Blog Post #4

As soon as I saw this week’s prompt, I knew I would end up writing about one of the most recent Hardees’ commercials for their “Mile High Bacon Thickburger” which has been playing frequently on several television channels since September (their YouTube account uploaded it on September 25th). Here's a link to see the commercial for yourself.

So in case you didn't know anything about Hardees, it's an american restaurant chain that's been around since the 1960s. They are also notorious for using the female body in their advertisements in order to entice their predominately male audience into purchasing burgers from their restaurants.

In this commercial, titled 'PROPOSITIONING', one could argue that at least two of the seven deadly sins were demonstrated and used as devices to persuade the audience that they should buy a Mile High Bacon Thickburger®. Lust and gluttony are the most obvious sins demonstrated, but I would like to argue that avarice is also used in the commercial, just to a smaller scale.

I'm a little worried that boys will start associating hunger hand in hand with lust... Pavlov conditioning anybody?
But seriously, that would be such an uncomfortable mix of feelings, good luck to them.

The commercial depicts an upper class, white, heterosexual couple on an airplane. The woman of the pair was deliberately wearing a dress suit top, cut low enough to display her cleavage. She then asks if he wants to, "join the mile high club," which of course has sexual connotation, but he declines. When she turns to the other guy, a white man that's dressed professionally,  she asks the same thing, however, this time the camera is positioned to make sure both her face and her cleavage take the center of the screen, which is usually the center point of concentration when it comes to the layout of an image. The guy nods, and we all know where he's looking. 

Who cares about eye contact? Not this gentleman.

Then, to their target audience's amusement and to everyone else's relief she pulls out two of those massive burgers. 

Hey look! Eye contact restored.. I can't tell if he's disappointed or if he's just like "whatever, this works too.."

Keeping in mind the size and the name of the burger, it seems safe to say that everything about the product is excessive, and thus gluttony is revealed to be another persuasive device they are using. Avarice can kind of be seen, when their wardrobe is taken into consideration along with this idea that the consumer can get a massive meal for pretty cheap. Of course, the advertisement swings back into lust, when the camera pans over to the woman eating. 

Who actually eats like that. Get a napkin or something, what the heck.

So if this description didn't make you feel uncomfortable, maybe it just so happens you are a part of their target audience, and if that's the case you probably want one of those, misleading, Mile High Thickburgers®. 

I would just like to point out that this is not a mile high, contrary to popular belief, and, also, chances are when you buy the burger it won't shimmer in the sunlight/moonlight/florescent lighting quite as well as they'll have you believe....

Blog post #3

5. Reread the following passages and complete the task that follows:

“And, ma’am,” he continued, “the laundress tells me some of the girls have two clean tuckers in the week: it is too much; the rules limit them to one.”

“Julia Severn, ma’am! And why has she, or any other, curled hair? Why, in defiance of every precept and principle of this house, does she conform to the world so openly—here in an evangelical, charitable establishment—as to wear her hair one mass of curls?”

“Naturally! Yes, but we are not to conform to nature; I wish these girls to be the children of Grace: and why that abundance? I have again and again intimated that I desire the hair to be arranged closely, modestly, plainly. Miss Temple, that girl’s hair must be cut off entirely; I will send a barber to-morrow.”

“(T)hree other visitors, ladies, now entered the room. They ought to have come a little sooner to have heard his lecture on dress, for they were splendidly attired in velvet, silk, and furs. The two younger of the trio (fine girls of sixteen and seventeen) had grey beaver hats, then in fashion, shaded with ostrich plumes, and from under the brim of this graceful head-dress fell a profusion of light tresses, elaborately curled; the elder lady was enveloped in a costly velvet shawl, trimmed with ermine, and she wore a false front of French curls.”
Analyze the author’s use of irony in describing Mr. Brocklehurst’s family in the second passage. How does the author contrast this description with Mr. Brocklehurst’s lecture to Miss Temple to provide social commentary on perceptions of class during this time? 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charlotte Bronte executes an excellent usage of irony when Mr. Brocklehurst lectures Miss Temple followed by introducing his own family. He deems that the girls will be greedy and lustful if they are given more than one outfit, and two good meals. While his own family obviously has been very well fed their entire lives and were dressed in extremely elaborate clothing. While he spoke about Julia's hair naturally curling he deemed that it was inappropriate despite it being natural, thus she would have to have her hair cut off completely, even though it was completely acceptable for his own family to wear "a false front of French curls." 

