A woman on a roof

Figure 1. Up on the roof, 2008. Note: Copyright ipquk, (made available under a Creative Commons licence)

First of all, I knew Doris Lessing before we read her story. She has got the Nobel Price in 2007. And I was wondering how she writes, what kind of a writer she is. I saw that she writes plain(in a good sense) and clearly. She says in her story what she wants, what she intends and she does it without, you know, a pretentious register. Her symbols and the dialogues she wrote in the story are quite understandable. I liked her style.

About the story: Three different types of men seem to be perfect to emphasize the situation. Each of them think differently about the half-naked woman and through them we can see three different approach to such a woman. I liked Tom the most because he is 17 and he behaves naivly. The only one who talks with the woman is him. As soon as she showed her resentment at him, he felt depressed! That's a typical mood of a person at that age. I found that very symmpathic. And the gray sky is a good metaphor at the end, I think.

Additionally, I guess that the reaction of the woman could be because of the class of the men. They are workers and women often don't like workers. If the person who peeps were a handsome and rich man, then the woman would be likely not to show her resentment to him, don't you think?

The Oral Presentation Practice

Oh, unfortunately my presentation did not go well as I expected. First of all, I couldn't say all the things that I have in my mind. That was because of my nervousness maybe, but eventually, it wasn't satisfying for me. I would give a low grade to it. Something between 60-70.

However, presenting something is fun, I think. It is a creative way of learning and telling something. And with a slide show, it becomes more effective. We can emphasize things with pictures or displayements. Besides, through oral presentations you get used to talking in front of other people, which could bring some advantages in life to us. Another point is of course the teamwork. Members of the group work together. Additionally, hearing parts of one subject from different voices makes audience get attention more easily, you know. If one single presenter talked, audience would fall asleep:D But if a second or third person continued to talk, that could wake up the audience:D

This presentation was a practice for me and I can see now what I should work more intensively on. And there was a bad luck for me in the presentation, I couldn't read my notes in my hand during presenting, because I had written them illegibly! That was gross, but next time I will write a better note-paper :)

The Plug-in Drug

I think this is an issue of our modern world. We live fast, the Earth moves fast, days go by fast, everthing is faster than before. In the past, only the dad used to work the whole day, but today the mum also works so the family could survive OR catch up with the today's modern world.

However, what about the kids? Parents have today not much time to spend with children, so they use modern methods and ways to handle with them. They either employe a nanny or send their children to creche. At night, uncommunication continues. Parents got mostly tired when they come from work so they follow the easy way to solve the problem: TV - another modern world thing. They let their children sit in front of it and the child communicates with the screen.. I don't say this is the same in all families, but we may quite agree that this is a common family type nowadays.

Of course, that is not OK at all. It is even awful to my point of view. Families should absolutely spend some time with their children, otherwise children tend to get mentally seperated from the family. If two people do not communicate, they get likely to ignore each other because they even do not have anything in common - what should they talk about or what should they share with each other? And such a case could also emerge in a family between the parents and the kids.

On the other hand, I cannot blame the techlonogy for all that. Technology also brings many advantages. It also has good effects on children - for example visuality. I think that the alienation in the family mostly depends on it's members. It is up to parents if the children feel lonely or seperated. If parents come into children's room and start a conversation with them, the children could indeed stop being busy with the device and join to the conversation.

In this post, I've talked about the subject from the parents-children side :)

* Figure 1, Earbuds, (2009). Note: Copyright Peter Gerdes (made available under a Creative Commons licence)

Killing Us Softly

Figure 1. Offensive Target Ad, (2008). Note: Copyright ATIS547 (made available under a Creative Commons licence)

I liked this documantary. Especially, the narrator was humourous and that made me watch it more attracted. The points she stated were quite good.

I am of the opinion that sex discrimination has always been in the society. Women were segregated by men from society anyway (mostly because of religion or because of the family structure in different areas) However, in the 20th century, with visual technology, this segregation was encouraged. It became more popular and known by society. And it made people change their minds. A man, for example, saw a husband hitting his wife on TV, then he got encouraged and started to hit his own wife. Or from sexist advertisement, more rape incidents occured. Advertisements were the bellows so to speak.

Jean Kilbourne(the narrator) stated indeed that women became "for other people's pleasure" in society through various advertisements. I liked especially her statement about plastic surgery. Since most women see in advertisements that they should look perfect, they throw a conclusion that they could have a plastic surgery. Let's say they have their breasts operated. Nevertheless, they do that but they cannot enjoy themselves. They satisfy other men but not themselves. In other words, the aim of the spotless breasts is at men. Women do not have plastic surgery for their enjoyment but for other people.

Another shocking point was for me "the passive girl and the active boy" part. Kilbourne emphasizes that all of the ads from that year which consist of a boy and a girl would include a passive girl and a active boy. She showed us many pictures as well. On them, we saw a boy lookind down to a girl or a girl who smiles(innocent and valnurable). This is a perfect observation.

