Disney princess movies are a part of growing up for the average little girl in modern day society.  I know that when I was young, my friends and I all had our favorite Disney princess character who we aspired to be like.  However, looking back at these glorified fictional women, I realize how easily distorted ideas could enter the minds of young girls. 

     First of all, the figures of the princesses portray a completely false image of what a woman "should" lok like.  The  majority of the princesses have extremely tiny waists but then have very feminine curves for hips and breasts.  In fact, the waists of these characters are literally smaller than their heads.  Also, most of the princesses have thick and wavy hair that extends halfway down their backs and is always perfectly primped.  Not only are these qualities nearly nonexistent in real life, but are almost unachievable without plastic surgery and fake hair.  The false idea of what a perfect woman should look like can mislead young girls into thinking that they too may some day look that way. 

     Not only do Disney princesses depict an inaccurate image of physical appearance, but they also sometimes illustrate a twisted view of what a woman should act like.  Now I am not saying that women should not act lady-like, but every girl needs to have fun every once in awhile and be herself.  In the two pictures shown, the viewer can easily point out the differences in the princesses.  In the actual Disney princess image, all the characters are properly poised with their feminine hand gestures and slightly tilted heads.  On the other hand, in an artist's rendition of the Disney princesses, every character is goofing around and having fun while not seeming to fill the mannerly expectations that they usually feature.  This new and unexpected way of portraying the princesses is humorous and almost relaxing because these characters who are normally always holding the highest standards are finally letting loose and just being themselves. 

     Although I have been sort of bashing the Disney princesses, I am in no way saying that I do not think they are appropriate for young girls to watch.  As I stated before, I even watched them... and loved them.  I am merely stating that the way Disney designs these princess characters is unrealistic.  Disney should create a new princess who is quirky, smart, independent and beautiful without being fake.  Then, maybe all the little girls will be able to grow up to be just like their favorite princess. 

Society's Distorted Approach of Individual Representation

Our world today is encompassed with certain guidelines or rather set ideas that as individuals of this community we are to abide by. Particular opinions that have almost become defined in society through popularity and what follows “standard regulation” have essentially eliminated the freedom to exemplify what you as person stand for. All of this being said, of course we have the will to present our self to society in whichever manner we choose, but the interpretation and acceptance of others is commonly found under a distorted view. Fashion, is a significant external representation of individuals; whether this complex word is dissected and analyzed according to jewelry, hairstyle, clothing, tattoos or the actual poise in which we present these characteristics, they are all subject to society’s critiques.

An eternal mark of ink embellished into ones skin clearly makes a statement in a persons fashion. These marks, or tattoos can be interpreted upon multiple approaches. What is the real meaning behind someone plastering this image to his or her identity for a lifetime? Is this an aesthetically pleasing process? Does this image portray a pathetic appeal through sentimental meaning or representation? Is the character trying to make a statement to influence others around them? Maybe the individuals’ actions pertain to none of these, and it was simply a spur the moment decision. Each of these aspects envelops a sense of rhetoric. However does this change the interpretations made from the environment surrounding such a visual mark?

Award winning Artist, Chris Brown is a valid representation of tattoos. Brown was only 13 years of age when this style of fashion caught his eyes. However, when attempting to get his mothers permission to proceed with this process she firmly replied, “ You ain’t gettin’ no tattoo!” The disagreement provoked by differences in generations or simply preferences is undetermined, but that didn’t keep him from adorning his body with these marks. Brown’s appeal to tattoos illustrates several of the approaches mentioned above. Tattoos ranging from Jesus to Demons and Ninjas to skull- one can only question the meaning behind the multiple images he carries.

