When we stood up to give our moral principle in class, mine sounded something like “have personal motivation in everything you do”, which evoked some odd facial expressions from our gentle instructor. This was probably because I worded my principle wrong, or because it is more complex than a simple “treat others like you want to be treated”. On my paper, I actually wrote “Do from oneself, not from others”. This probably seems even more vague, but it’s trying to say the same thing - everything we choose to do must be some voluntary action that holds purpose to us, rather than a passive action that we do out of expectation and that we question anyway. 

It actually very similar to Twain’s ideas in “Corn-pone Opinions”. Rarely do people ever really think about why they do something, they just do it because that it what has always been done, or that is what they have been told. I believe in actively thinking about where I wish to invest my time and energy. I have come to realize that there are many people in the world, and each wants something different from me. And no matter what I do, I cannot please everyone, including myself. And lastly, none of these people are living my life - they do not have the shoulder the responsibilities of my actions, or my decisions. Flatly, they cannot live for me. Therefore, I cannot and should not cater to everyone, but rather only to myself. 

My example in discussion with my group in class was my involvement in karate. I used to go to karate classes solely because I was told to; I did not like them, but my parents forced me to go. During this time, I was never very good at karate, I never excelled in the art because I had no inner motivation. Karate was simply about pleasing my parents. However the equation changes when I made karate about pleasing myself. When I made karate my project, when I made perfection of the art my personal goal, I made it something for myself. I actively did karate. And as a result, I excelled farther and faster than any other student in the dojo. 

Personal motivation and reason not only make a better-informed and composed individual, but it also does wonders for clearing up all the useless stuff in life that simply wastes our time. One of my favorite quotes is “I don’t have to anything but die”. Because we will all eventually die, it is what we do in our lives that sets each individual apart. But that doesn’t mean just anyone can shape the way our lives are lived. We must actively and rationally go about life in order to make it count. Do you really want to live a life that was programmed by someone else? 

Our second movie was Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. Compared to Rebel, it was far more comedic. Rebel was more dramatic. Ferris also seemed to appeal to us more. Probably because the comedy was entertaining. Despite the entertainment value, Ferris was more physically realistic, as far as what us teens can do. I can definitely see one of us faking sick, in order in skip school, compared to playing the “chicki-run”.  Thematically, Rebel was the stronger movie. It seemed to have more emotional substance and power to it than Ferris. It is important to note that their messages of teen rebellion were also different. While Rebel seemed to be more of a rebellion against social pressures and not standing up for oneself, Ferris was more about encouraging rebellion against authority by having the courage and wits to face (or avoid) consequences while still getting his way. Because Ferris was a more commercialized movie, it’s hard to say who the speaker, purpose, or intended audience was, without saying that it meant for middle to mature viewers, and produced simply to entertain and market.

Interactions between my parents and myself-compared to those shown between Jim and his parents- seem mild. And that’s because they are. My parents were shocked to hear about how Jim choked his father at one point in the movie. I doubt any of us could think about actually doing such a thing now (although, again, I cannot speak for everyone). For the most part, My parents felt that there was a lack of any respect for authority in that movie. It seems that teen movies are generally like this; sources of authority have in fact, little authority on the characters. From Jim’s parents to the teacher at the planetarium, all authority figures are stomped on. What does this mean as for as the rhetorical triangle? It seems to align with message of breaking out or revolting. Only it seems to encourage revolt against authority and conformity rather than social hierarchy. When I asked my parents the same (slightly modified) question Jim asks : “would you let me do something dangerous to protect my honor?”, they agreed that I shouldn’t let people take advantage of me, but I shouldn’t have to fight for it. I don’t agree with them - I believe Jim was noble and right to stand his own in the face of social pressure, because if he caved, he would lose his identity. And as teenagers, finding our identity is our current common goal in life. 

Our group found Rebel Without a Cause to be thematically accurate, but physically inaccurate. As others have noted, we too thought the sequence of the events in the film where taken to quickly and many of the instances where shown slightly exaggerated. Comparable acts of stupidity are common today among teens, but I’m sure that no one is driving cars off cliffs, and slashing one-another with knives. However, at the same time, most off us were raised with a privileged up-bringing, and so we cannot imaging such things happening where we live, though they may very well occur somewhere else. And yet, the movie is relatable because we can all identify with the struggle to be accepted into a group, to prove one’s own honor and social standing, to feel threatened, and to make judgements of our own character. Rebel Without A Cause is well dated, however it can still convey a valid message. The only question is, to who? It seems that teenagers in high school were the major target audiences of the movie. The main issue Jim faces is the block of social obligation to prove himself. This makes him do stupid dangerous things, and ends in the deaths of characters in the movie. Yet his reasons for going against the grain (to protect his honor and identity) cast him as more of a hero. To this end, it seems that producers try to encourage revolt against the social system, and perhaps as a result, bring an end to violence and stupidity among teenagers.