He was certain that these poor girls receiving "luxuries" that did not fit their class would spoil them. At least he used that as justification during his argument, which in itself was clearly ironic. Bronte clearly contrasted this description with Mr. Brocklehurst's lectures in order to clearly provide a social commentary on the hypocrisies possessed within perceptions of class during this time. If anybody dared step out of the 'norm' of their class they must have been blasphemous, and be spoiled, despite the higher class having access to things of greater luxuriousness every day of their lives. Yet, they would not be perceived in the same manner, obviously, they must have already been suitable for society if they did not deserve that kind of treatment. At least that's how a biased person would view oneself. 

In society nobody wants to admit that their views may be hypocritical, or that they were possibly wrong. While people can easily criticize those in completely different circumstances, circumstances of which they may never have encountered thus may never begin to completely grasp, they can still figuratively tear them and their actions to shreds. While it may have been more prevalent during this time frame thus the focus of the author's social commentary, it is still a very relevant issue within today's society as well.

Blog Post #2

What's in a name

Dumais is a surname, which my father claims to have meant "of many" as in of many riches, or "to be well" in health. What his, better yet our, ancestors didn't realize is that when translating it to English, Goodrich did not have the same meaning. Goodrich was a British surname that originally meant "Godric' or "God-rule". Now whenever we try to research our family's origins from Cuba, we have no luck in finding relatives all because of a faulty translation. Sometimes I like to imagine what the conversation between my great-grandfather and an American trying to figure out how to translate it was like. It'd probably have been something like, "Oh, it means to be healthy and wealthy? I heard some people go by Goodrich, get it? Good and Rich? That's probably what Goodrich means. Boom, there's your name, say goodbye to your entire family's history!", but just imagine them speaking in whatever jargon that actually fit that time-frame, more specifically, on the coast of Florida. I think my last name, Goodrich, has shown me my family had way too much trust in white people, but, hey, now that we are white people there was really no harm done. My father and his family were mistaken for white Americans, which was the plan all along, so props to you however-many-greats-grandpappy. In all seriousness, if it hadn't been for the name change my family may not have even stayed in America. With prejudice and several other factors they could have faced they may not have been able to stabilize business here. Which means that I wouldn't exist. If you look at it that way, the name Goodrich defined both my family's erasure and, ultimately, our survival.

-------------------------------------
"Two" of yourself

 When it comes to being a person, having only two halves doesn't really seem to fit it. You can be an individual and then be a part of a larger whole. This group in some instances could be a smaller part in another bigger whole too though, couldn't it be? You could be part of several larger wholes as well. I do not think this means there are "two" or more of you. You can be a part of a club and still be yourself. You just happen to be within a club.

For instance, I am a coach for Special Olympics soccer and track and field. I am also a martial artist, I used to be on an extreme martial arts demonstration team where we would do gymnastics and fighting performances. I am also a member of a family as I am a member of several clubs at school. When I'm coaching I'm still myself, this does not make two of me. There is not a 'Sam that is just Sam and does nothing', and a 'Coach Sam'. On the demonstration team I was not suddenly just a performer. I am Sam, who happens to coach, does martial arts, has a family, participates in clubs at school, and who goes to school. These are just subcategories that further define me as an individual. 

While I understand what Anna Quindlen was saying in her article, I personally do not agree with what she is saying. You are an individual, you can be an individual within a group of people, but you are not the entire group of people. The individual and the individual in a group is the same individual. She was herself, she just happens to be a mother and wife as well.

Calling in my Freebie