Author: Kathleen Mehne

Response to #1

Although included in the “Context” portion of the introduction of the article, Wong made a point that stood out to me in his writing, mainly because it goes hand in hand with my upcoming research. Wong basically says that social inequities and organizational culture consist of interconnected systems. These systems are faulty, of course. Marginalized groups often stem from a larger “culture,” meaning a way of life/ thinking that oppresses many people that go against the “preferred bias.” In simpler terms, intersectionality comes to play more than one would think when it comes to injustices for diverse people.

Wong demonstrates the example of gender bias, stating that the unequal pay between men and women supports this way of thinking. However, Wong then says that even lower pay for women of color not only supports gender bias but sexist and racist bias. This is a perfect example, I believe, for introducing how interconnected systems affect culture and introducing the larger picture for understanding marginalization. To successfully tackle equity efforts, people need first to address the experiences of the most marginalized. However, this does not mean that the less marginalized people are exempt. This means that addressing the most marginalized consists of multiple oppressions, tackling multiple issues at once. This is an exciting way of thinking that I will note for my research, which asks how we can conquer multiple pre-conceived biases that result in intersectional oppression?

Response to #2

While reading Cori Wong’s article, I noticed not only does he use very successful transition words, but he uses the word “while” a lot at the beginning of his next paragraph. However, this is not used redundantly. Wong has a pattern; he states a certain point in a paragraph, then in the next one, he recognizes this point and offers a different perspective or view of the one previously stated. For example, in the “Starting With Better Questions” paragraph, Wong explains that simply hiring diverse people gets nothing done if there is no culture or system in place that can successfully support and leverage the strengths of difference. Without knowing, a reader is viewing a setup for the next paragraph. This reminds me of Bogust’s use of connecting his points in a very seamless, almost invisible way. In the paragraph to follow, the first sentence reads, “While diversity often refers to representation of difference,
inclusion refers to how differences are meaningfully incorporated and integrated into daily practices.” This sentence foreshadows what’s to come: a paragraph explaining how to infiltrate an inclusive environment by asking the right questions effectively. Wong is great at framing sentences that “have hands,” which reach out to the previous sentence as well as the ones to follow. They all go “hand in hand,” ironically enough. All of these tactics are essential moves noted in chapter 8 of TSIS. Wong’s use of the word “while,” framing almost a counterargument or different perspective to come, as well as connecting his sentences, creates a very constructive piece of writing.

My highlight:

This weekend on Block Island I was able to see a friend who took the ferry over from Montauk. We went to the beach, shopped downtown, and had a great dinner together. Even though it was just for the day, It made me really happy seeing a friend from school, and got me very excited for this upcoming semester!

Response to #1

When I am trying to find fulfilling sources, I first search for a keyword. Recently, in my other class, I wrote a paper on FGM and how to successfully dismantle the practice, in my opinion. I first searched “FGM”, and thousands of sources came upon the database. However, I would really need to sift through these to find the best articles of information. So, I then searched up “Ending FGM”. Here, I had about 15 sources standing. I made sure I filtered my results so that it would only show resources published within the last five years, which brought the number down to ten. This was perfect. I had a good number of resources that would have different points of view and opinions, which ended up perfectly complementing each other. It ended up being a very successful paper.

However, in the past, I have noticed that it is particularly hard to find an article that emphasizes a specific part of a subject. Usually, it is just the subject that is advertised. So, using other keywords alongside the subject you want to research has been proven very successful in my experience. I wanted to also see feministic points of view regarding FGM, so after I searched “ending FGM”, I searched “Feminism and FGM”. I used the same strategy as before and was given great results. Also, by making sure you filter the published dates of sources, you are able to more quickly find recent sources. Sometimes I find myself reading through an article that is very outdated, which ends up wasting some time if someone is not looking for an older source.

Response to #2

When it comes to creating research goals for myself, I really want to make sure that I include voices from all or most sides. This is the most successful way to get a point across, in my opinion. However, I am making sure that I certainly include the voices of those who are oppressed, and/or victims of discrimination and pre-conceived biases. For finding these voices, I will look through scholarly sources, however, I will really have to narrow down my search methods to find the first accounts and opinions of real people. I will try to use different keywords, generating a bigger result of sources. This way, if I do find personal accounts they may be able to complement each other, even if they are regarding completely different situations. This would make my research more successful because different scenarios would prove my point more.

