need enough people to get behind us, and we can do it.

          There is also a group, the Equal Pay Enforcement Task Force, who we could contact for help. They were created to find loopholes in legislation, help coordinate the offices and efforts, like us, to enforce laws, and to get more information on the current pay gap for both the government and the public, so that both can help take action to close the gap. We could contact them, write them, and have them help with us to get the Paycheck Fairness Act signed. They also help to let women know how much their business pays men, so that they can fight and negotiate the amount they are paid.

            I have read that some people who didn’t think we could get women’s pay up wanted to just lower the prices for woman, but that would be so confusing, and take too much time and effort. Plus, women don’t want to pay less for things; they want to be paid more for the work they did, the same amount as a man is paid. And with such a simple solution, why can’t we just get the act passed.

            This act is the best way to get woman equal pay, because it doesn’t take away from the men that are already working, so it doesn’t cause men to lose money in the process. Michigan recently raised minimum wage, and that is a very similar issue to this, so I know that if enough people become aware of this problem and simple solution, we could easily get the act passed and equal out the money made by both genders.

            So, in conclusion, women get paid less for things that they either can’t control, or are pressured into by society, and that leads to a whole bunch of other problems. Women need to be paid the same as men, for many reasons, but the main being that if they do the same amount of work as a man, they should get the same pay. Reproducing shouldn’t be a reason to penalize someone, and there is a simple solution; the Paycheck Fairness Act. It wouldn’t be too hard to convince congress to pass, and it doesn’t affect anyone in a negative way, only positive.

             


https://www.americanprogress.org/press/release/2013/04/09/59785/release-why-women-continue-to-make-77-cents-to-a-mans-dollar-and-the-real-impacts-of-the-gender-wage-gap/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/04/09/president-obamas-persistent-77-cent-claim-on-the-wage-gap-gets-a-new-pinocchio-rating/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jillian-berman/yes-by-any-way-you-measur_b_4725356.html

http://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/maid-and-housekeeper/salary

http://rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/how-fix-gender-wage-gap-going-far-beyond-app

 




Response 3

            In Drugs and Don’t Legalize Drugs, Gore and Dalrymple both state their opinions on drugs and whether or not they should be legalized. They both use different ways of trying to convince the reader as to why or why not drugs should be legalized. Gore states that they should be legalized, for the reasons that it will cut down drug addiction, and because it’s a right we, as Americans, have, while Dalrymple states that drugs shouldn’t be legalized, because if one person was doing drugs, it would effect everyone else, too.

            Gore states that he thinks drugs should be legalized. He claims that if we legalize all drugs, and as long as we label them brutally honestly, people will actually not use them. He says that he has tried drugs himself; every kind, at least once, and he didn’t like any of them. Not only does this show that not everyone will get addicted, but it uses ethos. He uses his own usage of drugs to help support what he says. He also tells us that there are some people that will get addicted to drugs, but he also says that those who do get addicted are probably not very sane. Stating the opposing point and counteracting it, he continues with his examples. He says that when alcohol was made illegal, people became more into drinking, and more alcoholics popped up.

            Gore also says that it is our right as an American to be allowed to do what we want, so long as it doesn’t affect others. It was said in the constitution, so it must apply here, right? He says that people should be allowed to do the drugs as long as they don’t harm or affect anyone else. That’s where Dalrymple’s argument comes in. He says that no matter who you are, there is a slim to no chance that what you do won’t affect someone else. This means, if we legalize drugs, we could be giving someone the right to do drugs, but also taking someone else’s right(s) away.

            Dalrymple’s argument, though, doesn’t seem to be as reader-friendly as Gore’s is. Dalrymple uses larger words that some of the audience, such as people that are actually on drugs, wouldn’t be able to understand. Also, Gore has links and such in his writing, for people who don’t know what one thing is, or for those who need to or want to look into it more. Gore also seems to want to connect to the audience more, he uses his own experiences and things that happened to get his point across, while Dalrymple uses mostly hypothetical situations.

