Proposal

Mark Wild

11/11/2012

English 1A

Proposal: The roles of gender in the united states are socially constructed through culture and not biological.

Ethos: After traveling from coast to coast Michael Kimmel interviewed many young men age 16 to twenty six and found similar ideologies of what they considered a role of a man to be.  Common themes emerged and from his research he concluded that men in the United States identify a mans role as one that was strong, emotionally distant, self sufficient and tolerant to suffering.  Through his investigation he was surprised to find that purpose to maintain the eidos of a man isn’t for the women, rather it is monitored and compared by other men to keep each other in line. “The Guy Code’ as Kimmel describes is a governing force run by generations of men that has concreted an expected role men play in this country.  Many men trust and follow their role models, it could be a baseball player to fictional solder, in the media in this culture it is always exaggerated depictions of a man’s man, the gender roles are consist. I claim that the role of gender in the United States is merely socially constructed by influences from advertising and culture and are not biological. There is no model on how we should live our lives; there is the influences around us that shape us for who we are.

Logos: In Michael Kimmel’s article “Bros Before Hoes” he concludes that there is an underlying influence from other men in the United States to maintain a specific role. These influences can come in many forms such as insults, mannerisms; ones own interest, and lifestyle. Interesting enough, all derive of these pressure derive from one incentive, to essentially take someone else’s manhood.  According to Kimmel, “Everything that is perceived as gay goes into what we might call the negative playbook of guyland. Avoid everything in it and you’ll be alright. Just make sure you walk, talk, and act in a different way from the gay stereotype: dress terribly; show no taste in art or music; show no emotions at all.”  In other words, don’t act in a way where people might perceive you as homosexual. It is apparent that this is socially constructed; the pressure from your peers is forcing you to adibe by their lifestyle. In a culture that prizes men to fit into the “eidos “ of a man, it is hard to identify into a lifestyle that is on the other side of the spectrum, like homosexuality. In turn crippling ones ability to stay true to themselves for fear of being rejecting and isolated from the community.

Pathos: This is abstract in its own manner,  as one considers the roles of gender as the norm in the US. It has been that way for generations, our parents and grandparents have abided by these roles without question. The government at times has reinforced these roles through wartime, ever so redefining what is a man, and for good reason. Though now we are living in a different time, a place in history where by the grace of technology and advanced communication we are now getting a glimpse of the age of individualism and through a troubled economy the burden of capitalism has forced both sex’s to be integrated into the working world. Now, in this time, in a world where 29% of household families are run be single parents we must redefine what it is to be female or male, or manly or unmanly. We have seen through countless propositions the pressure to unify homosexuals and recognize them for love, for marriage. I say enough with the pressure of gender roles, we are all born and develop differently. We need a country of people who are confident in themselves, for a better America. We need to break the  social pressures  that define a man or a woman, and instead give them the encouragement and love to develop into the person they have always wanted to be.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1337.pdf

RA#2 Finalized

Mark Wild

Rhetorical Analysis  #2

Jean Kilbourne shows the stark contrast between gender roles in advertising, providing an abundance of examples, she shines light on the depiction of roles men and women play in everyday advertising. Everything from alcoholic beverages, watches, to designer underwear, Kilbourne has forced to reader to look onto and examine the subliminal messages interwoven in advertising. Behind the veil there lies a disconnect to reality, where women are more sexualized, immortalized and men conquer with power and wealth.  The fear is that long term exposure could leak into how we perceive gender in our society, reinforcing a specific role we should abide by, and in turn hindering our true expression of character and inhibiting us from breaching the norms for fear of being misunderstood.

Sex in advertising is more common then ever. Woman and men alike are stripped of any type of emotion and sensitivity only to expose the raw sexual desire in an individual, even if it is completely unrelated to the produced being sold. Something that is as elusive and special as arousalment is now interpreted in an exaggerated form, further diminishing such emotion.  Sadly, it is but an advertising technique, a form of dehumanizing the character, as though they are just an object of desire, with no depth beyond what one sees. Woman models are more often used in a similar manner to pornography, leaking its interpretations in magazines, television ads and billboards. Kilbourne asserts, “Pornography is more dangerously mainstream when its glorification of rape and violence shows up in mass media, in films and television shows, in comedy and music videos, and in advertising. Male violence is subtly encouraged by ads that encourage men to be forceful and dominant, and to value sexual intimacy more than emotional intimacy. “  This is justified by the role men play in advertising.

