RSS Feed

March, 2013

  1. “Retarded” is the new “Gay” – Rough Draft

    March 27, 2013 by Sam Lebold

    When said in the context of everyday language, the word retarded goes seemingly unnoticed. But when said with respect to President Obama via twitter, suddenly the word and its usage are thrown into the spotlight. Last October, political commentator Ann Coulter, known for her extreme right wing views, posted a tweet saying “I highly approve of Romney’s decision to be kind and gentle to the retard [Obama].” The tweet went viral and gained a fair amount of media attention, due to Coulter’s negative connotation on the word. However, Coulter was not the first or last to ever use the term in a derogatory sense; in fact, the term “retarded” is used quite often in the day-to-day vocabulary of many today. It is used as a synonym for “stupid”, “difficult”, “slow” and “different”, among many others. Coulter’s use of the word simply gained the attention of the media because of her very public standing– day after day, the word can be heard countless times on the lips of many. As a global society we’re no stranger to the word “retarded” (also known as the r-word). In the modern day, the r-word has gained negative connotations and has become an insulting stereotype, even when used to describe something other than a person with an intellectual disability. This becomes an issue when, as is the case with the r-word, a negatively-laced term becomes a part of our language and therefore defines the way we think about such a topic. The term has therefore become very hurtful to those with special needs, and therefore as a society we need to remove it from our vocabulary and decrease its usage in our language and speech in order not to convey such negative and harmful connotations on those with intellectual disabilities.

    One of the fundamental issues with how pervasive the r-word is in today’s culture lies in the history of the word. Like many other words in the English language, the meaning of the term retarded has morphed quite a bit over time. The r-word falls into a category with other words such as imbecile and idiot– words at one point used to describe those with an intellectual disability. In the late 1960s through the 1980s, the term “mentally retarded” began to replace the then accepted term of  “mentally deficient”. From that point on, those with intellectual disabilities began to be categorized based on their degree of mental retardation. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), 4th Edition, published in 1994, uses the clinical label “mental retardation” for those with intellectual disabilities, and categorizes them based on severity under the headings “mild”, “moderate”, “severe” and “profound”. The DSM is considered to be the most credible source for information all psychological, neurological, and psychiatric disorders, as well as some genetic disorders, and is widely accepted across a broad range of fields as a legitimate medical source. The DSM-IV is the most recent edition of the DSM, and thus the terminology presented in that edition became the accepted medical and psychological jargon of the next two decades, and continues to be the accepted medical and psychological jargon to the modern day.

    Standing alone, the fact that the term “mentally retarded” used in a clinical setting carries no extraneous repercussions or negative implications. However, as the term “mentally retarded” became accepted to describe those with an intellectual disability in a clinical and medical setting, the term “retarded” was also introduced into the English language as a slang word and a morph of the medical term. The prefix of “mental” was dropped, and the r-word began to be used as a synonym for words such as “slow”, “moronic”, “idiotic”, “stupid”, “messed up” and “wrong”. As usage of the word grew in popularity among common language in America, the r-word evolved to hold seriously negative connotations. One does not simply use the r-word in a casual setting to describe something with a positive spin. Rather, the term has come to be an insult.

     

    For the next two or so pages, I continue on to discuss how when we use the r-word with a negative undertone, it then pushes those negative implications on those with intellectual disabilities, creating a horrible stereotype. I also discuss how prevalent the word is in our everyday language, and how destructive that can be when it holds such negative connotations.

    One thing that I feel like I’m really struggling with right now is one of the things on the checklist: progress. I feel like things might start to get repetitive in my essay, especially when it comes to discussing how hurtful and negative the r-word can be. I feel like it’s a tough essay to write because it’s a bit of a catch-22: the r-word has negative connotations because of how often and in what context it’s used, but the context and how often it is used is what gives it the negative connotations. So I’m struggling with that a bit right now as I try to formulate the rest of the essay.

    I’m also struggling a little bit with strength and feeling like I’m not able to validate my argument very well. I have some other sources later in the paper, but there isn’t exactly a whole lot of useful literature that I’ve found that I could use in my essay.


  2. Language & Stigmas

    March 20, 2013 by Sam Lebold

    I’m not quite sure how well this would work, but the more I think about it, the more I would like to tackle it as a topic.

