Culture Code Lesson 4: Chapters 5 and 6
One. How are Codes created?
We read on page 93 that we have biological instincts (scheme) and the way we, that is culture, interpret these instincts is our cultural scheme.
For example, our biological dread of death is interpreted by American culture of MOVEMENT IS LIFE so that the Code for hospital, a place where no one moves, is PROCESSING PLANT for the dead. Therefore, we hate hospitals. Hospitals should be seen as places where "we get better," but the constraint associated with hospitals reminds us of death.
Americans interpret air conditioning, a way to cool the body, differently than Europeans. Americans see AC as a necessity; in Europe AC is a luxury. Americans like everything cold. Cold temps make us more active, and we love to be active. Shopping is encouraged by cold stores. For Americans, the code for AC is ENERGY and MOVEMENT.
America created fast food; France created slow food. Americans “fill their tank” with food, often eating like mindless zombies while they drive, while the French celebrate food.
As an aside, in France workers get 30 legal paid vacation days; Americans get zero. In France, they work fewer hours a week. In America, two out of five employees work over 50 hours a week. Is it any wonder we eat in our cars like mindless zombies?
Two. In America, what is the Code for home?
From a biological point of view, the home is protection. From a cultural point of view, however, the relationship goes much deeper. Home represents the return to safety, to “home base.”
We read on page 96 that Americans are immigrants who left everything to find a home. Americans pioneered a land with no roads or houses. We read that “Americans may have a stronger sense of home than any other culture on the planet” (96).
For Americans home is Mother and Country. Home ownership is huge to American identity.
I knew a guy who said, “There are only two kinds of Americans, homeowners and renters.” I'm not sure you'd hear this proclamation outside of America.
George Carlin, long before Rapaille, talked about America’s love of home in his famous baseball and football contrast.
In contrast, home ownership is not so essential to identity in European countries. In France, for example, the sense of “homeland” is not so obsessive (96). In Europe, owning a home and the type of job one has are not so connected to identity as in America.
To sum up, in America we associate Home with the Return (from war, from college, from a dangerous place), Mother, Thanksgiving, Celebration, Achievement, Connecting with Friends and Family, Becoming a Man (“Look at me, I bought a house close to highly-rated schools!”)
Studying these themes, Rapaille writes on page 99, he realized the Code for home in America is the prefix “RE-.”
Return
Reunite
Reconfirm
Renew
These rituals center in the kitchen. If you want your house to increase in value, focus on expanding and upgrading the kitchen.
“Making dinner is Code for Home in America” (100).
However, in today’s America where families eat at different times and often the dinner is frozen pizza or microwave semi-edible food byproducts, the idea of the Grand Meal is part of America’s mythic past (103).
“The American Culture Code for dinner is ESSENTIAL CIRCLE” (107).
American dinners are about connection and conversation; in contrast, we read on page 108 that in China dinner is less about people and more about the food. There is very little conversation because people are focusing on the food they are eating.
In England, dinner is very formal with strict manners and protocols and the English see American eating displays as vulgar and unsanitary.
I offended a British man many years ago in a Middle Eastern restaurant when he watched with disbelief as I inhaled my appetizer in less than 10 seconds. He said he never saw a human being eat like that in his life and he was my friend, yet he was still in shock. My reaction was “What are you look at? I’m hungry, dude.”
Three. In America, why does our job mean so much to us?
Rapaille points out that Europeans love long siestas in the afternoon and 6-week vacations. Americans hate vacations because they lose ground, they get behind, they lose their competitive edge.
The question “What do you do?” inspires fear in Americans. Am I a lawyer, a doctor, a garbage man? What will people think of me? Who am I?
We read that the work ethic has historical roots. When Americans came to the new frontier, they didn’t say, “Let’s have some tea.” They said, “Let’s go to work.”
Americans have a tormented relationship with leisure.
Americans have a difficult relaxing without alcohol. Often, they resort to drink in order to surrender to their free time. Try going to a professional baseball or football game with your children. Drunken troglodytes are spewing curse words and throwing objects at the athletes and other spectators.
