6 thoughts on “Mark: Analysis Paper 2 – Difference: “Ben””
Job well done Mark! Your paper was quite interesting to read and closely followed the required guidelines.
I think this paper could be slightly organized better. Your discussion comparing Ben to Leslie Chung (which is a great comparison) starts at the end of page 3 / beginning of page 4. However the last paragraph of the paper revisits this comparison. Perhaps keeping all of that together would have been a little better.
I didn’t realize that the US census bureau does not collect data on sexual orientating. I wonder when they will start to collect that sort of information. I found it interesting that Ben compared himself to a character on the show that is not actually gay. However I can see the connection where both Ben and Schmidt do not want to be defined by labels. I found it interesting that Ben finds the need to “alter his identity” based on the social setting.
It was difficult to find a shortcoming in this paper. One suggestion is to discuss why Ben finds the need to hide is difference a bit earlier. While it is mentioned on page 4, it was a question that popped into my head right after the introduction paragraph.
This paper was very well written and certainly meets all the required standards. Great Job.
According to Mark’s analysis paper, he gives me a comprehensive description of the interviewee Ben and enough information and statistics in regard to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) in the US. In addition, after the great introduction by Mark, I will watch this funny show which I have never watched and will help me know more about LGBT. The major arguments of each article are deduced and applied correctly with the interviews and each analysis relates to the interviewer and his gender closely. Also, the linkage between the peer-reviewed journal and the two articles we read in class is clear. Moreover, Mark cites many contents from the internet which gives us clearer depiction and explanation to understand his analysis. What impresses me most is the TV show New Girl, it demonstrates evidently that both Ben and Schmidt do not want to be defined as difference in the main stream American society and Ben is still confident and comfortable with his identity and does not deny his homosexuality.
Overall, the organization of this article is clear and easy to understand. I think your paper is both excellent in giving us more examples and appropriate analyses in LGBT research.
Hi Mark,
You did a excellent job in your analysis 2! When introducing Ben, you use clear and organizing language. The introduction is very in detail, which make the audience feel more close to the interviewee.
The data you quote from UCLA Williams Institute is credible and explained why you want to make the analysis and how different Ben is.
I love the final part of your paper, which is analyzing Ben linking to three articles. This part is very sufficient and strong supported. You pointed out that “While Leung and Echchaibi articles discuss some attributes assigned to specific differences, Avila-Saavedra clarifies many of the stereotypes”. You demonstrate how the third article complement the above two, which perfectly follow the guideline. You are good at comparing the first two articles with the third one.
Also, I find it interesting that “Ben identify himself in ways similar to Schmidt, a heterosexual character.” Later, from your analysis, it can be observed that there is a connection between them, which is both of them don’t want to be defined by labels.
The weakness of the paper might be that it didn’t strictly follow the guideline. For instance, the content of your final part is perfect, however, it is much more longer that the requirement which is only 0.5 page. You wrote about one page.
Well organized and clear analysis of the interviewee. You started a story telling introduction of Ben, whick is very interesting and I really like it. The detailed information, including numbers and percentage of LGBT group in the US, these information gives me a clear background.
The TV character part, you related Ben to Schmidt. This is quite unusual because Schmidt is a heterosexual character, so Ben and Schmidt seems to be two kinds of different people. You provided some thing they have deeply in common, “eagerly try to appeal to everyone, seeking acceptance and reassurance for their identities by personifying the social norms expected in a given situation”. Then you gave further discussion on how Ben is more subtle than Schmidt.
Also, you stated something deeply in common when related Ben to Muslim men, and you discussed how they were portrayed in the TV( both been labeled, been judged).
I got kind of lost in your analysis part, then I relaized that Ben hid his gay identity on purpose to not let the society to judge him or label him. Maybe you can say that more clearly earlier?
(P.S. I don’t know why I cannot open it on my computer, I can only read it on my phone)
Hey, Mark. This paper is very well written! The paper itself is very organized, clearly written and easy to follow. I saw you did a little bit of changes from the draft I saw last week. I am glad to see the analysis paper get better organized, since you shorten the second article and also elaborated more on peer review. All in all, you did a good job.
After read your analysis paper, I found that you have a detailed description on Ben and the interview content, which helps me have an overall understanding of Ben.
It is really interesting that he identify himself in ways similar to Schmidt, a heterosexual character, because the biggest characteristic of Ben is that he is a homosexual. But they all share a common point that they don’t what to label themselves.
Because our analysis papers are all about homosexual issues, I think you also have a new concept toward homosexual after you did two interviews with Ben as I do. It is really important to know how they think about the society.
Another good part of this analysis paper is how you relate Ben with Leslie Chung that they don’t want to be out as a gay, and they don’t say homosexual issues in public.
Mark, I really enjoyed reading your paper. You write with clarity and precision. You did a great job portraying how reflexively Ben negotiates and adjusts his identity to prevent other as well as himself from getting into awkward situations. After watching the clip you chose during the presentation I understand how Ben picked Schmidt as his identifying character. I agree with other comments that it is interesting that Schmidt is not actually a gay character. I like that Ben chose someone he relates to on an emotional level without necessarily picking a gay character. You cleverly pointed out similarities between Ben and Schmidt and also clarified ways in which they differ. Leung’s article fit extremely well into your analysis. Cheung’s lifelong public ambiguity about his sexual orientation is reflected in Ben waiting 5 years (in the U.S.) until he felt comfortable disclosing his orientation. I was impressed by how well you integrated Echchaibi’s article into your analysis. Perhaps your concluding paragraph could have been a slightly longer. Nevertheless, overall you followed the format and intelligently presented your arguments. Nicely done, Mark!
