Comparative HL - ZitsGender comic strip and Why Men Don't Listen and Women Can't Read Maps excerpt

Text A: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/myl/llog/ZitsGender.gif
Text B:http://khalidrafiq.weebly.com/uploads/2/6/0/3/2603611/why_men_dont_listen_and_
women_cant_read_maps.pdf (Chapter 1 Same Species, Different Worlds, "Some things are obvious" (Page 19))

The two texts being compared are a comic strip from Language Log and an excerpt from a book titled Why Men Don't Listen and Women Can't Read Maps. Both the texts are about how men do not pay attention to minor details whereas women do. However, the second text is also about how women fail to see the big things which is something not evident in the first one. The purpose of Text A is to criticize men for being so unobservant of things that are important to girls. This is conveyed through a comic strip that is condescending towards men. In contrast, the purpose of Text B criticizes both for their individual negligence of certain aspects through paragraphs as a chapter would be like.

The first text comes from a Language Log from upenn.edu targeted towards its students and faculty and those who can access it online. The second text is an except from a book Why Men Don't Listen and Women Can't Read Maps which is written by Allan and Barbara Pease and published in 2001. The specific section I chose as a text is titled, "Some things are obvious" from Chapter 1. This book is targeted towards readers online and those who have it on paperback that only see things one way, blaming men for what they avoid saying or women. The chapter offers a different approach where it shows both sides; women criticizing men and vice versa for things they fail to notice and understand.

The first text features two characters, a man and a woman, where the woman is accusing the man of being "clueless" and not "acutely aware of his surroundings." She asks him a series of questions in the four panels, with her hands over his eyes such as what she's wearing and what he is wearing, to which he only responds with "uh.." and "um"s implying that he does not observe or pay attention to such things. The second text just had various scenarios where a man and woman would argue about trivial topics such as men would criticize women for not being able to see a red flashing light but be able to spot a sock from 50 meters away. The author demonstrates that it depends on their interest. Women prefer being organized and are observant of little things and not of the things that men find essential such as reading maps and seeing red danger lights. "Men think they're the most sensible sex. Women know they are," shows that in all circumstances they each accuse each other of not being "sensible" enough and disregarding these things.

In terms of literary techniques, the first text is humorous. The comic strip mocks women because it demonstrates how high-strung they are and care about things that are trivial to men. It gets downright ridiculous when the woman demands, "Okay, tell me who you're talking to" because that is the extent to which the thinks he is clueless. She also interrupts him just as he begins speaking with "um" to which she brings up another question. The other text is a little more realistic of scenarios where this actually happens and women are not acutely aware of directions or men with where their clothing is. The examples are still amusing such as men can never find their socks but their CDs are in alphabetical order, or that women talk too much without ever getting to the point. Overall, both with their respective humour convey the purpose that women may accuse men of being unobservant, and in the second text the additional purpose is that this could also apply conversely, and both genders tend to think the other is careless in things they rate as important.

Analysis - Teen slang: What's, like, so wrong with like?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11426737