    In recent years, most people have started to avoid using the word “gay” as a negative description. However, a lot of other labels like this still exist, and the only reason we’ve stopped using gay is most likely because of all the attention that gay rights have been receiving in the media. For example, you might still hear someone say “Wow that’s so gay” every once in a blue moon, but it doesn’t go over too well. How many times, through, do you hear someone say “Ugh, that’s so retarded”? My guess is, more often than not.

    This is common across the board. Another example (which hits closer to home for me) is when people say “I’m so OCD about that!” I was diagnosed with OCD at age 8, and it’s really hard for me to stomach it when people treat it so flippantly, often with a negative tone to it. This is extremely hurtful to me–unless you have the disorder, you have no idea what it’s like!

    For the most part, it seems like the usage of these terms springs from a lack of understanding, whether it’s a lack of understanding about how offensive these terms are, or a lack of understanding about the actual terms themselves. I’m not quite sure how I would back up an argument with data, evidence, or research, but I think it deserves some looking into.

    If I were to pursue this topic, my intended audience would be our generation and those below it. I don’t notice a lot of the same usage in older generations, but I certainly do in those below us. I think it’s an important message for these generations to hear, because language has a lot of power, and used incorrectly, it can be extremely offensive. Language becomes so ingrained in us that it often influences the way we think, and it’s my guess that we have a lot of the stigmas we do around certain things like mental illness or disabilities because of the way that we treat them in our everyday language.

    Like I said, it would take a lot more planning and thought, but it’s certainly something I’d like to look into.


  3. Boys Like Girls

    March 20, 2013 by Sam Lebold

    Again looking for some way to spice it up this week for my passion blog, I turned to a friend, Aubrey. I had her go through her iPod and look under the genre “Alternative”, and tell me either her favorite artist there, or the artist she was most surprised was characterized by the label “alternative”. The answer I got was not what I was expecting at all.

    Her response made us both laugh a bit and remember an old favorite of ours. It turns out that she picked an artist that fell into both categories: Boys Like Girls. Boys Like Girls, while not considered to be straight alternative, are still characterized by iTunes as an alternative group. The difference was, they’re not popular now, and their music has a bit more of a pop-flare to it than most traditionally “alternative” groups. The Massachusetts-based, all male group was formed in 2005, but hit their pinnacle of popularity around 2008 and 2009 (roughly when we were in 8th and 9th grade- ah, the good old days). Since then, they’ve faded into the background, and there question is floating about on the internet if they’re even still together. Listening to their music was, for me, such a throwback. A lot of their lyrics are bit cheesy and over-done, and there’s nothing too unique about the sound. However, I still found myself singing along to my old favorites with gusto and even a few dance moves. It’s the kind of music that most (if not all) teenagers can relate to, whether they like to admit it or not. Catchy beats, fun tempos, anxiety and dramatic lyrics and that summer-pop-esque vibe that words can’t really describe make the music of Boys Like Girls what it is, and I’ll be the first to admit that I’m one of the biggest fan girls (come at me if you dare!)

    Now, bear with me. It seems odd right? Boys Like Girls had a few fruity, fun albums that sounded a lot like other pop albums out there. They were wildly popular, then they quickly died – like a flash of lightning. They certainly don’t sound anything like Young the Giant, Of Monsters and Men, Mumford & Sons, etc. In the modern day, we certainly would not call them alternative. So why am I blogging about them?

    In all honesty, listening to their music with respect to this blog really made me think: what does it mean for an artist to categorize themselves as “alternative”? Dictionary.com defines the word alternative as “employing or following nontraditional or unconventional ideas, methods, etc.”. In short, the genre “Alternative” really should be a catch all, for all groups that don’t fit into other genres that have a stricter set of guidelines or characteristics. Yet today, “alternative” has become a term reserved for the kid of obscure, unique and unknown music that hipsters listen to while drinking their Starbucks and peering through their thick-rimmed glasses with fake lenses. When and why did this change occur? Is it a good thing? If alternative has become a newly defined genre, where do we put the artists that previously fell into the alternative genre, but no longer do? Can an artist ever lose the genre they were once in?

    I don’t have an answer for these questions, because only time can tell. All I can do is have a jam-sesh to some good old fashioned throwbacks, and love every minute of my alternative Boys Like Girls.