We feel that when we work we are taking control of our life, gaining the esteem of others, becoming popular, and “networking.” Working makes us our higher self, we have led ourselves to believe.
Rapaille writes that the Code for work is WHO YOU ARE.
If we are doing “nothing,” we are “nobodies.”
Americans are unique in our unlimited belief in self-reinvention and striking it rich and we idolize billionaires and watch in the millions a TV show called Shark Tank, which features moguls who scold and sometimes make deals with aspiring entrepreneurs.
In America, while teamwork is important, we crave individual adulation, so that teamwork is always secondary to promoting the “special individual” (121).
Four. What is the American attitude toward money?
Of course we love money so we can spend it just like everyone else; however, for us money means something deeper symbolically. Because so little money is old-money and most us have started with little and got our money later, called new money, we associate money with the hard work ethic, virtue, and power of self-reinvention, all parts of the American Dream (125).
In America when we have money we have proven ourselves.
In America, money represents UPWARD MOVEMENT because in America we believe in the Dream of Upward Mobility. In fact, only 8% of Americans achieve the "rags to riches" story. We see a similar story in community colleges. Over 80 percent of community college students say they plan on getting a four-year degree, but only 11% do.
What we learn in The Culture Code is that facts don't matter as much as the feelings elicited by the Codes.
(Continued from Last Class)
Four. What are the three parts of the brain and what is their relationship to consumer codes?
The cortex guides reason and logic.
The limbic system directs emotions. Our relationship with our mother determines our limbic system; therefore, the limbic system is considered feminine.
The “champion” of the three “brains” is the reptilian, which is found in the cerebellum. These drives are over 200 million years old and are geared for survival and reproduction.
Five. In America, what is the Code for health and wellness?
We read on page 80 that “For Americans, health and wellness means being able to complete your mission.”
We are a nation of “doers”; as a result, we value our independence and self-reliance, attributes established by the American pioneers.
The Code for health in America is MOVEMENT. We are not a culture of repose, contemplation, meditation, and self-examination. We are a culture that must “always be on the go” (80).
We cannot even accept retirement in our country. We cannot accept that “we have stopped.” Many seek a second career in their 60s and 70s.
Other cultures have different Codes. In China, the health Code is harmony with nature. In Japan, the Code is staying healthy out of obligation to one’s culture because being in ill health makes one a burden to others (81).
In America, the Code for doctor is HERO; the Code for nurse is MOTHER.
But in contrast to above, the Code for hospitals is the very negative PROCESSING PLANT.
This makes sense when we realize we equate hospitals with immobility and death and for Americans health and freedom rely on movement.
Six. What is the American obsession with youth based on?
For Americans, a utopian world defies nature and allows us to be perpetual adolescents (85). We are a nation of immigrants, a people who came to the new country to leave their past behind and start over. This sense of renewal and reinvention makes us feel young.
We do not have a natural attitude toward age: Youth is not a stage of life but something we hide behind and wear instead of our natural age. “The American Culture Code for youth is MASK.”
In contrast to America, Britain disdains youth as annoying and boring and inexperienced and prone to mistakes.
Britain values its eccentrics, not its Peter Pans.
Ways to Improve Your Critical Reading
- Do a background check of the author to see if he or she has a hidden agenda or any other kind of background information that speaks to the author’s credibility.
- Check the place of publication to see what kind of agenda, if any, the publishing house has. Know how esteemed the publishing house is among peers of the subject you’re reading about.
- Learn how to find the thesis. In other words, know what the author’s purpose, explicit or implicit, is.
- Annotate more than underline. Your memory will be better served, according to research, by annotating than underlining. You can scribble your own code in the margins as long as you can understand your writing when you come back to it later. Annotating is a way of starting a dialogue about the reading and writing process. It is a form of pre-writing. Forms of annotation that I use are “yes,” (great point) “no,” (wrong, illogical, BS) and “?” (confusing). When I find the thesis, I’ll also write that in the margins. Or I’ll write down an essay or book title that the passage reminds me of. Or maybe even an idea for a story or a novel.
