5-22 Homework #19: We will cover private school debate, and we will develop a thesis that about the ritualization of violence as described by Steve Almond in his essay “Is It Immoral to Watch the Super Bowl?” and his video “Eager Violence of the Heart--America’s Football Obsession.” As a source, you can also consult The Professor in the Cage by Jonathan Gottschall.
Homework #20: Email me your tentative thesis. I will go over some but not all thesis statements in class. The thesis statements' authors will remain anonymous.
5-27 Holiday
5-29 Do thesis samples in class and provide counterargument samples. Students will show their tentative thesis statements.
6-3 Peer Edit
6-5-18 Essay 5 due. Portfolio due.
Homework #19:
Read Steve Almond's essay “Is It Immoral to Watch the Super Bowl?” and in 3 paragraphs explain how he defends his claim that we should not watch football.
New Essay Options Added
Essay #5 Due Date: 6-5-19
You need 5 credible sources for the MLA Works Cited page in your final capstone essay.
Option One: In context of Alfie Kohn’s “From Degrading to De-Grading,” support, refute, or complicate Alfie Kohn’s assertion that grading is an inferior education tool that all conscientious teachers should abandon. In other words, will students benefit from an accountability-free education? Why? Explain.
Option Two: Read Bell Hooks’ “Learning in the Shadow of Race and her essay “keeping close to home.” In the context of those essays, support, refute, or complicate the inferred lesson from bell hooks’ essay, “Learning in the Shadow of Race and Class” that upward mobility requires a betrayal of one’s economic class and even family. To rub shoulders with the privileged, do we have to "sell out," to conform to their snobbish ways, and in doing so, are we betraying our core values and turning our backs on our roots?
Option Three. Read Bryan Caplan’s “The World Might be Better Off Without College for Everyone” and write an essay that analyzes the validity of his claim. You should see this critical review in The Washington Post of Caplan’s ideas.
Option Four: See Netflix Explained episode “Why Women Are Paid Less” and develop an argumentative thesis about the “motherhood penalty.”
Option Five: Read Karl Taro Greenfeld’s “My Daughter’s Homework Is Killing Me” and Andrea Townsend "A Teacher's Defense of Homework" and develop an argumentative essay about giving homework to middle school and high school students.
Option Six: Read “Choosing School for My Daughter in a Segregated City” and develop an argument over what the best moral choice is for Nikole Hannah-Jones as she decides on what kind of school is best for her daughter (vs. the interests of society at large?)
Option Seven: Read “Are Private Schools Immoral?” and write an argument about the moral implications of sending one’s children to private schools. You might want to consult Netflix documentary Teach Us All and Will Stancil essay “School Segregation Is Not a Myth” for your research sources.
Option Eight: See the Netflix documentary Teach Us All and develop an argumentative thesis about school segregation. For a source, consult Will Stancil’s “School Segregation Is Not a Myth.”
Option Nine: Watch Hasan Minhaj defend affirmative action in the context of Asian Americans suing Harvard (Netflix Patriotic Act, first episode), and write a research paper that defends, refutes, or complicates Hasan's argument. Consult "The 'Whitening' of Asian Americans" in The Atlantic; "The Rise and Fall of Affirmative Action" in The New Yorker; "The Uncomfortable Truth About Affirmative Action and Asian-Americans" in The New Yorker, and a source from a book.
Option Ten. Develop a thesis that about the ritualization of violence as described by Steve Almond in his essay “Is It Immoral to Watch the Super Bowl?” and his video “Eager Violence of the Heart--America’s Football Obsession.” As a source, you can also consult The Professor in the Cage by Jonathan Gottschall.
Option Eleven. At many schools there is a conflict between the school’s lunch debt on one hand and the students who can’t pay for their lunches on the other. Often this conflict results in the school resorting to something called “lunch shaming.” This practice and the conflict that surrounds it are presented in Bettina Elias Siegel’s NYT essay “Shaming Children So Parents Will Pay the School Lunch Bill.” More recently, lunch shaming has been chronicled in Antonia Noori Farzan’s Washington Post article “‘It’s Embarrassing to the Kids.’” For your essay, develop an argumentative thesis that addresses the conflict between the schools’ need to recoup money to pay their lunch debt and their desperate measures to rely on shaming students to get that money. You might also consult Soraya Ferdman’s “3 things you can do to stop student lunch shaming,” Anne Schimke’s “When Denver stopped lunch-shaming, debt from unpaid meals skyrocketed,” and a chapter in a book about poverty, children, and food insecurity so you will fulfill the book research source as part of the requirements for the capstone final essay.