There was a part in which it says that women became objects. In ads, women play roles which make them similar to an object. And therefore, men get to think that they could use women for their sexual/brutal etc. purpose. That is right. However, this part is also true for men. Mostly, women also control men, as a result men also become objects for them.
Example: (in an advertisement)
If a man wears an X shirt, he is more likely to attract other women.
OR
If a women wears an X underwear, she is more likely to attract other men.
It's the same. Look at the pictures I've posted in this post.
However, as Kilbourne also explained, women are more likely to have disadvantages from that object-being; because they live in a world where their bodies are criticized more often unlike men.

http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/images/voodoo.jpg

Tough Guise

Figure 1. Dodge Ram, (2008). Note: Copyright Caveman 92223 (made available under a Creative Commons licence)

Tough Guise was an interesting document. It rubs in some examples which we cannot notice during the daily life but which we live with.

One of the shocking scene for me was the Superman part. At first, they showed us the first Superman in 1950's. He was a pretty normal type, more precisely, he didn't have giantic muscles. After that, other Supermen were shown througout the next 50 years. Everytime the "new" Superman was more pretentious than the former one. Quite true!

I agree with one point in the documentary: A girl crime comes up in news with more sensation than a boy's crime. Actually, when a boy commits crime and that is pressed in the media, it sounds quite normal to us. However, when a girl does the same, we react as if this is the last day of the universe. Totally true, we got used to boy's crime; boys are likely to cause harm and this seems to be their right.

One more point: In the documentary, it says that men's sexual abuse to women mostly seems to be a joke. A man in a film, for example, shouts insulting words at a woman. Although it is rude of him, the man is supported by his masculin watchers because what he did was a joke and a man could absolutely make such jokes in society. Whereas men's sexual abuse to women began to seem normal, women's also seems to be normal, which wasn't stated or shown in the documentary. Lets say: in a film a woman tries to seduce his boss (what a familiar case) and then he sleeps with her and the film goes on somehow... In this scene, this woman's trial to attract him is also normal for us, don't you think?


p.s. Dodge Ram is a car (truck) brand

Whiptail Lizard

Figure 1. Texas spotted whiptail lizard 4, (2009). Note: Copyright gurdonark (made available under a Creative Commons licence)

My presentation group is supposed to read the "Marked Women" by Deborah Tannen. The text handles with gender and women. It supports the idea that women are marked all the time and everywhere unlike men.

Anyway..

In the text, it says that there are species which generate only females. One of them is Whiptail Lizard. I wondered what kind of creature this is and googled it. (Isn't is an isteresting animal?)
Meanwhile, I also got the opportunity to use Creative Commons in this post. What I have learned about them:

This species is mostly common in the west of the USA. Whiptail lizards are asexual (Most of the lizards which habit in the west of the USA are asexual..) There are only female parents and their offsprings are also female and they are genetically the same as their parents. They reproduce through unfertilized eggs. Since they have no genetic variation, they do not evolve.. Even science keeps carrying out research on them and yet it has no much information about them. What a mystery!

ENG 101

Time goes by so quickly! Unbelievable..

This year is my first year at Sabancı University, so I was wondering how the English lessons would be at Sabancı. Now, I can say something about our English lessons:) When I look back upon what we have done, I can say:

We haven't done something much to prove our English. I mean, we have read some stories, yes, but what about the vocabulary? I am of the opinion that someone who is learning a language should learn vocabulary permanently. It does not matter how good their English is, a learner always continues learning something and learning vocabulary never stops. And in order to express our thoughts properly in English, we should have an extensive vocabulary.

I don't say that we should write down all the words from the text like in the prep class, but we should do for example such a thing. Let's suppose we have a lesson about Reality TV. It would be very great and useful, if we notice some important and key words of the theme. I dont know, I think so..

Secondly, ENG 101 have teached me how to write an academic essay and how to cite, refer etc. I have learned about plagiarism here. It is very important because we will write essays constantly during our university life. As a conclusion, I can say that ENG 101 has taught and showed me techniqual issues.

And finally, I insist that we should do some pronunciation practise. Everyone could write or read something in English one way or another; however everyone cannot pronunciate(or even speak) well and properly. Speaking differs from reading and writing. So Sonja hear me about that!!!! :)

Blood Diamond

I have recently watched the film "Blood Diamond". This film deals with the issue of diamond trade and producing in Africa. To produce or mine diamonds there, many African, even children, are abused. The film also shows many scenes from rebels and dreadful conditions on the continent. The girl on the picture is a journalist who intends and tries to reveal these conditions to the public. The three people go by a refugee camp in Africa. And a conversation between the journalist girl and Leonardo Dicaprio is held:

L.D: (staring towards the camp) This is what a million looks like.
Jour: At the moment, the second refugee camp in Africa. ... then she adds ... Might catch a minute of this on CNN, somewhere between Sports and Weather.