- When faced with a difficult text, you will have to slow down and use the principles of summarizing and paraphrasing. With summary, you concisely identify the main points in one or two sentences. With paraphrase, you re-word the text in your own words.
- When reading an argument, see if the writer addresses possible objections to his or her argument. Ask yourself, of all the objections, did the writer choose the most compelling ones? The more compelling the objections addressed, the more rigorous and credible the author’s writing.
Recognizing Logical Fallacies
Begging the Question
Begging the question assumes that a statement is self-evident when it actually requires proof.
Major Premise: Fulfilling all my major desires is the only way I can be happy.
Minor Premise: I can’t afford when of my greatest desires in life, a Lexus GS350.
Conclusion: Therefore, I can never be happy.
Circular Reasoning
Circular reasoning occurs when we support a statement by restating it in different terms.
Stealing is wrong because it is illegal.
Admitting women into the men’s club is wrong because it’s an invalid policy.
Your essay is woeful because of its egregious construction.
Your boyfriend is hideous because of his heinous characteristics.
I have to sell my car because I’m ready to sell it.
I can’t spend time with my kids because it’s too time consuming.
I need to spend more money on my presents than my family’s presents because I need bigger and better presents.
I’m a great father because I’m the best father my children have ever had.
Weak Analogy or Faulty Comparison
Analogies are never perfect but they can be powerful. The question is do they have a degree of validity to make them worth the effort.
A toxic relationship is like a cancer that gets worse and worse (fine).
Sugar is high-octane fuel to use before your workout (weak because there is nothing high-octane about a substance that causes you to crash and converts into fat and creates other problems)
Free education is a great flame and the masses are moths flying into the flames of destruction. (horribly false analogy)
Ad Hominem Fallacy (Personal Attack)
“Who are you to be a marriage counselor? You’ve been divorced six times?”
A lot of people give great advice and present sound arguments even if they don’t apply their principles to their lives, so we should focus on the argument, not personal attack.
“So you believe in universal health care, do you? I suppose you’re a communist and you hate America as well.”
Making someone you disagree with an American-hating communist is invalid and doesn’t address the actual argument.
“What do you mean you don’t believe in marriage? What are you, a crazed nihilist, an unrepentant anarchist, an immoral misanthrope, a craven miscreant?”
Straw Man Fallacy
You twist and misconstrue your opponent’s argument to make it look weaker than it is when you refute it. Instead of attacking the real issue, you aim for a weaker issue based on your deliberate misinterpretation of your opponent’s argument.
“Those who are against universal health care are heartless. They obviously don’t care if innocent children die.”
Hasty Generalization (Jumping to a Conclusion)
“I’ve had three English instructors who are middle-aged bald men. Therefore, all English instructors are middle-aged bald men.”
“I’ve met three Americans with false British accents and they were all annoying. Therefore, all Americans, such as Madonna, who contrive British accents are annoying.” Perhaps some Americans do so ironically and as a result are more funny than annoying.
Either/Or Fallacy
There are only two choices to an issue is an over simplification and an either/or fallacy.
“Either you be my girlfriend or you don’t like real men.”
“Either you be my boyfriend or you’re not a real American.”
“Either you play football for me or you’re not a real man.”
“Either you’re for us or against us.” (The enemy of our enemy is our friend is every day foreign policy.)
“Either you agree with me about increasing the minimum wage, or you’re okay with letting children starve to death.”
“Either you get a 4.0 and get admitted into USC, or you’re only half a man.”
Equivocation
Equivocation occurs when you deliberately twist the meaning of something in order to justify your position.
“You told me the used car you just sold me was in ‘good working condition.’”
“I said ‘good,’ not perfect.”
The seller is equivocating.
“I told you to be in bed by ten.”
“I thought you meant be home by ten.”
“You told me you were going to pay me the money you owe me on Friday.”
“I didn’t know you meant the whole sum.”
“You told me you were going to take me out on my birthday.”
“Technically speaking, the picnic I made for us in the backyard was a form of ‘going out.’”
Red Herring Fallacy
This fallacy is to throw a distraction in your opponent’s face because you know a distraction may help you win the argument.