    I highly recommend looking back at old pre-teen favorites every once in a while. While you might be horrified that at one point you took this stuff seriously, it’ll bring back memories, and you’ll be surprised at how many words you still remember 🙂


  4. Fraternization and its implications

    March 20, 2013 by Sam Lebold

    As I was searching around for a topic for this week’s article, I began to become frustrated. It seems that in the most recent history, the main focus of any article or news piece concerning women in the military focuses around sexual assault. I was torn- part of me thought “well this is good, at least there’s a lot of light being shed on the topic.” When I blogged about sexual assault in the military, one of the things that I was floored by was the estimated number of sexual assault cases that went unreported every year. So, attention in the media would be a good thing, yes? And I would agree that the attention is much needed and is becoming more and more effective, especially in light of the fact that this month, the Department of Defense is honoring the contributions of women in the military throughout history. (I’ll throw the link up here in case you want to check it out – the website is pretty cool, and features news stories about women and their achievements, spotlighting significant women in the military. It’s a really tastefully done dedication, and I appreciate that: http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2012/0212_womenshistory/)

    As an advocate for strong women in the military, this made me quite happy to see all the attention women in the military have been receiving. The blogger in me, however, soon became frustrated. A tiny voice in me said: “is this all people really care about when it comes to women in the military? Why does the Department of Defense need to dedicate a month to celebrating women- shouldn’t they always be celebrating their female combatants?” I skimmed article after article, growing more frustrated. I even considered dedicating my entire blog to this frustration, which seems to be an issue in and of itself: if that’s the only attention women are receiving, is it really a good thing, and are they really being treated equally? Food for thought.

    I soon ran into another issue that caught my attention as I was skimming another article on sexual assault. I was reading a review of the movie The Invisible War, which was Oscar-nominated and focused on rape and assault cases and how they affect women in the military. As I was reading, I noted that part of the movie points out that in many military rape or sexual assault cases, the victim (overwhelmingly female) often gets charged with fraternization.

    Never having really heard the term before, I did a quick google search and found a really interesting article (http://nation.time.com/2010/12/14/navy-fires-top-two-officers-for-being-unduly-familiar-while-commanding-warship/). The article details a case of fratnerization that occurred in the Navy, and how both parties lost their job because of it. It turns out that each branch of the military has a different definition and set of guidelines surrounding the concept of fraternization, but for the most part, all definitions have the same underlying concepts: ““Fraternization” means any relationship in the military chain of command that is prejudicial to good order and discipline. It often, but not always, involves sex.” In short, fraternization is any inappropriate behavior either between ranks or between genders. It’s not always about romantic interests, but is often about the protection of information and respect within the military. Being charged with fraternization most often ends a military career, and it’s taken very seriously.

    On paper, it makes a lot of sense. As with any career, relationships need to be kept professional, especially when those men and women deal with the safety and security of a nation. As I read on, however, one sentence (relating to a comment on one of the initial news articles of the firing of the two naval officers) in particular disturbed me: “One group of posters basically said the Navy needs to grow up. “If this had been a male XO (deputy), there probably wouldn’t have been any question of fraternization,” another poster says. “Because it was a female, people see them out together on liberty and think there is something going on.” I recalled how the first article (the movie review) that I was looking at noted that many women in the military involved with a rape or sexual assault case, even if they are the rape victim themselves, are charged with fraternization.

    Say what?

    If I’m putting two and two together correctly, this would lead to the conclusion that when it comes to rape and sexual assault, women are being treated unfairly, not only in the acts themselves, but in the way that the military responds to them. Much of the article went into detail about how members of the crew and other naval military officers felt that the response of the military to the relations between the two officers was over-reacting. They felt that the charges of fraternization occurred simply because one member of the relationship was a female, not because the relationship itself was inappropriate. As I looked at more and more articles from previous years, this seemed to be a recurring theme. As women gain more and more power in the military, it becomes increasingly more common for more women to be charged with fraternization, even in cases that probably wouldn’t have played out such if the gender wasn’t involved. Women are being treated differently simply because they’re women, and often times, this costs them their job. They have to act differently around male counterparts than other men would around those same male counterparts, putting a strain on their every interaction.

    While obviously unfair, it got me thinking – where do we actually draw the line? Like my last post, I’m a bit torn. Men and women are different, and they interact with each other differently than members of the same gender do. So when does it become wrong to interact in such a way, when is it ok to set down different legislation on women, and when should there be separate standards for the way genders interact in the military?


