Reflection: Mock Paper 1

In class last week I participated in a practice IB writing session. My task was to analyze and compare two different text types that both commented on gender stereotyping in society and how it is implemented on people at a very young age. After today's peer review, I am much more clear on how to improve my written tasks in the future.

Criterion A: Understanding and comparison of the texts 

Score received: 4/5

While my comparison demonstrated a general understanding of the texts, I believe that I could have explained some of my contrasting ideas in more detail. I was repetitive when discussing the themes and moods of the text, making it seem as though I did not have a full grasp of the text's bigger pictures. In the future I would like to develop my ideas further before attempting to write them down coherently. This could most effectively be done through the process of visual brainstorming and/or the creation of a more detailed outline than the one I produced.

Criterion B: Understanding of the use and effects of stylistic features
Score received: 4/5 

I believe the I had a relatively firm grasp on the different manners in which the texts demonstrated their ideas. I used the Big 5 to analyze each text's use of stylistic features while considering the ways in which the author may have used such features to inspire specific reactions in the reader. In the future I would like to explain my ideas in a more clear and concise manner as I feel I was, at times, repetitive and unclear.

Criterion C: Organization and development 
Score received: 3/5

Organization was one of my biggest weaknesses throughout this process. When I initially looked at the texts there were no prominent ideas or features that stood out to me and thusly, led me to begin my writing process with no clear line of inquiry. While I did create a rough outline of my ideas, I did not spend enough time brainstorming a clear flow for my paper to follow. In the future I would like to spend more time creating a thorough and organized outline as I believe that it will, ultimately, improve the quality of my writing.

Criterion D: Language 
Score received: 2/5

While my language remained consistent throughout my paper, it lacked a certain assertiveness that is essential to appear professional and intellectual. This is demonstrated in my continual use of phrases such as "I believe" and "In my opinion". I also contribute this flaw to my lack of initial brainstorming. If I had created a thoughtful and detailed outline before beginning to write my paper, I would have been more confident that my ideas were valid and, in turn, my language would have come off as confident and concise rather than weak and scattered. 

Bias In The News - ARTICLE ANALYSIS

breitbart.com

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/11/17/university-of-houston-clear-lake-toxic-masculinity-is-ruining-society/

University of Houston-Clear Lake: ‘Toxic Masculinity’ Is Ruining Society

Tom Ciccotta

17 Nov 2018

Keystone/Getty Images

The University of Houston-Clear Lake is blaming “toxic masculinity” for a variety of social issues.

According to a report from Campus Reform, the University of Houston-Clear Lake is playing a documentary called The Mask You Live In about the effect of “toxic masculinity” on society. For the uninitiated, “toxic masculinity” refers to the belief that Western men have been conditioned into a set of beliefs about acceptable expressions of masculinity. Proponents argue that failure to “be a man” causes men to crumble and lash out at others, particularly women.

The film argues that “toxic masculinity” is the reason why boys are more likely than girls to commit suicide, crime, and fail out of school. It’s an irresponsible reduction of the complex issues that young men face. Of course it is an issue that some men are conditioned to feel that they can’t be sensitive. Or that they can’t engage in more feminine activities and expressions. However, it is a wild assumption to connect this to all of this issues that men face.

In a statement, the university’s diversity administrators said that the diversity will help students think critically about gender.  “UHCL’s Office of Diversity, Equity & Inclusion hosts numerous programs and activities on challenging topics including the evolving perceptions of masculinity,” the school official said. “By considering different points of view, students gain the skills necessary to become better leaders and critical thinkers.”

Students at the university said that they weren’t surprised that the university decided to screen such a partisan film in an environment where no expert would offer a counter perspective to its outlandish claims.

“I’m not surprised at all that the university sponsored this event,” one student said. “A majority of the student programming at UHCL is based around social justice and equality. The discussion moderators did make an effort to promote positive, healthy masculinity, but I’m not sure if our short 20-minute discussion did much to neutralize over an hour’s worth of propaganda.”

PURPOSE: To criticize the decision of a University to screen a film depicting ideas concerning “toxic-masculinity” and in doing so, make the entire concept as a whole appear outlandish.

DEVICES:

Pronouns - Us vs. Them - The author makes a clear distinction between the “outlandish” administration team and the, sane in comparison, student body. By alienating the administration staff that made the decision to incorporate such ideas into the lesson plan, the author is instilling a sense of mob mentality into the reader by urging them to side with the thoughtful criticism of the much larger group: the student body.

Ethos- The author provides quotes from students who were subject to the ideas produced by the film on “toxic-masculinity” in order to make the reader feel as though all perspectives have been considered and, in turn, that the news source can be trusted. In addition, by providing the reader with a quote that still manages to subscribe to the ideas of the author, the opinions expressed in the article now appear to be held by many, not just by the author.

Logos- The author provides a wide variety of statistics associated with men in order to demonstrate the wide range of problems that men are often said to face. “The film argues that “toxic masculinity” is the reason why boys are more likely than girls to commit suicide, crime, and fail out of school”. In doing so, the author deems the film’s entire argument as unreasonable and illogical as it is seemingly impossible for one problem to be the cause of such a wide variety of issues.

Bias through Photos- The photo displayed at the beginning of the article demonstrates an extreme example of the ideas expressed in the author’s definition of toxic-masculinity. “‘Toxic masculinity’ refers to the belief that Western men have been conditioned into a set of beliefs about acceptable expressions of masculinity”. By depicting the western cowboy (an archetype associated with the past), the author mocks the idea of “toxic-masculinity” by taking it out of context and placing it in the framework of a joke.

Bias through Word Choice- The author uses words such as “outlandish” and “assumption” sporadically throughout the article. In doing so, the reader who may be inclined to sympathize with the opposing perspective is made to feel as though he himself is “outlandish” and prone to make “assumption”s.

Bias of the Source - The author is himself a man and therefore is more likely to perceive the concept of “toxic masculinity” in a negative manner and, in turn, may feel the need to defend himself and his manhood.