“Barack Obama wants us to support him but his father was a Muslim. How can we trust the President on the war against terrorism when he has terrorist ties?”
“You said you were going to pay me my thousand dollars today. Where is it?”
“Dear friend, I’ve been diagnosed with a very serious medical condition. Can we talk about our money issue some other time?”
Slippery Slope Fallacy
We go down a rabbit hole of exaggerated consequences to make our point sound convincing.
“If we allow gay marriage, we’ll have to allow people to marry gorillas.”
“If we allow gay marriage, my marriage to my wife will be disrespected and dishonored.”
Appeal to Authority
Using a celebrity to promote an energy drink doesn’t make this drink effective in increasing performance.
Listening to an actor play a doctor on TV doesn’t make the pharmaceutical he’s promoting safe or effective.
Tradition Fallacy
“We’ve never allowed women into our country club. Why should we start now?”
“Women have always served men. That’s the way it’s been and that’s the way it always should be.”
Misuse of Statistics
Using stats to show causality when it’s a condition of correlation or omitting other facts.
“Ninety-nine percent of people who take this remedy see their cold go away in ten days.” (Colds go away on their own).
“Violent crime from home intruders goes down twenty percent in home equipped with guns.” (more people in those homes die of accidental shootings or suicides)
Post Hoc, Confusing Causality with Correlation
Taking cold medicine makes your cold go away. Really?
The rooster crows and makes the sun go up. Really?
You drink on a Thursday night and on Friday morning you get an A on your calculus exam. Really?
You stop drinking milk and you feel stronger. Really? (or is it placebo effect?)
Non Sequitur (It Does Not Follow)
The conclusion in an argument is not relevant to the premises.
Megan drives a BMW, so she must be rich.
McMahon understands the difference between a phrase and a dependent clause; therefore, he must be a genius.
Whenever I eat chocolate cake, I feel good. Therefore, chocolate cake must be good for me.
Bandwagon Fallacy
Because everyone believes something, it must be right.
“You can steal a little at work. Everyone else does.”
“In Paris, ninety-nine percent of all husbands have a secret mistress. Therefore adultery is not immoral.”
Essay Three: The Culture Code
Option A
One camp believes Rapaille is a marketing genius who uses invaluable psychological insights to gain codes that unlock the power of consumerism and as a result he is worth his huge asking price as a consultant. However, another camp esteems Rapaille as little more than a fraud who recycles the same archetypal “codes” and stereotypes and as a result he has no “secret sauce” to make him worth all the money he makes. In a 1,000-word essay, typed and double-spaced, support, refute, or complicate one of the assertions above.
Be sure to use Toulmin model of argumentation and have a Works Cited page with no fewer than three sources.
Option B
In a 1,000 word essay, compare Clotaire Rapaille's vision of an adolescent America with Joseph Epstein's similar vision in his essay "The Perpetual Adolescent." Be sure to follow comparison essay guidelines for structure and transitions.
Option C
In a 1,000-word essay, typed and double-spaced, support, refute, or complicate the assertion that The Culture Code evidences that marketing and advertising are evil agencies preying on anthropology, sociology, human psychology, the unconscious, the reptilian, and neuroscience to manipulate people into becoming helpless consumers. Be sure to use Toulmin model of argumentation and have a Works Cited page with no fewer than three sources.
What Jon Stewart Exposes Various Weaknesses in Thinking and Fallacies
One. Straw Man: Twist original material
Two. Non Sequitur: "It does not follow." Rap is not the issue. It's a non sequitur or a red herring (a distraction).
Three. Double-Standard: Hold blacks to one standard and whites to another when it comes to "responsibility."
Four. Measuring proportion. Is racism isolated or pervasive?
Five. Purposely misinterpreting and being selective with data. For example, one talking head from WSJ is right about the petty arrests but glosses over that it's 90% blacks who are getting arrested under these petty circumstances.
Six. Shameless denial of racism. If you repeat a lie over and over, it becomes some people's "truth."
