TOW #13: Pamela Anderson PETA Advertisement

This provocative and somewhat off-putting poster shows Pam Anderson with
parts of her body marked with words usually used to describe animal
parts that are for sale as food.

The animal rights organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has been known for its liberal stances on removing meat from the human diet, banning the use of fur in clothing, and stopping the use of animals in laboratory testing.  One of their spokespeople is actress, model, and activist Pamela Anderson, who has been a vegan for many years.  She has posed in numerous PSAs for the organization, but the one above has been seen by many as a disgrace; she is clad in only a revealing bikini, allowing viewers to see the words and dotted lines all over her body.  Those are the same words given to parts of animals that are consumed by humans.  PETA's message is clear: all animals are the same, and if we don't eat humans, then we shouldn't eat animals.
The most obvious thing about the poster is Anderson herself, minus the words all over her body.  She's regarded by many as a gorgeous sex symbol, and the poster clearly shows her off; she's wearing almost nothing, she's in full makeup, is sporting a huge hairstyle, and is posed in such a way that her chest and legs are on full display.  Anderson is even giving viewers a bit of a suggestive "come hither" look.  The whole effect is extremely eye-grabbing and definitely "pops" in comparison to many other advertisements, so viewers are more likely to see it and to understand PETA's message.  
Clearly visible on Anderson's body are the same words used to label different kinds of meat for sale, a very strong method of comparison.  Anderson's leg is not different from a chicken leg and her ribs are no different from those of a pig or a cow, PETA claims.  It begs the question that the organization hopes to put into the minds of viewers: why should we kill and eat animals, whose bodies are really no different from our own, while condemning the consumption of humans?  Without those words and dotted lines, the poster's power would be seriously diminished, as viewers would not necessarily think to compare Anderson to animals.
This poster has brought much criticism of PETA, mostly by women who believe that Anderson is being unnecessarily objectified.  They argue that women are often already seen as nothing but "pieces of meat" for the pleasures of men and that this advertisement encourages such a view.  It is true that PETA could have done this in a much different way, by perhaps having a anatomical diagram of a "generic" person, not sexualized in the way that Anderson has been.  Whatever the case, the poster certainly grabs the attention of anyone who may happen upon it and may make viewers think more about including meat in their diets.  In addition, some people may never have heard of or seen the advertisement without all the controversy surrounding it, which helps in getting PETA's message out there.


P.S. To be clear, I don't like this.  I think it's sexist and unnecessary.  PETA is kind of awful in a lot of ways.  You should look it up.  Go.  Wikipedia is calling you.  Go.


Image link: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/10/22/1287767319786/
Pamela-Anderson-in-Peta-c-006.jpg

TOW #12: "Who Says Math Has to Be Boring?" by The New York Times Editorial Board

I am definitely not a math person, but the article "Who Says Math Has to Be Boring?"
made me understand just how important math is for everyone's future, given the way the world is turning, and that STEM subjects are not well-taught in high school.

