Responding to "Politics and the English Language" by George Orwell

Responding to "Politics and the English Language" by Orwell

Link:https://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/Politics_and_the_English_Language-1.pdf

Commentary: My first response is that this guy needs to get off his high horse. He goes directly into saying how bad English is now and how we all do the same wrong things, which definitely doesn't generate any connection to an audience. Unless they are the highfalutin, scholar who thinks language is dead. I disagree with some of his statements, and I have qualifiers for others, I don't just agree with any of them. I disagree with the dying metaphors paragraph mostly because I haven't heard about 90% of the metaphors ever. And the ones I have heard, they are old sayings that you only hear from grandma and grandpa. I haven't read a paper or article that used swan song or hotbed. I don't understand his issues with more new words. He especially hates, newer adjectives. I think words like inevitable, epic, or historic are all powerful words. And some aren't new. I would like to know the words that would be able to replace those that makes it sound just as good or keeps it to the point. I get what he says when he goes into meaningless words, when you read a review for a play, but I think it is the writer's choice. They should be allowed to describe things however they want, without a pompous man who probably thinks the 1920's were the best time to be alive saying that is meaningless. Writers write they way they feel, they use words that may seem over the top, but it may serve a purpose. Maybe that is the best word for how to describe something, maybe they needed another word. In my writing I like to use big words, and emotional "meaningless" words because I like the emotion behind it. That may not always work for pieces, but if you are trying to sway someone, like in a persuasive essay, using emotional words works. It gets people on your side. Or it may attract them more, if they see a review that says those types of things. I would also like to point out that he called these ideas perversions, which if anything, should also be in the meaningless words category. To get to the rules, a few of them are actually helpful. Always cut out a word if unnecessary, and write in active voice. These are things I have been told many times by English teachers, which makes me believe these just aren't coming from a bitter men. But, I do think you should use whatever word, short or long, and should be able use scientific words or foreign language terms. I am not even going to acknowledge the stupidity of the last rule. I do think Orwell sounds very resentful, or at least cynical. He doesn't like fluffy writing or sorting that isn't straight to the point. Everything else is useless, which just isn't true. The writing type of writing in ENGL 214 doesn't reflect this paper's sentiment. We write op-eds, which means we speak our opinions and they are a little more personal, which means "useless words" and lots of metaphors and similes to understand things better. 

Writing a Perspective

Writing a Perspective 

Writing a perspective was tricky, because I had to be concise with my thoughts, ideas, and story, which I am not great at. Deciding what to talk about was easy because fast fashion is something recently that has caught my attention. And people don't really know much about yet, it is something recent but still not talked about enough. Deciding what story to use was hard because I don't have an extremely strong connection to fast fashion, I always loved Urban Outfitter and Zara but I didn't have much trouble cutting them off when I found out about their ethics. I also was not one to buy like piles of clothing at H& M because I did think it was cheaply made and I never liked that. I always liked clothing with a slightly higher quality, which is why I did like brands that were ethical, I just didn't know it. So, finding the write story to connect it to was tough, even now, I don't know if the story connects well enough as it pertains more to the worker side of fast fashion than the customer side, which is more relatable. Also, trying to keep it gentle, without using like facts or figures to expose the readers to his bad the industry is was also tricky for me. I always see papers ( any paper) as something with facts and statics, because they are all of the time. And many of the perspectives I read don't have any fact and on't really articulate an argument much or how to deal with the problem they bring up. However, I did because I felt it necessary to mention something bad they do and how to fix it. I couldn't just say don't shop at any store in the mall and juts leave it at that. It wouldn't be helpful. The last thing that gave me some trouble was a title. I didn't want to just point out what my topic is, none of the ones I have seen did that. But coming up with something catchy but is relevant to the topic, not easy. I randomly wrote something in it and liked the ring, so I decided to use that as the title. 

