Politicians, Tattooed People, Feminists and the Elderly: A Rhetorical and Stereotypical Essay

Stereotyping can be a deliberate or an unintentional generalization; an assignment of a negative or positive attribute or attributes to any group of people. It is a tool used to persuade others to a cause. Of the five groups in the assignment, politicians are unique that they will readily stereotype one another in their quest for a vote or to influence voting. Watch CSPAN and see firsthand first class rhetorical analogy and definitions, all sorts of rhetorical devices such as dysphemism euphemism, slanting, stereotyping, even phony outrage, everything read in the assigned chapters can be seen and heard within minutes of watching Congress debate. The fallacies used are numerous and well-beaten.

Stereotyping from politicians is seldom used independently. It is used within a series of fallacies such as the "personal attack" ad hominem where the term "Democrat" is seldom spoken without the term "tax & spend" is attached before and after that term is spoken. Naturally, it is used to stir already biased emotions against an issue with an appropriate number of convenient facts to provide legitimacy to the argument. Depending on the seriousness of the debate and level of frustration, the greater the rhetorical definitions, analogies, and explanations along with associated arguments from outrage real or staged. From either position, many arguments are arguments of tradition using the same catch phrases and hyperboles with maximum of well-placed dysphemia. (Moore & Parker, 2007, pp.133, 507) Turning to Ad Hominem fallacies; these errors are not but are used deliberately to attach slanted claims to a group or persons to inculcate into the listener a distorted and negative view of their target, namely, whoever opposes them. (Moore & Parker, 2007, pp.173-179)

The single most outstanding stereotype attributable to politicians as a result of their slanting and slandering is the "double-standard" (p.175) which is also a component of the Ad Hominem Fallacy and an Inconsistency Hominem. It is an argument we teach our children not to make; because one does something wrong, it is okay for you do to do it too. The double-standard begins when one political party looses power and becomes the minority and when the new majority power is accused of performing the same underhanded tactics as they had previously committed.

Arguments about "wasteful spending" and "pork barrel politics" are prime examples of slanted, hyperbolic, rhetorical devices, designed intended to describe an undesirable behavior of the opposition. Of course, "wasteful spending" and "pork barrel politics" can be quite subjective as a claim (p.508) depending on the speaker and the agenda. The same logic of the double-standard applied to them is now downplayed and euphemized with attempts at redirecting the argument to a fallacy of composition (p.53) in that what they accused their opposition of was right for them to do because their intent was righteous and 'good for America", therefore not wasteful spending. This is also an argument involving nationalism, invoking the well-being of the country with the assumption that by doing so, their argument will automatically be accepted. (Moore & Parker, 2007, pp.53, 175).

Tattooed Persons

Anything that causes a person to stand out of the accepted norms of adornment that person will be open to sarcasm, bigotry, ridicule, and stereotyping. But tattooing is ancient. A tattooed hand was found on a 5200 year old frozen body. It was important to the ancient Egyptians over 3000 years ago. (Lineberry, 2007) Tattooing is an important and critical ceremony of many cultures; an important rite of passage into adulthood and status within a culture. During the eighteen hundreds, tattooing was brought to the Western countries by sailors who traveled through Polynesia. In America, tattoos were worn by the military, gangs, or other cultural sub-groups and not part of the main stream. People are tattooed for a variety of reasons but, regardless of the reason, many of the general public associate tattoos to violent people, criminals, bikers and other gangs, circus people, military, or just people who are foolish and disrespect of their bodies. In the religious community it is sinful to mark your body in such a way.

Granted, all those groups of people listed do commonly have tattoos and some have been or are criminal or delinquent, those not so adorned also have committed crime and are delinquent in some way. The stereotype is a false premise in an otherwise valid argument. (Moore & Parker, 2007, p.219) Today, the stereotyping of those with tattoos is diminishing because it has become more main stream with the public and the media; those who previously condemned it now have one or two discreetly placed on their body.

