#and be able to distinguish between emotional expression and factual discussion

[ri5k]

something i notice a lot online is the presumption of personal interest or motivation in a conversation about objective facts. for example if you say "all desks are brown" and i say "not all desks are brown" it does not then follow that i'm obsessed with "defending" desks when actually i should be more concerned about the greater issue. obviously i am using a very neutral example, but the rationale is the same for any subject, even if it is sexuality, politics, whatever. caring about accurate statements is being a defender of truth, and not necessarily an indication of one's feelings about the subject at hand.

now, if i am constantly bringing up the color of desks, and insisting that everyone pay attention to it, that's different. but if i am merely responding to a statement made before me, i am trying to help the conversation be more productive. i want our conclusions to be accurate with solid facts and arguments behind them. the process matters, and there is no rush.

also, if i am speaking to someone who is emotional about a personal experience, it is pedantic and obnoxious to correct everything they are saying. but if we are analyzing social systems, data, etc., it is absolutely appropriate, and again, does not necessarily communicate my personal feelings on the subject.

i do not trust people who cannot separate a personal discussion of feelings from a clinical review, and who refuse to acknowledge the logical and factual errors in their reasoning because they are afraid it weakens their conclusions. if a particular point "doesn't matter" then it should be no problem to redact it, or omit it in the first place.

[stardust456-blog]

A Critique on Rachel Gillett’s Article: “Why Paid Parental Leave is good for everyone”

In the article “Why Paid Parental Leave is good for everyone” written by Rachel Gillett, she discusses on the positive aspects of having paid parental leave for not just parents, but also for children, society, and companies, too. She also talks about the disadvantages of not implementing a paid-family-leave policy. Her article centers on the United States of America as it is one of just two countries in the world that does not ensure any paid time off for new moms. The other country would be Papua New Guinea. Although the United States government has enacted the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993 which states that qualified American parents are guaranteed 12 weeks of family leave to care for a new child, it does not require this leave to be paid. Rachel Gillett says that without the guarantee of paid leave while caring for a child, many new parents are faced with the choice between economic hardship and returning to work prematurely. Moreover, Gillett cited some companies such as Netflix, Youtube, and Google who have adopted the paid parental leave policy and how it has affected the employees. It was reported that the rate at which new moms left Google fell by 50% when in 2007 it increased paid maternity leave from 12 weeks to 18 weeks. In addition, she mentions that California became the first state to implement a paid-family-leave policy that enables most working Californians to receive 55% of their usual salary for a maximum of six weeks. According to a report, more than 90% of employers affected by California's paid family-leave initiative reported either positive or no noticeable effect on profitability, turnover, and morale. A study found that paid-leave programs can substantially reduce infant mortality rates and improve a child's overall health. Lastly, Gillett concluded by quoting President Barack Obama during his weekly addresses which he said, "Family leave, childcare, flexibility — these aren't frills. They're basic needs. They shouldn't be bonuses – they should be the bottom line."

         The main underlying theme of the article is the working class struggles of the new parents, particularly in United States of America. United States is the only developed nation who does not provide any kind of financial support during the months following the birth of a new child. As a result, workers face grave health, financial, and career repercussions. Rachel Gillett stressed that for the more than 40% of American mothers who take unpaid maternity leave, since the federal government doesn't require employers to pay workers during a parental leave, the situation becomes infinitely more challenging.

         Rachel Gillett’s purpose for creating this article is to spread awareness to the United States government and American business employers on why it is best to adopt a paid parental leave policy. To do this, she discussed plenty of evidences that support the effectiveness of paid paternity leave. The article includes a study from the Center for Women and Work at Rutgers University that discovered that, “Women who had taken advantage of New Jersey's paid-family-leave policy were far more likely than mothers who hadn't to be working nine to 12 months after the birth of their child.” The study also found these women to be 39% less likely to receive public assistance and 40% less likely to receive food stamps in the year following a child's birth compared to those who didn't take any leave. Another evidence discussed by Rachel Gillett was a research out of The Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) in Bonn  that indicates higher education, IQ, and income levels in adulthood for children of mothers who used maternity leave — the biggest effect comes for children from lower-educated households. The researchers cited this as a significant discussion for policymakers to have, as it could reduce the existing gap in education and income in the US.

           Furthermore, the possible audience for the article would be the Americans since it centers on the current condition of the work force of the United States. Gillett aims to garner support from the American society in her belief of the need for the enactment of paid parental leave. The adoption of laws to enable workers to meet work and family obligations around the world has largely been in response to the massive growth in women's participation in the labor force over the past century.

          After thoroughly reading Rachel Gillett’s article, I noted that she was able to use two out of three of Aristotle’s Appeals which are Logos and Ethos. She was able to cite logical evidences, factual data and statistics, citations from experts and authorities, and real life examples to support her claim and her reasons. Additionally, she included researches, studies, and reports from various authentic sources as well as quotations from respected people like Barack Obama and Susan Wojcicki. This can be seen in the statement, “According to a report last year from the President's Council of Economic Advisers, more than 90% of employers affected by California's paid family-leave initiative reported either positive or no noticeable effect on profitability, turnover, and morale.” Due to this, Gillett was able to create a strong argument that was able to convince her audience that her proposition makes sense and is the best and most reasonable course to adopt. Moreover, she was able to demonstrate that she is fair, thoughtful, open-minded, honest, and knowledgeable. Thus, the audience will sense that she is a trustworthy and credible author.  Also, she was able to build her ethos by showing that she was well-informed about the topic and that she researched broadly and used the best sources from experts. Also, Gillett exhibited responsibility in representing others’ views accurately and fairly.

