In the essay “The Empire of Images in Our World of Bodies” Susan Bordo brings our media influenced ideals about the “perfect” body to the attention of the reader. In Bordo’s view, media has strayed away from saying that any one can be beautiful at any age, instead we are now faced with the fact that the word “perfect” can now be applied to a human body when it never could have before (151). Specifically she looks to the teens of America, and how we should reach out to them and influence them in positive ways. So that we as a whole can finally grab a hold of our nation’s ever growing disorder dilemma.
As Susan Bordo puts it, “Inner beauty has become a joke in this culture.” (154) Some believe that our current beauty ambitions are nothing more than simple acts of bettering one’s self esteem and self-confidence. And sure the occasional face-lift, tummy tuck, breast augmentation, or strict diets seem innocent enough in our society today. But Bordo insists that it is much more than that, the possibility of leading yourself down a potential path of eating disorders and addiction to plastic surgery is not worth looking five years younger. In sum, Susan Bordo wants our society to revert itself to where aging beautifully was simply “Wearing one’s years with style, confidence, and vitality.” (150) Certainly something that can be ascertained by our culture, but with the steps we are currently taking, we must come to realize we are ruining the “perfect” image. Which should simply be what each individual wants to see in themselves and not what society demands them to be.
I myself have mixed views on the topic. In my opinion, beauty should involve more than your looks, looking 35 when you are 55 shouldn’t immediately translate to overwhelming beauty. Where did personality, intelligence, and common interests go? Those are the real things that matter to me, not how many times you’ve had botox injected into your forehead. Bordo even mentions, “We confront how bizarre, how impossible, how contradictory they are,” when looking at how much the beauty industry has tweaked images to make them even more “perfect” than the original (161). For instance, I’ve never really had an interest in finding a woman that is simply drop dead gorgeous, because odds are she doesn’t meet the other standards that I put ahead of pure beauty. Pure beauty being basic physical characteristics, or “judging a book by its cover” you could say. Not to say that there aren’t beautiful women out there that can also have amazing personalities, be smart, and enjoy the same things I do. But I’d rather get to know someone, decide that we have more together than physical attraction, and then look for the inner beauty in each and every woman.
Others would argue that the use of plastic surgery is not to merely make a person “perfect” but to enhance or improve certain features that they are unsatisfied with. I can understand that, and for that reason I have mixed feelings about the whole topic. I do feel that if there is something about your body that you really don’t want, and think you’d have higher self-confidence if something were done about it, then in any situation you should always be looking to achieve that change.
Overall I believe that beauty in our culture has drastically changed over the years and that we have no one to blame but ourselves. We could blame the media, we could blame Hollywood, but we have always had the option of turning off the TV or ignoring what we’ve seen and heard from Tinsel Town. Our ideal of beauty can always be changed, but it will require a lot of work at this point due to everything that influences our choices. We need to take a moment and attempt to determine what is best for each individual, and stop looking at beauty with such a collectivist attitude. But, with our society being a media driven culture, what we see is what we trust and what we yearn for.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Synthesis Revision
Whether we like it or not, the basis of education is becoming more and more technological. But, by instituting computers into the classroom and refusing to acknowledge the usefulness of books, are students still being challenged and learning material as dynamically as before? The Wisconsin Center for Education Research and Clifford Stell have very different arguments, but really they are supporting each other more than they think.
The WCER is strongly in favor of computers being an essential player in the classroom, feeling that with the additional access to information on the internet instantly makes it a better learning tool than a pile of books. Also, the fact that a student is more likely to sit down at a computer and play an educational game then sit down at a desk and sift through books trying to come to the same conclusion, it shows how much our educational system has changed. When a student is ready to go do research, they may be heading to a library, but odds are they will be looking through a online database before checking what books are available to them.
Clifford Stell, the author of "Who Needs Computers", has a very different argument. He points out that computers do everything but help develop students in the classroom. Mentioning that when you look back to the 60's and how filmstrips made their first appearance in the classroom, everyone knew that it was a chance to slack off because you weren't going to be learning anything as a student. But the only reason they were being used is because parents wanted the newest and most advanced pieces of technology readily available to their children at all times.
