TOW #27: What is the Monkeysphere? By David Wang (written, non-fiction text)

Just think about it. “Which would hit you harder, your Mom dying, or seeing on the news that 15,000 people died in an earthquake in Iran?” (Wang 24). Just like this rhetorical question, Wang asks numerous rhetorical questions that makes people think and reflect about their natural selfishness. We tend to care more about the people who are actually related to us, and the number seldomly matters. Wang makes use of analogy as he compares monkeys to humans and explores the made-up term monkeysphere. He talks about how it is easier to memorize a few monkey names but very difficult to remember one hundred monkey names. Wang partitions his paragraphs by asking a rhetorical question and answering them in the paragraph. For example, to address the possible counter argument he answers the question’ “Why should I feel bad for them? I don’t even know those people!” (Wang 22). He also makes use of hypothetical situations and easier analogies to make people understand. He explains that the things people do and say to strangers just because they are strangers and people do not care for them tend to act selfishly and carelessly. He explains that people often yell outside the window while driving and curse at them just because there are thousands of other people on the road who they encounter even without noticing each other. However, he explains the hypocrisy that people would not yell and curse at their friends in an elevator with three people in it just for pushing the wrong button. He explains that strangers are outside our monkeysphere, but we are outside of stranger’s monkeysphere too. He goes on to explain that there are no “Super monkeys”, meaning no one, including yourself is not special. He does a good job in explaining every possible counter argument he would have to deal with by answering an over-exaggerated rhetorical question like “So I’m supposed to start worrying about six billion strangers?” (31). Of course you do not, and you cannot. He just wants people to be more aware of the things going on around the world and acknowledge the fact that other people do not care about you too.

TOW #26: "One dies, million cry" (nonfiction, visual text)

This advertisement juxtaposes the death of Steve Jobs with millions of people dying in Africa due to poverty, famine, and water depletion. Steve Jobs died because of Pancreatic cancer, a irreversible disease that cannot be altered and is beyond human hands. However, the death of millions in Africa is something that people can ameliorate with their will and conservation. The author of this photo wants to show the audience and criticize the public that even when there are thousands of people dying everyday due to famine which is partly due to our fault. However, we overlook that very fact. In contrast, when Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple died, millions of people cried and were grieving. Here, the author presents the hypocrisy. Obviously, people dying in Africa is much greater problem because it is millions of people compared to the death of one single man. However, I do not think the author’s argument is very strong. Steve Jobs is someone who changed millions of people’s lives and brought a new innovation to the world. I am not saying that Steve Jobs’s life is much more important than millions of people’s lives. Everyone’s life is equally important. However, Steve Jobs is someone that most of the people in first world countries know. In contrast to millions of people dying in Africa, who people consider and group as one and do not identify individually as one by one. The photo itself tries to mimic how the world equalizes the death of one single notable person to millions of people in Africa by replacing the Apple logo with African continent. Also, the color of black and white represents the colors used by the company Apple for their advertisements and perhaps to mourn the death of not just Steve Jobs but also the millions of lives in Africa. I think the advertisement could have been more effective if the author did not minimize the death of Steve Jobs. If the author acknowledged the deaths of both groups, Steve Jobs and impoverished African Americans, it could have been more effective and would have to deal with less controversy.

TOW #25: The Female Body by Margaret Atwood (written, nonfiction text)

This week, I read Margaret Atwood's "The Female Body." In her article, she talks about how the female body can be viewed in many ways. The female body can be judged by physical appearance, the physical parts that identifies someone as a female. Another way is by the things women put on, "the basic female body comes with the following accessories" (3) and lists all the things that women may use to decorate herself and make herself more attractive. The third way is whether the woman is willing to change when someone tells her what you do not like about her. The author then mentions how the woman's body have different uses and that males sometimes use females to get things for themselves even when they are capable of getting things themselves. Then Atwood mentions how pleasure in female is not required but optional. “Pleasure in the female is not a requirement… We’re not talking about love, we’re talking about biology” (6). Atwood attempts to use humor now and then to lighten up the mood. For example, after she mentioned that pleasure is not a requirement for women, she talks about how “Snails do it differently. They’re hermaphrodites and work in three’s” (6). This attempt of humor could have been an analogy to show to males who take women for granted and exploit women that women are much valuable than snails. Finally she talks about the female and male brains and how they differ; females have a more laid back approach on things while males have an objective approach. The “Female Body” is mainly about how men keep women to do things and for nothing else. So when they lose the female they are lost because they don’t know what or how to do things themselves. Atwood had a condescending tone to those men who do not value women. I think her condescending tone worked but her views were very one-sided as she made her argument sound like that all men do not value women and exploit women’s intelligence and body. She made men sound like irresponsible and helpless beings who cannot do anything by themselves when women are not present. I think supporting that point of view was overly ambitious as she needs to respond to possible counterargument to make her points stronger.