The Beckhams are another illustration of this style. Standing in society as a family not only known for the superior athletic abilities, but a fashion approach through tattoos. Victoria, the wife of David and mom of three ignores what some may consider an unappealing style. Her wrist has several delicate Roman numerals embedding the first night she spent with her husband David. Clearly this image applies to the pathetical appeal in that is of utmost meaning to her. Contrary to her small images, David makes a statement with his multiple tattoos fulfilling the standard questions mentioned earlier. His children lead one to believe this is due to sentimental reasoning. Would his image of Jesus follow these guidelines too, or is this image to make a statement and influence others? Another mark he carries is a Chinese symbol. Victoria and David clearly are drawn to this sense of style and thus carry their images with pride despite what others have said.

These individuals have received negative comments from fans, family and reporters but that hasn’t hindered them from their approach to fashion. Needless to say, tattoos are very significant external qualities that in many ways define certain aspects of an individual. The approach in which we as people of society interpret the individual images adorning ones body are usually very diverse; ranging from different opinions of class, meaning of the actual tattoo, and who the person is. Thus, are we conforming to the guidelines of acceptance in our interpreting or rather open to the meaning behind an individuals decision to carry a tattoo as a part of who they are, the fashion they are presenting to the world and their actual motives or meaning in tattoos describing them.

If you can't say anything nice...

We, as human beings, are judgmental. It is hard to step out in public without someone judging some aspect of your life, whether they know you or not. Does this make it right? Does the fact that we are born judgmental make it ok to denounce what other people look and act like? Some people argue that everyone judges and are judged in return; therefore it is no big deal. The problem is that nobody knows when a seemingly harmless judgment could have potentially unhealthy effects.

Alastair Macaulay, a dance critic for the New York Times, recently wrote a review on The Nutcracker that was performed at the New York City Ballet. What probably for him was a run-of-the-mill review ended up sparking a huge controversy when Macaulay stated that Jenifer Ringer, a professional ballerina who played the sugar plum fairy, “looked as if she’d eaten one sugar plum too many.” Besides the fact that Ringer is in actuality stick thin, she once suffered from an eating disorder, so Macaulay, along with his statement were rightfully torn apart.

Although Jenifer appeared on MSNBC’s Today Show and eloquently responded to this statement without ill will or the need for an apology, it did not satisfy the outrage the public shared. Many of Ringer’s fans have fired back at Macaulay critically, calling him “insensitive and cruel” for saying something like that about a women who has openly talked about the struggles she had with anorexia and bulimia.

A story like this causes you to wonder why judgments are even necessary and if a line should be drawn. Should it be ok for a critic or any other person to say anything that he or she pleases without consequences? It seems as though our freedom of speech has been abused. Nowadays it is more like the freedom to degrade people. So often we say and do things to people that we might never have a second thought about. Meanwhile, to that person, it might make a huge impact. It might be, as in Ringer’s case, bringing back an old insecurity or possibly starting a brand new one.

The old saying goes, “If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all.” So why is it necessary to get our thoughts out about things at the expense of others? Macaulay could have written a review of The Nutcracker without picking apart the physical features of the performers. Instead he added one irrelevant sentence in what appears to be an attempt to not only criticize but also be hateful. If this is indeed the result of our human nature then maybe it is time for a change.

Maybe we should evaluate whether or not what we think is actually of any importance and whether it is healthy for someone to hear before we freely speak it. If we begin to fairly think about the impact of our remarks then maybe our biological nature to judge and victimize can be replaced with the positive quality of uplifting people.

A link to The Today Show interview...

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/40639920/ns/today-today_people/

A Horde of Advertisments

Television envelops the lives of all Americans. We turn it on in the morning for the news and weather reports for the day. We plan our schedules around primetime television for our favorite shows. During the fall, we sit for hours upon hours watching football; college on Saturday and professional on Sunday. The month of March brings March Madness and then television even spills into our work schedules and we find ways to watch games online. Wherever you look, you can basically be guaranteed to find televisions. Since Americans rarely go one day without turning on the television, TV has come to be the place for commercials and advertisements and endorsements. Companies will pay hundreds of thousands of millions of dollars for their product to shine for thirty seconds or if they shell out the big bucks a whole minute. And when do the majority of Americans all sit down and watch TV at the same exact time: the Superbowl.