Option Twelve. In the context of Madeleine Pape's Guardian essay "I was sore at losing to Caster Semeyna," develop an argumentative thesis about the controversy surrounding Semeyna's desire to compete in women's sports. You can also consult the NYT editorial "The Myth of Testosterone," "The Controversy Around Caster Semeyna Explained," and "The Caster Semeyna Ruling Is a Disgrace to the Sporting World." See PBS video. Also see Vox article "'I am a woman and I am fast.'" Also see Washington Post on the debate on what is scientific or not about gender.
Option Thirteen. Justin Peters' essay "Joe Rogan's Galaxy Brain," published in liberal-slanting Slate magazine, presents an argument that Joe Rogan and his podcast guest philosopher Sam Harris are wrong to believe in giving a platform to hateful voices. In the words of Peters, Rogan and Harris are morally wrong in their following premise: "[Liberals and progressives holding] people accountable for what they say and what those words do is an offense far worse than saying cruel, racist, and divisive things in the first place. The reputational damage done to the utterer is the real social problem, not the more diffuse damage done by the utterance."
Joe Rogan defends giving a platform to Alt-Right "crackpots" while talking to comedian Neil Brennan in this podcast segment published on You Tube under title "Why Joe Rogan Has Right Wing Guests on His Show." Rogan argues that deplatforming is dangerous to American democracy and freedom of speech. This notion of deplatforming is under further controversy by democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren refusing to go on Fox News because she argues that Fox News is a "hate-for-profit racket." But others, like Megan Day in her essay "Elizabeth Warren Should Have Gone on Fox News," argue that Warren's virtue signaling is actually misguided and shows she is too interested in showcasing her moral purity than she is in engaging people with contrary ideas to her own. Even liberal MSNBC's "Morning Joe" criticizes Warren for not going into enemy territory to argue her message.
In the context of the deplatforming controversy surrounding Joe Rogan and Elizabeth Warren, develop an argumentative thesis about deplatforming: Is engaging in conversations with opposing voices a way of giving harmful platform to hate and moral bankruptcy or is this cross-cultural conversation a way of shedding light on evil and finding opportunity to persuade one's opponents?
There can be a middle-ground in this debate. For example, one could justify having Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson on their show while eschewing a complete troll like Alex Jones.
Also consider that if you have strong opinions, they should be worth fighting for. Joe Rogan, who does MMA training and fighting, is a fighter. He doesn't mind going into the belly of beast and fighting the battles of the day. Elizabeth Warren, some might argue, is a pacifist who is eager to showboat her virtue to her crowd of the already converted but too cowardly to engage in battle with the enemy. If she can't fight, is she a worthy candidate? Some say no. Others say her moral purity is precisely her appeal. Frame the debate under your own terms.
Option Fourteen. Develop an argument that supports or refutes Chris Hughes' claim that Facebook should be broken up into smaller parts as presented in his essay, "It's Time to Break Up Facebook." Consult NYT's 5 Takeaways from Hughes' editorial and Alexis Madrigal's "We Don't Want to Know How Powerful Mark Zuckerberg Is" in The Atlantic. Also watch Chris Hughes' video. For counterarguments, consult Nick Clegg's NYT's piece "Breaking Up Facebook Is Not the Answer." Also see NYT editorial "Can Facebook Be Fixed? Should It Be?"
Your guidelines for your Final Research Paper are as follows:
This research paper should present a thesis that is specific, manageable, provable, and contestable—in other words, the thesis should offer a clear position, stand, or opinion that will be proven with research.
You should analyze and prove your thesis using examples and quotes from a variety of sources.
You need to research and cite from at least five sources. You must use at least 3 different types of sources.
At least one source must be from an ECC library database.
At least one source must be a book, anthology or textbook.
