Forgetful Freedoms: Reading Lolita in Tehran

We’ve all heard that saying, you haven’t missed something until it’s gone. It is those small things in life that we simply forget are so important in our everyday life, our forgetful freedoms. These small things are the basis of our life, and many of us would be shocked if our simple freedoms were taken away. Many people outside of America do not have the same freedoms as we do. As an American, the very thought of not being able to express myself in print is something that I would find extremely shocking. After all, I have been taught that I have the freedom of speech. I could not fathom the idea of having my basic freedoms taken away. However, everyday someone in the world is being treated unjustly by the denial of these basic American freedoms, such as those in Reading Lolita in Tehran. In Reading Lolita in Tehran there was one conversation that surprised me most about the lack of freedom in Tehran. The conversation that surprised me about the lack of freedom in Tehran took place when Sanaz showed up late to the private reading class at Nafisi’s house.

Her story was familiar. A fortnight earlier, Sanaz and five of her girlfriends had gone for a two-day vacation by the Caspian Sea…Sanaz kept emphasizing that they were all properly dressed, with their scarves and long robes. They were all sitting outside, in the garden; six girls and one boy. There were no alcoholic beverages in the house, no undesirable tapes or CDs. (Nafisi 72)

In the first part of this story there is so much that is surprising. Firstly, it is surprising that this is a “familiar” story. The fact that this happens all the time is shocking in and of itself. Secondly, it is shocking that these women are required to wear scarves and long robes. Of course, from the media I have already had prior knowledge on this situation, although it is still outrageous and surprising that in this day and age people are told what to wear in public. In American, it is our freedom to express our individuality through fashion, and there have been many disputes regarding mandatory fashion, such as in school systems. Thirdly, the fact that the people of Iran are not allowed to drink or listen to certain music is appalling. Many fine citizens of the United States partake in the consumption of alcohol, and listen to various types of music every night. Just within a few sentences of the conversation there are already a vast amount of freedoms that are denied of the people of Iran, and that is highly surprising. However, continuing with the story:

And then “they” came with their guns, the morality squads, surprising them by jumping over the low walls. They claimed to have received a report of illegal activities, and wanted to search the premise. Unable to find fault with their appearance, one of the guards sarcastically said that looking at them, with their Western attitudes......The truth of the matter was that their search for alcoholic beverages, tapes and CDs had led to nothing, but they already had a search warrant and didn’t’ want it to go to waste. The guards took all of them to a special jail for infractions in matters of morality.… They were held in that room for forty-eight hours. Despite their repeated requests, they were denied the right to call their parents. Apart from brief excursions to the rest room at appointed times, they left the room twice — the first time to be led to a hospital, where they were given virginity tests by a woman gynecologist, who had her students observe the examinations. Not satisfied with her verdict, the guards took them to a private clinic for a second check. (Nafisi 72)

This final part of the story has to be the most disturbing and startling incident I have read in Reading Lolita in Tehran. These girls were searched unjustifiably, imprisoned due to absurd charges, denied phone calls, and were given forced “virginity tests”. There are so many freedoms here that, from the perspective of an American, were taken away, freedoms that sometimes we take for granted in the United States.

Sometimes it is easy to forget what freedoms are in place in the United States. As Americans we think that there is no other way of living, and that freedom just exists. But that is most certainly not the case for the women of Iran. Some of these women have not even experienced the kind of freedoms we have here, and for them being thrown in jail for unjust reasons is the norm. They might be able to obtain freedom in other ways, like reading, but they never get to experience our kind of freedom. It is certainly surprising to see the kind of freedoms that the people of Iran lack compared to American society, and it really makes me appreciate America even more so. We mustn’t forget our freedoms.

Works Cited

Nafisi, Azar. Reading Lolita in Tehran. New York: Random House, 2004. Print. 28 March 2011.

That 50's Show: Nonverbal Differences between Genders

“Men and women commonly use nonverbal communication in ways that reflect societal expectations” (Gamble). In other words, nonverbal communication within the genders usually shows the “societal expectations” during that time (Gamble). Cues that are connected to language, but are not actual words can be considered nonverbal communication, such as pitch, tone, facial expressions, and touch, and both men and women are different when it comes to these elements.

Women tend to have a higher pitch to their voice than men. This might be due to the fact that men have naturally deeper voices, although some women do not have as squeaky as a voice as they might make others perceive. One thing from childhood that I remember quiet clearly was when my mother was dating there would be an alteration in the pitch of her voice. As soon as her date’s polished black shoe would touch the cold pavement she all the sudden sounded like more “girly”. This change was because she altered the pitch of her voice to a higher form, and she fit the “societal expectations” of her gender role. My mother does not have a deep voice, although you will not find her filling in for any Disney princess character.