The Importance of Definition in Your Essays
Often we’re analyzing a term that needs clarification. For example, what is morality? Is morality a divine-inspired quality? Or does morality evolve from society’s struggle to learn to create a community that flourishes as a result of cooperation and other cultural values that lift it beyond the individual animal fighting tooth and claw against his competition?
Definition by Synonym
One of the weakest ways to define a term is by naming it with its equivalent name, otherwise known as a synonym. The problem with renaming a term is the trap of the circular definition.
What is pornography?
Pornography is obscenity.
What is obscenity?
Obscenity is pornography.
Definition by Example
A more effective form of definition is to use an example, also called an ostensive definition from the Latin ostendere, “to show.”
What is happiness?
An example of happiness is a society, like Iceland, that nurtures its artists by encouraging them to fail. As a result, Iceland has the highest artists per capita in the world. A key example of happiness is a society that has flourishing artists.
Definition by Stipulation
Stipulations are conditions or requirements that you and your opponents agree to when debating a term.
For example, a ban on weapons needs the stipulation of assault weapons.
A parent is not merely a biological relation to the child; a parent must be present, engaged, and involved in the child’s upbringing.
Meaning is a form of purpose, but that purpose must be attached to a moral code; otherwise, Hitler’s “meaning,” a vision for an all-white race is allowed to be confused with real meaning.
An Extended Definition
An extended definition has three things: term, class, and distinguishing characteristics.
Water is a liquid comprised of H2O.
A parent is a person who is engaged and involved with her child’s upbringing, not merely a biological relation.
A chimera is an obsessive mental state characterized by projection of one’s fantasies, unrealistic expectations, and inevitable failure to meet those expectations.
Meaning is an orientation that gives us purpose, life force, morality, and character.
Love is a deformed mental state resulting in obsession, capriciousness, madness, and death.
Jim Crow is the perpetuation of White Supremacy characterized by the insidious reinvention of slavery through segregation laws, slave wages, and police abuse.
A Chanel No. 5 Moment is a form of narcissism in which you constantly crave the sense of being the star of your own movie, you spend all your resources getting this kind of attention, and you use people to achieve this aim only to find yourself alienated from life, yourself, and the human race.
Logic and Reasoning as a Part of Argumentation
Logic comes from the Greek word logos, meaning, word, thought, principle, or reason. Logic is concerned with the principles of correct reasoning.
Deductive reasoning starts with general premises and ends in specific conclusions. This process is expressed in a syllogism: major premise, minor premise, and conclusion.
Major Premise: All bald men should wear extra sunscreen on their bald head.
Minor Premise: Mr. X is a bald man.
Conclusion: Therefore, Mr. X should apply extra sunscreen.
A sound syllogism, one that is valid and true, must follow logically from the facts and be based on premises that are based on facts.
Major Premise: All state universities must accommodate disabled students.
Minor Premise: UCLA is a state university.
Conclusion: Therefore, UCLA must accommodate disabled students.
A syllogism can be valid without being true as we see in this example from Robert Cormier’s novel The Chocolate War:
Bailey earns straight A’s.
Straight A’s are a sign of perfection.
But only God is perfect.
Can Bailey be God? Of course not.
Therefore, Bailey is a cheater and a liar.
In the above example it’s not true that the perfection of God is equivalent to the perfection of a straight-A student (faulty comparison, a logical fallacy). So while the syllogism is valid, following logically from one point to the next, it’s based on a deception or a falsehood; therefore, it is not true.
Syllogism Example with a Questionable Conclusion
Your parents give you, small child, lots of sugar cereal and lollipops.
A high sugar diet leads to cavities.
Cavities result in trips to the dentist for teeth fillings.
These teeth fillings could have been avoided with a lower sugar diet.
Your parents subjected you to frequent trips to the dentist.
Unnecessary and frequent trips to the dentist are abusive.
Your parents, by virtue of giving you a high-sugar diet, are abusive.
We can conclude, then, that parents who give their children sweets should be reported to social services.
Syllogism with an Illogical Middle Term Is Invalid
Flawed logic occurs when the middle term has the same term in the major and minor premise but not in the conclusion.
Major Premise: All dogs are mammals.