I am focusing on the intersectional nature of oppression, and how unfair treatment towards those with disabilities, those who are minorities or are in the LGBTQ+ community, all are treated due to the same deep-rooted pre-conceived biases against those who are different. A lot of these circumstances work together, whether the majority of people know it or not. I really want to get to the bottom of how this social hierarchy all came to be and will do this by also finding sources that dive into the history of the mistreatment of power. When it comes to primary sources, the first idea that comes to mind is thinking of the conversations I have had in my Women and Gender Studies class. My professor is a part of the LGBTQ+ community and has told us many stories regarding their life and how they have been discriminated against since forever. They also have mentioned how it is all intersectional- that people for years have looked down upon anything that resonates with “other”. I am very excited to get started on this project and hope I am at a good start with brainstorming.

Response to #1

I really appreciated Joanna’s contribution to the Canon because she included real accounts from real people when it comes to oppression in the LGBTQIA+ community. I feel as if when exploring these issues, we often forget to include and listen to the voices of the people who are actually experiencing them. I think it is essential to include the oppressed voices because often, authors who don’t include them tend to delve into the issues as if they are experiencing the issues. This is subconscious, but ambitious writers love to take on issues themselves and solve the problem. However, you need real accounts when it comes to creating change and understanding. Caitlin’s post also caught my attention. I often forget that not only are minorities subject to oppression on a day-to-day basis but that women are also systematically seen as submissive and passive even in the workplace and the police force. Women have gotten so far in civil rights and equality, but there is still so much to be done. I recognize that I am privileged and could say I still am somewhat guarded when seeing the reality in which women are reflected. Caitlin’s TED Talk video struck me; it mentions that 13% of the police force have been women for the past twenty years. I knew most police officers were men, but I did not think the percentage of women was that low. The video actually made me pretty sad because I know how strong women are and how strong they can be if it weren’t for systematic foundations that have stayed prevalent that oppress our opportunity. After exploring the canon posts, I realized how dire the need for change really is. I always knew it, but now I know. Hearing about so many different occasions in which oppression is still prevalent, to be honest, brought my mood down, but gave me a sense of hope. I gained hope because conversations are being had; even if I just see it in our class, it is happening, and the expansion of knowledge is only going to grow.

Response to #3

When reading Bogost’s article, I first noticed how clean his transitions were. They were so clean that one could have missed them. An example of this would be when Bogost notes that by increasing the diversity of representation among the people who make the systems, the world would be better. However, he then writes that this is just an “aspirational” hope. At the moment, this transition looks like he is shutting down the idea of change and will move on. However, this transition sets the whole tone of the rest of the article. Bogost then writes, “That makes diversity a necessary but insufficient solution to social equity in computing systems.” This sentence on its own dictates what will be said in the paragraphs to come. Bogost wants the readers to realize the real issue is the computing systems that have been set into place and that they need to be redone with diverse teams and thinking to support a diverse workforce and world. His point is very evident through this transition and is made without too many words to deliver it. Bogost then explains how certain people acquire jobs within the tech industry, seamlessly transitioning yet again. In my rhetorical exercise regarding Bogost’s article, I mentioned how he “shows and doesn’t tell.” He shows the readers what he is trying to say without writing it out word by word. He uses previous remarks to transition, and these remarks embody a point that he wants to use again. This method is very effective for the efficiency of his writing and for creating a relatable body of work. As mentioned in my analysis of TED talks last week, the most important way to successfully deliver a message, I believe, is to connect with the audience and have them believe that they are a part of the conversation. Bogost does this through his transitions, whether that being satire or mentioning relatable situations with which readers can connect.

Response to #1

In Relata Selecl’s TED Talk, I first noticed how honest she was. She would say phrases like, “I wasn’t sure what quote to share with you.” By being honest like this, Selecl makes her speech very relatable for the listeners. She also uses “we” and “us” a lot, which creates the same impact. Salecl also used many examples from personal experiences or her friend’s experiences. This way, many listeners can realize they have seen themselves in similar situations or have seen someone they know in these situations. By doing this, she created laughter. She also created laughter by the way she worded her points. For example, Selecl says, “She was so good at selling cars that then she sold airplanes.” Her friend did not sell airplanes, but it was a clever phrase used to engage the audience. Then, after this laughter, she got more serious about her point. Selecl went into an analysis of choices, then circled back to her own experience with a stranger. She started with a funny punchline that this person needed a sperm donor, which created laughter once again from the audience. However, again, she got more serious after with her tone and talked about how this woman has chosen bad men in her life and how these choices have been risk and stress-provoking. Selecl was very clever with her speeches structure; she creates almost a bond with the audience by using words like “us,” “we,” and presenting stories that most people in the audience could relate to. Using universal terms and ignorance, anxiety, stress, individual choice, and a “veil of obviousness.” A very successful tactic Selecl used was also bringing it back to herself and even asking herself questions. This creates more of a bond with the audience because it shows even the speaker still has questions and that people aren’t alone.

