Word to Your Daughter

https://www.ted.com/talks/sarah_kay_if_i_should_have_a_daughter#t-1076023

Throughout the Ted talk If I Should Have a Daughter by Sarah Kay, Kay explains the effect that she believes spoken word has on people. She adds that spoken word should use what you know but also ask to understand what you don't know. She encourages her students and the audience to express vulnerability to be able to learn and enjoy the world to its fullest extent. She uses examples of how spoken word has changed her life as well as her students'.

Kay uses ethos in her presentation, but not in the way that we would expect. Kay is qualified to make her arguments because she opens her talk with her own personal spoken word poetry. This allows the audience to witness her talent and is an excellent "hook" for the audience. After the audience can see her talent, she goes on to explain the importance of poetry and how to be more open to the world. We, as the audience, tend to accept her arguments because she has proven herself as a successful, talented poet.

Her presentation is loaded with pathos as emotion is a key aspect to spoken word poetry. The infliction of her voice and passion she puts into her words convey her personal emotions and trigger an emotional response in the audience. This connects her to the audience and allows them to understand her poetry better and take her more seriously. For example, the way she speaks to her "daughter" in her first poem relates to anyone who has a daughter or child and allows them to reflect on what they teach their children. She focuses on telling her figurative daughter about the dangers that are present in the world and not allowing them to change her or bring her down. This is an idea that most people can understand as most people do not have everyone they've ever met in agreement with them on everything. This allows for sympathy in the audience.

Probably the least apparent of the 3 in this presentation is logos, as Kay focuses mostly on her opinions and emotional responses as a way of knowing. However, the way she presents emotion to support her arguments seems purely logical in context. She entices the audience to open up to the world and learn to fail. She asks to apologize when you're wrong, but never apologize for who you are.

This is something that really resonates with me. I'd seen the first poem in this talk in a past English class and I could remember vaguely what it was about. I remembered that I loved it (I also think spoken word poetry is super cool) so I decided to watch the whole thing. Turns out, I really relate to it right now as I'm finding that I constantly have to be on my toes with how I present myself to the world and what I say. I hate it. It seems that often when I am trying my hardest to be the best I can be, somehow it is misconstrued and causes someone to get offended anyways. It makes me wish that we lived in a world where people didn't expect the worst out of everyone. We are forced to see so much evil in the world every day that it has become hard to find the good.

This makes me feel like I constantly have to apologize for simply being human. I understand more than anyone just how many mistakes I make, but I also know that I try my hardest not to make them. I don't know how much I agree with Kay's opinion on being vulnerable to the world. I am in no way a cynic, but I do know that the world is a harsh place and if you don't have a thick skin you could get really hurt. However, I do believe that there is so much good in the world that we miss daily because we're too focused on finding the evil. Taking risks is scary, but it is important in order to learn new things and improve. So I have to learn to find balance in this contradiction. I don't know if I agree completely with Kay, but overall, I completely agree that you should not have to apologize for being who you are.

Devious Barbie

Hello from 'bama!

So I have been in the car for about 11 hours and still have another 7 to go, so I apologize if this blog post is not prime.

Barbara Stanwyk's character in Film Noir is presented as a mischievous, beautiful, yet slightly wicked woman. Every aspect of the film works to add to this interesting persona of her character. She characterizes extremely well as an actress, but the effects added by the film team contribute greatly to how she is presented. Her hair and makeup is very Marilyn Monroe, giving her the archetypal "sexy" look. The camera works to display her from flattering angles to add to her gorgeous, yet somehow kinda "off," character. The lighting works to show her features, but casts shadows on her as well to show her hidden personality. All of these contribute to the intent of the producers: to present Barbara as a beautiful, cunning, tricky woman. The deviousness of women was an extremely popular theme in the 1940's and is still seen today.
"Good" and "likeable" are completely different things. "Good" or "morale" implies that Barbara's character adheres to what is socially acceptable and morally correct -- a list I'm pretty sure murder is universally excluded from. However, "likeable" is just one's emotional connection to a character. The producers and Barbara herself do an outstanding job regarding these two ideas. It is clear from almost the minute Barbara's character is introduced that she is not a good/moral person. Nevertheless, the audience is inclined to like her from the beginning as well(at least I did..). We tend to side with her, even though we know we shouldn't since we know her intentions are morally evil.
From the minute Barbara walks out in her skimpy sunbathing towel to meet Fred MacMurray's character, we immediately conclude the way she will interact with him. She doesn't let us down, either. Barbara's character knows just how to manipulate Fred's, and she does it beautifully. She knows what she wants and goes about it carefully. When she feels she has overstepped her boundaries and scared off Fred's character, she immediately covers it with seduction and light-hearted flirting. Fred miraculously seems to forget his moral standards whenever she does this. This technique allows her to control Fred's character and end up getting him to agree to help her achieve her goal and kill her husband for his money.
This psychopathic characterization for Barbara displays how women were viewed in the 1940's. Women were seen as beautiful, sexual, and inferior to men, yet mischievous, clever, and a threat to men. These two ideas do not seem to make any sense to me. How can you objectify a woman, thinking she is less of a person than you, yet be threatened by her very existence and remarkable intellect? It seems that hints of this misconstrued idea of women is still present in today's society. You do not have to look far to see how women are displayed as meat for the animalistic man. We see how women were portrayed during this time period and verbalize it as awful, yet we poke fun at the same inferiority of women. So what progress have we made at all?

I applaud Barbara's character immensely: I definitely believe that women should use their wit to achieve what they want(hopefully with good intentions rather than to commit crimes). It's a skill most women are born with and have been using for ages. However, this does not mean that women are evil creatures to be approached with trepidation. I see it as women using their remarkable, biological genius to achieve their goals. Yes, there are "bad nuts" of every gender, race, religion, sexuality, etc., but these examples should not be presented as a generalization. As an actress, people tend to ask me why I'm so fond of the "bad girl" characters. Truth is, I admire their cunning, devious selves. They're more complex, challenging to understand, and more fun. 

I think a little deviousness is good.