It is troubling on account that the role of a man in advertising is a direct connection to how the women is perceived. Women are often depicted as weak, helpless, and out of control.  In every single Advertisement that involves a man, Kilbourne sights that there are common underlying themes that the men play.  Specifically, violence and control. It is unsettling to note that this tactic is not entirely derived from a form of fantasy. Rather a reflection of our society in the past century. In the United states and until recently, men have always been the one with the wealth and power. They make up the majority in congress, run our military, our advertising, media.  and occupy high salary positions. Out of the 1210 billionaires in the world, only 11 are women.  No wonder there is so much hate translated through the media towards women, they rarely get to hold a professional position. Why are females oppressed in this society when both genders are of equal intelligence and made up of the same substances? Three words, Lack of empathy.

Wealth and power breeds evil. Men simply don’t want to give up that position because it is on their side. It has been that way for decades now and it has leaked into our media and culture. The stereotypes might not change but I believe the people will. There will be time where the masses are educated on this matter and when that times comes advertising will not have the affect it has had on the individuals, allowing them become an individual. 

Rhetorical Analysis #2

Mark Wild

Rhetorical Analysis #2

Title: “Two Ways a Woman Can Get Hurt”: Advertising and Violence

Author: Jean KilBourne

Topic: How marketing techniques in advertising portrays  common themes and roles in gender, ultimately shaping men and women into set roles. Woman are sexualized, abused and even submissive to the hands of a powerful man,  who is commonly portrayed as powerful,  wealthy  and detached entirely from emotion and instead replaced by ego and physique.

Exigence: The fear is that long term exposure to such advertising could leak into how we perceive gender in our society, reinforcing a specific role we should abide by, and in turn hindering our true expression of character and inhibiting us from breaching the norms for fear of being misunderstood.

Intended audience: Young people, but just about anyone who is influenced by mass media.

Purpose: To eventually redefine how we advertise, make it less sexist and bias toward gender.

Writer’s strategy 1: pathos

Writers strategy 2: claims/ evidence

Writers strategy 3: cause and effect/ redefining gender roles

Response: Jean Kilbourne shows the stark contrast between gender roles in advertising, providing an abundance of examples, she shines light on the depiction of roles men and women play in everyday advertising. Everything from alcoholic beverages,  watches, to designer underwear, Kilbourne has forced to reader to look onto and examine the subliminal messages interwoven in  advertising. Behind the veil there lies a disconnect to reality, where women are more sexualized, immortalized and men conquer with power and wealth.  The fear is that long term exposure could leak into how we perceive gender in our society, reinforcing a specific role we should abide by, and in turn hindering our true expression of character and inhibiting us from breaching the norms for fear of being misunderstood.

Proposition 30 final draft

Mark Wild

Knapp

English 1A

10/7/12

Proposition 30, California’s last hope.

            Over the past several years the great recession has forced Jerry brown to make vital cuts to California’s Budget, from public transportation to public safety, the time has come where California’s education is now on the chopping block.  Jerry Brown has already signed a $6 billion dollar trigger cut out of California’s  budget next year if nether prop 30 or prop 38 get passes resulting in cutting of more funds from schools, and public services further diminishing the quality of education in California.  Proposition 30 is deemed as California’s last hope before the proposed cuts,  as it will increase the overall sales tax  by ¼ cent for four years, while increasing personal income tax on incomes ranging from $250,000 - $1,000,000 and allocating %100 (%89 to k-12 and %11 to community colleges) to education . Though it might seem quite rash taxing high income earners  and using the tax revenue to pay for schools in California, it is the only thing we can do to evade an educational collapse. At this time, America is seemingly broken; the middle class is underwater and spreading itself thin, the 2009 recession has affected everyone except for the wealthy elites. If California doesn’t have the money to fund the schools, it is only logical to tax the many millionaires %1 more, creating a 6 billion dollar stimulus that will fund our schools.

           

Though proposition 30 is aimed at funding schools, prop 38 is intended to fund only 60% to K-12 while 30% is to pay off the accumulated debt California is currently faced with. Leaving the remaining 10% to fund early childhood programs. Nevertheless it will impose a sliding scale tax on everyone from the lowest earners starting at .4% to highest with a 2.2% added tax rate that will last a staggering 12 years. According to Ballotpedia.com “It will generate roughly $10 billion dollars annually”, for 12 years, with $6 billion to be circulated through schools, though this does not apply to community college.