At least one source must be from a credible website, appropriate for academic use.
The paper should not over-rely on one main source for most of the information. Rather, it should use multiple sources and synthesize the information found in them.
This paper will be approximately 5-7 pages in length, not including the Works Cited page, which is also required. This means at least 5 full pages of text. The Works Cited page does NOT count towards
length requirement.
You must use MLA format for the document, in-text citations, and Works Cited page.
You must integrate quotations and paraphrases using signal phrases and analysis or commentary.
You must sustain your argument, use transitions effectively, and use correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation.
Your paper must be logically organized and focused.
Five. Develop a thesis that compares Barbara Ehrenreich’s “How the Poor Are Made to Pay for Their Poverty” (364) and Linda Tirado’s “You Get What You Pay For” (370).
Almond’s claim that watching NFL is immoral is supported by the following:
One. We glorify violence, and this glorification resonates throughout society.
Two. We live vicariously through the violence of others, using the players as proxies or substitutes for our own vicious impulses but put all the risk on them for head trauma, paralysis, broken limbs, life-long crippling, etc.
It is immoral for us to satisfy our craven lust for violence with entertainment spectacles that maim and kill others.
Three. We sponsor brutality with our cash dollars making us complicit in the life-long injuries and premature death suffered by NFL players. Studies show that on average NFL players live from mid to late fifties, about twenty years less than average lifespan.
Four. We are complicit in the abuse and ill regard of women, misogyny when we consider that football encourages male aggression, overpowering others through sheer will and strength, entitlement, and a lack of accountability (we close our eyes to misbehavior because we want our “stars” to show up and help us conquer our enemies on game day).
This link between NFL aggression and misogyny is evident in the high rates of domestic assault.
The culture that glorifies football players as their warriors free to do as they please, including violence against women, is sometimes called the jockitocracy.
Misogyny against women is further evidenced by cheerleader labor abuse lawsuits.
Five. Some defend the NFL by citing new safety rules, but these new rules are, to use an effective analogy, lipstick on a pig. The fundamental violent nature of football remains unchanged.
Six. Some defend the NFL by saying players choose to play at their own risk, but this assertion is countered by the fact that many players are poor and lack viable options.
Seven. The NFL doesn’t want the truth about brain trauma to be exposed because the trauma is prevalent and severe, resulting in dementia, brain damage, violence, suicide, and other pathologies. The NFL's cover-up evidences the immorality of football.
Eight. More and more parents won’t let their sons play football at any level because of the reports of permanent head trauma.
Nine. NFL legend Mike Ditka says he wouldn’t let his children play football if he knew then what he knows now.
Ten. NFL uses tax loopholes and other forms of trickery to parasite off US taxpayers to fund its stadiums in spite of its astronomical profits.
On a Meta Level:
Almond expresses his heartbreak that as a fan he has lost his faith in the religion of football, a religion that has given him magic and suspense and belonging and sustenance all his life.
He is a reluctant nonbeliever.
On a meta level (from a broader perspective), NFL is America, masculinity, and religion rolled into one.
On this meta level, the NFL is toxic and contains streaks of evil.
On a meta level, the NFL is about lonely men who suffer from wounded masculinity who come together and find connection with fellow fanboys. This is their whole life. Does this sound healthy? Or more like a toxic addiction?
Thesis Review
A good thesis is a complete sentence that defines your argument.
A good thesis addresses your opponents’ views in a concession clause.
A good thesis often has mapping components or mapping statements that outline your body paragraphs.
A good thesis avoids the obvious and instead struggles to grapple with difficult and complex ideas.
A good thesis embraces complexity and sophistication but is expressed with clarity.
Thesis That Supports Steve Almond
While I am a lifelong football fan who has enjoyed the suspense of close games over the years, I am convinced after reading Steve Almond’s anti-football manifesto that I can no longer patronize the game I once loved because it is morally and intellectually bankrupt evidenced by its bloodthirsty violence, misogyny-fueled domestic abuse, parasitic taxpayer trickery, exploitation of the underclass, high risk of permanent brain trauma, and narcissism-inducing jockitocracy.