Perspective: Investment Over Expendable

Perspective: Investment Over Expendable

I used to work at a Banana Republic, and everyday I would come in and everything would be rearranged. We would get new cashmere sweaters, and so they would go on the table in "the avenue" or we would get new dresses which would be put in the front of the store, while the old ones were either put in sale or in the back. We got new articles of clothing every week, although I use the term new loosely because sometimes it the same shirt in the same color with a different cut. And even though we always got new stuff in, it rarely sold better or got more people to come in. People would just wait until the sales happened, and when they did, it was mad house. People bought tons of the clothes for $40 off the original price while the old clothes collected dust in the back. This is a symptom from an industry called fast fashion, where clothes are made faster and cheaper to produce more and make more money. And while our clothes were made with a better quality in mind (in some factory where no one is getting payed well or treated well), most stores' clothing isn't good quality. It's stores we all know and love like Uniqlo, Forever 21, H& M, Zara, Topshop, ASOS, Urban Outfitter, etc. Tell me the last time you saw someone walk into one of those stores and come out with a small bag or only one purchase. We care more for quantity rather than quality. But what many people don't know is that these clothes effect our environment. Clean water is being polluted with toxic chemicals just so we can buy four pairs of blue jeans for $24.95 at H& M. And the clothes not sold or used end up in landfills or burnt (great thinking Burberry). We have to look into small businesses for ethical and sustainable clothing. Where the materials are produced and assembled in LA or somewhere in the United States. And while it's more pricey, we have to see our clothing more as an investment rather than expendable. I ended up quitting my job at Banana Republic, and have decided to make my own brand, one that sells ethical clothing, but can be just as popular as a fast fashion place.

Gender Specific, More Like Gender Perfect!

Gender Specific, More Like Gender Perfect!

Link:https://www.newsweek.com/christmas-children-gender-gendered-toy-gender-preferences-533756

Commentary: The author starts off appealing to our pathos, by saying a statement we all could agree with, no matter the opinion, "...parents or not, [we] will want to buy a toy as a present for a little boy or girl". The word little denotes these innocent, confused children helps appeal more towards what the writer will say. She then goes on to say while advertisers still promote toys to specific genders, she hides the question of whether that is good or bad by saying how kids attracted to the certain objects helps understand how gender norms develop. She doesn't go on to ask whether gender norms are good or bad. But, she makes more of an appeal to the audience by asking more questions, trying to get us to think directed more towards how children decide what toy to play with rather than gender norms and how toys are a factor in that. She then says that there is clear evidence that children prefer to play with their gender-specific toys, but right after says its based in what they have seen them do. Interestingly choosing the words "rely" and "interpretation", which sound more wavering, when she started the paragraph saying it is clear. She also uses more scientific words for the study such as visual behavior, to appeal to logos. Using the logic that the visual behaviors denote exact truth in a child who can't really communicate. She then keeps directing us towards her form of thinking by doing research to see what gender specific toys the right gender liked. She describes the children used, being from certain ages, also putting that could be independent from their parents. Going on to say that they were out of the room, as to not influence the children, trying to establish ethos, showing that what she did wasn't influenced by a certain feeling, even though it was. She talks about the toys they chose, which they got from surveying adults. To again show that they weren't influencing any component of the research, building up her ethos and logos. She then describes the actual experiment of putting the child in a circle of toys, putting them away from the toys so they have to move independently (reassuring our faith that this isn't biased). The results in her words were "overwhelming" and "highly significant" that children liked their gender specific toys. She doesn't tell us by what amount they did, or how the child playing with toys for certain times affects the study. After, she gives an example in the study to prove her logos and ethos, by talking about how the boys played with the ball for half of their time, excluding us from the information of what they payed with for the other half the time, as this could be informing. She then quickly passes over the girls by saying they did the same with the kitchen plates for "a similar proportion of time". That could mean anything really, from exactly half to a quarter, it just sounds better to say that its basically the same. After that extremely small experiment (47 girls and 54 boys), makes the big conclusion that preferences were made before socialization. Even though not just socialization, but parents, can influence a child young, she conflates the two. And then she backtracks slightly saying that could be modified later depending on how they label themselves. She, interestingly, brings up that young children are very specific in their preferences for their gender specific toys, and how as they grow older, are more inclined to boys toys (both genders). While this puts a lot of her conclusions in question with what she said, she goes on to say that this forces us to wonder what really is a "girl" or "boy" toy. Which was the point of this whole article, being that gender toys are for their specific gender and that children like them. She keeps going with putting her experiment and findings in question by stating that both boys and girls have different developmental pathways and that boys tend to have more rigid pathways. This connects with the whole is this good for society situation she completely ignores even though she brings it up. And to top it all off, the last two sentences say that some of the children in the experiment chose differently and completely throwing away most of the article and her argument, says that we should just keep the individual kid in mind. Again, appealing to our pathos by just doing right by the kid. 