            Instead of a sliding scale tax rate, Prop 30 maintains an overall sales tax of a quarter of a penny throughout California, while creating 4 high income tax brackets and imposing a specific tax rate for each of them.  The tax brackets apply to individuals incomes exceeding $250,000, $3000,000, $500,00 and $1,000,000 and will be in affect for 7 years.  For incomes over $250,000 but less then $300,000 it will impose a 1% increase from 9.3% to 10.3%. For incomes ranging from $300,000 to $500,000 it will require a 11.3% tax rate over the current 9.3%. Finally for incomes ranging higher then $500,000 up to $1,000,000 it will impose a 12.3% tax rate.   Though the tax hike will burden the wealthiest in California it will put the tax revenue to good work by infusing it into our schools, specifically community colleges, where there is less funding, overcrowded classrooms and less classes available.

Some argue that prop 30 will be detrimental to the economy. Claiming that increasing taxes is only a temporary resolution to the budget problem and that California need an educational reform more then anything else. Including that prop 30’s summary is but a shell game created by Sacramento politicians, essentially pocketing most of the 6 billion dollars in tax revenue every year.  For example Stopprop30.com claims that proposition 30 “does not provide new funding for schools. Instead it bolsters the General Funds with new revenue.” This proposes that politicians can simply allocate money from the general fund and use it for there own incentives like personal wealth or non-educational funding.  Though this argument seems legitimate, it directly contradicts essential points in the summary analysis itself. For example from the official title and summary of proposition 30 states that it  “bars use of funds for administrative cost, but provides local school governing boards discretion to decide, in open meeting and subject to annual audit, how funds are to be spent.” This incentive restricts any politician from managing the funds and instead relies on a series of individuals working for the local schools boards all over the state to manage the money. It will also include the watchful eye of a government approved annual audit that will evaluates the spending and make sure it spent in a appropriate manner.

In acceptance with prop 30, the demand for high quality education is at a all time high, according to the California board of educations website “nearly 6,214,205 students enrolled in k- 12 in California this year and a mere 288,755 teachers to serve.”  This is barley getting by with an average of 21 students per teacher, not to mention some schools that can even average out with 30-45 students per teacher.  In addition, Californiacommunitycolleges.edu  “funding for community colleges has been cut by 12% since 2008, resulting in a $806 million dollar loss. Speculated loss for after January 2013 is another $338 million.  California community colleges enrollment decreased by more than 485,000 students to 2.4 million in 3 academic years from 2008- 2011 due to educational cuts.  Not to mention the course sections were reduced by approximately 24% due to funding reductions, and winter and summer sections were cut a massive 50% to all community colleges in California. With all these staggering cuts to the community colleges  it has forced the schools to reduce course offerings, increase class sizes, lay off staff, and decrease spending  and loan offers resulting in a catastrophic decrease in overall education for nearly 2.5 million students.

This is unsettling news for me, for I have no other option but to pay for my schooling out of pocket. I know to many students my age who have begun digging them self out of the hole of debt just to wield a degree, and for me the last thing I want to be is in debt. Community College has worked for me because it is cheap enough to allow me to work a coffee shop job, where I can make rent and pay for school every semester. If proposition 30 does not pass it is certain that overall tuition cost for community colleges will raise, making my chance to graduate into the working world ever so unobtainable.  Prop 30 is my only hope to get the community colleges the funding they need to be affordable and have quality education accessible to everyone.

If proposition 30 does not get passed, California will be forced to cut 6 billion dollars out of our annual budget. With that amount of money circulating in our school system it can help over a million children learn how read. It has the power to support more classes teaching sciences, multi-cultural and foreign language courses, ever expanding the minds and creative thoughts of our children. It will employ more teachers, while simultaneously giving our children the education they need. Most importantly it will send a message to the people of California, that the opportunity to provide education is a prized accommodation at that and should be promoted and well funded for a better future for the people of  California. Vote for Prop 30.

  http://californiacommunitycolleges.cccco.edu/PolicyInAction/KeyFacts.aspx

http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/DQ/EnrTimeRptSt.aspx?Level=State&cChoice=TSEnr1&cYear=2011-12&cLevel=State&cTopic=Enrollment&myTimeFrame=S

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_30,_Sales_and_Income_Tax_Increase_(2012)

http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2012/general/pdf/30-title-summ-analysis.pdf

http://www.stopprop30.com/budget-experts-mike-genest-peter-schaafsma-explain-the-prop-30-school-funding-myths/

rough draft

Mark Wild

Knapp

English 1A

10/7/12

Proposition 30, California’s last hope.

