TOW 19

            One of the most frightening things about growing up in times like these is the ever-present threat of terrorism. Terrorism has grown, like a tree, setting roots in obscene places and growing, ever-more quickly, enveloping and encircling the world with the help of social media. In his article To Keep America Safe, Embrace Drone Warfare, Michael V. Hayden argues that Drones are the solution to our terroristic threats. Although drone strikes can help in erasing lead terrorists, they are largely ineffective for a multitude of reasons and should therefore not be an acceptable tactic.

            By killing the leaders of the movement, we are simply adding more fuel to the fire and potentially pushing more people to become recruits. The drone strikes are known to be from America, so by continuing to do it, we are actually pushing terrorists to become even more anti-American rather than anti-Western culture, making us more of a target; so, we are actually bringing more danger to ourselves by attempting to “save” America. Additionally, drone warfare doesn’t address the terror that undoubtedly resides within America’s borders. What will happen when a terroristic group is found within America? When will the drone strikes stop? If fired within our borders, how can American citizens’ protection be ensured? Drone strikes is simply a more acceptable version of total warfare. And why is it acceptable? The reasons are beyond me. The simple fact of the matter is that it is impossible to be able to tell whether or not you will kill innocent civilians as well as the “target” when you push a button—and often, innocent people are killed from these drone strikes. Killing children, mothers, and fathers can push an abandoned loved one to join the terrorist forces in the fight against America—actually having the opposite effect than intended. War becomes exponentially more dangerous when the concept of killing a HUMAN is reduced to a “target” and the push of a button—it simplifies a matter that should remain complicated.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/21/opinion/sunday/drone-warfare-precise-effective-imperfect.html?_r=0

TOW 18

Caroline Paul has been a journalist at the New York Times for a number of years. Previously a college athlete and a firefighter, she discusses why fear is linked with females. In her article Why Do We Teach Girls That It’s Cute to Be Scared?, she uses personal anecdotes and strong facts and statistics to prove that females should not be taught to avoid danger.

            Caroline’s pride was always bruised when people were shocked to find that she was a firefighter, and she was even more hurt when they would ask, “aren’t you scared?” She grew up challenging herself physically and mentally and believes that it contributed a great deal to her self-esteem and confidence. Her personal anecdotes show the reader that for a girl, taking risks and stepping out of one’s comfort zone is just as important, if not more important, than for boys. It teaches girls self-confidence, independence, and not to fall into society’s expectations. Caroline also shares a number of helpful facts and statistics, one of which showing that parents are exponentially more likely to tell their daughters to be careful than they are to tell their sons. This gives the audience hardcore evidence of the topic, beyond her personal anecdotes, adding more credibility to her argument and making it more concrete. In general, society believes that it is natural and good for boys to be daredevils and to explore and challenge themselves, while expecting girls to remain conservative and follow directions. This double standard is not only a disgrace to all the progress that women have made, but it shows how much work still needs to be done. Girls are not inferior, but when parents treat them differently than they treat their sons, they involuntarily send the message that they are not as brave, capable, smart, or strong as their brothers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/21/opinion/sunday/why-do-we-teach-girls-that-its-cute-to-be-scared.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

TOW 17 visual

Can words hurt as much as, or even more than, physical pains? As a victim of bullying, I truly believe they can. An image I found on Google depicts an arm protruding from the gaping mouth of a man and punching a woman in the face. This clearly sends the message that words can, indeed, hurt just as much as physical violence; verbal abuse is just as damaging as physical abuse.

            While I have never been “abused,” I have been bullied and I know that sometimes, if phrased ever so eloquently, words can sting just as much as a slap from a cold hand. I liked to eat when I was younger; it was my favorite pastime. My schoolmates didn’t seem to share the same love and appreciation for the magnitude of my girth that my family did and kids can be brutal. I experienced everything from name-calling to exclusion and gossip. To this day, I still work to be comfortable with my body and to remain confident in myself and my abilities. If someone had punched me, they would have been punished immediately because it was clear that violence would not be tolerated in my elementary school; however, because they were hitting me with words, my persecutors were able to hide behind saying “it was a joke!” and the comfort that I was “a tattletale” and “a crybaby.” Although bullying is not necessarily the same as abuse, they have similar affects. In a world where gender equality is constantly evolving, abuse is ever-present and we must remind ourselves that it exists in many forms and be on the lookout for warning signs. The form of abuse is irrelevant; the disastrous effects that result are inevitable, unless we take a stand and protect those in need.