Storytelling & Abortion

In the TedTalk, "A better way to talk about abortion" by Aspen Baker, Baker argues the importance of transforming topics of conflict, such as abortion, to topics of conversation. With this as the basis of her argument, she proceeds to address other issues such as poverty and sexuality and how people must create empathy regardless of their political stance on such issues. Therefore, through this TedTalk, Baker hoped to alter the perspectives of the audience and have them flee from rigid positions, and merely understand the ideas and stories of every person. 

In order to get her point across, Baker utilized a combination of ethos, logos, and pathos in attempt to fully capture the audience and have them open their minds to the idea of shifting conflict to conversation. 

• Ethos: Baker's credibility is established near the middle of her TedTalk as she discusses how she cofounded an organization nearly 15 years ago called "Exhale". She then proceeds to discuss how this foundation was created in order to give people an outlet to talk about their abortions and other tough issues in a non-bias and non-political environment. In addition to the fact that Baker has her own organization, her credibility also increases with her use of statistics within her presentation. Facts such as, "one in three women in America will have an abortion in their lifetime" strengthens her credibility as it made her seem like more of an expert in her particular field. In all, Baker's use of ethos is relatively effective as it made her seem like a more reliable source considering her role in her organization and knowledge of abortion. 

• Logos: This was an integral tool that Baker utilized as her supporting evidence consisted of basic/logical characteristics such as the need for an increase in listening skills as well as empathy. While there wan't an abundance of evidence, the evidence that was used seemed compelling as it evoked a sort of "aha" moment within the audience considering her suggestions seemed realistic. To further her point of conflict to conversation, she addressed a stance called "provoice" which strips away the political conflict surrounding abortion and other controversial topics, and deals more with listening and storytelling. By elaborating on the importance of listening and informing the audience of ways they can strengthen such skills(ex. asking open ended questions), the audience is able to further see her perspective considering these are quite logical suggestions. As far as bias, Baker had an abortion following graduating from college. This could have hindered her from evaluating the pro-life aspect of abortion but ultimately didn't affect her argument as she never outwardly stated that she was pro-life, or pro-choice.

• Pathos: Baker attempted to create emotion within the audience as she discussed her abortion and how she was conflicted with making the decision. She then proceeded to say how she never had anyone to discuss this with as it is not a topic that people are having or are comfortable with having. This led to her argument pertaining to being "provoice" and how people need an outlet to talk about these events. Overall, this was an effective strategy as it made the audience think critically about differing perspectives and how this idea of people not having an outlet is actually true considering these topics are so politically charged. 

Personally, this TedTalk was really interesting as Baker discussed the topic of abortion in a very non-traditional way. As someone who considers themselves to be on the side of pro-life, I was initially intrigued by the title as I thought it was nearly impossible to have a "better way to talk about abortion". This video way completely different from what I thought it would be, as she discussed a solution or an idea that isn't really talked about. As humans we tend to like controversy and the idea of being on the winning side. However, the way Baker stressed the importance of active listening and empathy, made me alter the way in which I look at such topics. 

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images

Double Indemnity

The 1940's was an interesting time period for women as their roles in society changed rather frequently. Initially, they had little to no rights within the job force, earning significantly less than their male counterparts for completing the same tasks. With the onset of World War II, factories were in desperate need of workers as most of their employees were drafted to the war. Women were then able to step up to the plate and take over the jobs that normally would have been filled by men. Women began to be seen in a more powerful way and were beginning to be looked at as more than house wives and caretakers. However, this newly formed power didn't last too long as the return of soldiers brought widespread wage cuts and layoffs for women. The powerful image that society once held towards women, swiftly changed as the original mindset of gender roles began to resurface. 

In the film, "Double Indemnity", Barbara Stanwyck's character, Phyllis Dietrichson,was portrayed in a variety of ways just like that of women's rights in the 1940's. In the opening scene where we first see Phyllis, she is conveyed in a very sexual, yet rather powerful manor that reflects the way in which women tend to be seen for more of their physical attributes than their psychological. We see Phyllis for the first time standing on the second level of her home wearing nothing but a towel. The angle used to convey this scene, was that of a high angle which is used to make the person or object look superior or powerful in relation to the audience or in this case, Walter Neff. To Walter, Phyllis was mesmerizing with her iconic ankle bracelet and exposed legs walking down the staircase. Accompanied by a tracking shot and high contrast lighting, the audience is taken along this stroll, never losing sight of her features. As a result, Walter sees her as a beautiful, yet unattainable woman that he would love to some how get the chance to be with; and to the audience, she is seen as a woman that could do no wrong. 

Of course Phyllis doesn't remain in this innocent role as she gradually becomes more and more deceitful as the film progresses. The audience is able to see just how manipulative she can be in order to get what she desires. No better scene depicts these character traits as the scene that occurs around the 1 hour and 35 minute mark where Phyllis is sitting on a chair smoking a cigarette and Walter comes in to confront her about her perpetual lies. This scene is the complete opposite of the one discussed in the previous paragraph as Phyllis is displayed on both a low angle, and shown in extremely low key lighting. These contrasting scenarios truly show the shifting in characters along with their roles. The intense dark lighting correlates with Phyllis' manipulate and evil demeanor while the low angle suggests that because of her actions she is now seen as less than or subhuman in relation to both the audience as well as Walter. Walter has lost all forms of respect for her, as he is now putting the pieces together in terms of all of her disturbing crimes she has committed. 

This last scene shows a lot about the views towards women during the 1940's as it seems to convey the message that a women who is too overtly sexual, or too powerful, must have some level of deceit within her. This furthers the notion during the 40's that women should be sweet, covered, house wives who are soft spoken and always obey their husbands. Essentially, this film seems to say to not trust women who own their sexuality because they'll be able to use their bodies to get anything they desire.