A Dolly For Who?

A Dolly For Who?

When looking for toys at a toy store, we still consistently see the divide in what is gendered toys. Where it is blue, it is for the boys, meaning trucks and action figures. Where it is pink, it is for girls, and usually includes baby dolls or kitchens. What do our toys that are children play with say about our society and gender today? And do toys have to be specifically for a certain gender? 

To begin, we must look at the marketing of toys to children. A study done by the British group Let Toys Be Toys, looked at how toys are cataloged and found that boys are four times as likely to be shown playing with cars, while girls were twice as likely to be shown with "domestic" objects like baby dolls are kitchens.Most commercials for Barbie still only feature girls (except for this one ad done for Moschino Barbie, which was very controversial). And Hot Wheels commercials only include boys in them. We need to be more inclusive in these ads and commercials because more than just boys play with cars. Like this Moschino commercial, we need to start incorporating the other gender to allow them to play with what they want to play with. And not put our standards of gender on them.

Speaking of standards, research done by NAEYC had shown that most girl's toys revolved around physical attractiveness and domestic/ nurturing skills. While boys toys were more violent, competitive, and a little dangerous. And the most education toys that actual develop children's cognitive and artistic sides were either neutral or leaned more towards marketing for boys. So, even if we are striving towards women's rights, still the little girls have to play in kitchens or feed and change the baby doll. For some reason women's rights never included how Barbie could effect their perception of beauty as teen magazines do to teens.

It shows that as a society, we still are not over gender roles fully. We are over some, like women being able to work and men taking care of the house. And we are working on the whole gendered clothing and gender neutral clothing piece, but where do all these ideals come from? They come from us as kids! Through ads, through our friends, and through our parents.

Children understand this messaging, and will change their interest in the toys they like to fit that messaging. Based on Lawrence Kohlberg's theory of Gender identity development, we are able to figure out what gender we are around two and three. And through our environment, through the toys we play with, the kids we interact with, and how those things effect our surroundings, helps us identify ourselves.

I saw this when I was growing up. I always liked to play with Barbies, which was known as a girl's toy. And I was heavily bullied for it by the boys for that reason. They all played with Star Wars action figure or G.I. Joe, while I dressed up Barbie. From a young age they were taught that that was a girl's toy, through ads, and most likely their parents (through reinforcement or yelling or being told not to play with it). I wasn't. I was never told I couldn't play with it, and while I saw that boys didn't play with them and that I wouldn't be in Barbie ads unless it involved Ken sometimes, I was ok with that.

We are still imposing ourselves on to our children. Forcing them to believe what we believe when it comes to our gender and how we function as a society as that gender. People may say it is just a toy, or that it doesn't reflect that much on us as kids, but to that I say let your kid play with the other gender's toy. If it really doesn't mean much, then why would them playing with the other gender's toy effect them. It shouldn't right? Well, it does.

