Susan Bordo Blog

Spindler, Amy. (1996). “It’s a Face-Lifted, Tummy-Tucked Jungle Out There,” New York Times, June 9.

In her article “It’s a Face-Lifted, Tummy-Tucked Jungle Out There,” Amy Spindler claims that over the years men have become more focused on their beauty and appearances as a result of the increased competition within the corporate world and the relative downsizing of major industries. “The shrinkage of the great white collar corporate institutions” has left many workers, especially the older generation of men, feeling insecure about their positions within companies (Spindler 1). These insecurities are a direct result of companies searching for younger and fresher employees to replace their older employees. The “elder workers” have responded to this movement by attempting to become more youthful to compete with the threatening generation. Spindler goes on to say that men aquire this new appearance by relying on cosmetics, and in some cases, even surgical procedures. Hair transplants, liposuction, eyelid surgery, facelifts, and pectoral implants are just a few of the many procedures that are catered towards men in the vast and expanding field of cosmetic surgery. Men in their 40’s and 50’s have begun to realize that in order to contend with this younger generation of “bionic men.” They must be willing to allocate more time and attention to their personal appearances considering the newly adopted “pro-youth” favoritism shown by higher-ranking businessmen (Spindler 3). Spindler’s goal in writing this article was to show readers that women are not the only ones who are subject to criticism based on aesthetics, and that men are under just as much pressure as women to maintain their appearances. 

David Foster Wallace

This commencement address to  Kenyon College by David Foster wallace is a very enlightening and inspiring piece. I enjoyed this speech because it was unlike the cliche graduation address. Wallace did not attempt to preach to his audience at all in any way shape or form during this speech. Instead, David's main goal was to shed some light on an emerging and promising group of young students. In some ways, his address to Kenyon College was somewhat ironic considering he was at one point telling a group of obviously very smart and studious adults not to worship their education. When i reached this point in his address I was baffled. I read Fosters statement "[w]orship  your intellect, being seen as smart--you will end up feeling stupid, a fraud, always on the verge of being found out" (Wallace) and was left with a feeling of guilt. I have gone my whole life worshipping one thing and one thing only, my education, so naturally after reading this line I was not quite sure exactly what to think. But when I paused to think about this statement, I saw how in effect it is very true. Worshipping your education cannot lead to fulfillment in life. Wallace's speech was very simple in context but very deep in meaning. He was telling his audience to stop living their selfish lives, and just to pause for a moment and take it what is actually around them. This is where David's initial fish story reference begins to tie in. The fish can be swimming their whole lives in the ocean, but when asked what water is will they know what to answer? It is hard to think that people can go their whole life without actually registering what is around them.

The "Banking " Concept of Education by Paulo Freire

This was one of the more difficult pieces  that we have  to read thus far. It was especially hard for me to decipher the meaning behind this essay because Freire used the tactic of referencing philosophy, which really is not my strong suit. However,  I did manage to understand the idea behind Freire's statement "students are the depositories and the teacher is the depositor" (Freire, 318). This phrase specifically stood out to me only because I feel as though it can be applied to the context of my life. Throughout my 13 years of education I have always been the so called "passive" pupil. I will simply sit back and class and take notes when told to do so and memorize endless facts for the big test. Yes, this process of learning got me phenomenal grades in high school and into one of the best colleges in Florida, but i often find myself looking back on the those classes asking "What did i actually learn from that class"? All the notecards I made and terms I carved into my mind are thrown away after the test so as to make room for more information. Is this style of cramming for a test really "learning"? The only classes where I can honestly say I play just as an equal role as does the teacher is in math class because in math you do not really rely on the teacher to guide you in a certain direction, but instead you can simply teach yourself. This means that in every other one of my classes besides math I am just an empty receptacle ready to collect knowledge. This style of education cannot really be considered learning because to me "learning" is something that involves the active participation from two parties (both the teacher and the student).