Feminism...The Good Kind

 I am the oldest of four girls. Growing up, I was taught that I could do anything I wanted, as long as I put my mind to it and worked hard. Rights as a woman never seemed like an issue.

Carrot and the Stick

There's probably nothing better in life than being praised. As humans, we thrive off of the acceptance of others. From a very young age, we are taught that being the "best" is superior to being anything else. We were envious of the children who get praised by the teacher for the best handwriting. We were jealous of the kids who got bigger trophies on the team. To be the best, is frankly, the best.

Knowing this, it is easy to see why revolutionary speechwriters would choose to use epideictic oratory, particularly encomium. Encomium is using praise to get a point across. In his speech, activist Robert Owens continuously uses encomium to encourage his audience to realize the importance of truth.

There are many uses of phrases like: "Men of industry, and of good, virtuous habits!" "Men of industry, producers of wealth and knowledge, and of all that is truly valuable in society!" "Men of industrious habits, you who are the most honest, useful and valuable portion of society, by producing for it all its wealth and knowledge..." So on, and so forth. It is very obvious that this guy is good at praising the people he is addressing.

What is the rhetorical effect of such a move? For me, it comes down to a sort of "carrot-stick" idea. Some people respond better to punishment, some to reward. Owens is using praise as a form of reward to encourage his audience to listen to him and to respect him. Think about it, isn't it easier to respect someone who apparently respects you? By creating a sense of mutual respect between himself and the audience, he increases the chances of his audience listening to him and putting his ideas into action.

Downfalls of Feminism

I'm sick of people thinking that it is alright to tear others down in order to strengthen their own arguments. What happened to supporting yourself, but not at the expense of others?

To Be Politically Correct...

We live in a day and age when it is imperative to always be "politically correct." There are instances when an individual steps out of bounds in what they say, like with Justine Sacco who got fired for being racist. In fact, at least once a week I see a story on Facebook entitled something like, "You Won't Believe What ________ Said." With the accessibility of the internet, it is easy to get yourself in trouble for something that you post for the whole world to see.

This ultra-correct ideology to me is an example of tolerance, but tolerance taken too far. Now, there are times and places to say things and to not say things, like with Justine Sacco. But, on the other hand, if I were to publicly broadcast that I do not believe gay marriage is right, I would probably get shamed by my online peers. For me to say something that I believe or don't believe, I am called a bigot, judgmental, and un-Christian.

This idea of tolerance reminds me of frames of reference, a principle of the Enlightenment. To me, dogma of political correctness is based on frames of reference. For me to say my beliefs about gay marriage to my LDS friends would not get me in trouble, because they share a similar frame of reference with me. But to step out of that frame of reference would be to step into a war zone where I am bound to get shot down.

The problem with being "politically correct" is that it at times takes away a bit of our freedom of speech. (Again, keep in mind that I acknowledge there are some things that are absolutely inappropriate to say.) To have to be politically correct is to have to alter the way I say things to make it appear as though I agree with the rest of what society says, or risk being called on the carpet. To claim a belief because of my religion or just as an opinion is labeled as narrow-minded and ignorant. I can't have beliefs unless those beliefs line up with the frame of reference of everyone else. I mean, I can, but maybe I'll end up like Justine Sacco.

No respect? No authority.

On July 1st, 2013, I was serving as a missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I had been called to serve in the Washington Seattle mission, but effective immediately on July 1st, I became a missionary in the new mission, the Washington Federal Way mission.

The Concept of Creation

"Y'all wouldn't be here without me."

Spencer Muir said in (semi) jest during our Salon on Monday. That was each of our claims as we had our discussion--that the subject we had studied with our previous groups was the most important during the Renaissance and Reformation. As I discussed the different aspects with my classmates, I came to the realization that in reality, not one of our topics was more important than the other. Each had it's own pros and cons, evident weaknesses and strengths. The Renaissance was a web of interconnected ideas, people, and events. Greek classics and history inspired scholars, who articulated the idea of humanism. The idea of humanism prompted people to start questioning their place in society and in their religion. This individualistic fervor pushed people to travel, to share, to learn, to grow, and to create. One of those creations was the brilliant Gutenberg press, which circled back and allowed for more sharing and creation. The more I thought about it, the more I realized that it didn't matter what came first. "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" Well, aren't we just glad we have both? Same with the Renaissance.

There is a key theme in each of the ideas of the Renaissance that we discussed, and that theme is creation. Whether an original or a re-creation, the Renaissance was an explosion of creation. Petrarch discussed this idea of creation in terms of writing: "There is no lighter burden, nor more agreeable, than a pen. Other pleasures fail us or wound us while they charm, but the pen we take up rejoicing and lay down with satisfaction, for it has the power to advantage not only its lord and master, but many others as well, even though they be far away — sometimes, indeed, though they be not born for thousands of years to come." Petrarch recognized the importance of creation, especially through words. He knew that creation would affect people in his own time period, but people in the future as well.