Minor Premise: Some mammals are porpoises.
Conclusion: Therefore, some porpoises are dogs.
Syllogism with a Key Term Whose Meaning Shifts Cannot be Valid
Major Premise: Only man is capable of analytical reasoning.
Minor Premise: Anna is not a man.
Conclusion: Therefore, Anna is not capable of analytical reasoning.
The key term shift is “man,” which refers to “mankind,” not the male gender.
Syllogism with a Negative Premise
If either premise in a syllogism is negative, then the conclusion must also be negative. The following syllogism is not valid:
Major Premise: Only the Toyota Prius can go in the fast-track lane.
Minor Premise: The BMW 4 series is not a Toyota Prius.
Conclusion: Therefore, the BMW can drive in the fast-track lane.
If both premises are negative, the syllogism cannot have a valid conclusion:
Major Premise: The Toyota Prius cannot be denied entrance into the fast-track lane.
Minor Premise: The BMW 4 series is not a Toyota Prius.
Conclusion: Therefore, the BMW cannot be denied entrance into the fast-track lane.
Enthymemes
An enthymeme is a syllogism with one or two parts of its argument—usually, the major premise—missing.
Robert has lied, so he cannot be trusted.
We’re missing the major premise:
Major Premise: People who lie cannot be trusted.
Minor Premise: Robert has lied.
Conclusion: Therefore, Robert cannot be trusted.
When writers or speakers use enthymemes, they are sometimes trying to hide the flaw of the first premise:
Major Premise: All countries governed by dictators should be invaded.
Minor Premise: North Korea is a country governed by a dictator.
Conclusion: Therefore, North Korea should be invaded.
The premise that all countries governed by dictators should be invaded is a gross generalization and can easily be shot down under close scrutiny.
Inductive Reasoning
Inductive reasoning begins with specific observations or evidence and moves to a general conclusion.
My Volvo was always in the shop. My neighbor’s Mini Cooper and BMW are always in the shop. My other neighbor’s Audi is in the shop.
Now my wife and I own a Honda and Nissan and those cars are never in the shop.
European cars cost more to maintain than Japanese cars and the empirical evidence and data support my claim.
Analyzing Argument from Chapter 4 of From Critical Thinking to Argument Lesson
Lesson 4: Chapters 5 and 6: Analysis and Development of an Argument
How Can You Improve Your Critical Reading?
One. Identify the main idea, claim, or thesis in a piece of writing.
Two. Identify the form and structure. Essays use a variety of expository modes: contrast, comparison, argumentation, description, narrative, cause and effect analysis, extended definition, to name several.
Three. What problem is the writer trying to define?
Four. What bias, if any, does the writer bring to the topic?
Five. Notice the shifts from specificity to generality (induction) or generality to specificity (deduction).
Six. Notice the transitions used to establish a number of reasons (additionally), contrast (however, on the other hand, to the contrary), and comparison (similarly).
Seven. Use annotations, writing key ideas in the margins and underlining key words and phrases. Annotating increases your memory and reading comprehension. Using a pen is better than a highlighter because you can write your own specific response to what you’re reading whereas a highlighter is too fat to make comments. Another advantage of using a pen is that you might come up with ideas for your essay response, even a thesis, and you don’t want to forget that material.
Eight. Look up unfamiliar words to build your vocabulary and increase your understanding of the piece.
Nine. Identify the writer’s style and tone (voice). The voice could be conversational, supercilious (arrogant), morally outraged, friendly, condescending, ironic, etc.
Ten. Notice if the writer is being implicit, using implication or suggestion, rather than being direct and explicit in the expression of the main idea.
Eleven. Ask if the writer considered opposing views fairly before coming to his or her conclusion.
Twelve. What political point of view, if any, informs the piece?
Thirteen. How strong is the evidence in the piece that is used to support the writer’s claim?
Fourteen. What is the intended readership? Educated adults? Experts? Children?
Your first job in analyzing a text, is to determine the author’s thesis or purpose.
Was the purpose to persuade you to think about something differently or take action, analyze causes and effects, take you through the process of changing your car battery (process analysis), expose the corruption of a bureaucracy?