  5. Fracking Fail – Rough Draft

    March 13, 2013 by Sam Lebold

    Fracking Fail

    Depending on where one lives in respect to a natural gas line, the word “fracking” takes on a very different meaning. For some, it is in essence, meaningless, and sounds simply like a variation on a nasty word, while to others, fracking poses a very serious issue that is at the forefront of many discussions and deliberations. “Fracking” is the shortened version of hydraulic fracturing, which is a method used to tap into a relatively untouched resource of natural gas. It sounds ideal, but the actual process of fracking can have negative impacts on the environment and on the health of inhabitants surrounding the drilling well. The issue itself is highly complex, due to the many political, economic, personal and environmental facets to it. There are activists and enthusiasts for each of the many stances, and while the issue may not even be apparent to some, others know and care quite a bit about it, making fracking the seemingly ideal topic for educated, serious, online deliberation. However, in the comment section of The Slate’s Article: “Frack on Film”, such was not the case. The ensuring deliberation went relatively poorly overall, due to an assortment of reasons: the article was about a film based on fracking, not any sort of legislation or applicable event related to fracking, so the discussion in the comments section tended towards broader opinions of fracking. Thus, there was a lack of focus and no progressive goal for the conversation, and thus also a lack of structure to the conversation. Combined with the anonymity and lack of depth that comes with typed dialogue led to a rather individualistic overtone to many conversations, which in turn did not aid in deliberative progress.

    As an observer with some experience in deliberation from class, I chose not to post my own comment thread, but rather feed into previously in place comment threads that held promise. From a moderator standpoint, I did not want to be too controlling, so I chose to comment on other’s posts simply to prompt and guide the conversation in a deliberative way. I asked a lot of questions, referred and responded directly to other’s statements (rather than making over-generalized and vague conjectures), and tried to never directly oppose any participants opinion, in the hopes of actually causing the participant to take seriously what I had said.

    Out of the six comments that I posted on the discussion board, only three were responded to , and out of those three only two of the responses referred to the content of my post (see: comments originating with “Jack Manning” and “apostrophe”.) Aside from those comments, the conversations died shortly after I posted, or the comment was ignored as the conversation took a different approach. This was due, in part, to the nature of the comments I was posting. I tried to post comments with some substance to them, in order to spark conversation. I also tended towards comments that were non-polarized, because I wanted to find compromise. Yet the deliberation that happened in many of the conversations on the article revolved around participants making short, relatively substance-free comments about the general concept of fracking, or attacking the opposing side, often without truly responding to other’s comments. This can be seen in the screen-names of some who posted, including “the true conservative”, or comments such as “because your typical Slate blogger lives in such a closed bubble that they can’t see the bias in their own language. that’s just how “normal” people in their world think”. Conversations then grew based on opposing sides and debate, rather than deliberation.

    Part of the issue lies in the nature of this particular online deliberation. Screen names were used, no picture needed to be provided, and there was no information about participants. This anonymity allowed people to disregard common conversational rules of conduct and respect. It also made it difficult for participants to feel a connection to one another, therefore creating an environment where it would be difficult to agree, compromise and make progress. When deliberating face to face, it is easier to feel like you know a participant, simply because you can read body language, tone, inflection, expression and timing from them. It’s much easier to understand all the levels of meaning of a statement, because there is more of an efforts to make a conversation deliberative and considerate of other’s opinions. It should also be noted that The Slate is not considered to be a highly professional news website, which may have contributed to the types of comments that were being posted.

    However, much of the trouble with the online deliberation centered around things that would have been issues no matter what medium the deliberation took place in. As in the sustainability deliberation that occurred in class, there was no end goal in site for participants, which gave little to motivation for progressive collaboration and fostered an individualistic atmosphere. Because of this, there was relatively little structure to the conversation, which caused the conversation to split into too many smaller spin-offs, often times which burned out after a few comments, because there was so much else going on. While in class there was the intention of deliberation, on this website, there did not seem to be an intention of deliberation, but rather the intention of argument or debate. The fact that many people were passionate about different stances on fracking did not cause the conversation to become elevated and progressive, but rather polarized and lacking much substance.

    Thus, because of these factors, I felt that I was not able to influence the conversation and make it more deliberative. Most did not take note of or respond to my comments, and I feel that they might not have responded because I took the issue pretty seriously, had lengthier comments, and stuck more towards the middle ground. In a way, it felt like because no one disagreed with me, no one interacted with me. Those who I directly asked questions to responded (see: “Ethan R.”s response on the “Jack Manning” thread and “peteTheBee”s response on the “apostrophe” thread), but the topic was soon changed, or the conversation died. The lengthiest conversations on the page occurred because of a few heated, shallow comments that others posted and responded to, which would fall more under the definition of argument, rather than deliberation.

