Dance, my revolution

My Research

My research paper is basically going to be about fashion. I am comparing and contrasting the similarities between it and the economy. My paper is going to outline the history of fashion, and then I will make my own contributions to the topic from there to make a personal connection as well as to make it more timely. The general thesis is not how the economy influences the fashion industry, but whether or not how fashion in itself is relating to the economy.
I think that I am having the most trouble with my research paper in direction. I have my controlling question and my thesis rolling and everything, but since this is "find, discover, and write" as you go along I'm afraid that I'll completely loose my point somewhere because I lost my connection to fashion from other things in relation to it. Also, perhaps I will loose my footing somewhere in the process because my topic and what I am relating it to (the economy) are too fast paste, and all the recent data on it is too vague to use in my paper. Basically, I think that I am probably just a little paranoid as to what way I want to go with my topic, because I'm sort of iffy about the way I'm choosing.
I believe that people are going to care about fashion because whether we like it or not we live in the world of it. I never was really interested in fashion at first, in fact I could care less about it. But after thinking about it for a while I've discovered that it truly does have a connection with the present economy. As well as it helps people communicate in ways of culture, it individualizes, and it is used as a means of classification. There are so many other reasons for it that I never picked up on at first impression. so in a way the main reason for me to be researching and writing a paper on this topic is to teach myself a little bit of tolerance for things that may seem as trivial as fashion is thought to be at first glance, and hopefully twisting my perspective and my audience as well while researching and making a timely discovery of it on my own.

"Timing is Everything"

For my argument topic I am going to support and refute girl competition. Although I don't have a complete thesis yet, I still have a generalization of one; Because opportunities for young women are expanding and changing, competition between them has become more of a stress factor than a self esteem builder.
Some arguments that I will be using in this essay include competition between females concerning appearance, status, and other in women's sports; where as female competition is more positive rather than negative to refute my previous concerns.
The sources that I am using for the article I think are legitimate and reliable. The first one is an article on female competition and the stress that develops from it. The article was written by Catherine Salmon (corresponding author), Charles B. Crawford, and Sally Walters, all from the Department of Psychology. I find these authors of the article to be reputable because they all studied at acceptable universities, the sources of information were all properly cited, the facts were relevant and the article is not outdated. Also the corresponding author left an email ending in (.edu) in case anyone had questions about it (like me). The second source is also an article labeled Theory & Science: Evolutionary Feminist Theory. It has the same kind of notable qualities (ethos) that the first source has; educated authors, correct citations, up to date information, and a legitimate web source (.org). The last source that I am using is also web based but still contains the same needed things only the facts from it lean more towards refuting my position rather than taking it for a more balanced type of argument.
My topic that I have chosen makes for a timely one because not only is it something that is occurring right now, but has been occurring, and will eventually become too evolved for our mental capacity to handle unless we at least take notice of it ASAP. Yes. I am talking about girl competition. To me I find it a very fascinating topic as well, because it relates to me and the personal experiences that I have had with it, both the good, the bad, and the ugly. From real pageantry sports (cheer leading) to take no prisoners mental sports (volleyball). Basically I have anecdotes from A to Z that will both support my point and oppose it; which is what I think I'll want for a good argumentative essay.

Gregg Easterbrook's "The New Fundamentalism"

For me, I think that it is totally fair to be able to question both God and science. It is simple to understand the fact that when John Scopes in 1925 (as Easterbrook explains) was put on trial for "speaking against evolution in a public school" because people were still in the early stages of progressing or evolving into accepting science as a real necessity for education. But for it to be a relevant topic today, to question the right to be inquisitive, is just wrong.
In another example of this masker of the first Amendment, Easterbrook states that the Kansas board of education "voted to delete some requirements for the teaching of evolution". After this "advisory" another one was issued from the Supreme Court that ruled "public schools must not teach creationism because it is effectively a religious doctrine". Both of these contradictions to the evolution of the mind raise questions, which is the only good thing about them. They are practically practicing how not to teach. This is in my opinion unacceptable.
I agree with Easterbrook on the terms that it would be essential to "teach the controversy". Not only because I am a religious person myself and at the same time a scientific/logical thinker (I mean I go to Humboldt State; school of witchcraft and wizardry); but mostly because as God granted the blessing/sin of choice to the creation of man, and science states that in order to disprove theories we must hypothesize, that it is my destiny/right to be inquisitive about one or the other, or even both.
So in the immortal words of Mark Twain (neither God nor Head of the Biology department) "God made the Idiot for practice, and then he made the school board."