But are these two arguments really all that different? Yes there is one side claiming that computers are the future and will be the most advantageous tool available, whereas the other wants to see books taking the forefront in education. The similarity here is that computers are the future whether we like it or not. Just as it is with almost any other type of new technology or idea that is brought into question, there will be naysayers and supporters. But in this case the naysayers are those who don't understand the real advantages that computers and advanced technology provides students. My point here--that the majority of those opposed to seeing computers brought into classrooms, are not students, the opinions that should really count in this matter. Beyond this limited audience, however, my point should speak to anyone who cares about the larger issue of individual learning styles. Not everyone can take a book, read it, and pull away all of the main points as easily as others. In some cases, a computer game, or aided study guide helps ease the process for the student. So in essence we have people arguing against the greater good, because years from now you will most likely only see computers in the classroom because as a society that is the direction we are heading in.
The WCER is strongly in favor of computers being an essential player in the classroom, feeling that with the additional access to information on the internet instantly makes it a better learning tool than a pile of books. Also, the fact that a student is more likely to sit down at a computer and play an educational game then sit down at a desk and sift through books trying to come to the same conclusion, it shows how much our educational system has changed. When a student is ready to go do research, they may be heading to a library, but odds are they will be looking through a online database before checking what books are available to them.
Clifford Stell, the author of "Who Needs Computers", has a very different argument. He points out that computers do everything but help develop students in the classroom. Mentioning that when you look back to the 60's and how filmstrips made their first appearance in the classroom, everyone knew that it was a chance to slack off because you weren't going to be learning anything as a student. But the only reason they were being used is because parents wanted the newest and most advanced pieces of technology readily available to their children at all times.
But are these two arguments really all that different? Yes there is one side claiming that computers are the future and will be the most advantageous tool available, whereas the other wants to see books taking the forefront in education. The similarity here is that computers are the future whether we like it or not. Just as it is with almost any other type of new technology or idea that is brought into question, there will be naysayers and supporters. But in this case the naysayers are those who don't understand the real advantages that computers and advanced technology provides students. My point here--that the majority of those opposed to seeing computers brought into classrooms, are not students, the opinions that should really count in this matter. Beyond this limited audience, however, my point should speak to anyone who cares about the larger issue of individual learning styles. Not everyone can take a book, read it, and pull away all of the main points as easily as others. In some cases, a computer game, or aided study guide helps ease the process for the student. So in essence we have people arguing against the greater good, because years from now you will most likely only see computers in the classroom because as a society that is the direction we are heading in.
Monday, September 24, 2007
OUTLINE
Thesis: Whether we like it or not, our educational environment is becoming more technologically advanced, but is it really helping or hurting the classrooms?
Intro: Hit both authors' main points.
Body: 1) WCER
a. Main stance
b. Support
c. Quote developing argument
2) Clifford Stell
a. Main Stance
b. Support
c. Quote developing argument.
3) Supporting each other?
a. Compare arguments
b. Develop similarities
c. Synthesize and prove how they are really talking about the same issue.
Conclusion: Wrap-up loose ends
Intro: Hit both authors' main points.
Body: 1) WCER
a. Main stance
b. Support
c. Quote developing argument
2) Clifford Stell
a. Main Stance
b. Support
c. Quote developing argument.
3) Supporting each other?
a. Compare arguments
b. Develop similarities
c. Synthesize and prove how they are really talking about the same issue.
Conclusion: Wrap-up loose ends
Synthesis
Whether we like it or not, the basis of education is becoming more and more technological. But, by instituting computers into the classroom and refusing to acknowledge the usefulness of books, are students still being challenged and learning material as dynamically as before? The Wisconsin Center for Education Research and Clifford Stell have very different arguments, but really they are supporting each other more than they think.
The WCER is strongly in favor of computers being an essential player in the classroom, feeling that with the additional access to information on the internet instantly makes it a better learning tool than a pile of books. Also, the fact that a student is more likely to sit down at a computer and play an educational game then sit down at a desk and sift through books trying to come to the same conclusion, it shows how much our educational system has changed. When a student is ready to go do research, they may be heading to a library, but odds are they will be looking through a online database before checking what books are available to them.
Clifford Stell, the author of "Who Needs Computers", has a very different argument. He points out that computers do everything but help develop students in the classroom. Mentioning that when you look back to the 60's and how filmstrips made their first appearance in the classroom, everyone knew that it was a chance to slack off because you weren't going to be learning anything as a student. But the only reason they were being used is because parents wanted the newest and most advanced pieces of technology readily available to their children at all times.