The tone of men and women have can be vastly different but they can also be similar, and I think the current time indicates what the tone will be like for both genders, like the 1950s. In the ‘50s there was a distinguishable difference between men and women when it came to tone. Women were portrayed as whimsical with their tone, almost sing-song. This was attractive, and made women seem more feminine, thus their tone reflected their society’s expectations of their extreme femininity. Men of course did not have this sing-song characteristic with their tone, although some had a serious and stern tone.

I think the best example of this difference in tone would be Red and Kitty, despite the fact that they are from That 70’s Show they were definitely stuck in the ‘50s. Kitty had a whimsical tone, while Red was serious and stern with his tone. In addition, I think that Donna was a good example of what tone women take now a days, which is serious and definitely not sing-song. This is of course just generalizing, but television does usually depict what society deems as acceptable, thus the tones used during these time periods indicate what was perceived as “normal” for gender roles.

Facial expressions do differ between men and women. Usually the difference is that women smile a lot, while men do not. I see a lot of this at my job, Subway. The women working at Subway will smile a lot more, than the men working there. Of course, many of them do not have a reason to smile, but it is often times seen that women have this friendly demeanor as opposed to the men.

I do not necessarily agree with the idea that “men are much more likely to touch women than women are to touch men” (Gamble). I have been born and raised in a Western culture, and it has always been looked down upon if a man touches a woman. In fact, I had this very conversation between my mother and boyfriend. We discussed how it usually means something when a man touches a woman, and if that woman is not inviting this touch, then it is frowned upon greatly by society. I do not know if it is the physical power that most men have over women, but it is seen as less invasive and dominating when a women touches a man. Women are less threatening due to their lack of physical superiority, and that is probably the reason as to why it is seen as okay by my mother and boyfriend for a woman to touch a man, but not for a man to touch a women. Then again, they could be biased on the fact that both of them do not want another man to touch me.

Both men and women are different from each other when it comes to nonverbal cues, such as pitch, tone, facial expressions, and touch. It makes sense that women and men are different when it comes to these aspects of nonverbal communication, after all, they depict the gender roles of that time due to the “societal expectations” (Gamble). Having these differences in nonverbal communication allows for a clear distinction between the two genders.

Works Cited

Gamble, Teri Kwal, Michael W. Gamble. “Nonverbal Behavior: Culture, Gender, and the Media.” Exploring Language. Ed. Suzanna P. Chambers. New York: Pearson, 2010. 147. Print. 8 March 2011.

You talk too much, you are so quiet: The Exploration of Speech Patterns and Stereotypes

I used to be that shy quiet girl, and I still am from time to time. In middle school I would hide my face in the mist of my hair, and hope that no one would talk to me. I guess you could say I was introverted at one point in my life. Those that know me now, know that is definitely not the case any longer. The problem is, people perceived me as thick and dull due to this lack of communication. People would try and break through my shell, but I would not have it. I liked the quiet. This quiet let my thoughts and feelings flourish like a lush garden in my mind, but no one knew that. This did not change people’s opinions about me either. I was that stereotypical weird introverted girl with the dark clothing and hunched over fast paced walk, all due to my lack of communication with my peers. Much like my middle school experience woman are often perceived as ignorant because they often times do not dominate a conversation with a member of the opposite sex, which is often due to their need to support a conversation and not look as if they are “showing off”.

This speech pattern of not lecturing or dominating during a conversation with a male, creates a stereotypical perception of the female gender. The speech pattern that a woman usually partakes in while conversing with a man is supportive feedback. Of course this is not for all instances, but when a man tries to dominate the conversation the woman usually is given the role as a listener, and the man takes over the role as the lecturer. It is often times in a woman’s nature to follow this gender role, as a non-domineering figure in the conversation. Woman will give supportive feedback, since they are in the role of listening. However, being in this role of listening backfires on a woman, and in turn creates a stereotypical perception. When women are in the role of listening they are quiet, and do not contribute to the conversation. This quietness is perceived as not knowing anything about the topic, thus learning new information from the lecturer. Therefore, the woman is seen as ignorant, and the stereotype that women are unknowing docile creatures is enforced.

As a quiet young girl in middle school, I was confined to this similar stereotype of ignorance, although I decided that not communicating my knowledge will not do any good. Some women may think that they are just supporting the conversation, but they are also unknowingly supporting this stereotype of ignorance due to their quiet speech pattern. Of course it is not always the man dominating the conversation, and many times women will be seen in the light of the other stereotype that they talk too much. However, that is why they are considered stereotypes, because they do not apply to all. Being a supportive figure in a conversation is not a bad thing, but adding to a conversation is not bad either.

