User:Acampbell1/sandbox

Article evaluation: Digital Literacy

• The paragraph talking about Danah Boyd's argument regarding digital literacy is not a neutral point of view. It argues that everybody should be digitally literate rather than just making a factual statement about digital literacy.
• It is never explained who Danah Boyd is.
• Source 6 (Danah Boyd) is used to cite multiple pieces of information, including information that comes from others such as John Perry Barlow, Douglas Rushkoff, and Henry Jenkins.
• Section "Academic and pedagogical concepts" almost entirely lacks citations.
• "Digital divide" subsection "Definition" contains an un-cited piece of information. The first sentence of the second paragraph brings in an argument from Howard Besser without citing Howard Besser.
• In the section "Digital divide" subsection "Definition", Jessamyn C. West is cited in the third sentence of the first paragraph as Madalyn Cohron. This is either an incorrect citation, or the author has cited West's interpretation of Cohron's piece.
• Paragraph 3 under the section "Academic and pedagogical concepts" should cite Bruner, 1978 in reference to the "constructivist theory of learning." There is an in-text citation, but no actual citation.

Big Basin

Big Basin Redwoods State Park has many options for camping, including cabins, developed campsites, and trail camps. Within the park, there are 146 individual campsites, 36 cabins, and five trail camps. Campers are allowed to bring dogs to their campsites, provided the dogs are leashed.

Each campground at Big Basin Redwoods State Park is open on a different schedule during the year. The Huckleberry and Sequoia Campgrounds are open every day of the year. The Blooms Creek and Sempervirens Campgrounds are open every day from May 19th to September 2nd, and on weekends only from March 24th to May 13th and September 3rd to October 28th. The Watashi and Sky Meadow Campgrounds are open every day from May 19th to September 2nd.

Big Basin Redwoods State Park has five backcountry trail camps, which require permits to use. Some of the campsites are on the Skyline-to-the-Sea trail and can be used on the hike with proper permissions.

Michelle Wolf

Michelle Wolf’s former late night coworker, Seth Meyers, said of her performance at the 2018 White House Correspondents Dinner, “She is filthy and she is mean — which is what we love about her.” Another late night name, Trevor Noah, commented that she should have “the decency not to comment on women’s appearances,” because “she’s a comedian...not the president.”

President Donald Trump took to Twitter after the dinner to proclaim that the White House Correspondents Dinner is “DEAD as we know it.” As the first president to not attend the dinner since Ronald Reagan, who did not attend in 1981 because he had been shot shortly before, Trump supports the end of comedians at the dinner. However, writer and director Judd Apatow disagreed with Trump, claiming that the dinner is an opportunity to “speak out” without fear of punishment. This is one of the most important parts of America in Apatow’s opinion; other countries do not allow citizens the rights to free speech that are given to Americans.

In an interview with Terry Gross on "Fresh Air" regarding her performance at the White House Correspondents Dinner, Wolf claimed that she “can say things about women” that men would not get away with saying, because she is a woman. She stands by her speech. Wolf also claims that the jokes made about White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders were not at all about her looks; rather, they were about her position and her tendency to cover up lies coming from the Trump administration. She asserted that the backlash she had received for the jokes reveals misogyny in society. She stated that if the jokes would have been made about a man, viewers would have thought, “‘she’s talking about his abilities.’” She believed the criticism was revealing, and that it showed what the nation really thinks about women. Wolf said she is glad she “stuck to [her] guns” and did not apologize for what she said.

Segraves v. State of California

Background

Kelly Segraves is a father of three and cofounder of the Creation-Science Research Center in San Diego. His three children, Kasey, Jason, and Kevin, attended a California public school, where part of the curriculum included the teachings of evolution. Segraves contended that the teaching of religion at his children's public school violated their freedom to practice religion, and thus, infringed upon their First Amendment rights. Segraves sued California on behalf of his three children, who were minors at the time, on January 19, 1979. Cited in Segraves's complaint is the curriculum guide "Science Framework for California Public Schools," which is said to convey the idea that "the theory of evolution is the only credible theory of the origin of [life]."

