Blog #5

Pollan’s statement of “Men have become the tools or their tools” means that men today have become dependent on additional objects or gear to help them with their day to day lives. Yes, men have their “tools” in which they use daily to keep up with their jobs, whatever it is they do to make a profit and provide for themselves and whoever else is in their lives. But, what Pollan is saying is that men cannot just relay on those “tools” anymore. They must use additional utensils, whatever they can to help with their lives. There is an example that Pollan gives involving how a certain amount of “cash flow” is needed yearly, if the price of a product drops the only way to maintain the money they need is to sell more of the product. This is using what you can and substituting in with other options when the first plan fails to provide you with what is needed.


When it comes to obsessing over body images and the “perfect” look it’s usually about women but, what about men? Do they not face the same issues as women? Of course they do. Although they might not be as obsessive with this topic as women, men also worry about their self image. Instead of aiming for very slender bodies like females, men tend to try to be muscular. If they don’t fit the image of “well built” then they don’t feel as good about themselves and don’t fit into the stereotypes of men. Men, like women, have the magazines where the “perfect” male body is showed off and this is what men look to be like. They may not seem to care as much about themselves as women but they do, everyone does. You can’t help but to try to fit into the stereotypes that are in our world today.

Blog #4

Asimov thinks of himself as “highly intelligent” because he scores so well on aptitude tests. He doesn’t consider that fact that he may be good at academic test but if there was a test other then academic, such as hands, he would probably do badly. He makes an example of his auto- repair man. Asimov states that he wouldn’t touch his car if there was a problem with it because he knows he does not know what he is doing but he would bring it directly to his auto-repair man who could fix it without a problem, and this man happens to score rather low on the academic tests. Perhaps the test has to do something with cars I’m sure he would do a whole lot better where as Asimov would not. The auto-repair man also tells a joke to Asimov, that he of course falls for even those the joke is all common sense. He follows the joke by saying “Because you’re so goddamned educated, doc, I knew you couldn’t be very smart” (2). He is basically saying that academically smart people do not have much common sense.

Sedaris on the other hand tells of his experience of going back to school to learn the beautiful language of French. His ideas are similar to Asimov but are expressed in a different way. Sedaris is in for a lot of trouble when he enters the class. The teacher is the main problem; she refuses to let anyone speak anything but French, she makes her feels very obvious and doesn’t care about hurting her student’s feelings. He makes a point of saying that “understanding doesn’t mean that you can suddenly speak the language. Which I agree with completely, it’s one thing to understand a language but, it’s a whole other story to be able to communicate in that language which is what he is trying to express. Sedaris’ teacher tells him “You exhaust me with your foolishness and reward my efforts with nothing but pain…” (295). Sedaris understand this and wants the teacher to talk to him more. There are different ways to teach a language and there are different kinds of intelligence among people, but either way we all communicate to each other every day.

Blog #3

An quote that interested me by Goffman is “A corollary is that when a male and female are pictured in a euphoric state, the female is likely to be exhibiting a more expansive expression than is the male, which in turn fits with the argument already made and illustrated that in our society women smile more than men – both in real scenes and in commercially contrived ones” (69). I find this to be interesting because of the fact that I don’t believe it’s true that females smile more than men. How can that statement be made when really everyone is different and depending on a person’s personality will determine how much they do or do not smile. Of course as a whole it can be judged that one sex may smile more or less but that statement shouldn’t be made because it’s stereotyping the men are more serious than women, which I believe to not be true.

Bordo asked, ‘When did “perfection” become applicable to a human body?’ (151). Her question stuck with me because many women ask this question everyday and even more women struggle to have the “perfect” body. Bonrdo goes on to explain Botox, face lifts and even eating disorders. These are all things that play into getting the “perfect” body. Everyday women look at the celebrities and think they have to look like them, when in reality there is no “perfect” body. So many women, including teenagers, are mixed up in all the nonsense of having the flawless image and that is the cause of so many problems such as eating disorders.

In the world today Goffman and Bordo’s analysis would hole up pretty well. Goffman may be a little outdated because he makes some references about how women were lower in society than men, and that has defiantly changed over time. Men still might be looked at as higher up but women have paved a way for themselves. Men and women used have to stick to their duties, men worked and women were the house wives, but in modern day that’s not the case. Women now have jobs that only men were allowed to have a one time, some women are even providing for their families instead of relying on the men of the house. Bordo’s insights also stand up in the world today because she makes a statement that people play into the media and follow it. This is very true with our culture today.

Blog #2

“But still more incredible is the fact that you cannot avoid seeing a face here. Your mind won’t let you!” (McCloud 202). McCloud points out that you cannot evade seeing a face when you see two dots and a line enclose in a circle. Your mind is programmed to see a face when there is anything that is remotely close to the face features. This quote attracts me because it amazes me that all humans think this way, as in if an everyday item is looked at in a different way it can be seen as a face. This is common when looking at the moon or sometimes a house can portray a face by the way the windows and doors are arranged. Also sometimes in food; the way seeds or fruit falls on a dish can resemble a face. This can work for other things too, not just a face; our minds trick us into seeing random objects into something familiar. This is very common when looking at clouds. It’s an allusion that your mind forces you to see.

She had spicy food for the first time last night. Later that night she broke out in a skin rash. This would be an example of post hoc, ergo proper hoc. The case given is post hoc, ergo proper hoc because the skin rash is not a result from the spicy food. It is just a coincidence that the girl happened to break out in a rash after eating the spicy food.

If ever there was an idea custom-made for Jay Leno monologue, this was it: A sunflower is the prettiest flower in a garden and attracts the most butterflies. Isn’t that like not true compared to the yellow roses? Whatever happened to butterflies liking violets the best?
I happen to sympathize with sunflowers, though, perhaps because people tend to not plant sunflowers as much because they are a lot to handle.

Blog #1

Rhetoric can have different meanings depending who is talking about it. “…rhetoric is defined as the human use of symbols to communicate” (Foss, 4). In order to converse among one another we, as humans, use symbols in different ways. These symbols are the basis of rhetoric. Foss molds his definition around three principal aspects. These three principals are “(1) humans as the creators of rhetoric; (2) symbols as the medium for rhetoric; and (3) communication as the purpose for rhetoric” (4). The first principal says that humans discovered rhetoric. Which is logical because how could animals come up with the basis for how humans communicate with each other when animals have their own form of communication? The second principal differentiates between symbols and signs. Foss uses the example of a tennis match involving a non-athletic player. It states that only the players “conscious use of symbols to communicate a particular condition is rhetorical” (Foss, 5). Signs that are given off to people through means that cannot be controlled are not rhetorical. Lastly Foss states that communication and rhetoric can be used interchangeably depending on the person (5-6). Basically it is said that rhetoric is a form of communication through humans using symbols rather than signs to communicate. This can be seen through a student performer who is making an opening performance. The student can appear to be nervous through fidgeting or sweating but it would not be rhetoric until the student made symbols indicating their nervousness; such as telling fellow peers this is the first performance.


Rhetoric is one of the arts of using language as a means to persuade.
Rhetoric is the ability to use language effectively.