Without doubt, Denby and a lot of other producers of teen rebellion subject matter use stereotypes. While it seems that they might be making fun of teenagers in a satirical sense or trying to promote a moral theme, Denby and other teen movies are really directed at audiences for contemplation of the raw feelings of jealousy, desire, and hatred while encouraging self expression. Let me elaborate:

Most of think that the exaggerations shown in the films and Denby’s writing are clearly over the top. And it is - for purely dramatic and rhetorical effect. If films were to accurately portray school life as it exists for the audience it would be like watching a play-back of last Monday. In short, boring and insignificant. By exaggerating the attitudes and stereotypes of characters, audiences can make out clear distinctions between characters and clearly understand the theme the character is meant to portray.

It’s true that, for the most part, the social ladder so finely detailed by Denby exists in roughly the same form in almost all high school settings ever since the foundation of secondary education. The social ladder always has a negative connotation associated with it, and so the constant defeat shown in movies across the years suggests a push to move away from the binding of social hierarchy. It is similar to being a “marked” case. When middle schoolers see teen rebellion movies, they understand that they don’t want to be anyone of the roles shown in the movie but rather decent middleway, a break from all the traditionally expected roles.  

This is what the movie makers and Denby want: a contemplation from the audience of what a Stoner, jock, prom queen, and nerd “is”, what they mean to high school life and which character viewers can put themselves in and view the world. Why each part seems to be part of an age-old social imbalance that needs serious reform, why each part binds to an expected purpose and how such hierarchical system should be eliminated because it is confining and unjust to all characters.

To put it flatly, teen rebellion movies are meant to convey their exact title - teen rebellion - but against stereotype, not authority.

tnowinski:

So many times since I followed in the footsteps of my brother and sister and started swimming, I wanted to get out of the pool and quit swimming forever. I wanted to be done with the morning, afternoon, and Saturday practices that made my life miserable. I wanted to do anything but swimming. But I couldn’t; I needed to act like the athletic and well rounded person I was supposed to be.

At practice, my coach yelled at me nearly every day, from simple things about my stroke technique to flat out saying things like “your turns are terrible.” This only made swimming that much worse for me. Not only did I hate the thousands of yards I had to swim at each practice, I also began hate my swim coach for constantly yelling at me for my swimming abilities.  

And then things changed. I realized that my coach yelled at me not because he disliked me, but instead because he cared about me as a swimmer and he wanted me to get better because he saw potential in me. At swim practice, my habit of swimming simply to survive to the end of practice was replaced by determination to get better. Even the long swim meets, which despised due to my fears of not being able to do a flip-turn or do a half-decent start, we’re starting to get more enjoyable. Videos of swim races, like the 4x100 freestyle relay in which the American team overtook the French for gold at the 2008 Olympics, started to become interesting and exciting, to the point where I would watch them over and over again. Only months before, these races had meant nothing more to me than seeing eight people move back and forth in the same repetitious and boring motion. Watching these videos gave me even more of a desire to get better; they made me want to succeed and become a great swimmer more than anything else.  

When I first came to high school, I had planned to only swim for the high school swim season and play high school baseball as well. I believed that I could only do the things that my brother had done when he was in high school before me. However, after my freshman year, I quit playing high school baseball and decided swam year round instead. I realized that I was not my brother and I didn’t have to try to be just like him. Also, I didn’t decide to start swimming year-round because I was force to or because that was what was expected of me, I did it because I want to. I overcame the expectation I placed on myself to be just like my brother and I discovered how much I loved the sport I had once hated. I finally found the strength to be myself. I was no longer trying to do everything my brother did. I was no longer playing the act of an athletic kid by playing baseball and swimming. I was a swimmer.

