1. If it were true that women were so limited in their thinking, than science could back up the thought that their lives are meaningless. Though, women aren’t that incompitent so that theory in incorrect.
2. No matter how smart or talented women appear, they can’t fight the facts that prove they aren’t as smart because they have smaller craniums.  
3. Women have shown that they are very intelligent. Men were being much too harsh when criticizing women. The statistics and numbers from Broca’s experiments made women look a lot stupider than they actually are. Theologians didn’t think they even have souls. Some scientists even thought that women don’t have any human intelligence at all. 
4. Some could argue that the reason why women have smaller brains is that they have smaller bodies, but don’t forget that the average woman isn’t as intelligent as a man because it is true. Therefore, we are allowed to think that the reason why their brains are this small is because they are physically and intellectually inferior to men.
5. Men need more brain power than women because they have to care for and protect their women; where as women can just be passive and raise babies (therefore they don’t need as much).
6. Many women are more like gorillas than adult males with their small, primitive brains. It’s obvious that they are inferior, but to what extent? All learned people know that women are the lesser form of human evolution. They are more like savages then men. There are a few women that are more intelligent than men, but they are rare. We should neglect them entirely!
7. To even think that we give women the same education as men is absurd and a dangerous thought…the day when women leave their homes to do men’s jobs will be the day that society will be overturned and chaos will reign supreme!
8. Black men have brains a little bigger than women, so they are a little smarter.
9. In an era that has superior human beings,  men will be both moral and sentimental. Maybe women will also have a chance to reign over men, when the whole puzzle of gender roles has been decided. Women have always been the more sentimental, moral, and had more honor of the two sexes.
10. Men don’t realize that women are as intelligent as they give them credit to be. Their intelligence is hidden at first, but it will be discovered with time. Women are still looking for their rightful place in society where they belong.

I noticed that all of the quotes were giving a different view but overall expressed the fact that women aren’t inferior to men or they were on a subject that is easily debated. The beginning and end quotes agree with the fact that women are just as intelligent as men, while the quotes in the body of the essay express misogynistic views of how stupid women are so Gould could debate them.

1.  Gould thinks the that scientists think that they are always right and that certain groups are inferior to others. The scientists that Gould talked about were stubborn when it came to their beliefs. He also thought that they could get their study to back up their hypothesis no matter what.

3.  In the fourth paragraph, Gould questions the methods of studying the brain mass and that the larger the brain the smarter. He says that the data wasn’t correctly acquired because he used different aged victims and an uneven ratios of women to men. He weaves them together by making the counter argument not credible and long and drawn out so that by the time you get to the meat of it his argument sounds right.

6. In paragraphs nine though twelve, he talks about how modern technology can prove that what was thought to be true in the past about women not being nearly as smart as men is in fact not true. There is evidence that can prove that women are just as smart. That central claim adds a lot more credibility to his essay.

7.  Gould shows how Broca and his colleagues didn’t just pinpoint women, but also Africans and poor people because they are also looked down upon. They were all thought of as being more like monkeys than men. They chose to make their main point about women because it was easiest to get a hold of their corps. By making the point so elaborately, Gould show that by showing all of the groups that are being wrongfully accuse of being stupider to appeal to a larger audience than just women.

9.  In the last two paragraphs, Gould states both of his arguments. Then he gives his own strategy by stating that the arguments made were wrong and completely irrelevant. He concludes his essay with a passage from George Eliot’s Middlemarch.

Works Cited

 Truby, Corbett. “The Argument agai

nst TV.” The Language of Composition. By Renee H. Shea, Lawrence Scanlon and Robin D. Aufses. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2008. 777-79.

Gerbner, George, and Todd Gitlin. “Is Media Violence Free Speech?” The Language of Composition. By Renee H. Shea, Lawrence Scanlon and Robin D. Aufses. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2008. 783-87.Johnson, Steven. “Watching TV Makes You Smarter.” The Language of Compostition. By Renee H. Shea, Lawrence Scanlon and Robin D. Aufses. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin, 2008. 766-76.

           I believe that Postman was trying to get us to stop our lives for a moment and look at what extent the television has had a negative effect on our society. We have to do this through looking at two excerpts from novels from an era without TVs that explain what the feel the future will turn out to be like. Both books were written before TVs were everywhere, but they were from very different times too and so their outlooks were different. Postman is trying to get us to think about how the TV has corupped us into thinking that there is no reason to read a book when we can just watch the movie version instead. Orwell’s thoughts that everyone would want to read a book and we wouldn’t be allowed to. That clearly didn’t happen in 1984. But has Huxley’s ideas of our society being ruined by the laziness of people that don’t think it important to read a book turned into our present?

1. Robert Putnam establishes credibility by having written that he is a professor at an ivory league school (Harvard). He also establishes credibility by stating his sights as reliableand knowledgeable sights of information.
2. All of the names listed are used in the article accept Comstock. Almost immediately in the first paragraph, the names John Robinson and Geoffrey Godbey are named as researchers for Time. Needham was mentioned in the DDB Needham Lifestyle surveys in paragraph three. James Howard Kunstler was also quickly mentioned in paragraph four as a social critic and has an excerpt from something he wrote in it.
3. By listing three sources Putnam is going above and beyond to make sure the reader can fully see all of the steps to his research. The extra sights and information help strengthen his argument and particularly the part by the little thirteen. He wanted the information to be part of his paper, but not part of the actual essay.
4. The purposeof the fourth footnote was to cite the sources of the information on how the Internet access at home dramatically changed our entertainment. It might seem obvious to some people, but it is there to inform the reader and if they didn’t know what it was for it would be helpful.
5. Putman uses his footnotes on number fifteen to support his claim because that study made the connection with the percentage of people that wanted to spend a night at home and the people who chose TV as their “primary form of entertainment”.
6. By citing Kunstle’s paragraph, he makes his argument stronger because it adds to the credibility of the article and allows the credit to go to the rightful owner so the reader knows that this isn’t necessarily his opinion on the subject.
7. Putnam’s notes and sources suggest that he had done extensive research before writing the essay. The sources all appear to be credible and come from reliable sources. He had to have read at least a couple of books on the subject and gone through several pages of paperwork to get the information he needed to write a paper of that skill level.