          The type of claim that can be depicted in the article is claim of value. The title of the article, “Why Paid Parental Leave is good for everyone” itself showed that she expressed approval in the policy and attempts to prove it by adding claims of fact as support. Her proof contained standards of evaluation, the priority of the value in this instance, the advantage of her standards, and examples to clarify abstract values. Gillett was able to portray this as she included in the article, “But while extended paid leave for new parents is a hot trend for major tech giants, most people don't work in these companies or at the executive level, and currently only about 12% of American companies offer paid maternity or paternity leave, according to the Society for Human Resource Management. That's down from 17% in 2010.”

           In addition, Rachel Gillett was able to avoid logical fallacies as she did not use false authority to cite the opinion of someone, but instead she used someone who had expertise in the subject at hand as exemplified in the article, “As President Barack Obama said during one of his weekly addresses last summer, "Family leave, childcare, flexibility — these aren't frills. They're basic needs. They shouldn't be bonuses – they should be the bottom line." In addition, she was able to avoid false causality since she was able to present her idea by associating each connected events as well as identifying the cause and effect to be able to make a valid correlation. Thus, she was able to logically reason out the problem. However, one fallacy Gillett committed was anonymous authority as distinguished in the line,” The researchers cited this as a significant discussion for policymakers to have, as it could reduce the existing gap in education and income in the US.” The authority in question is not named. Hence, it is impossible to confirm that the authority is an expert.

         In terms of intertextuality, Rachel Gillett used allusion as evidenced by the statement,” Wojcicki reported the rate at which new moms left Google fell by 50% when in 2007 it increased paid maternity leave from 12 weeks to 18 weeks.” This can also be seen to her reference to former President Barack Obama as previously mentioned. Because of her utilization of allusion, Gillett was able to simplify complex ideas and emotions. Thus, the readers were able to comprehend the complex ideas by comparing the emotions of the writer to the references given by them. Furthermore, the allusions that were provided help the readers to visualize what's happening by evoking a mental picture.          The effect of his choices to the main claim in the text is that it leads the readers to evaluate in her belief as well as steer towards debate. This is due to the reason that people may support or go against her idea in creating a paid parental leave policy. As a result, people will argue whose view is better or more valuable. Moreover, claims of value ultimately involve a comparison (explicit or implicit) and express approval or disapproval of standards. To fashion a sound claim of value, Gillett employed standards with which her audience will expectantly agree.  

         In conclusion, Rachel Gillett’s article is well-written as she was able to properly organize her ideas that allowed her to effectively convey the theme and purpose of her article. With the use of Aristotle’s appeals like logos and ethos, she was able to evoke a cognitive and rational response and also let the readers recognize her as someone who is reliable, trustworthy, competent, and credible. One other strength in her text was that she had minimal fallacies committed. Therefore, there were little flaws in her reasoning that did not lead to illogical statements and her arguments did not fall apart due to her correct connection making. Furthermore, Gillett used credible sources to support her claim. She also used intertext, particularly allusion, which encouraged one to think more deeply about what they are reading.

        However, Rachel Gillett was not able to make use of pathos, one of Aristotle’s appeals. Consequently, she failed to evoke an emotional response from the readers. Pathos is quite important as it stirs up a variety of emotions that can easily persuade the audience to agree in the author’s claims since humans are emotional beings. If she was able to include pathos in her article, she could have developed an emotional connection with readers instead of relying heavily on facts such as studies or researches. Another weakness I have observed is that there were barely any opinions of the author involved in the article. Basically, the article was a collection of statements from other people or institutions. It is still advisable to incorporate her thoughts on the subject even if a reader could tell her opinion on the matter. Overall, the article is still worth the read since it is a subject that not a lot of people talk about. Additionally, the topic is a prevalent issue in the United States, so Rachel Gillett was able to make an appropriate assertion on the matter.

 REFERENCES

Brunswick, J. (2012).  “Rutgers Study Finds Paid Family Leave Leads to         Positive Economic Outcomes” Retrieved on February 28, 2017 from http://news.rutgers.edu/news-releases/2012/01/rutgers-study-finds-20120118#.WLV6PVV97IV

Fondas, N. (2013). “Why Paid Family Leave Is Good for Everyone (Even People Who Don't Use It)” Retrieved on February 28, 2017 from https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/07/why-paid-family-leave-is-good-for-everyone-even-people-who-dont-use-it/277577/

Gillett, R. (2015). “Why paid parental leave is good for everyone” Retrieved on February 28, 2017 from http://www.businessinsider.com/scientific-proof-paid-parental-leave-is-good-for-everyone

Gillett, R. (2015). “20 great places for new moms to work”. Retrieved on February 28, 2017 from http://www.businessinsider.com/the-best-places-for-new-moms-to-work-2015-6

Laughlin, L. (2011). “Maternity Leave and Employment Patterns of First-Time Mothers: 1961–2008” Retrieved on February 28, 2017 from https://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p70-128.pdf