Thesis That Opposes the Above
While I concede that the NFL has its fair share of pathologies as cited in the above thesis, the author makes a weak case for boycotting the NFL because he relies on focusing exclusively on the lowest common denominator of NFL behavior; he ignores the countless examples of NFL good works throughout the land, including charities and other social service programs; he ignores the fact that risk of danger exists in many vocations that are not held in such condemnation; and he ignores that the NFL provides opportunities for the economically disadvantaged.
Thesis That Opposes the Above Refutation
While I concede that the NFL is not Evil Incarnate and is capable of doing good works and providing good jobs, its abominations far outweigh its virtues evidenced by its refusal to compensate or even acknowledge the widespread head trauma, its dependence on the underclass to feed into its pool of exploited labor, and its recalcitrant record on domestic abuse.
Thesis That Supports NFL
McMahon, you are heartless. Give men their Sunday football, for Chris-sake. Unless you have a superior alternative to help these lonely men who, divorced, cheated on, despised by their children, laid off by their factory, and spit upon by society, have nothing else to cling to. Shut your mouth, McMahon and let these men embrace the only thing they have left on this God-forsaken planet. Otherwise, men in mass will transform into Walter White. If that happens, McMahon, you've got blood on your hands.
Thesis That Refutes the Above
McMahon is actually in the right here. His adversary is staking his claim that lonely, rejected men are entitled to have the NFL as a sort of drug that soothes their wounds, but this adversary fails to address the NFL's long-term brain damage, its toxic masculinity, and its false solution for men who need real answers to their life problems.
You may consult the following:
"How Will Smith Can Take Down the NFL"
"The Freedom to Hurt One's Head"
"Hey NFL Fans: Ray Rice Isn't the Problem. You Are."
"Why You Should Stop Watching Football"
"More players finding NFL not worth the gamble"
"NFL Hall of Famer Mike Ditka Wouldn't Let His Son Play Football Today"
PBS Frontline Documentary League of Denial
Example of an Essay That Never Uses First, Second, Third, Fourth, Etc., for Transitions, But Relies on "Paragraph Links"
Stupid Reasons for Getting Married
People should get married because they are ready to do so, meaning they're mature and truly love one another, and most importantly are prepared to make the compromises and sacrifices a healthy marriage entails. However, most people get married for the wrong reasons, that is, for stupid, lame, and asinine reasons.
Alas, needy narcissists, hardly candidates for successful marriage, glom onto the most disastrous reasons for getting married and those reasons make it certain that their marriage will quickly terminate or waddle precariously along in an interminable domestic hell.
A common and compelling reason that fuels the needy into a misguided marriage is when these fragmented souls see that everyone their age has already married—their friends, brothers, sisters, and, yes, even their enemies. Overcome by what is known today as "FOMO," they feel compelled to “get with the program" so that they may not miss out on the lavish gifts bestowed upon bride and groom. Thus, the needy are rankled by envy and greed and allow their base impulses to be the driving motivation behind their marriage.
When greed is not impelling them to tie the knot, they are also chafed by a sense of being short-changed when they see their recently-married dunce of a co-worker promoted above them for presumably the added credibility that marriage afforded them. As singles, they know they will never be taken seriously at work.
If it's not a lame stab at credibility that's motivating them to get married, it's the fear that they as the years tick by they are becoming less and less attractive and their looks will no longer obscure their woeful character deficiencies as age scrunches them up into little pinch-faced, leathery imps.
A more egregious reason for marrying is to end the tormented, off-on again-off-on again relationship, which needs the official imprimatur of marriage, followed by divorce, to officially terminate the relationship. I spoke to a marriage counselor once who told me that some couples were so desperate to break-up for good that they actually got married, then divorced, for this purpose.
Other pathological reasons to marry are to find a loathsome spouse in order to spite one’s parents or to set a wedding date in order to hire a personal trainer and finally lose those thirty pounds one has been carrying for too long.