1.  Though this is labeled as a debate, both George Gerbner and Todd Gitlin agree that media violence should stop. “Television violence is mainly redundant, stupid, and ugly.” (Gitlin, paragraph 7) They also agree that “the problem goes beyond violence, ratings, or any single factor, to the heart of the system. Television is driven not by the creative people who have something to tell, but by global conglomerates that have something to sell.” (Gerbner, paragraph 24).

2. Gitlin uses Japan as an example of the effects of media violence to show how the mass population was unaffected by their harsh media violence. He backs up his argument by saying that they Japan has far more vile media violence but less real world violence. Gerbner responds with saying that that was not the only influencing factor that had an impact on the results.

3. Both Gerbner and Gitlin have strong views on the V-chip. Gerbner doesn’t like the V-chip at all. He said, “The V-chip is not the solution. That technology merely protects the industry from the parents, not the other way around.” (para. 14) Gitlin doesn’t share those same views with Gerbner. He instead feels that, “any device that enables parents to redress the imbalance of power they suffer under the invasion of television is to the good.” (para. 16) Though he knows that the it will be hard to fight Hollywood in his attempts to stop the media violence and doesn’t think that the V-chip can really do that much for us.

4. According to Gerbner the excessive TV violence is just another way to cause fear and social control. He says that TV watchers think there is an increasing number of violence the more TV they watch. Gitlin says that the amount of media violence has nothing to do with the amount of actual violence and that the reason why they shouldn’t put it on air is because it’s stupid.

1.  The purpose of Anthony DiVivo’s poster is to encourage people to get off of their favorite spot on the couch and start living an interactive life instead of watching TV all the time. The illustrations are to emphasise what needs to be done to accomplish this task.

2. The tone is funny and has a humorous tone to it, because the poster is so obnoxiously literal. The words are not necessary, but they add even more emphasis to the point DiVivo is trying to make.

3. Yes, knowing DiVivo’s inspiration comes from an airplane safety card adds to his effectiveness. They both can be understood through the picture without even seeing the words, which allows a greater audience to be able to understand it. The fine print add to its literal humor because it is a action that everyone should already know.

1. Yes, the interview does address the threat that “culture jammers might be disrupting a sports bar near you.” in question five. Lasn talks about turning off TVs in sports bars with his answer to the questions “What do you think of someone going into a sports bar – where people have gone to watch a game – and turning the TV off there?”. The interviewer also takes the reader in the directions of asking when is turning off a TV justified, when is it appropriate to turn off a TV, why was TV-B-Gone combined with TV Turnoff Week and if Lasn thought he was sacrificing any aspect of TV Turnoff Week.

2. Julia Scott clearly has a bias against the TV-B-Gone remote. Scott’s bias to the TV-B-Gone is apparent through her frequent questioning on how it will affect people, if they will know when to draw the line and if it is appropriate to use in certain cases. In the introduction she shows her skepticism she asked if its right to turn off nature shows and if TV is always a bad thing.

3. The tone of the is placid and relaxed. The interviewer doesn’t ask the questions in a pushy way so the interviewee doesn’t seem tense or uncomfortable. The interview appears to flow easily. The tone makes the interview seem more credible because she appears to be comfortable and that she has done it a million times. The interviewee seems to really know what he is talking about and had experience in most situations that he was being questions on.

4. The interview addresses the political aspect by talking about the difference in how people interact with one another with the TV on and off. They talk about the public mental health through the talk of mental disease and how we are constantly plagued with televisions no matter where we go.

           Trubey warrants that people spend way too much time watching TV in the United States. His data that backs that up is that 98% of Americans have at least one TVs in their house. He also says that nine years of the average Americans life are spent watching TV and that while six million movies a day, while only three million check something out at a public library. To get his comunity to agree with him, Trubey claims that to get people to turn off the TV and do something productive with their time.

Half of the Maybelline team worked on these question (Alyssa and Kristi) at the Fife Soccer Game together. Hope that is ok with you…

Trubey directs his article to Americans that own a TV. He states his challenge to the “98 percent of Americans who own at least one television”. He assumes that all of his audience owns a TV and watches a TV excessively in their homes.

He writes the article directing to TV turn off week which makes the reader more willing to be apart of the cause. It isn’t as difficult to turn off the TV for a week. The baby steps allow the reader to step back and see if they really do agree with Trubey’s opinions about the negative affects of TV and if they can take his “call to action”

By using a rhetorical question it makes the paragraph end more dramatically. He leaves the reader hanging, but only for a moment. He soon gets into the detail and by the end he has answered his own question. With the facts and the background we can see what we are up against, the big bad box sitting in our living room.

Trubey classifies the TV audience as passive and active watchers. He explains the advantages of the active watcher while scolding the passive watcher mindlessly clicking the remote. He gives the counter argument which explains the miniscule positives of tv The counter arguments takes the reader out of the one mindedness and gives them an open opinion without deterring them from their current feeling on the issue.

Throughout the article and in paragraph 6, Trubey does not tell the reader where his sources come from. He states the facts, but never gets around to telling the study. The audience will feel more secure with the study citation stated. We don’t know if he is making up lies or if it is a credible source.

The facts stated at the end make up for all the detail that he left out of the bulk of the article. He uses juxtaposition to compare the different facts. You never actually understand the good until you see the bad.