"Teen Slang - What's, like, so wrong with like?" is a magazine article by Denise Winterman published in the BBC News Magazine. Winterman opens the article with stating that Emma Thompson, an Oscar-winning actress gets aggravated when teenagers use the word 'like' and thinks it makes them sound stupid to the extent where she feels she's going "insane" (Winterman1). However, Winterman's argument is that the word 'like' is actually useful in our daily use of language and not as big of a "crime" as Thompson seems to think it is (Winterman 1). Linguists find that the reason we use the word 'like' so much is because humans have adapted to try and make their language flow as much as possible. We use fillers such as "like" to pause and think because as non-linguists we are not as capable in terms of lexicon and grammar and especially as teenagers, we need to stop and think.
For teenagers, the word "like" has become very versatile. As a conversation filler first, it is also used as a quotative "And I was like, and she was like to him..."and to indicate a metaphor, "He like got burned when she was like..." Winterman states that the origin of "like" is from America and particularly The Valley Girl slang but has spread to the UK through means of media such as American films and television. Winterman lastly argues that "like" is a way to identify with one another for teenagers. They feel as if they belong when others speak like them and it's a form of comfort zone that differentiates them from adults. The linguist then says that in their profession, they also have acronyms that make them a community so why shouldn't teenagers outside their school life? 
Winterman as a language expert maintains a formal register throughout the article but does get her voice across. She attempts to relate to teenagers by using quotes from language experts that contain the person pronoun "we" quite frequently such as"we all stall for time and historically always have" to demonstrate that it is human beings as a whole that do this, and it is not unusual for teenagers to pause for time by adding a filler. Similar to this one, Winterman has included other quotations from language experts that do not oppose the use of "like" and using these references help to strengthen her argument that it is indeed nothing to get so angry about as the actress does. She uses some figurative language that makes her article interesting to read. An instance where she does this when she states that the actress was getting "hot under the collar" or essentially, very irritated. She has also used a metaphor to display the use of "like" as an indication of a metaphor such as "I, like, died of embarrassment when you told me to stop using slang."
This article from BBC News is helpful in conveying her argument. As it is a trusted source and there are various references to linguists such as Dr. Groves and Professor Upton, it makes her point strong.

Gender roles in Archie and Friends [Written task Prep]

Growing up, I would love reading comics lying around the house. One of the series I enjoyed most was Archie which is an American publication from the 1940's and its various spin offs such as Betty and Veronica and Jughead. I enjoyed the humorous characters present in the comics and looking back on it, I decided to reflect on some of the gender roles portrayed by them throughout. 

Firstly the primary character is of course, Archie Andrews. He is a redheaded, freckly, lanky boy who manages to attract a variety of girls throughout the series despite the fact that he is not the bold, strong man that girls would stereotypically like. What is more is that he plays Rugby even with his less than fibrous physique and has a huge interest in cars that he cannot afford. His constant rival is Reggie Mantle; the boy who supposedly has got everything: athletic abilities, wealth and striking good looks. Reggie embodies the title of the perfect man and competes to win the affections of Veronica Lodge against Archie. There is always a sense of competition between the two but despite the fact that Reggie "has it all", he often loses to Archie when it comes to girls. This provides a different emerging insight regarding males that their physical attributes are not as important as their personality because while Archie is affectionate and sensitive, Reggie is arrogant and impervious automatically making Archie more favourable.

The two other main characters are Betty Cooper and Veronica Lodge. Betty is the everyday girl who is willing to help whenever needed making Archie take her for granted as a result of that. This demonstrates that when a girl is too nice, men realize they will always have her around. She does all her work by herself and does not rely on anyone, however there is a dependency indicated by her struggle to find a boy and to impress Archie Andrews hence she is willing to do anything for him. In contrast, Veronica Lodge is the pampered, rich and beautiful girl who feels she can get anything she wants with money. She relies on her father Mr. Lodge to buy her everything she desires. She does not take responsibility and has hired people to do all her work for her unlike Betty Cooper. Veronica also strives to retain Archie's interest in her. As she is not very kind like Betty and has an unattainable aura about her, Archie clings on trying to "win" her. However her violent personality and desire to always be correct repels Archie frequently making him turn to Betty. Despite the girls' differing personalities, they develop a strong bond with each other and if it happens that Archie likes someone other than the both of them, they mutually gang up against her.The girls are also there for each other and act together as if they don't need a man, demonstrating a sort of feminism. In spite of that, they do contradict it when both of them are after Archie Andrews and have different schemes throughout the series to pursue him. Betty Cooper has a very polite tone to complement her personality whereas Veronica's language demonstrates vanity and complacence. 

Another big character in the series is Jughead Jones. Although he is a male character, he has anti-masculine interests that men are not commonly associated with in society. For instance, he loves reading a bit too much, women don't draw his attention and he does not like sports unlike the other males in the series. Despite this, he is popular among both boys and girls. With his witty sense of humour, Jughead often outsmarts Reggie Mantle, the perfect boy.The writers may have used the character Jughead to open up the eyes of people in the 40's and to show that it is completely okay for men to not be restrained by typical male interests.