The case went to trial in 1981, putting evolution and creationism on opposite sides of another courtroom battle. In court, Segraves argued that teaching the theory of evolution in public schools was "'indoctrination' and 'coercion'" against his and his children's religious beliefs and that it violated their right to religious freedom. The plaintiff also argued that teaching the evolutionary theory in public schools established and supported "the religion of secular humanism," which violates the First Amendment's establishment clause. Because of this assertion, Segraves also claimed that teaching evolution goes against a section of the California constitution that outlaws the spending of public money for the support of any religion in public schools.

The Decision

In March of 1981, after one week of testimonies, presiding Judge Irving Perluss ruled that the teaching of evolution in public schools did not infringe upon the First Amendment rights of Segraves and his children. Perluss's decision included a reference to a 1972 "anti-dogmatism" policy, which states:

That, on the subject of discussing origins of life and earth in public schools: 1) dogmatism be changed to conditional statements where speculation is offered as explanation for origin; and 2) science should emphasize "how" and not "ultimate cause" for origin.

The decision states that the anti-dogmatism policy should be made known to any organization or person who would receive the Science Framework for California Public Schools.

Add an article: Portrayal of academic women in film

I would like to add information about the scholarly discourse regarding the portrayal of women in film. I am planning on breaking it up into sections that will include portrayal of academic women, portrayal of minority women, among others. A multitude of scholarly sources exists on the topic, which will aid me in constructing subsections for my article.

The portrayal of academic women in film refers to the way that women in academia are written as film characters. The way that women are portrayed is a hotly contested talking point in the film community, with feminists taking the side that women are not accurately depicted in films. Judith Mayne, author and professor of women's studies at Ohio State University, claims that the study of female characters in film began with movements from the 1960s and 1970s: second-wave feminism, the rise of independent films, and the beginning of academic film studies.

Academic argumentation

In terms of intelligence, women are not often portrayed on the same level as men. Eva Flicker, professor of sociology specializing in film at the University of Vienna, writes that men are overwhelmingly portrayed as scientists in films, coming in at 82% of movie scientists. After a review of 60 movies, Flicker has placed the women shown in science fiction films into six categories:

• "The Old Maid": This type of woman scientist is "only interested in her work," and is often depicted having a bland appearance and style. As the film progresses, a man saves her and brings out her feminine side, after which she becomes more attractive. However, she loses credibility as an academic, and suddenly messes up a lot more than she did when she did not look as good. Based off of this type of story, Flicker concludes that "femininity and intelligence are mutually exclusive characteristics in a woman's film role."
• "The Male Woman": This type of woman works with men in an all male environment. Because of this, she has a "harsh voice" and occasionally "succumbs to an unhealthy lifestyle" to fit in with the boys. Flicker claims that this type of woman is "lost somewhere in the middle" of masculinity and femininity; she is not a sexual character as other women are, but she is not on the same level as the men she works with. Thus, she lacks credibility as a woman and as one of the guys. In the end, her heightened female emotions allow her to contribute to a solution, which is her redeeming quality as a character.
• "The Naive Expert": Seen in The Lost World: Jurassic Park, this woman scientist does very little. For the sake of the film, she is crucial, but she does little to advance the story and does not contribute much to the solution. On the contrary, it is her femininity that causes more trouble for the team of scientists. She is young, attractive, and subject to experience womanly emotions. Her feelings add an extra layer to the existing predicament, and it falls on a man to solve the problem and get the team out of trouble. She is "naive in her actions," while her male counterpart stands in stark contrast and ends up saving the day.
• "The Evil Plotter": The "evil plotter" woman is young and very beautiful, and she uses her feminine charm to trick the men into doing what she wants. She has an ulterior motive, which is on the opposite end of the spectrum from what the rest of the team is trying to accomplish. She is the character that everybody hates by the end of the movie because she is devilishly smart and knows how to use her scientific knowledge and sexual prowess for evil.
• "The Daughter/Assistant": This role of female scientist encompasses many feminine stereotypes portrayed in movies. The woman who gets written into this role is subordinate to her male counterpart, who is either her father or her lover. She is smart and capable, but her secondary role does not allow her to demonstrate her abilities. Flicker writes that when this woman plays the role of lover to the male scientist, "her work place is limited to the bed." She is only good for sexual satisfaction, and not for the degree she earned.
• "The Lonely Heroine": This type of woman scientist is intelligent, attractive, and somewhat independent. Flicker says that she "has appropriated some male traits," such as losing herself in her work. She is both sexual and smart, and manages to exhibit both qualities in the film. Despite this, she is still subordinate to the men on her team, and depends on them and their work in order to gain respect. She is the most progressive of the woman scientist types, but she lacks her own form of independence and still must rely on a sexual relationship with a man in order to be seen as someone.