I can relate to Thomas’ narrative not only because I am his friend, and have heard a similar discussion with him in the past, but also because I have personally experienced the rigors of swim training, and Thomas’ narrative is almost a perfect parallel to my own. I’ve also seen Thomas in action during swim practice and his determination holds true in my opinion. Recently, Thomas broke a school record in the breaststroke and is one of three swim captains. Of all the people on the team this year, Thomas was without doubt the hardest working of us all, and his achievements reflect this. His narrative parallels to my own because I faced a similar dilemma in my study of karate. I too was hesitant to continue going to karate class each day, but with regular pushing and constant exposure (along with inspiration from my mentors), I too have excelled to the top of my sport and now enjoy it. Due to these reasons, Thomas’ narrative stuck out to me as a piece I could identify and connect with, making it a strong and interesting read. 

Once I found the strength to be myself, I had no need to act myself.” For me, Sullivan’s words resonate with my memories of karate, a serious dedication in my life, and major contributor to my character. Today I boast the rank of black belt and I even act as assistant instructor around the dojo. But there was a time when I viewed each class with malice and utter hatred.

            I realized that way I view my martial art had changed when I was unexpectedly confronted by a fellow adult student. Mr. Lloyd and his son Nathan had recently joined our dojo, only now Nathan was beginning to realize that he didn’t enjoy karate. In fact, Nathan had stopped coming to classes, but his father still felt that he had some potential, if only he could talk to someone who could convince him. He told me that my high rank and relatively young age might connect the best with his son, and hopefully Nathan would listen to me.

            This task was a little more daunting than others I had encountered before only because until that point, I knew only what martial arts meant to me. To articulate this meaning to seven-year-old, without losing him in abstraction, and still put my emotions into tangible sentences was another issue entirely. I was forced to contemplate on how I would relate to Nathan.

I quickly realized that Nathan was exactly the kind of karate student I was years ago. At age ten, I too detested training in the dojo, mainly because it was difficult and physically demanding. Back then, being a martial artist wasn’t at all about me: it was only a chore that I was forced to do. If my parents did not adamantly refuse to let me quit yet another activity, I may never have gotten far in martial arts training.

I have no undeniably distinct memory of my perspective changing, only that it happened slowly, as I improved my skills. I can remember one distinct conversation with my Sensei where he said something like “I know you don’t like karate, but you can train hard, and I am proud of your progress”. Inspiration and experience helped me change karate from a chore to a hobby. Notably, as Sullivan suggested, once it became my hobby, I got incredibly good at it.

When I finally talked with Nathan a week later, I reiterated an idea similar to Sullivan’s quote. If Nathan wanted to continue karate, he needed to find a personal reason to do so; otherwise he would never like it. Today, Nathan is pursuing his interests in baseball. My argument may not have convinced him to stay, but it did enlighten him to a better way of living. At least now, he doesn’t have to pretend to like karate or feel bad about having to do it. He can be himself instead, which by experience works out better. 

I later wrote a paper about my experiences and change in view of karate for my black belt test. Black Belt Paper.

I’m glad that we were assigned to explore this question because it comes into consideration as a crucial issue all of my peers and I must give some thought to, or risk going about of final year in high school with no direction in our life. But on the same note, the only time any of us can completely answer this is AFTER we’ve lived our life. As a 17 year-old, the best I can offer is a guess.

I’m not religious. I realized this truth only this year, that I do not believe in God, that I am in fact, essentially a convert atheist. I have found meaning only in things for which I can provide tangible and original reasons. I cannot follow a faith of Hinduism of which I know almost nothing of. This pattern of reason and action seems to be the way I handle all of my life now. I never do anything out of blind faith, or without conscious thought. I understand now that I don’t have to accept anything anyone says if I simply choose not to believe it. I tend to think of my mind now as that of a scientist. I feel comfortable in a world of logic and fact, things that are reliable and that cannot easily change. If anything, this has made me independent; I don’t have to rely on the guidance of my parents, and its a step forward. I think that my purpose is to become a complete individual who can consciously understand everything, because when I can’t, I’m as good as dead.

Tannen’s final assertions seem to hold a good weight for the most part; throughout the essay, Tannen has developed a strong case for her final assertion and it’s hard to argue that what she says is blatantly wrong. I too agree that no women can escape marking. However I feel that marking extends, by default to men as well. If not by the same degree, men are still expected to hold certain societal roles, and growing up as a young man, I can certainly say that they exist.

