Political Correctness doesn't Correct Anything

I kinda forgot what we talked about in class this week with only getting three hours of sleep on the bus to NYC, but I remember picking sides on whether political correctness is good or bad.  Our class concluded that PC is bad.  My argument mainly sided with source A's, about how PC only euphemized dire situations.  This is ultimately bad because prople start to undermine the situation.  This is seen with the countless homeless people on the streets. Its these euphemizations combined with stereotypes that the homeless stay homeless.  For example, calling the homeless "underhoused" doesn't make the situation nicer, it only labels them nicer.  Paired with the misconception that all homeless people spend their money on drugs and alchohol, it's no wonder that homeless people find it so hard to get off the streets.  Like  Kakutani said, "such language ... make[s] it easier to shrug off the setiousness of the situation"(Kakutani 24).

Rise of Technology

A topic similar to the Save the Whale, Screw the Shrimp piece we read is how technology has actually taken over our lives, maybe for the worst.  I won't disagree with this, as I along with the majority are examples of how materialistic society has become.  For most of my day I am looking at a computer or phone screen, mindlessly looking at funny photos or doing my homework.  It has gotten to the point where people depend on such technology.

I remember the days of my youth when free time meant going outside and ringing my neighbors doorbells to ask if they can play. Life was simple back then.  I never had to stay long into the night doing homework, and tests never stressed me out.  The only disappointments that ever came was if no one else could play with me outside.  But when that happened, I would just pick up a book and grab a snack and lay comfortably on the couch.  I had no phone or anything. The online world was nonexistent to me.

Of course technology these days is an essential to certain activities and such, but maybe we need a little less of it.  Maybe our society has become too advanced.

Perspective

We had a huge debate in class on Friday where the class was split between boys and girls on whether men can choose to be unmarked or not.  Generally, the guys leaned more toward not being able to choose, will the girls argues that men's looks are much more flexible.  This made me think.  Is it all just perspective?  Is it just that women care more and notice these small details more?

I think that women just care about this topic more then men do.  I for one, don't really care about my looks, as long as I look how I usually do.  I don't care what others look either. In fact, I probably couldn't even tell if someone wore the same piece of clothing twice in a row.  I don't look for that kind of stuff.  

Also, Stephen the hipster brought up a good point. Class isn't mentioned in the essay.  Tannen thinks that "the men's styles [are] unmarked' (Tannen 553), but what if they are?  Like Stephen said, one may be wearing an Armani suit, while another may be wearing a Kohl's suit.  What if the person wearing the Kohl's suit cannot afford an expensive suit like his coworker? Does that make him marked?  

Another interesting question was brought up at our table.  We were wondering how someone becomes "unmarked".  What are the standards?  How do you judge someone who is thought to be marked when you don't even know the criterion for being unmarked? When so many people wear different styles of clothing it's hard to tell who is unique and who isn't.  The problem with labeling people marked or unmarked is that there is nothing to base them upon.