Once you determine the thesis, examine the author’s methods:
Does the writer quote authorities? Are these authorities competent and credible in the field?
Does the writer also address competent authorities that take a different, perhaps contrarian point of view?
Does the writer use credible statistics? Are the statistics current? Have the statistics been interpreted fairly and accurately?
Does the writer build the argument by using solid examples and analogies? Are they compelling? Why? Why not?
Are the writer’s assumptions acceptable?
Does the writer consider all relevant factors? Has she omitted some points that you think should be discussed? For instance, should the author recognize certain opposing positions and perhaps concede something to them?
Does the writer seek to persuade by means of ridicule and mockery? If so, is the ridicule fair and appropriate? Is the ridicule further supported by rational argument?
Is the argument aimed at a particular audience?
What tone, voice or persona is evident in the essay? Does the voice or persona give the essay credibility? Why or why not?
Some voices to consider:
Confident and straightforward
Arrogant and pompous
Mocking and self-aggrandizing
Bullheaded incuriosity for opposing views
So sanctimonious and pious as to be cloying and saccharine
So sanctimonious as to be unctuous
Persnickety
Whimsical, playful, capricious
Deadpan ironical
Gleefully self-righteous
Curmudgeonly misanthropic
Bitter and pessimistic
Effulgently optimistic
Writing Evaluations or Critiques
When you evaluate an author’s text (essay or book), your argument about whether or not the author’s thesis was effectively supported or not is your thesis.
Example
Rapaille attempts feebly to support his thesis with stereotypical examples because only by forcing simplistic illustrations to support his ludicrously over generalized claim does he have a chance of sounding convincing.
"Why Female Athletes Shouldn't Have to Beat Men"
The mixed martial artist Ronda Rousey has defeated 11 opponents, the most recent one in only 14 seconds. Perhaps predictably, this has led to questions about whether she will fight men.
In an interview with Marlow Stern of The Daily Beast, Ms. Rousey answered in the negative: “I don’t think it’s a great idea to have a man hitting a woman on television,” she said. “I’ll never say that I’ll lose, but you could have a girl getting totally beat up on TV by a guy—which is a bad image to put across.” She also alluded to the recent string of domestic-violence arrests among N.F.L. players.
Her reluctance to risk subjecting viewers to such an image is understandable. But even laying aside the issue of domestic violence, it’s worth asking another question: Why do we assume that a successful female athlete should move on to competing with male ones?
Ms. Rousey is undefeated in her weight class. Is her achievement somehow less legitimate because her opponents have been women? Is the only mark of true athleticism the ability to beat a man?
Those who would like to see Ms. Rousey in a mixed-gender bout might argue it would simply be an opportunity for her to fight the best of the best. But the presence of weight classes in mixed martial arts is an acknowledgment that it doesn’t always make sense to compare athletes with different bodies. If Ms. Rousey wouldn’t typically fight someone twice her size, does it make sense for her to fight someone who may have different bone density, different body fat percentage, a different center of gravity? Isn’t she already, by the accepted standards of her sport, the best of the best?
Gender segregation in sports has a complicated history, and it’s possible that more sports will one day be mixed-gender. It’s also possible that sports will one day adopt groupings that have nothing to do with gender — that are based on muscle mass, for instance, or skeletal structure. And if female athletes want to compete against men, they shouldn’t be barred from doing so.
But in the system we have now, expecting a woman to face a male opponent when she’s expressed no interest in doing so implies that excelling at women’s sports is a secondary achievement. It suggests that women’s sports are like the minor leagues — get good enough, and maybe you can play with the men.
And indeed, female athletes are too often treated as secondary. Last year, Lindsey Adler of BuzzFeed estimated that Kobe Bryant made almost three times as much for the 2013-2014 season as all the players in the W.N.B.A. combined. And a recent analysis of seven British newspapers found that just 4 percent of sports articles during a particular week in 2013 focused on women’s sports.
Female athletes deserve better than this — they deserve the same respect their male counterparts get. And that means treating Ronda Rousey as a champion in her own right, not just good for a girl.