Toys teach children skills that facilitate how to function in society. Masculine toys are known to encourage visual and spatial skills, while feminine toys encourage communication and social skills. So, we don't have to get rid of cars or baby dolls, we just need to open them up to all children. If a child only plays with one, they are missing out on the other. They also limit their interests and scopes of futures. And stereotypes that are shaped and reinforced as children can limit or strain on things like education goals, and our social development.

We can start by not calling them girl's or boy's toys. We can try calling them masculine or feminine, because people (either gender) can be masculine or feminine. We would also have to then deal with masculinity and society's favoring of it. But that would allow more room for children to pick what they want to play with without some standard put on them for choosing that toy. They can decide what they want to play with and it then helps educate them on different skills, so we can be well-rounded as they get older. They can also be more open-minded and more accepting of different ideas and people.

So, if and when you have a child and you take them to the toy store, or go online to shop for toys, let them decide what they want to play with. Don't put a standard on what they can and can't play with because it only constricts them in the end. And who knows, you may end up with a princess who loves to throw her trucks in the dirty or a ninja who can make a cake as fast as three flips!



Work Cited


“Early Childhood Gender Identity And Sexuality.” Mental Help Early Childhood Cognitive Development Language Development Comments, www.mentalhelp.net/articles/early-childhood-gender-identity-and-sexuality/.

"Let Toys Be Toys." Gender Stereotypes and Toy Catalogues, http://lettoysbetoys.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/LetToysBeToys-Catalogues-report-Dec17.pdf.

“NAEYC.” What the Research Says: Impact of Specific Toys on Play | NAEYC, naeyc.org/resources/topics/play/gender-typed-toys.

Society's Gender Situation

Society's Gender Situation 

For my study on the rest of this blog, I chose to talk about gender and how society forces a perception of that onto us. I know that isn't something very new or much of an issue in the place I live (San Fransisco), but I thought it would be interesting from my point of view. I come from a conservative spot in Orange County called Huntington Beach. While it was a cute little relaxed beach town, it could be pretty close-minded. Sex and gender identity were rarely brought up, even in my health class in high school, and if they were, it was pretty biased. There were about three gay people at my school, including me and one was a teacher, but he kept it VERY down low. We also did have a trans woman at our school and was actually voted homecoming queen, but she then left the school a few days later because of severe bullying. So, not a great place to be different from the people around you. As this was what I grew up in, some of those ideas did develop in me. One of them being certain pieces of gender roles, like men wear men's clothing and women, well, women could wear both. It didn't really matter for women, because most boy clothes are masculine and masculinity is received better than femininity. So I would look at how versatile and tailored women's clothing was and would ponder what it was like to wear it. Now, just to be clear, I am not transgender, or a drag queen, and it isn't a sexual thing, I am completely comfortable as a gay cis man. I just wished that my pants would fit better as men's pants never fit my waist properly (I have a 28 inch waist which is rare for a guy and most brands don't sell my size). But I always felt that I shouldn't, I always felt that I would be judged and people would disavow me. And that would be embarrassing and I couldn't handle that, and that still partially persists to this day. I am too afraid to walk into a woman's brand store to get, like a nice fitting pair of jeans, because I don't want to be seen as weird or a creeper and be judged for it. so, one of the reasons I write this is to convince myself that this ok. To try and erase the feelings of judgment on myself, because I don't judge other guys for wearing women's clothing, live your life and do what you want! But for some stupid reason, I put the double standard on myself. 