I hate math.  It's as simple as that.  I'm not very good at it, I don't find it interesting, I don't see how I personally will use half the things I learn, and I find it rather tedious, difficult, and confusing.  However, the article "Who Says Math Has to Be Boring?" that recently appeared in the opinion section of The New York Times has made me think about math a bit differently; perhaps the subject is not inherently mundane and, as I often call it, awful, but maybe the way it has been introduced to me is.  The editorial argues that high schoolers do not appreciate the value of a STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) subject or career and do not even have the skills necessary to pursue those things.  However, instead of blaming the students, the article blames the education system for not sufficiently teaching students about these topics.  Despite the fact that it was in the opinion section, the article uses many hard statistics and appeals to the authority of a certain President Obama to prove that STEM careers and skills have been sorely neglected in high school. 
A person's mere opinion about how STEM  subjects and careers are undervalued by high school students may not be enough to convince readers that there is actually a problem.  However, the Editorial Board supplements their opinion with statistics, often from distinguished universities and organizations.  For example, they write, "Nearly 90 percent of high school graduates say they're not interested in a career or a college major involving science, technology, engineering or math, known collectively as STEM, according to a survey of more than a million students who take the ACT test" (Editorial Board 1).  No one can deny that 90 percent is a pretty high number, especially considering the population of high school students in the United States.  Having a statistic like that, in addition to the others, makes it easier for readers to believe that the STEM awareness and ability situations is dire and that the suggestions the Editorial Board makes are warranted.
Towards the end of the article, there is a section where the writers suggest that schools give students real-life experience in the world of STEM and talk about President Obama's position on the topic.  They write, "... high school in Brooklyn known as P-Tech, which President Obama recently visited... prepares students for jobs like manufacturing technician and software specialist... President Obama announced a promising new grant program to encourage dozens more high schools to offer job-oriented STEM education" (Editorial Board 1).  As the leader of our nation, President Obama is a public figure, and often his opinions are emulated by others.  When one hears that he visited a technical school, one realizes that the school must be in some way extraordinary.  When one hears that he announced a grant that would allow high schools to educate students so they can enter STEM careers, one realizes that high schoolers must not be interested in STEM or have the necessary skills.  Name-dropping President Obama shines a light on this issue, making the public more aware of it and classifying it as something worth paying attention to. 


Article link: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/08/opinion/sunday/who-says-math-has-to-be-boring.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

TOW #11: "The Pitfalls of Dating and Mating With Social Media" by Tyler Curry

All of these social media sites and more, writer Tyler Curry of The Advocate argues,
can ruin a relationship by presenting narrow or outdated views of a person.

One would expect that those who oppose social media are middle-aged or elderly people, unused to the influence of technology in our modern world, or conservatives who believe that you should get to know someone in person by talking to them head-on.  However, in his op-ed piece published in LGBT-interest magazine The Advocate, Tyler Curry, a younger writer, familiar with social media, argues that it can ruin many relationships just after they begin by presenting a false or outdated image of a person and that people should "unplug" when it comes to finding "The One".  By apparently addressing the reader personally and giving numerous realistic examples, Curry definitely highlights the problems social media causes when it comes to dating and is probably successful at convincing readers to agree with him.
Most magazine articles would not address the reader as "you" or use phrasing like "your best foot forward", but Curry does this throughout "The Pitfalls of Dating and Mating With Social Media".  For example, he writes, "If you didn’t already Facebook-stalk the man you're meeting for Friday night plans, you most definitely will afterward. The updates he posts, the photos he takes, and the statuses he likes have become equally as important as the words out of his mouth" (Curry 1).  Using such personal phrasing causes the reader to identify with what Curry is writing about; "you" is much more up-close than "one" or "some people".  If Curry had used those words, a reader may think, "Oh, other people stalk their dates on Facebook? How weird!" However, when he uses "you" and "your", the reader thinks, "I've definitely done that from time to time", as they can't hide from it.  From personal identification with a claim, it is a short jump to identification and agreement with an argument as a whole.
Of course, Curry goes further to make the reader understand and agree with his argument by including examples of how social media can wreck a relationship.  He states, "He made you laugh, he was charming, and you left dinner a little intrigued. But you just couldn’t wait until he returned from his work trip, so you decided to perform a harmless Internet search. Some guys are just not very photogenic. Suddenly you’re questioning the real connection you had because you are having trouble picturing your wedding photos together" (1).  Obviously, Curry intimates, photographs do not show the real person, and should not be viewed as a window into the soul.  Even though you may have a date with someone and like them a lot, thanks to social media, you can find one minor undesirable detail about them that makes you dislike them; this prevents relationships from growing.  Besides highlighting undesirable traits, Curry argues later, profiles on social media sites can be outdated and provide a view only of how a person used to be, not who they are today.  With all of these examples, a reader cannot deny that social media can cause a lot of problems between two people who are dating, and they may even see that "unplugging" whilst on the dating scene is the best option.  

Article: http://www.advocate.com/commentary/tyler-curry/2013/11/22/op-ed-pitfalls-dating-and-mating-social-media