For example, while the young girl may be fit to the role of “pretty princess” and given dolls, jewelry, and girl things, boys are given baseball bats, balls, shoes, and told to go outside. We would assume the nature of “little girl” to be cute, and fragile, and yes this a role that we assign to girls. However for boys as well, there exists the expectation that we must be tough, like sports, and be gross - just because this is what we imagine a young boy to be like. 

Boys are also the first suspect of crimes. Almost every story has a villain that is infamously known as “the bad guy”. Of course there is also a “damsel in distress”. Tannen would question why the damsel is the one that has to be in distress, while I ask why do we assume bad people to be big, scary men? Again, referring to our little boy/little girl analogy, the girl stereotype is “cute and innocent”, the boy’s is “naughty mischievous”. 

Many argue that there are so many things that are labeled Masculine: in short anything with intense physical demands or high risk. Tannen complains that women interested in these things will be frowned upon and limited by society. To an equal degree, there are things labeled feminine that men cannot touch (or at least such endeavors are hard to follow). For example, art, drawing, painting, music, dancing, and theater are not commonly labeled masculine, and there exists an assumption that boys will not like such things.

Now, here, most of my male peers will disagree and say that they have absolutely no interest in such things, and for some this may be genuinely true. But it is not true for everyone. For men, there seems to be an unspoken ideal persona, role, or code of conduct that every male has to follow to “be a man”. And boys are so drawn in by this role, that they feel the need to deny themselves of anything that could be labeled feminine just prove that they fit their given persona. (this was mentioned in my previous tannen post). In retrospect, I believe women are more stronger than men in overcoming the role set by society. It is simply because males dominate the society today that women seem to be the weaker gender.

From my own childhood, I remember myself being thrust into sports. I did not like them like most other might, or expected to, but I did a half-hearted job to get through it. To me, the “boys like sports” stereotype does not always apply. I am not a very sport oriented guy, even though my exposure to them were very similar to other boys my age. And yet, whenever I meet an adult who learns I am in high school, their first question is almost always “What sport do you play?”. This is a societal role for men. Therefore I don’t believe Tannen is wrong, but just slightly incorrect. EVERYONE is marked one way or the other regardless of gender.

In the more literal sense, fashion is the choice made when we put on clothes. It’s safe to assume that most people actually have a CHOICE in clothing. In fact, we always go about assuming that people have a wide variety of clothing available to them even though this may not always be the case. And because of this assumption, we often make a initial impression about a person based on the choice of clothes they wore. We think this way because of all the clothes a person could possibly wear, the individual choose to wear certain ones, and we associate their choice with what his or her stereotypical role would be, and use this role to identify the person. And all of these connections and impressions are made without having to interact with the individual in question. 

For example, if we see a boy in wrinkled and heavily worn athletic gear, we may assume that the boy is too lazy to care about his appearance. Likewise, if we see a girl in tight and revealing clothing, we come to assume that she is seeking attention - by the wrong methods. However showing up to an important event well groomed and dressed formally, seems to be a normal behavior and while there is still some variation in women’s gowns (or suits) that can lead to differentiation and judgement, it is difficult to form opinions when everything is so uniform. Therefore, occasion can influence how we form judgement of people. If people are dressed to the occasion, then their clothing may not be sufficient matter to base impressions on. This not to say however, that impressions cannot be made - factors such as personality,eye contact, appearance, intelligence and similar things play an equally heavy role in judging the nature of person.

From class, I’d like to analyze our discussion on boy’s perspective on clothing. I honestly feel that when classmates say they do not care about how they look, they are outright lying, or at least avoiding the acknowledgement of a kind of underlying social agreement. Especially for us at this age, appearances are almost everything. Drowning in a sea of hormones, boys are driven to be “better” than one another if not for girls. However, in this sense of better, it is a challenge to see which boy is toughest, the most manly, the one who can fit to the image of a fearless, strong man the best. This done be showing how much we don’t  care. That’s right. Boys purposely attempt to show indifference to how they look, because that is considered a feminine preoccupation. Of course the whole point of doing this is to look the toughest, and therefore be attractive to a female (which seems a little ironic).

Another inserting thing to note about stereotypes and clothes is the antagonistic nature in which people view each other. It is much more common to have a negative perspective of a person than a positive one, based on one’s clothing. Perhaps this means that humans are innately jealous, and always looking to be better than those around them. This innate jealousy would explain why sometimes dressing to a certain standard or to the standard of our peers may sometimes seem like a competition.