Another aspect to society's idea of gender is how one acts. A man acts like a man, he doesn't cry, he loves sports, and he tries to sleep with lots of girls. Women are sensitive and nurturing, they like to bake and have fashion sense, and nurture children. We all have had this idea ingrained in us since we were young, and ever since I was young, I was the opposite of how I was suppose to be. All the guys were playing with trucks and Star Wars action figures, I loved playing with Barbies with the girls. The guys would scribble obscenities on their desks, I liked to organize mine. The guys would have crazy illegible, and mine was the neatest of the class. All the guys would bully me, and I would always cry. I was always known as the sensitive kid also known as crybaby, gay, fag, queer, freak, weirdo, fairy, and girly. Mind you, this came from boys in elementary school. This really informed my early years as an outcast among boys. Even later when I hit puberty in middle school, I was still known as very different. My voice, even though it got deeper, was still feminine and had that...gay sound for lack of a better term. I also stood or posed for feminine with my hand on my hip with my hip thrusted to that side. And my mannerisms were girly, with my hand movements being very free haha. With all of these things constantly on my mind, I was very conflicted with myself. I wanted to fit in with the guys, but I couldn't even connect with guys mostly because of my early relationship with them. I couldn't trust them. But women and girls were different. When I was bullied the girls would stand up for me. Who would I play with at recess time, the girls. Who did I connect with on social levels and deeper during elementary and middle school, the girls! The girls were always my closest and most wonderful friends (I still respect girls more for always standing up for me and being there for me). And as I said in the first paragraph, I still deal with some that residually. I hate hearing my voice on video because it sounds so...well....gay. So, this again is to try and allow myself to be myself. And not let these ideas stop me from experimenting with how I act or what I wear. 

These issues, in my opinion, effect everyone. We are still dealing with how men don't really get to express their feelings, particularly when it comes to crying, because it is seen as weak. Even in the gay community we have an issue with masculinity. Gay guys  want that guy who is straight acting, who someone would never suspect as gay and has this amazing body also known as masc for masc. And gay guys who are feminine who wear lots of pink or wear crop tops aren't as desirable because of that. I find all of these issues that society forced us to go through, very interesting. We also let society teach us these ideas without questioning them or doing something about them for quite a while now. It definitely has only been a few years since a bigger minority of us actually kind of gone against these ideas in broad day light. People and groups have gone against these ideas, I just feel it was more underground and wasn't seen enough by society. Now we are starting to have things like magazines (the picture above is from a magazine called "Pansy" that basically styles women's clothing on men), and celebrities like Nico Tortorella or Jaden Smith go against gender issues by wearing what is seen normally as women's clothing. And these are good things, because we need the puck back so people or kids like me don't have to feel so much like an outsider. We need to open our minds to allow ourselves more freedom and less judgement! I need to as well, I'm so judgmental on myself and I put myself to some of society's standards when it comes to gender, which seems stupid because it is only on certain pieces that do. So, we shall dive into society's ideas on gender and the things people do to reinforce or oppose those ideas. 

Can You Walk and Talk?

Can You Walk and Talk?

Augustus Fremont, 23; Manhasset, New York: While phones are a big part of our lives, and are seen as very distracting, they aren't as distracting as they seem. We are always on our phones, texting, talking, or on some form of social media; which would take away from understanding our surroundings. However, a poll was taken and says that only 36% of the respondents had had someone walk into them and 23% of them walking into someone. Those are surprisingly low statistics! It shows that while we are on our phones, we are pretty aware of our surroundings at least nearest to us, aka people walking past us. So we are able to multitask when it comes to walking and talking (and you thought walking and chewing gum maybe hard!) 

Amerata Peer, 60; Huntington Beach, California: People are spending so much time looking at their phones that they are bumping into people often. This statistic shows that we are not looking at where we are going, because it is showing close to half of people polled were hit by someone who was using their phone. That is more than ever before! Back in the day, we didn't have those types of distractions, so we didn't bump into people as often. And a fourth of people who were polled bumped into someone, that also isn't good. While it isn't usually dangerous bumping into someone, it means they are more likely not to pay attention period. Meaning they have a higher chance of getting hit by a car or a bike. We need to stop talking on our phones so much, the people will be there in 20 minutes when we get to our destinations! It isn't worth it, unless absolutely necessary, to talk to someone when we are walking. It is like driving and texting, it is very dangerous. Kids today think they can multi-task but God definitely didn't give us the attention span to do so! Please really think about whether you really need to text that person about how great your venti mocha frappa latte with skim milk and no foam and what it is worth. 