            Personally, I thought that Gore had a more compelling argument. I don’t stand on the same side as him on this topic, but he put so much more into his writing, and in a smaller space, too. He connected more with the audience, allowing for people of all sorts of types to read it. Plus, it almost seemed like Dalrymple was counter acting his argument a lot throughout his argument. In his last paragraphs, it almost seemed like he was saying that we should legalize drugs, because it would take something else to worry about off our plate. He also didn’t use too many rhetorical themes in his writing.

            So, basically, Gore did a better job at not only using more of the rhetorical themes we talked about in class, but also with getting his point across in a short, sweet, and simple manner. Dalrymple didn’t use too many of the rhetorical themes, nor did he truly get his point across. He just kind of babbled on about things that didn’t really fit his argument, and the only rhetorical strategy he used, maybe, was ethos, when he was talking about how you always affect other people with what you do.

 

Response 4

Outline:

- Identify the arguments - We like horror movies because it helps keep our insanity steady. Also, to show that we CAN watch the movie.

- Identify the thesis - "When we pay our four or five bucks and seat ourselves at tenth-row center in a

theater showing a horror movie, we are daring the nightmare."

- Identify evidence - It's the same as riding a roller coaster

We find sick jokes funny

Everyone does little things like talking to yourself

- Analyze evidence - "When we pay our four or five bucks and seat ourselves at tenth-row center in a

theater showing a horror movie, we are daring the nightmare." This says that we try to sit through watching people do the things that we are terrified of. We sit there and watch it to prove to ourselves that we can.

"The potential lyncher is in almost all of us (excluding saints, past and present;

but then, most saints have been crazy in their own ways), and every now and then, he

has to be let loose to scream and roll around in the grass." This is saying that we all have some insanity, and it needs to be let free in some way, and watching horror movies is a great way to do so. It feeds the insanity just enough to keep it in check.

- Identify the situation - Situation: Watching horror movies

- Identify Audience and support your audience choice - The audience could be anyone, really, but I think it's more aimed towards young adults, or middle aged people. I think this because of this quote, "It urges us to put away our more civilized and adult penchant for analysis and to become children again, seeing things in pure blacks and whites."

- How is Ethos being used in the argument? - "We have such “sick” jokes as, “What’s the difference between a truckload of bowling balls and a truckload of dead babies?” (You can’t unload a truckload of bowling balls

with a pitchfork . . . a joke, by the way, that I heard originally from a ten-year-old.)" He has noticed the things around him and how crazy they all sound.

- How is Pathos being used in the argument? - "Why bother? Because it keeps them from getting out, man. It keeps them down there and me up here... As long as you keep the gators fed."

- How is Logos being used in the argument? - "The mythic horror movie, like the sick joke, has a dirty job to do. It deliberately appeals to all that is worst in us. It is morbidity unchained, our most base instincts let

free, our nastiest fantasies realized . . . and it all happens, fittingly enough, in the dark." This seems pretty logical to me, like it really makes everything make sense.

 

            Why do we enjoy horror movies so much? Why do we enjoy sick jokes so much? Stephen King says that it’s because we need these things to keep the insanity that we all have in check. He states that in order to keep down the insanity, we watch someone else who is more insane do something insane, like kill someone. It is a way to feed the insanity, therefore keeping it in check.

            He also said that we watch them to prove that we can. Almost like, “I can watch this movie without freaking out too much.” It’s to prove to ourselves just as much as it is to prove to other people that we can. This, to me, is similar to a dare. Some take dares even if they are insane, just to prove that they can do it, while others stay far away from them. Isn’t this also why people like roller coasters so much?

            In the writing, King said something about how a potential lyncher lives in all of us, and watching someone else do the lynching helps keep the one inside of us in its box. He said that as long as you keep the ‘gators’ fed with a whole lot of meat, they wouldn’t ever try to leave and come out.

            He uses ethos in a way that is more connectable to the reader. He quotes a joke that he heard from a ten-year-old child, something we all hear at least once. This falls under ethos because he has experienced the insanity, even if just a little bit, that lives within this ten-year-old boy or girl. He also talks about how people can talk to themselves all the time and never get thrown away, even if we do see that as a sign of being insane. These are things that we encounter a lot.

            King uses pathos by playing the ‘to prove we can do it’ card. A lot of people like to prove that they can do something, and it’s extremely disappointing when we fail, or can’t do it. So going against your fears and sitting through a horror movie or a roller coaster ride is something we can all relate to, so it strikes our emotions.