Pollan: Part Two

In the second part of Pollan's argument he switches sides to contradict his original claim. Such as, instead of stating that he is completely against animals being "eaten", he adds on in the next part that it is okay to eat animals, as long as you are not "demoralizing" it when it is killed for food or other purposes. I usually become very confused when it comes to this step in an argument piece, but Pollan actually accentuates his essay very well with this other part. At first I wanted to go completely vegan, then Pollan switched his tone from the bias one, and made my stand on animal rights do a one-eighty, but with a more sentimental idea about it.
One example that really deferred my opinion was Joel Salatin's farm, Polyface Farm. In Latin, 'poly' means many, so basically this farm produces many different meats from various animals; from cattle to chicken to sheep to hogs and back to cattle again, all existing in one symbiotic relationship. The way that Pollan described what he had seen and experienced at this farm really connected me emotionally; with respect towards the animals, and logically; with support for his claim.
He also brought across a very valid point about how some animals are actually domesticated for their own good, because without humans they would in fact be extinct! This really quirked my interest further in this essay because I wanted him to answer why? Then he did by including outrageous examples such as how there are 50 million dogs and only 10 thousand wolves in North America. But although that ancestor of the canine family has suffered in population it may be due to the fact that people hunted them to near extinction; which made me question his logic a little.
Afterwards he ties it up with how it is better for an animal if you actually do eat them, as long as they are given respect, and I agreed with that ending; because although it did not change the ways of my lifestyle, it changed my awareness dramatically.

Pollan: Part One

J.R. claims without a doubt that Pollan represented one of the most well thought out and organized argument in the "five editions of this book"(pg 204, The Presence of Others). To discover whether or not his belief was legitimate or at least to my liking, I read the first half of "An Animals Place".
After reading the first section of the argument, it was easy to tell that it was incredibly thought out. There may have been some points that I found a bit too subjective rather than objective, such as the "'speciesism'- a neologism"(pg 205). It made the argument a little more arrogant that I would have liked, especially to compare previous arguments about human beings mistreating other human beings with racism and anti-Semitism. But, after further reading on I found his true intentions of persuasion, and it took me back off the defensive.
The way Pollan opened up his argument with a different story but with the same relevance in the topic (man and the mercy of the fly story) really opened up my perspective for his claim. In particular because he included minimal pathos in it, to open up my heart before he opened up my mind. It was above all a very bold and brilliant move to do.
The way Pollan organized his essay was a very risky move as well. With the short story, next some ethical reasoning (ethos) for his credibility, and then with a setting of him sitting at a steakhouse eating meat! At first I went "Holy cow!" literally, and finally as I read on I began to fully understand. He was arguing in the argument against another man's argument. It seemed simple enough. But really it was agreeably well planned. In the essay, as he keeps an inquisitive attitude and tries to question against this other philosopher's work (Singer's), then Singer rebuttals perfectly with logical (logos) and emotional reasoning (pathos); which in turn holds my interest and keeps me off the defensive. Since it is not really the writer's complete and absolute opinion, but rather the writer's questioning of another's, it was exactly like an entertaining little argument against an argument.
Therefore, with Pollan keeping his essay unbiased and devoid of rudeness, it is easy to relate to his new found opinions and agree that J.R.'s assumptions about it being the best argument in the whole book amenable.

Response To: The Good Immigrant Student

It is fairly difficult for me on one level to be empathetic towards Nguyen after all the hardships she had suffered just for being an immigrant. But that doesn't mean that I can not relate to her at all.
When I was only six years old and in the first grade I was ridiculed for apparently being uncommonly quiet. It still makes me very angry to this day to think that my teachers had put me in this really boring "special" class, just because I would rather pay attention to the teacher than talk about nothing except what time recess was going to start with my classmates during class. It was seriously an oxymoron to me that they would discard of the quiet ones and keep the obnoxious, noisy ones. I felt like Nguyen did, what was wrong with me? I was paying attention, I never talked, what did I do wrong? Later after doing some "testing" on me they soon discovered that everything was okay. I wasn't going to die of severe shyness. Hooray for me. Now if only that did not cost me of my precious thinking energy or most of all my time; wasted thinking I was stupid when it was completely the other way around.

In Nguyen's story she addresses her past experiences in an authentic voice very well. It feels like your almost there feeling her pain and the ignorance of others around her; such as her evil teacher Mrs. Alexander who bluntly ridiculed her for being a smart foreigner. The narrative coherence of Nguyen's story was really not that spectacular. She still had some really good transitions from one part of her story to the other, but other than that the dialogue was a little bland and there actually wasn't that much to begin with. But the characters such as her sister Anh were exceptionally colorful. The communal relevance of Nguyen's story was probably the best part. In the end she realizes that despite everyone's preconceptions of her or any other foreign kid is null and void, because only she is in charge of her own identity.