Fredrich Anaya, 35; Maui, Hawaii: There are still unanswered questions existing in this statistic, that definitely can alter how this is taken or looked at. A big question that isn't answered is how many times did the person who wasn't walked into, saw that they would be walked into, and moved? I have definitely noticed when someone isn't looking and so I move out of the way so we don't hit, it isn't because they notice. Or they may notice and slide their shoulders so we don't hit. I'm sure some of the people who said no have had some close calls. It never identifies if the person said they didn't hit someone, if they had any close calls that if one didn't notice, they would have hit. Also, goes into what type of talking. Is it texting, calling, or skyping? The answer would be very different because if they are calling they aren't looking at the phone. If it dealt with calling, this would be bad because that means that they weren't looking at their phone, so they weren't distracted, and they still walked into someone. If it is texting or skyping, it would mean they were distracted by the phone and would be more likely not to see someone around you because you would be looking down at the phone. There also is no evidence to any of what the people polled said. Also, they could have lied about bumping into someone (I know I would), by not saying they did or lying about the times they have done it. There is no way of proving it.

Pathos or Pompous

Pathos or Pompous

Background: So, in 1990, Madonna was at the height of her career! She had created a top selling album that fueled  controversy and gained a lot of traction based on the title track "Like a Prayer". The music video caused a stir with its religious imagery, including burning cross and kissing a saint. She was headlining a huge tour known as the Blond Ambition World Tour which included a racy version of former hit "Like a Virgin" in a bed where she simulated masturbation. Hearing of this, the Pope and other religious groups in Italy decided to boycott shows and called it blasphemes. She even had to cancel a show because of it, and this was her response.

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eR1J6WK0dhE&t=29s

Commentary: So, the definition of pathos from webster is "A quality that evokes pity or sadness", and while she tries to evoke a certain amount of pity, she is too head strong and angry to able to get that across in the speech. Trying to get total silence and screaming at the paparazzi just doesn't help her cause. It makes her look very diva-ish. Also, her tone seems rather angry and she takes digs at Italy near the end saying that they don't have an open heart or mind, which again, doesn't help your case by insulting them. 

Now to the message of the speech! What she is asking for is really the freedom to perform her show the way it is without getting called blasphemes and getting the pushback from Italy and the church. As she says, she is proud to be an American because she knows she has the freedom to express herself, but she isn't in America. She is in Italy, she screams "basta!" in Italian, meaning that's enough! Italy is well known for being a Catholic country, it is where the Pope resides (aka Vatican City). So, they are allowed to makes laws and govern speech the way they see fit. Just because you come into a country and you are American, doesn't mean they go by the same rules or will allow you to do things that are against rules or seen collectively as blasphemes. If you go into a country that has different rules, you are respectful and follow them. You don't do what you want out of spite or because it is your art. Now, they do have free speech in Italy, but there is also an article that restricts certain acts based on public morality (Article 21, Paragraph 6). If a high amount of Italians are Catholic, which we can be sure of because they grew up with that church being part of that country, their idea of public morality will be more conservative. They are allowed to feel that way, as you ask to be able to feel the way you do. She also discusses that she feels freedom of speech and thought is to see her show and judge afterwards, but that doesn't make sense. Freedom of speech and thinking allows the audience to judge prematurely and decide it is blasphemes and to not go to the show. She wants people to not use their freedom of speech and judge her, but asks for freedom of speech be used when talking about her show. She also conflates not being able to perform, an act against freedom of speech. Again, Italy has it's own rules on freedom of speech and what they see fit as morality. So bringing a show, which definitely can be seen as provocative and using your freedom to do so, and Italy using its freedom to say they do not encourage people seeing the show is not an act against free speech. 

In conclusion, she conflates allowing her show to play as freedom of speech. She doesn't allow Italy to use its freedom of speech and choose not to have certain places play that show, or tell people not to see that show. It is in their right to do so. She can play her show everywhere else they allow her to, other places in Italy allowed her to play that show.