But are these two arguments really all that different? Yes there is one side claiming that computers are the future and will be the most advantageous tool available, whereas the other wants to see books taking the forefront in educations. The similarity here is that computers are the future whether we like it or not. Just as it is with almost any other type of new technology or idea that is brought into question, there will be naysayers and supporters. But in this case the naysayers are those who don't understand the real advantages that computers and advanced technology provides students. So in essence we have people arguing against the greater good, because years from now you will only see computers in the classroom because as a society that is the direction we are heading in.
The WCER is strongly in favor of computers being an essential player in the classroom, feeling that with the additional access to information on the internet instantly makes it a better learning tool than a pile of books. Also, the fact that a student is more likely to sit down at a computer and play an educational game then sit down at a desk and sift through books trying to come to the same conclusion, it shows how much our educational system has changed. When a student is ready to go do research, they may be heading to a library, but odds are they will be looking through a online database before checking what books are available to them.
Clifford Stell, the author of "Who Needs Computers", has a very different argument. He points out that computers do everything but help develop students in the classroom. Mentioning that when you look back to the 60's and how filmstrips made their first appearance in the classroom, everyone knew that it was a chance to slack off because you weren't going to be learning anything as a student. But the only reason they were being used is because parents wanted the newest and most advanced pieces of technology readily available to their children at all times.
But are these two arguments really all that different? Yes there is one side claiming that computers are the future and will be the most advantageous tool available, whereas the other wants to see books taking the forefront in educations. The similarity here is that computers are the future whether we like it or not. Just as it is with almost any other type of new technology or idea that is brought into question, there will be naysayers and supporters. But in this case the naysayers are those who don't understand the real advantages that computers and advanced technology provides students. So in essence we have people arguing against the greater good, because years from now you will only see computers in the classroom because as a society that is the direction we are heading in.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
WIKI
Click Here for Wiki Article
In this article, Wikipedia and it's value to society as a reliable news source is being questioned. Most people feel that because anyone has the ability to go onto Wiki and add, remove, or edit previous "postings" on a given topic, that immediately drops the accuracy of the provided facts on the website. But when you look at some of the major events in our past few years as a nation and world, you can see just how accurately portrayed they are on Wikipedia. Most facts that are placed onto Wiki come from real news sources, but with Wiki, the speed of the updates are so immediate that it acts as a very important news tool to the world by providing instant alerts and access to important details on major world changing events. This particular article goes into detail about how successful Wikipedia was as a news source during the VT Shootings, and how it had so many "hits" that the website could hardly handle the amount of traffic that it was generating. Most of the information on the website was found to be accurate and when it was found false, there was more often then not a removal or flagging of such info.
I feel that Wikipedia is not far from becoming a widely used and widely recognized news source for all types of topics and information. They simply need to add more administrators and moderators that are willing to sift through the information, good and bad, and make each article's info as reliable and accurate as possible. I myself go to Wikipedia when i'm looking for a simple reference to a topic I just want a little bit of information on. But if Wikipedia took the time and effort to develop thier website to the point where they are recognized as an authentic source of news, then many more users would look first to Wiki instead of another site.
In this article, Wikipedia and it's value to society as a reliable news source is being questioned. Most people feel that because anyone has the ability to go onto Wiki and add, remove, or edit previous "postings" on a given topic, that immediately drops the accuracy of the provided facts on the website. But when you look at some of the major events in our past few years as a nation and world, you can see just how accurately portrayed they are on Wikipedia. Most facts that are placed onto Wiki come from real news sources, but with Wiki, the speed of the updates are so immediate that it acts as a very important news tool to the world by providing instant alerts and access to important details on major world changing events. This particular article goes into detail about how successful Wikipedia was as a news source during the VT Shootings, and how it had so many "hits" that the website could hardly handle the amount of traffic that it was generating. Most of the information on the website was found to be accurate and when it was found false, there was more often then not a removal or flagging of such info.
I feel that Wikipedia is not far from becoming a widely used and widely recognized news source for all types of topics and information. They simply need to add more administrators and moderators that are willing to sift through the information, good and bad, and make each article's info as reliable and accurate as possible. I myself go to Wikipedia when i'm looking for a simple reference to a topic I just want a little bit of information on. But if Wikipedia took the time and effort to develop thier website to the point where they are recognized as an authentic source of news, then many more users would look first to Wiki instead of another site.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