            He uses logos when talking about how these sick jokes and horror movies all hit us right where out insanity is. It makes sense that we would try to watch a movie or tell a sick joke if you think about it like this. We like and are attracted to these movies and joke because the little bit of insane that lives within us feeds off of them. It tickles our insaneness and that’s why we laugh at the sick jokes, or why we keep going back to the movies to see someone get their head chopped off. At least, it seems completely logical to me.

            As for the audience that King is trying to reach for, it’s not certain. He could be talking to anyone, really, but I think it was more towards the young adults or middle-aged people. He talks about how when we get older our interest falters when it comes to horror movies or sick jokes, because our insanity has either taken over or pretty much went to sleep. But he also talks about how when we watch horror movies, we can let go of ourselves and go back to being a child again, let our brain loose like children do.

            So, in conclusion, what King is saying is that we actually enjoy horror movies, sick jokes, and roller coasters all for the same reason, and that is because we all are mentally ill, even if just a little. We all have insanity growing or living inside of us, so we need to feed it with things that are, well, insane. So we go to the movies and watch things that scare us into jumping six feet into the air, so we go and we get into the roller coaster that make us scream at the top of our lungs, and so we listen to and retell the sick jokes that we hear from a ten-year-old kid. It’s all to feed our insanity and keep it in check.

 

Project 3 Rough draft:

Kelly Whitefoot

Eng 1020

Project 3

11/10/14

          Todd Breijak

 

Vines

A Vine is a seven second video made by random people on the internet designed to entertain or get a message across to the viewers. There are comedy, music, sports, television inspired, and, occasionally, informational videos. In this paper I will discuss the different sub-genres of Vines and how they impact the viewers.

            The first sub-genre is comedy. There are many types of comedy, including, but not limited to, racial humor, self-humiliation, the humiliation of others, situational humor, and animals doing silly things. For example, people doing really dumb things that end with them getting hurt, or someone taking a video of their cat sitting in a weird position. So really, anything that will make you laugh, even if it isn’t always clean humor, which it usually isn’t.

 Then, there is music. This can range anywhere from people beatboxing, to people dancing, either in a way found to be awe inspiringly good, or embarrassingly bad. There are also people that make Vines of concerts, or make their own music and/or remixes. These often tie into the other genres, since people can dance and create a comedy Vine while using music.

Another sub-genre of Vines is sports. This is mostly people taking little clips from big games, such as soccer, football, martial arts and boxing, and various others. People usually put music or a sound file on top of these Vines, usually having the music sync up to something amazing happening, or the sound file makes the video funny. For instance, putting music that is calm up until a sudden hard change to a video of a soccer player running and then suddenly somehow making a goal in what seems like should be impossible conditions.

There are also television based Vines. This usually involves someone taking a clip from a show and editing it, either inserting something visual or audio. This is usually to turn the what would be plain clip into something really funny, or to make fun of a character or multiple characters. This is seen a lot with cartoons, or placing cartoon heads on real people’s bodies, and can also be found outside of Vines. The audio can also add some comedy to the clip, and people usually sync the voices in the audio to the movements of the character’s mouths, making it appear that the character is the one saying what is in the clip.

There are the very rare informational Vines, either people actually trying to teach something in the short seven seconds they have, selling something, or announcing something. These aren’t as common as the sub-genres listed above, and aren’t as easy to tie into the others.

So, now, how do these different types of Vines affect the ones watching them? Well, let’s take a look. For the most part, people watching Vines are younger, unless they have children that get them into Vines. Other than that, Vines have such a wide variety of subjects and genres that it doesn’t really have a target audience. So we will explore the types of people that go for and avoid each type of Vine.

Comedy Vines can really appeal to anyone, but there are some that are more offensive than others. There are some racial Vines that fall under the comedy category, but can be found offensive by some. This is one con of the comedy genre. There is also clean comedy, though, like with animals doing sill things. Watching a cat sit in a weird position or putting upbeat or funny music to a dog running weirdly doesn’t really offend anyone, but some people who are more serious might not find it as funny. But then again, why would someone super serious be watching comedy Vines in the first place? So basically, other than sometimes being offensive, comedy Vines don’t really have any negatives to them. As for positives, everyone likes a good laugh once and a while, and sometimes watching weird animals or people embarrass themselves is just what we need.