I loved that irony. She obviously critisizes here the media. Even a worldwide TV channel does not show any interest in such events or issues. Even the biggest one fails in taking any part in it. Although this is not directly about photojournalism, it has something to do with journalism. And again from the scene of this movie, we can also say much about ethiques and responsibilities in media.

Honesty

I always emphasize being honest in life. We should express our own ideas&thoughts clearly and accurately. Everyone could think about something in different ways and we all should be respectful to new and different ideas&thoughts.

AND:

I want to say something about our process essay topic's (Reality TV) arguments. We were supposed to read three arguments assigned from our instructors. And as I have chosen the first topic, Reality TV, I have read the arguments of Rushdie, Poniewozik and Peters again. However, to be honest, these arguments are really boring to read in my opinion. The topic is great and interesting: Reality TV is an actual subject to talk about. But they, especially Poniewozik's report, would have made me fall asleep. Although I love reading, I could not read them with any enjoyment.

The reason why I thought they are dead-boring could be their register and their context. They are cut out from some newspapers published in UK and in the USA. In each argument, the writer gives examples and talks about current events in his country. Poniewozik, for example, many times mentions the Reality TV programms which we, Turkish students, are not familiar with. (like "... focusing on convincing the Olsen twins ..." or "And like an overheated NASDAQ, ..." ) There are so many names and events which we have no idea about. We don't follow the American media. We don't know exactly what is going on in American channels or newspapers. I find it useful when there are some examples in the argument but if there are too much of them, the text could become boring and unenjoyable. But in our arguments, the writer doesn't seem to give examples to us but he seems to write to the people who know what's up nowadays in the USA. I don't know what American people talk about or experience in their daily life these days. However, our three authors write as if we (the undergraduates of Sabancı Uni.) know all the popular and famous stuff in their land.
Conclusion: For this time, the audience and the writer are totally from another universe. Although the subject is mutual and common, the context is the opposite.

About Photojournalism

As we took a look at some photos from wars or disasters in our last lesson and discussed what a journalist should do while taking photos from them, I recalled this added picture on the right side. As we know, after the attack to the synanogues, there were many dead and injured people at the scene. It was a sudden attack and therefore, help did not come immediately. A photographer named Alp Sime was living close to the bombed Synagogue (probably very close, maybe in the same street as the synagogue) and he was be able to go to the rubble, took pictures of the disaster. Pretty soon, the police came to the destroyed street and kept people away from the catastrophe. Therefore, Alp Sime was the only person who managed to take photos in the destroyed area. The photos are very brutal. They remind us how disgusting and "against-humanity" wars and frictions are. Here, a question occures to me: Did he help the people he took photos from? If not, should he have done it instead of clicking his camera? I think that he or a photographer should take photos from a disaster, otherwise we would not get aware of the awfulness of wars/such things or of the reality of them. However, look at the picture and at the others. We can find thousands of similar photos anyway. If I were Alp Sime, how would my conscious whisper to me while standing in front of these corpses? Would I dare to take the corpse's photo and go on recording the next corpse?

Reality TV

Today, everybody has a TV set in their apartment. Watching TV has become a regular thing for such a long time. Before, there was only one TV channel; but nowadays, various types of channels are available. Most of these channels broadcast really awful programms though.

When we begin zapping among the TV channels our TV has, we see those awkward programms as well; and as we see them, we react like: "Oh, look at this crap, who would possibly watch this?" Immediately we skip the channel. However then, we read or hear of the high ratings of these programms and we wonder. Nevertheless, that is obvious: Lots of people like them!

However, I don't blame the audience. Such programms are broadcasted mostly at noon and they are watched by those who have nothing to do - more precisely - who do not have any jobs. Unemployed men are so sick of this unemployment that they stop searching for jobs, and therefore they stay at home and sit in front of the TV. Women are also at home the whole day. So the audience is there. Now, it is important for TV channels to keep this audience in front of the TV. As people love emotional stuff, they are offered programms involving emotional issues such as marriage programms, tell-us-your-family/love-issues programms. These programms attract them indeed and become adorable for them. These problems are everywhere in the world. Almost every country has to deal with such situations.

In my opinion, The TV channels are to blame. These channels always emphasize that they are respectful towards ethique and morality, but they act in the opposite way. They show us devious and needless stuff, advertise themselves, try to make us think positive about them, expect us to love them. Unfortunately, only the uneducated and ignorant people get hooked. The literate and educated people keep on criticizing and discussing these channels. At the end, no solution is there. But this is normal because we can't find an exact and right answer for this question: "Should we withdraw a programm which people love? Should we take something away that somebody loves?"

Testing

I am testing my blog.