The authors in this week 's reading displayed an interestingly skillful use of logos, pathos, and ethos to help persuade the reader to share the writer 's viewpoint on gender equality. In certain works, a specific type of rhetorical appeal prevails over the others. A great example of this is Judith Sargent Murray 's "On the Equality of the Sexes." In this work, she primarily utilizes logos to support her main point that males are not mentally superior to women. Once again, logos is an appeal to logic, in which the author attempts to persuade the audience with evidence and valid reasoning.
Alice Dreger, a historian, proved to the viewers that people do draw the line between sex because our social categories are being threatened. Much of her evidence proved that sex wasn’t simplistic as we thought. It is complicated. There is no clear line. According to Dreger, it is rather fuzzy.
The Evolution of “Slut” “Words themselves are innocuous; it is the consensus that gives them true power” so says Gloria Naylor. She made this powerful observation in her essay “Mommy, What Does ‘Nigger’ Mean?” which clearly depicts how a single word, in this case “nigger”, can have several different connotations under different conditions. We all know the social definition of “nigger,” but Naylor sheds light on other definitions. Women use “my nigger” as a possessive term to describe their significant other. Also, as Naylor states, “the word was applied to a man who had distinguished himself in some situation that brought… approval for his strength.” She similarly depicts the word as “the pure essence of manhood.” She discovered that a word can mean several things based how it is said and the connotation of the word.
The essay, “What I’ve Learned from Men”, by Barbara Ehrenreich is an impressive piece of writing focusing on a significant theme which is still present and is witnessed to this day. The theme that the author discusses is the on-going gender issues shedding light on the differences between men and women. Throughout the essay, Ehrenreich argues about the one thing women need to learn from men: how to be tough. She support this argument by providing a personal experience, taking her back to the time when she didn’t acknowledge the quality of being tough and falling victim to sexual harassment. She then explains this act as “behaving like a lady” and continues to support her claim by stating facts describing how women tend to act nice or “as a lady” by being the ones responsible to keep the conversation with a man going and constantly smiling even when unneeded and even when expressing anger and displeasure.
By using both of these literary devices, Syfers effectively presents her thesis that “it is more advantageous to be in a husband’s position than a wife’s”. However, the essay itself is outdated, and although gender roles are still prevalent, a wife does not have that many more, if any, laborious tasks than a husband does in present time. The ageless statement made by Syfers in her essay is not how husbands are much better off than wives; it is a question asking, what will you do about the inequalities in our
When an author wants their writing to be persuasive they can take a number of approaches. But common to all almost all argumentative writings are appeals to logos, ethos, or pathos. A delicate balance of these appeals will ensure a compelling and effectual argument. It is largely up to the author how they decide to persuade a reader of their argument. A critical analysis of the persuasive essay “Two Ways a Woman Can Get Hurt” by Jean Kilbourne reveals a strong argument that appeals to logic, ethics, and, given the sensitive nature of the subject matter, an extensive appeal to pathos.
Both the play Real Women Have Curves by Josefina Lopez and the movie adaptation make an attempt to communicate the message of female empowerment through their respective protagonists, Estela and Ana. Men resolve most of Ana’s problems, whereas Estela relies on herself and other women. The play conveys the theme of female empowerment because it is female-centric, successfully addresses the issues of body image, and focuses on women’s independence and self-validation. Lopez’s play serves as an example of what can happen when women uplift and depend on each other, as opposed to men. In comparison to the movie, the play undermines male dominance by focusing on women’s efforts to solve their own problems.
This gives the audience a chance to think and reflect on the question. When she brings up these questions, it makes it an important topic to the readers or audience. This is illustrated again when Le Guin states, “ Why should a free woman with an education either fight Mochoman or serve him? Why should she live her life on his terms?” (2). She uses this to emphasize her point, and to get the audience thinking about the question.
It is stated that Murray was one of the first women who argued “women’s capacity to reason.” Murray argued for the same men and women educational facilities, inaugurating change within the socialization. Murray also joined reformations with other women against the reconstruction of gender equality. Galewski’s close reading of Murray’s text reveals two types of irony used within, romantic and dialectical. The ironies coordinate within each other in the text which makes the argument more persuasive. However, Murray’s argument successfully conveys women’s mental potential.
She applies this idea to the fact that ‘the determining male gaze projects its phantasy onto the female figure, which is styled accordingly’, but not necessarily represent her accurately. Whoever holds the dominant position of power can represent the oppressed masses however they choose, regardless of the strength of the oppressed individual. Indeed, Alisoun makes this analogy not long after she says ‘stibourn I was as is a leonesse’ (l.637): powerful, but forced into subservience by (mis)representation in a society which privileges the male gaze. Further, though Alisoun’s voice challenges this double standard, we must not forget that she Chaucer’s creation. He is inscribing a female voice which critiques the very action of inscribing the female voice, making it necessarily and paradoxically inauthentic.