Job well done Mark! Your paper was quite interesting to read and closely followed the required guidelines.
I think this paper could be slightly organized better. Your discussion comparing Ben to Leslie Chung (which is a great comparison) starts at the end of page 3 / beginning of page 4. However the last paragraph of the paper revisits this comparison. Perhaps keeping all of that together would have been a little better.
I didn’t realize that the US census bureau does not collect data on sexual orientating. I wonder when they will start to collect that sort of information. I found it interesting that Ben compared himself to a character on the show that is not actually gay. However I can see the connection where both Ben and Schmidt do not want to be defined by labels. I found it interesting that Ben finds the need to “alter his identity” based on the social setting.
It was difficult to find a shortcoming in this paper. One suggestion is to discuss why Ben finds the need to hide is difference a bit earlier. While it is mentioned on page 4, it was a question that popped into my head right after the introduction paragraph.
This paper was very well written and certainly meets all the required standards. Great Job.
According to Mark’s analysis paper, he gives me a comprehensive description of the interviewee Ben and enough information and statistics in regard to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) in the US. In addition, after the great introduction by Mark, I will watch this funny show which I have never watched and will help me know more about LGBT. The major arguments of each article are deduced and applied correctly with the interviews and each analysis relates to the interviewer and his gender closely. Also, the linkage between the peer-reviewed journal and the two articles we read in class is clear. Moreover, Mark cites many contents from the internet which gives us clearer depiction and explanation to understand his analysis. What impresses me most is the TV show New Girl, it demonstrates evidently that both Ben and Schmidt do not want to be defined as difference in the main stream American society and Ben is still confident and comfortable with his identity and does not deny his homosexuality.
Overall, the organization of this article is clear and easy to understand. I think your paper is both excellent in giving us more examples and appropriate analyses in LGBT research.
Hi Mark,
You did a excellent job in your analysis 2! When introducing Ben, you use clear and organizing language. The introduction is very in detail, which make the audience feel more close to the interviewee.
The data you quote from UCLA Williams Institute is credible and explained why you want to make the analysis and how different Ben is.
I love the final part of your paper, which is analyzing Ben linking to three articles. This part is very sufficient and strong supported. You pointed out that “While Leung and Echchaibi articles discuss some attributes assigned to specific differences, Avila-Saavedra clarifies many of the stereotypes”. You demonstrate how the third article complement the above two, which perfectly follow the guideline. You are good at comparing the first two articles with the third one.
Also, I find it interesting that “Ben identify himself in ways similar to Schmidt, a heterosexual character.” Later, from your analysis, it can be observed that there is a connection between them, which is both of them don’t want to be defined by labels.
The weakness of the paper might be that it didn’t strictly follow the guideline. For instance, the content of your final part is perfect, however, it is much more longer that the requirement which is only 0.5 page. You wrote about one page.
Hello Mark~
Well organized and clear analysis of the interviewee. You started a story telling introduction of Ben, whick is very interesting and I really like it. The detailed information, including numbers and percentage of LGBT group in the US, these information gives me a clear background.
The TV character part, you related Ben to Schmidt. This is quite unusual because Schmidt is a heterosexual character, so Ben and Schmidt seems to be two kinds of different people. You provided some thing they have deeply in common, “eagerly try to appeal to everyone, seeking acceptance and reassurance for their identities by personifying the social norms expected in a given situation”. Then you gave further discussion on how Ben is more subtle than Schmidt.
Also, you stated something deeply in common when related Ben to Muslim men, and you discussed how they were portrayed in the TV( both been labeled, been judged).
I got kind of lost in your analysis part, then I relaized that Ben hid his gay identity on purpose to not let the society to judge him or label him. Maybe you can say that more clearly earlier?
(P.S. I don’t know why I cannot open it on my computer, I can only read it on my phone)
Overall, great paper~
Hey, Mark. This paper is very well written! The paper itself is very organized, clearly written and easy to follow. I saw you did a little bit of changes from the draft I saw last week. I am glad to see the analysis paper get better organized, since you shorten the second article and also elaborated more on peer review. All in all, you did a good job.
After read your analysis paper, I found that you have a detailed description on Ben and the interview content, which helps me have an overall understanding of Ben.
It is really interesting that he identify himself in ways similar to Schmidt, a heterosexual character, because the biggest characteristic of Ben is that he is a homosexual. But they all share a common point that they don’t what to label themselves.
Because our analysis papers are all about homosexual issues, I think you also have a new concept toward homosexual after you did two interviews with Ben as I do. It is really important to know how they think about the society.
Another good part of this analysis paper is how you relate Ben with Leslie Chung that they don’t want to be out as a gay, and they don’t say homosexual issues in public.
Mark, I really enjoyed reading your paper. You write with clarity and precision. You did a great job portraying how reflexively Ben negotiates and adjusts his identity to prevent other as well as himself from getting into awkward situations. After watching the clip you chose during the presentation I understand how Ben picked Schmidt as his identifying character. I agree with other comments that it is interesting that Schmidt is not actually a gay character. I like that Ben chose someone he relates to on an emotional level without necessarily picking a gay character. You cleverly pointed out similarities between Ben and Schmidt and also clarified ways in which they differ. Leung’s article fit extremely well into your analysis. Cheung’s lifelong public ambiguity about his sexual orientation is reflected in Ben waiting 5 years (in the U.S.) until he felt comfortable disclosing his orientation. I was impressed by how well you integrated Echchaibi’s article into your analysis. Perhaps your concluding paragraph could have been a slightly longer. Nevertheless, overall you followed the format and intelligently presented your arguments. Nicely done, Mark!