Analysis - "The Talk of the Sandbox; How Johnny and Suzy's Playground Chatter Prepares Them for Life at the Office"

http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/tannend/sandbox.htm

The Talk of the Sandbox; How Johnny and Suzy's Playground Chatter Prepares Them for Life at the Office
Deborah Tannen

"The Talk of the Sandbox; How Johnny and Suzy's Playground Chatter Prepares Them for Life at the Office" is written by Deborah Tannen and was published in The Washington Post on December 11, 1994. This online newspaper article is essentially about how the behaviour of girls and boys is very divergent in spite of being in the same situation. Tannen demonstrates this by using several real-life scenarios where the conduct of males and females differs in the way that they handle issues.
Right off the bat, the author introduces Bob Hoover who had observed the behaviour of boys and girls whilst playing softball (pun unintended ;)) He noticed that girls do not like to lead or make themselves come across as superior whereas boys do and that is how male star athletes are treated with the respect they feel they "deserve." Girls do not like to take all the credit by doing everything by themselves and instead give other teammates a chance while if a boy is a good athlete he is almost expected to perform outstandingly. Boys are worried about their image and how they will look, while girls play for the team and do not care as much about how they will appear individually. Additionally girls are very apologetic if they make a mistake even when they are not actually sorry while on the other hand boys do not apologize even when they do feel remorse for letting their team down. Tannen then takes Hoover's observations and compares them to her similar examination of men and women at work. Much like the athletes, women at work do not want to seem authoritative and address their juniors as their equals while men in authority at work press their importance upon others and do not feel the need to be overly polite because after all, they are in charge. In the office as well, men will not agree to their own mistakes and evade the blame to appear unflawed while women will apologize for no cause at all and ask countless questions regardless of how that would make them seem. 
The next set of comparisons made by Tannen include a linguist Amy Sheldon's observations of pre school kids and the way they sort their matters. The boys battle it out by getting straight to it, declaring that the particular toy is their possession respectively and ultimately using physical power to get what they want. On the other hand are two girls who are having a complex debate over sharing toy medical instruments. They are trying to balance between being polite and taking the others needs into account, but holding their own as more important. This discussion ends with one girl uninviting the other to her birthday to which the response is that she did not want to attend anyway. This situation is then paralleled with another work scenario where a woman Maureen is using her negotiation technique much like the preschool girl against a man Harold who is simply going for what he wants like the preschool boys. Maureen, expecting him to negotiate as well, is taken aback when Harold simply states that it's his way or the high way. Specifically he says that he would quit the job if the candidate he preferred was not elected. Thus, Maureen is lead to agree with him instead of countering him by saying she would do the same. 
Lastly, the author is sure to include that there is no definite behaviour of all men or women or all boys and girls but gender does have a significant impact on the way they conduct themselves as depicted in the examples. Men like to show who's boss and they don't think it's necessary to apologize for every little thing and are ultimately very straight to the point. On the contrary, women like to treat others as their equal and apologize not just when they are at fault but also to indicate that it is okay or that they are sorry the circumstance took place, and they like to consider others needs as well as their own. They would much rather negotiate than be straight forward about it. Tannen states that the study of conversation can help choose different approaches to get what you want just like how Maureen could have gone the other way about it and not given up so easily. 
By using varied examples from sources such as Bob Hoover from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Amy Sheldon, a linguist from the University of Minnesota strengthens what Tannen is conveying in her article and correspond well to her own observations as well. As a linguistics Professor at Georgetown University, her tone is that of an expert with occasional humour for instance, referring to the disinvite to the birthday party as "the ultimate sanction" (Tanner1). As the article is published in The Washington Post, it is sure to reach a wide audience and its publication on the Georgetown website as well will stretch out to faculty and students alike. The news article is informative and tells the reader that beside so many factors such as ethnicities and family backgrounds, gender is a huge role player in determining how humans acquit themselves.