Doubletalk: The impact of English globalization

Do you remember Doubletalk? It was that weird “dialect” of English that was spoken all over the school grounds. Children of the 90s most likely experienced it, or even spoke it. Since I am a creation of the 90s, I would know. Doubletalk was an alteration of English, and it turned English into this special little language that only fellow classmates were able to decode. This was done by altering the endings or beginnings of words to make them appear as if they were new exotic words. Different dialects of English are plentiful, and different cultures make English their own just like I did as a child.

The globalization of English would have a massive impact on the language itself due to the fact that the language would be altered. This alteration would be on the premise that the language would be introduced to new cultures, which consist of different languages. This globalization of English would also influence the evolution of English because of its expansion and alteration. Undoubtedly, if English were to actually be globalized then the English language would have a huge expansion and alteration. This idea that English would change and grow is based off of the idea of dialects. There are many different dialects of English, which range from Doubletalk to black speech, or African-American vernacular English. African-American vernacular English represents the change or evolution and expansion of the English language, which in turn represents the impact that globalization could have on English.

African-American dialect represents the impact that globalization would have on the English language through alteration. The origin of black speech was said to be “after the great migration to the North from World War I to the 1970s, blacks were segregated in urban ghettoes, had less contact with whites than they had in places like Springville, and their speech began to develop new features, as all human speech does when people are separated culturally and have little communication” (MacNeil). This separation altered English language because blacks were not in contact with whites to be taught the correct format of English. African-American vernacular English is a dialect of English, and “is recognized as having its own internal consistency and grammatical forms" (MacNeil). Black speech not only altered the English language, but it expanded it, thus enacting evolution of the English language.

Though Doubletalk was created for fun and secrecy on the playground, it still gave children the ability to communicate through an altered form of English, much like blacks are able to communicate efficiently though African-American vernacular English. If English were to globalize, then the language would change and expand. Dialects show that this would happen if other languages and cultures were to conform to the English language. This is simply because if the English language changes with people who already speak English then it will undoubtedly change with people of another language. It is also clear that the environments in which people are in help change and expand English language. There are many different dialects in the world for every culture. Dialects alter and expand English language, and with the globalization of English it would definitely change and expand as well.

Works Cited
MacNeil, Robert. “Do you Speak American?.” Exploring Language. Ed. Suzanna P. Chambers. New York: Pearson, 2010. 147. Print. 8 March 2011.

Small words create big ideas

Many students use words that look very long and complex, and most of the time they do not even know what these words mean. I come across this all the time when I am tutoring a student in writing. I am also a victim to this idea that by using big elaborate words my writing will look more scholarly. Although after reading an article by Richard Lederer, who is a well known author on books relating to language, I found out that the big words do not make a piece of writing any better. Richard Lederer’s article titled, The Case for Short Words, gave me the most useful information for improving my own writing by giving me the chance to reduce the confusion of my readers, side-step the idea that bigger words make profound writing, and allow for me to express my ideas in a clearer manner, all by writing simply.

I like to throw in elaborate and complex words into my essays just because it looks more academic, although these complex words can cause confusion for the audience. Who doesn’t want to look smart? Of course we all want to look smart, but sometimes if we use big words, they can confuse the reader. As Lederer puts it “Big words can make the way dark for those who read what you write and hear what you say”. This means that big words can make it hard for the reader to understand what you are saying, and these words will put them in the dark. There really is no need for big words as long as you can get your idea across to the reader. I am now trying to add this idea of short wording to my own writing so I will not confuse my readers.

When one wants to look academic and profound there is no need for big words. One can be just as deep with their writing as they would be with big words by using small words. There is a certain “power of small words” which is shown through such examples as Shakespeare, Winston Churchill, and Robert Frost. All of these famous people were able to let light shine on their written works of art just by using simple words. Using small words does not mean there will be no detail or lack of imagery. There are plenty of monosyllabic words in the English language according to Lederer, so there should be no trouble being able to depict descriptive and creative writing. Thus, big words are not needed to be deep because there are so many words to choose from.

By using short words I can also express the idea that I am trying to get across to my reader in an easier way. I do not have to strain to think about what intricate and multi-faceted words I have to use, but instead I can focus on my message. After all, the main reason for writing is usually to get an idea across. So, by using small words I will be able to express my ideas more clearly because my message is my focus.

From Lederer’s article I learned that the idea that writing really long words does not allow for better writing, but can really impact a piece of writing in a negative manner. Using complicated words can cause confusion for the reader. Also, using big words does not mean that a piece of writing is going to be profound. Lastly, by making use of small words ideas can be more direct and clear. The cliché that less is more definitely fits this situation. By using fewer words you and your audience gain more knowledge on the subject.

Works Cited

Lederer, Richard. “The Case for Short Words.” Exploring Language. Ed. Suzanne P. Chambers. New York: Pearson, 2010. 122-124. Print.