Millions of Americans all plan their day and even their week around the National Football League’s Superbowl around this time every year. Parties are planned weeks in advance and millions of pounds of chips and dip are bought off the shelves to feed the partygoers. And during the game while millions of Americans are too full to get off the couch, companies and producers are constantly and consistently selling their products through thirty-second segments. Products from chips to soda to beer to candy to cars and everything in between are marketed and targeted to the Superbowl audience for those three or four hours that the game is on. Even after the Superbowl news stations and celebrity shows rank the commercials and make episodes out of Countdowns of the Best Superbowl Commercials. Websites are devoted to categorizing and ranking the commercials. Some sites even separate the commercials by when they were played during the game.

Companies are professionals at using persuasive rhetoric strategies to expertly market and hopefully successfully entice the audience into buying their product. Many commercials use professional athletes, actors and actresses to star in the commercials as the focus and employing ethos. During last years’ Superbowl, Brett Favre, Troy Polamalu, and Danica Patrick were all featured in commercials as endorsers for various products. By using professional athletes, the companies give credibility to their products. The American public sees it as if those stars and athletes use those products and get those results than if I use those products I’ll get those results too. Companies also use pathos and humor to tempt the public to buy their products. One Doritos commercial takes an anti-bark collar off a dog and puts in on a man eating a Bag of Doritos that he previously failed to share with the dog. The man ends up lying on the ground in pain from being shocked after the dog repeatedly barked while the man was stuck wearing the collar and the dog ends up with the bag of chips as his snack. I feel like Logos takes a backseat in the persuasiveness of Superbowl commercials. With only thirty seconds to grab the audience companies do not need to be boring with facts and figures. They strike hard and fast with humor or a star that people will be able to remember hours later.

Commercials have perfected the act of creating the most perfect commercial for its thirty-seconds of fame during the Superbowl. And lately, it has become more about the commercials than it is about the teams actually playing in the most exciting game of their lives.

Here’s a link to a page of Superbowl commercials from the 2010 Superbowl:

http://superbowlads.fanhouse.com/

What’s Really in Your Wallet?

Capital One masterfully uses of humor in all of their commercials. Their use of the Vikings in each of their commercials provides an iconic group for the viewers to immediately recognize. Therefore, viewers are more likely to focus on the logistics the company provides throughout each commercial. Each commercial is in a different location – Hawaii, the Grand Canyon, a ski resort, etc. As usual, the commercial set in Los Angeles provides the same antics that are usually displayed by the Vikings – something getting broken, someone doing something wrong, earning double miles on everything twice as fast. However, a tone of irony comes into play when the Vikings are “behind the scenes” at a Hollywood movie set and they see a few Roman soldiers standing together, looking over what appears to be a script. Immediately, the Vikings charge and a chase ensues that lasts until the end of the commercial. Of course, from taking history classes, everyone knows about the Vikings’ tendency to be brute-like and start a fight easily. But the baffling part of this commercial is what do the Vikings have against the Romans? They lived in completely different times and places, therefore having no knowledge of each other. Since there is a grudge being portrayed between them, it makes sense that a viewer would just say that it’s in their nature to pick a fight. But why with the Romans in particular? This gives the argument a red herring, or logical fallacy designed to distract the viewer from the real argument – would the viewer really purchase the card from the facts given in the rest of the commercial? These days, no one really seems to pay attention to commercials, so it comes as no surprise that companies rely so heavily on humor. But when is it too much or not enough? Though this commercial does a good job of amusing its viewers, it still leaves me wondering if anyone would use a Venture Card just from watching this commercial; the same thought can be applied to almost any other commercial ever produced. However, the since the commercial is just a filler for a TV show or movie on TV, the companies only have enough time to spark their viewers’ interest. That being said, I would say that Capital One does spark my interest, but enough to go online to look at their logistics and plans. This part of the argument deals with who their target audience is. Since their target audience appears to be people older than college students, I am not particularly interested in what the commercial therefore has to say. Oppositely, Capital One’s intention may not have been to spark the interest of anyone except parents wishing to go on a vacation with their families. Either way the argument is analyzed, Capital One only wishes to give their viewers enough humor-and distraction-to want to get on the computer and visit their website to learn more. After all, isn’t that the whole point of commercials in general?