    Personally, it seems a shame that the deliberation was unsuccessful. Fracking is a very real issue for many, especially those directly impacted by the environmental or economic effects of the drilling. It is a topic that has quite a bit of red tape wrapped around it within the government, making it vitally important for the public to step up, take charge and actually deliberate. That’s why part of me wanted to choose a site that might not attract the typical blogger or online deliberator, but rather the general public, who deserve to be heard as well. However, due to the nature of the article, site, issue and topic, deliberation was not achieved- a lost opportunity.


  6. Mozart, Explosions in the Sky and Andrew Bird, oh my!

    March 13, 2013 by Sam Lebold

    We’re switching it up this week! To be honest I was getting a little sick of the same old routine every week: because I limited myself to exploring alternative music, a lot of my reviews were starting to sound pretty repetitive, and even though I was enjoying each new group, I was finding it hard to express how unique each group was.

    So this week, I’m sticking within the general theme of music, but trying something a bit different. For the past few days (both while at home and here at PSU) I spent a little time each day asking friends of mine what kind of music they listen to while studying. I made a list of the most popular genres and the artists they gave me, picked on each night and studied to the music. I struggled a bit some days to find new material, because most people either don’t listen to music while they study, or they don’t distinguish between “studying” music and “everything else” music, so they weren’t able to give me specifics. However, I did find a few winners that I’d like to share with you as the most enjoyable while I studied.

    First and foremost, a lot of my friends shared that they enjoyed listening to “instrumental” music while they studied. Within the broader category, I was able to break it down into some smaller groupings.

    Firstly, there were many people who liked to listen to classical or orchestral music while they studied. People reported that they liked studying to it because it didn’t have words, and it wasn’t too distracting. When I tried it out for myself, I simply searched “classical music” in Spotify, and found a really neat playlist called “Exam Study Classical Music”. It had a lot of Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin and the like on it. While I studied, I enjoyed it. I have to admit that at times, it could be a bit boring, and that in and of itself was distracting, I found myself thinking “wow this is getting boring” instead of focusing on my anatomy exam. It was different from what I usually listen to, which was also a bit distracting. For the most part, however, I felt pretty intellectual while listening to it, and the lack of words made it easy to focus on the task at hand. I found it best while I was either reading or typing.

    The other half of people who liked to listen to instrumental music liked to listen to more modern music. just without words. While exploring this kind of music, one of my friends from home suggested a group Explosions in the Sky. Their music, as described by the bio on Spotify is “moody and dynamic instrumental indie rock”, which is a pretty valid description. I LOVED Explosions in the Sky. The music was dramatic and cool, and the songs were so different from anything I had ever listened to. I found a lot of emotion in their music, and it was almost like a story was being told with sounds instead of words. This made the music a lot more interesting to listen to, yet it was also a bit harder to focus on the school work. Therefore, I found it best to listen to while doing homework that was kind of “mindless” like math problems or coloring (yes, I have assigned coloring homework for anatomy. Be jealous.)

    The third and final “studying music” I would like to present falls into a different category than the instrumental music. The music of Andrew Bird has vocals, yet I found them oddly unlike any other vocals I had been listening to. My friend who suggested that I listen to Andrew Bird told me that it was really unlike anything else that was out there, and it was hard to describe. I kind of brushed off the comment, until I actually listened to the music. She was right. There’s something very different about Andrew Bird’s music. His voice almost blends into the background music, as if it were an instrument itself. If you’re actively listening to the music, it’s not like you can’t make out his voice. But if the music was on in the background, then it was almost like you didn’t even notice that there was a singer. His voice wasn’t monotone… it just was. It’s very hard to describe, and I would really suggest taking a listen, because I know I’m not doing the music justice. It turned out to be my favorite music that I studied to, because it became white noise to me. It was similar enough to other alternative music to not feel out of place, but it was relaxed enough to blend into the background and not be distracting.

    In general, I really liked this experiment. It was a practical application of this overall music endeavor that I have embarked on, and it forced me to listen to music that was outside of the alternative bubble that I had spent the past few weeks in. I would highly suggest switching up the music you study to for a change of pace. It makes the work go just a little faster! 🙂

     

     


Skip to toolbar