Feminists

In my view, feminism has been on a roller-coaster path, similar, but not quite parallel path to the Civil Rights Movement of Martin Luther King along with issues of Affirmative Action. They began with a tremendous struggle for equal rights and fairness under the law and over time, fracture into groups whose interests extend beyond equal rights. As a young boy, my impression of "feminists" was those women who would not accept second place status and wanted the same rights as men. Unfortunately, as with other groups extremists get involved and dilute the righteousness of the original intent. In effect, the actions of extremists create a red herring (p.161) directing attention away from the original intent of feminism and reinforcing stereotypes. The actions of these people of course are focused on and highlighted by the media, sensationalized for the "story."

The stereotype IM familiar with and have argued with are those, as with other groups, who are not satisfied with equal rights but work diligently to obtain extra rights or special considerations under the law. I have my own personal, first hand experiences and observations that will be appropriate for another paper. One stereotype of Feminists is the angry, lesbian man-hater who wants the world to conform to their wants regardless of whom they step on. Of course this is not unique to them. As a result of this small group claiming to be representative of the whole, give the whole a bad name which is manipulated by the media until something else gets the media's attention. (Moore & Parker, 2007, p. 507)

Senior Citizens

There does not seem to be an outstanding stereotype for senior citizens. The movie "Grumpy Old Men" could be used as a symbol of a stereotype. Another could be a person, shoulder drooped, slump postured, and ill-tempered. No one stereotype seems to stand out. I believe no one knows exactly where one begins to be a senior citizen. One stereotype may be reaching the age of fifty when AARP begins sending you mail in earnest. Gray hairs and wrinkles could support a stereotype and be true. A shuffling gait and a dislike of kids are stereotypes but those who abuse their bodies may shuffle about, have gray hair and wrinkles, especially those who sun too much and smoke and dislike kids. Many of the physical and some psychological attributes can be attributable to any age group. In Congress, using the situation of many elderly regarding Medicare and social security in their arguments could stereotype and it would be true. Value judgments are commonly used with stereotypes of the elderly in support of funding for the elderly. This is something that changes with age; where the stereotype becomes reality as we age! (Moore & Parker, 2007, pp.8-9)

Using non-text references I learned that stereotyping and discrimination are nearly inseparable. In order to discriminate, on must stereotype to attach specific attributes to a group. Stereotyping can one to use those singular attributes to discriminate. On the other hand, one must discriminate in certain circumstances such as insurance, police profiling, mental health to assess personal issues and other professions to identify trends in behavior or traits that can lead to some positive or profitable conclusion. (Kaveny, 1996) I learned nothing new about myself. What I did learn was how to structure my arguments more thoughtfully, I have learned to discern false arguments better and, I have learned that this is fun to do while watching talk shows or commercials or any discussion and try to identify what is discussed in the text.

I joined the "Foundation for Critical Thinking" and purchased the "Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking-Concepts and Tools" by Dr. Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder. I read a lot of news on the internet and I know some arguments get past me with many of the rhetorical devices in the text. Now, with a "template" (Paul & Elder, 2008) I have a guide to analyze these articles. I intend to practice these things daily; it is very revealing and rewarding. Watching the way which President Obama speaks, I see that he is critically thinking about his responses before he gives them.

References

Moore, B. N., & Parker, R. (2007). Criticak Thinking, Ashford University 8th. Ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Joann Fletcher, History & Archaeology, Tattoos: The Ancient and Mysterious History By Cate Lineberry, Smithsonian.com, January 01, 2007, retrieved from http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/tattoo.html, 04/03/2009

Kaveny, C.M., (1996). Discrimination and Affirmative Action Discrimination and Affirmative Action-Journal article, Theological Studies, Vol. 57, 1996 retrieved from www.questia.com, 04/05/2009

Paul, R. and Elder, L., (2008). The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking-Concepts and Tools, 5^th. Ed., Foundation for Critical Thinking Press: Dillon Beach, CA.