Flicker argues that women are often pigeonholed into these six limiting roles when written in films. Each of these roles places the female scientist character on the sidelines, and does not allow her to be on the same level as her male counterpart(s). Despite the fact that the women in these roles are educated, and often just as educated as the men on their team, they are used primarily as assistants and sexual characters. They are strategically written and placed for the male gaze, often using their "weapons of a woman" to appeal to male characters and viewers alike.

Support

Feminist film theorist Laura Mulvey writes that in film, women take on the role of passive for the male gaze. Mulvey writes that movies fulfill "a primordial wish for pleasurable looking," and that men are largely catered to in the film industry. In her analysis of film, she states that the lead woman in a film falls in love with her male counterpart, and when she does, she only exists as a character to please him. Through the male character's ownership of the woman, the men in the audience find themselves owning her as well.

Judith Mayne throws support behind Laura Mulvey. She writes that "most feminist film theory and criticism of the last decade" has been in written in response to Mulvey's 1975 assessment, "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema." Her argument in the paper is centered around the claim that understanding the often sexist portrayal of women in film requires "an understanding of patriarchy as oppressive and as vulnerable." Mayne goes deeper in her argument; she claims that feminist film theory inspired feminist documentaries "aimed at rejecting stereotyped images of women," but that criticism also opened the question of "the notion of woman as 'image.'"

Law professor Sarah Eschholz and her colleagues Jana Bufkin and Jenny Long write that in film, women are often young, and female characters are rarely played by middle aged or older women. The only roles available to these women are often times the role of the mother, who is not meant to be a leading character. They write that "females' primary societal value is based on physical appearance and youthful beauty." According to their assessment, men are valued at all ages, and arguably more so as they age and become wiser. Most women in film are 35 years old or younger, while their male costars are often older.

Women are also often portrayed as the second in command in a traditional family, with their husbands both taking on the role of family head and maintaining a bachelor level of freedom. Eschholz, Bufkin, and Long report on studies that have been conducted that reflect that female characters are more likely to be married and have a family than male characters. Men have the freedom to work and be protagonists through their actions, while their wives and girlfriends are forced to take a back seat in the story in order to care for the family.

Opposing Views

Noel Carroll, professor of philosophy at Cornell University, references Mulvey's pivotal paper on psychoanalysis and visual pleasure in his writing. He acknowledges and agrees with Mulvey's assessment that women in film are strategically placed for the male gaze despite the role of their actual character, stating, "Women in Hollywood film are staged and blocked for the purpose of male erotic contemplation and pleasure." However, Carroll plays devil's advocate to Mulvey's argument and adds that men in films are also strategically placed for the purpose of pleasure. He cites such examples as Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger, big bodybuilding actors "whose scenes are blocked and staged precisely to afford spectacles of bulging pectorals and other parts." According to Carroll, being subject to the erotic gaze of the audience is not an exclusively female burden; rather, both sexes fall prey to Hollywood camera angles that best show off their bodies.