Response to #2

In Margaret Heffernan’s TED Talk, she started her speech with evidence. However, this may have blown over some people’s heads since it was an overview of an experience and ended up being evidence of “dealing with the unexpected.” When Heffernan talks of defying forecasting, she then says an example of this would be when the Bank of England says, “There might be another crash, but we don’t know why or when.” I noticed that some of her evidence did not have to be scientific or relate to a specific event. Heffernan mentions that we don’t know when or where there will be a forest fire, proving her point that we can’t rely on technology for it. Using examples like these where technology is not included in predicting things, Heffernan concludes her introduction by stating that efficiency actually stops us from adapting and responding as humans. This leads into the main section of her speech, asking if efficiency does not help us, what skills will? She gives an example of how we know there will be more epidemics in the future, but we don’t know when and where, but we can prepare. We can prepare with vaccines and safety measures. Heffernan explains that we won’t use them all with an abundance of vaccines, causing these actions to be inefficient. However, she states that this is robust because it creates more options. Heffernan’s “evidence” is hypothetical and does not rely on scientific or scholarly sources. However, I think this was intentional because her whole argument is about relying on ourselves to adapt and grow, not on efficient technology. By using human experiences as “evidence,” she supports her own argument. Heffernan also gives an example of banks, stating that now they hold more capital, being inefficient. However, it protects the system. She also uses climate change as an example, stating that they are forming multiple solutions, and uses the same approach towards trade wars. By dissecting all of this “evidence,” Heffernan’s point is that we can’t rely on something that is “efficient” because we can’t predict the future, we can’t predict outcomes, and it would be better to be “inefficient” and have multiple solutions and preparations for different scenarios. In her Netherlands nurses example, there was an experiment example where the nurses decided what to do with the different patients and how to treat them, causing them to get better in half the time. The nurses had no idea how easy it would be to create this solution since it was not something one could figure out by sitting at a desk, looking at a screen, or analyzing data. Since Heffernan used hypothetical evidence to start, this evidence example was placed perfectly in her speech to prove her point and prove that this type of inefficient thinking actually works. Heffernan did a great job at building a climax in her speech and presenting evidence in a way where the audience could engage by thinking critically about universal experiences with Heffernan’s presented mindset.

Response to #1

When it comes to my addition of valuable texts that will expand our “canon”, I want to focus on the neglect of disability. However, as we have seen how those with disabilities have been treated in the workforce, I want to research how they are treated in the health care workforce. I began thinking about this after reading Pisano’s article about neurodiversity. In the past, neurodiversity, and disability, when introduced into a business-type setting, could have been seen as foreign to uneducated and biased people. However, I want to explore what happens when these people are introduced into a legally supposed setting to cater to them and help them. I have been googling my topic, trying to find a majority of articles, and then will want to hone in on a reoccurring theme between them. I hope that once I find this theme or idea that I want to follow up on, Summon Libraries will have an article that encompasses it well. 

Response to #2

For this week’s template exercise, I decided to use two “theys.” The articles I will be referring to are Pisano’s and Kaplan and Donovan’s. My attempt reads:

Pisano reminds us through SAP’s experience that by acquiring people in the workforce that see differently, employees won’t all look in the same direction for an answer, while Kaplan and Donovan acknowledge that while having the good intention of hiring diverse employees, the desired impact will only be tangible if there is common ground. Kaplan and Donovan do not suggest avoiding diverse employees but rather encourage the balance between intent and effect, which all happens by being aware of words and behavior.

This template was harder for me than the previous weeks’ attempt. However, it was easier for me to make my point by using two “theys” because the ideas bounce off each other, and I did not have to think too hard yet about my opinion and input. I am glad I did two theys first because now I will feel more confident about creating a “they say/i say” sentence.