Comments
Alexander Hamilton: Is there a sane person in America who believes Ronda Rousey needs to fight any man? Good, that's settled. Now here's the question I'd like to see answered: 2,000 years after the Coliseum was closed for business, why are people still watching one person beat up another? Is this as far as society has come? And what kind of person takes pleasure in intentionally hurting another? The difference between this barbarism and what Michael Vick did is one of degree, not of kind.
RobW: Female athletes are not "treated as secondary." They generally ARE secondary. Anna North complains that Kobe Bryant made three times as much as the rest of the WNBA combined. That is not because sports fans are sexists: it's because Kobe Bryant is approximately three times more interesting to watch that the rest of the WNBA combined. Fans pay to see the best, and there is not a single woman in the WNBA that could even sit the bench on any NBA team.
As an under-six-foot male, I was always a little bitter growing up that I didn't have any realistic chance of success basketball (Spud Webb notwithstanding). There are some under-six-foot leagues, however; is the fact that there is zero coverage of these in the sports pages evidence of rampant heightism? Ms. North believes that female athletes "deserve the same respect their male counterparts get." I assume that she would also believe, then, that under-six-foot players should get the same respect as their taller counterparts. No, of course she wouldn't. That would be silly--as silly as saying vastly inferior female athletes deserved exactly the same respect, box office, and press that the best male athletes get.
Sorry, but until Rousey demonstrates that she can routinely beat men in her weight class, she will remain merely "good for a girl." And, frankly, I don't think the sight of a woman fighter getting bloodily brutalized by a man would be negative--it might make plain to men the potentially devastating power they wield.
Jim Waddell: We need to recognize that men and women are different, in many ways. There are very few sports where the top female athletes could beat the top male athletes.
But there are areas where women excel more than men, beginning with education (and in staying out of jail.) Just because one sex does better than another in any given area is not prima facie evidence of discrimination.
Analyzing the Text
What is the author Anna North's purpose?
She wants to answer this question: "Why do we assume that a successful female athlete should move on to competing with male ones?"
North goes on to ask these two question:
"Is her achievement somehow less legitimate because her opponents have been women? Is the only mark of true athleticism the ability to beat a man?"
In other words, does Rousey have to beat a man in a fight to be legit?
These questions lead us to the author's thesis, which can be formulated this way:
"Rousey and female athletes in general don't have to compete against men to prove their greatness because we already have weight classes that compare to the different bone and muscle density between men and women."
Any weaknesses with the thesis? Yes, it has only one mapping component and it doesn't address the fact that the best fighter in Rousey's weight class can't compete against the best male fighter in the same weight class.
Does the author have a counterargument-rebuttal paragraph?
Those who would like to see Ms. Rousey in a mixed-gender bout might argue it would simply be an opportunity for her to fight the best of the best. But the presence of weight classes in mixed martial arts is an acknowledgment that it doesn’t always make sense to compare athletes with different bodies. If Ms. Rousey wouldn’t typically fight someone twice her size, does it make sense for her to fight someone who may have different bone density, different body fat percentage, a different center of gravity? Isn’t she already, by the accepted standards of her sport, the best of the best?
Do you notice any weaknesses in the author's argument?
But in the system we have now, expecting a woman to face a male opponent when she’s expressed no interest in doing so implies that excelling at women’s sports is a secondary achievement. It suggests that women’s sports are like the minor leagues — get good enough, and maybe you can play with the men.
How would you formulate a thesis in response to the author's column?
While North makes a good point that Rousey is a great woman fighter, her larger claim that Rousey is a first-rate champion equal to male fighters is muddled by the fact that Rousey's greatness is a combination of her fighting dominance in the female category combined with her celebrity that transcends MMA competition.
Mockery and Ridicule Only Work When Supported by Rational Argument
Should we pay college athletes?
LA Times reports on John Oliver's video.
Consumerist critiques Philip Morris' response to John Oliver's piece.
AV Club reports on the piece.
Writing Topic
Analyze the egregious fallacies and propaganda evident in Philip Morris' response to John Oliver's criticism.
Comments