Link for actual commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mp0YQsPpUb4&feature=channel

Snuggies, Shamwows, and Ped Eggs

We have all seen the awesomely cheesy infomercials for some of the weirdest products on the market, and you have to ask yourself how they make money off that stuff. Well, the answer is rhetoric. Two Christmases ago my dad bought my mom a shamwow as a joke, and my family has been making jokes about the commercials ever since. It works worse than an actual towel. A snuggy is nothing more than a blanket with sleeves. These products make millions because of the way they are marketed to a certain audience. They use the power of persuasion to make the customer think they need this product mostly through the use of logos. The absurdity of actually seeing someone wearing one of those things out in public as pictured in the commercial is quite comical. They put other consumers in the ad who claim the wonders that the product has done for them and how much easier it has made their lives. They claim that the product has incredible capabilities such as a product I saw once that was suppose to remove all the toxins from your body in one night by sticking it to your feet. They also use energetic and witty spokespersons such as Vince the shamwow guy (in the picture) to further convince the attentive audience. These factors make for either wasted money or a good laugh but either way they effectively show the powerful capability of rhetoric.

The Rhetoric of a Speedbump

There are many types of obvious rhetoric that we experience every day: flyers, television advertisements, emails, and so many others. You could almost point out everything you come across and say it is a form of rhetoric, or you could just plain state that every inanimate object frankly is rhetorical. This claim would be pretty drastic, but has been thought and talked about by many people (especially the smarty pants, like scientists). Relating to this, a word I bet you’ve never heard is panpsychism, explained by Wikipedia as “More of a family of theses in psychology than any one, unanimously supported thesis. Some say it is the view that all parts of matter have a mental aspect, or that it is related to the more holistic view that the whole universe is an organism that possesses a mind.” So… what does this have to do with rhetoric? Well, if we think about what we know about rhetoric, and the fact that it’s all about trying to persuade the reader or viewer to do something, then we can say that inanimate objects in general are there to persuade us to do something. Referring back to panpsychism, if one object has a mental aspect, then there must be mental aspects and communication between all objects, right? For example, lets say a boy, Tom, decides to go to the “gym”. Let’s pretend he does not own a TV, computer, telephone, or radio, and cannot read. Therefore, we can exclude all types of rhetorical advertisements and things with the exception the “gym”: an inanimate brick building. The building certainly did not call him up and persuade him to come to the gym (which wouldn’t have worked anyway, because as you know Tom does not have a phone). But something about the “gym” attracted him to come; let’s pretend it was the treadmill. Tom loves to run on the treadmill (another inanimate object). So of course he goes to the gym, runs, and afterwards is compelled to quench his thirst with a big glass of water. He did not ask to be thirsty, of course, but his body was attracted to the water just the same. After Tom drank the water, he plopped down on his couch. Just like his arrival at the brick gym, his exercise on the treadmill, and his desire for water, his unconscious decision to sit on the couch are all elements of his journey that I doubt were specifically directed to him. But to what degree did Tom make these decisions freely? Did his thirst shape his desire to sit or was just simply a convenience? Maybe his desire caused by the thirst is the case, but it is not over determining.

A man writes the quote that the inner experience of an entity “may, or may not, involve consciousness; it may, or may not, involve judgment. But in any case, it will involve aversion, or adversion, that is to say, decision. And this decision is, in its own right, the psychism that is essential to every last thing in the universe, from God to most trivial puffof existence in far-off empty space. Decision is the way that an atom, or any other thing in the world, ‘is feeling about itself’.”

So, the next time you’re driving and come across an inanimate obstacle such as a speed bump, pause for a second and think: how is such an object attracting a reaction?

Welcome to our class blog!

This blog is designed for English 103 students at Clemson University to express their thoughts on rhetoric and argumentation.