            Over the past several years the great recession has forced Jerry brown to make vital cuts to California’s Budget, from public transportation to public safety,  the time has come where California’s education is now on the chopping block.  Jerry Brown has already  signed a $6 billion dollar trigger cut out of California’s  Budget next year if nether prop 30 or prop 38 get passes resulting in cutting of more funds from schools, and public services further diminishing the quality of education in California.  Proposition 30 is deemed as California’s last hope before the proposed cuts  as it will increase the overall sales tax  by ¼ cent for four years, as well as increasing personal income tax on incomes ranging from $250,000 - $1,000,000 and allocating %100 (%89 to k-12 and %11 to community colleges) to education . Though it might seem quite rash taxing high income earners  and using the tax revenue to pay for schools in califorinia, it is the only thing we can do to evade an educational collapse. At this time, America is seemingly broken; the middle class is underwater and spreading itself thin, the 2009 recession has affected everyone except for the wealthy elites. If California doesn’t have the money to fund the schools, it is only logical to tax the many millionares %1 more, creating a 6 billion dollar stimulus that will fund the schools.

           

Though proposition 30 is aimed at funding schools, prop 38 is  intended to fund only 60% to K-12 while 30% is to pay off the accumulated debt California is currently faced with. Leaving the remaining 10% to fund early childhood programs. Nevertheless it will impose a sliding scale tax on everyone from the lowest earners  starting at .4% to highest with a 2.2% added tax rate that will last a staggering 12 years. According to Ballotpedia.com it will generate roughly $10 billion dollars annually, for 12 years,  with $6 billion to be circulated through schools, though this does not apply to community college.

            Instead of a sliding scale tax rate, Prop 30 maintains a overall sales tax of a quarter of a penny throughout California, while creating 4 high income tax brackets and imposing a specific tax rate for each of them.  The tax brackets apply to individuals incomes exceeding $250,000, $3000,000, $500,00 and $1,000,000 and will be in affect for 7 years.  For incomes over $250,000 but less then $300,000 it will impose a 1% increase from 9.3% to 10.3%. For incomes ranging from $300,000 to $500,000 it will require a 11.3% tax rate over the current 9.3%. Finally for incomes ranging higher then $500,000 up to $1,000,000 it will burden a 12.3% tax rate.   Though the tax hike will burden the wealthiest in California it will put the tax revenue to good work by infusing it into our schools, specifically community colleges, where there is less funding, overcrowded classrooms and less classes available.

The demand for high quality education is at a all time high, according to the California board of educations website  nearly 6,214,205 students enrolled in k- 12 in California this year and a mear 288,755 teachers  to serve is barley getting by with an average of 21 students per teacher.  Some schools can even average out with 30-45 students per teacher.  According to Californiacommunitycolleges.edu  funding for community colleges has been cut by 12% since 2008, resulting in a $806 million dollar loss. Speculated loss for after January 2013 is another $338 million.  California community colleges enrollment decreased by more than 485,000 students to 2.4 million in 3 academic years from 2008- 2011 due to educational cuts.  Not to mention the course sections were reduced by approximately 24% due to funding reductions, and winter and summer sections were cut a massive 50% to all community colleges in California. With all these staggering cuts to the community colleges in California it has forced the schools to reduce course offerings, increase class sizes, lay off staff, and decrease spending  and loan offers resulting in a catastrophic decrease in overall education for nearly 2.5 million students.

This is unsettling news for me, for I have no other option but to pay for my schooling out of pocket. I know to many students my age who have begun digging them self out of the hole of debt just to wield a degree, and for me the last thing I want to be is in debt. Community College has worked for me because it is cheap enough to allow me to work a coffee shop job, where I can make rent and pay for school every semester. If proposition 30 does not pass it is certain that overall tuition cost for community colleges will raise, making my chance to graduate into the working world ever so unobtainable.  Prop 30 is my only hope to get the community colleges the funding they need to be affordable and have  quality education accessible to everyone.  Vote for Prop 30.