Music Vines don’t reach a wide variety of people like comedy Vines do. There are so many different tastes in and types of music that it’s hard to create one that suits everyone’s needs. But some music Vines fit in almost every type of Vine, since music is often used to set the mood of a Vine, or it’s used in the background to emphasize the comedic effect of a comedy Vine. So basically, the bad thing about music Vines is that not everyone likes them, or it’s hard to reach out to a wide audience, and the good thing is that it’s almost always used in the background, and helps set the viewer’s emotions.

With sports Vines, you can reach a wider audience, because a lot of people like sports. Even if someone doesn’t like all sports, most like at least one, and they can usually find Vines of their favorite sports. People love watching sports, so there are a whole lot of sports Vines to look into. So while sports Vines have a small amount of weaknesses, they rarely leave the audience feeling something, unless you count awe-struck, when they see a Vine of an amazing thing happening.

Television based Vines are very closely tied into comedy, only they have a different approach to it. There are so many television based Vines out there, so you’re bound to find some kind of Vine of a show you know, they are like the sports Vines in this way. The biggest problem with television based Vines, though, is that if you don’t know the show that the clip is from, there is a huge chance that you will have no idea what’s going on, or what the joke is supposed to be. If someone photoshops pictures of a certain show’s characters onto the bodies of another show’s characters, and you haven’t seen one or both of them, you probably won’t get why they did so. You won’t know if they have similar personalities, or if they just reminded that person of that character. At least in comedy based Vines, you don’t really need to know what’s going on to find the video funny. You don’t need to know why this person is dancing the way they are, or why the bird is acting the way it is, it’s just funny.

Another thing about television Vines is that it could be even funnier than just comedy Vines, if you know what’s going on. It could be an inside joke between all the fans of the show, or it could just be that someone at some point mentioned that this audio would be amazing if it were put over this scene, and everyone else agreed. So, television Vines can either be the best or the worst of all the sub-genres of memes, depending on what it is that the Vine is about. The Vine can either leave the reader with so many good emotions, or no emotions, or even confusion, if the viewer doesn’t know what’s going on.

The last sub-genre is informative Vines. These ones are typically really boring and don’t get all too popular. The only real time these get attention is if it ends up turning into a comedy Vine, either because people are making fun of it, or because it was funny originally. So, there are a whole lot more negatives than there are positives with this specific sub-genre. They typically leave the viewers with annoyance and emotions closer to that than anything good.

So, in conclusion, most of the sub-genres of Vines leave a positive mark on their viewers, and most have a pretty solid audience. They also mix in together a whole lot, and most have some sort of comedic effect, leaving the viewer with a happy, good feeling. Not all Vines can take in everyone, though, so there are some that have a wider audience than the others. This just goes to show, though, that people like comedy more than music, sports, and television based Vines.

 

Comments (2)

Rabeeh Karnib said

at 11:04 pm on Nov 12, 2014

1.Yes this essay clearly is investigating vines
2.Yes essay is not only analyzing vines ut making critiquus as well
3.This essay does mention multiple audiences and how these audiences are effected by vines
4. I believe the strongest element is the describtion of the vines
5. The weakest element is that this essay should focus more on how it connects with the audiences and less oh the subgenres
6.This essay is a little wordy but overall well written
7.Yes this essay gives a clear reason why this genre is important
8. I believe this essay should get a B

Adam Goryca said

at 11:55 pm on Nov 12, 2014

1. Yes, you descried the different characteristics of vines very well.
2. You don't judge the different sub-genres enough. Most of the time is spent analyzing them.
3. Without specifically stating multiple audiences you do imply that different audiences enjoy different vines.
4. The analysis of the different sub-genres
5. The lack of your personal judgment of the sub-genres.
6. Yes, I found very few grammatical errors.
7. Yes, you discuss the popularity and vast amount of vines.
8. B, without more of an evaluation on the sub-genres instead of just summarizing them it's hard for me to give you an A.

You don't have permission to comment on this page.