Envy, avarice, spite, and vanity fuel both needy men and women alike. However, there is a certain type of needy man, whom we'll call the Man-Child, who finds that it is easier to marry his girlfriend than it is to have to listen to her constant nagging about their need to get married. His girlfriend’s constant harping about the fact their relationship hasn’t taken the “next logical step” presents a burden so great that marriage in comparison seems benign. Even if the Man-Child has not developed the maturity to marry, even if he isn’t sure if he’s truly in love, even if he is still inextricably linked to some former girlfriend that his current girlfriend does not know about, even if he knows in his heart of hearts that he is not hard-wired for marriage, even if he harbors a secret defect that renders him a liability to any woman, he will dismiss all of these factors and rush into a marriage in order to alleviate his current source of anxiety and suffering, which is the incessant barrage of his girlfriend’s grievances about them not being married.
Indeed, some of needy man’s worst decisions have been made in order to quell a discontented woman. The Man-Child's eagerness to quiet a woman’s discontent points to a larger defect, namely, his spinelessness, which, if left unchecked, turns him into the Go-With-the-Flow-Guy. As the name suggests, this type of man offers no resistance, even in large-scale decisions that affect his destiny. Put this man in a situation where his girlfriend, his friends, and his family are all telling him that “it’s time to get married,” and he will, as his name suggests, simply “go with the flow.” He will allow everyone else to make the wedding plans, he’ll let someone fit him for a wedding suit, he’ll allow his mother to pick out the ring, he’ll allow his fiancé to pick out the look and flavor of the wedding cake and then on the day of the wedding, he simply “shows up” with all the passion of a turnip.
The Man-Child's turnip-like passivity and his aversion to argument ensure marital longevity. However, there are drawbacks. Most notably, he will over time become so silent that his wife won’t even be able to get a word out of him. Over the course of their fifty-year marriage, he’ll go with her to restaurants with a newspaper and read it, ignoring her. His impassivity is so great that she could tell him about the “other man” she is seeing and he wouldn’t blink an eye. At home he is equally reticent, watching TV or reading with an inexpressive, dull-eyed demeanor suggestive of a half-dead lizard.
Whatever this reptilian man lacks as a social animal is made up by the fact that he is docile and is therefore non-threatening, a condition that everyone, including his wife, prefers to the passionate male beast whose strong, irreverent opinions will invariably rock the boat and deem that individual a troublemaker. The Go-With-the-Flow-Guy, on the other hand, is reliably safe and as such makes for controlling women a very good catch in spite of his tendency to be as charismatic and flavorful as a cardboard wafer.
A desperate marriage motivation exclusively owned by needy, immature men is the belief that since they have pissed off just about every other woman on the planet, they need to find refuge by marrying the only woman whom they haven’t yet thoroughly alienated—their current girlfriend. According to sportswriter Rick Reilly, baseball slugger Barry Bonds’ short-lived reality show was a disgrace in part because for Reilly the reality show is “the last bastion of the scoundrel.” Likewise, for many men who have offended over 99% of the female race with their pestilent existence, marriage is the last sanctuary for the despised male who has stepped on so many women’s toes that he is, understandably, a marked man.
Therefore, these men aren’t so much getting married as much as they are enlisting in a “witness protection program.” They are after all despised and targeted by their past female enemies for all their lies and betrayals and running out of allies they see that marriage makes a good cover as they try to blend in with mainstream society and take on a role that is antithetical to their single days as lying, predatory scoundrels.
The analogy between marriage and a witness protection program is further developed when we see that for many men marriage is their final stab at earning public respectability because they are, as married men, proclaiming to the world that they have voluntarily shackled themselves with the chains of domesticity in order that they may be spared greater punishments, the bulk of which will be exacted upon by the women whom they used and manipulated for so many years.
Because it is assumed that their wives will keep them in check, their wives become, in a way, equivalent to the ankle bracelet transmitters worn by parolees who are only allowed to travel within certain parameters. Marriage anchors man close to the home and, combined with the wife’s reliable issuing of house chores and other domestic duties, the shackled man is rendered safely tethered to his “home base” where his wife can observe him sharply to make sure he doesn’t backslide into the abhorrent behavior of his past single life.
Many men will see the above analysis of marriage as proof that their fear of marriage as a prison was right all along, but what they should learn from the analogy between marriage and prison is that they are more productive, more socialized, more softened around his hard edges, and more protected, both from the outside world and from themselves by being shackled to their domestic duties. With these improvements in their lives, they have actually, within limits, attained a freedom they could never find in single life.
Comments