Creation isn't unique to the Renaissance, but it was the first time in hundreds of years that people dared to create. And they weren't just creating because it was monetarily profitable, but rather, because it enriched their lives intellectually. Whether it was humanism that prompted them or the protestant reform, or the printing press, it doesn't matter. What matters is the vast number of new ideas that were being shared all around the world. There was true communication occurring, true rhetoric.

After studying this unit, I have become particularly fond of the Renaissance because of the wave of individuality that it started. We live in a day and age where individuality is taken for granted. We can say what we want, when we want, where we want, with little to no repercussions. Because of the humanism ideas that were propagated, education became more mainstream and desirable. Because people dared to think and create, we don't have to think twice when we create. The Renaissance took the world from a place where you were born, worked, then died to a place where you can learn, create, and grow.

So what came first, the chicken or the egg? What inspired the Renaissance, humanism or sprezzetura? It doesn't matter what came first or what came last. What matters is the era that came about because people dared to create.

I'm flying, Jack!

I like to say that I was raised on a boat. When I was eight years old, my dad bought a boat. That purchase led to dozens of trips to Lake Powell and various other lakes in Utah and surrounding states. I loved the smell of my boat--a mix of gasoline, lake water, and sunscreen. I loved the feeling I got as I sat at the very front of the boat and my dad punched the gas. I'll admit, to this day, I still spread out my arms Titanic style and say, "I'm flying, Jack!"

Though my love of boating was cultivated at a very young age, there was one aspect of boating that for the longest time I was terrified of: skiing. The idea of strapping a heavy board unto my feet and then being yanked out of the water scared me to death. Add in some horror stories I'd heard about skiing, and I refused to try. I was not up to the challenge of exploring the world of skiing. I was much too comfortable sitting on an inflated tube and being dragged behind the boat.

Finally, my dad had enough of my reluctance. He managed to bribe me to get into the water, but threatened me when I said I was done trying. Again and again, the boat circled around with the rope. Again and again, the rope slipped from my fingers as I was "trying" to get up. Finally, it clicked in my ten year old brain that I wasn't going to be able to get into the boat into I at least got up. So mustering all my strength, I held unto that dang rope until I popped up out of the water.

I was only up for a few seconds that first time, but I was introduced to a whole new world. It was a feeling even more exhilarating than sitting at the front of the boat. I really was flying along the calm surface of the lake. It was an ethereal experience and I still remember it vividly. I had found a whole new world, and from that moment on, you had to beg me to stop skiing.

Misunderstood Machiavelli

I first studied Machiavelli when I was a sophomore in high school. The expression on Machiavelli's face right up there is a pretty good representation of how I felt about it. Reading The Prince was pretty much akin to torture in my sixteen year old mind. I kept thinking--"Boring guy, boring topic. Let's move on." 

Machiavelli was immortalized by his idea that when it comes to being a leader, "It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot have both." In his blogpost, Spencer M argues the point that: 

"Machiavelli believed that leaders should do whatever is necessary to accomplish political or leadership driven tasks." This may be what some may interpret from what Machiavelli said, but I don't think that was his point.

When Machiavelli said it is better to be feared than loved, he added--"if you cannot have both." I think this last statement is incredibly important. Machiavelli was not suggesting that a prince should be a liar and a conniving politician, but rather that he should not be afraid to enforce his rule IF he had to. I don't think that Machiavelli was supporting tyrants and dictators, but rather a firm hand when it came to ruling. He obviously preferred a combination of love and fear for a leader. Machiavelli did not call for blood and horror, but for leaders with a backbone. I think that too often when we read his famous words, we assume the worst, that Machiavelli was an advocate for leaders who ruled with menace and vengeance.

I believe that the ideas that Machiavelli purported in The Prince had a great impact on how Europeans looked at their leaders. The Renaissance was a time of change and growth. While what Machiavelli suggested wasn't exactly radical, it was revolutionary in the sense that it continues to affect how we judge and perceive leaders, even today.

The Boy in Berlin

It was a beautiful, sunny summer day in Berlin. I remember counting my steps, lining up the edges of my shoes to the edges of the cobblestones along the path. My grandmother walked near me, in halting, slow steps. She said something. I shifted my gaze from my feet and asked, "Sorry I didn't hear you, what did you say?" She mentioned the row of graves we were walking past, the dates on the headstones. "It was probably a kindergarten class that got killed in an air-raid." she said quietly. With her comment, I looked up at the rows and rows of headstones in the cemetery. We were visiting the place where my great grandmother and great great grandmother were buried. We were there to film my grandpa talking about his past. He grew up in Berlin during WWII. He tells story after story of bombings, air-raid drills, and the scarcity of the food. He has lived in America since he was twenty, but he still has a bit of a German accent that hangs onto his W's. The life my grandfather has lived is completely different from the life that I have lived, yet I couldn't help but relate to him as I listened to his stories in the cemetery that day. His trials taught him strong morals like courage and hard work which he passed on to my father, who in turn passed them onto me. I haven't endured starvation or experienced a war, but the principles that my grandfather teach help me face the challenges in my life. The trials of each generation are never the same, but sometimes the lessons learned are.