Rhetorical Analysis Of Susie O Brien

This does not add up to ‘because her mother is transphobic’. Then, in Save the I-Hotel, opposition could argue that the quote,“Nobody knows you here, just the work you do, just the color of your face” is just a practical implication that Filipino workers simply feel underappreciated by their bosses. Nevertheless, the author cleverly uses words since all of the parts of the sentence perfectly align with each other. The quote, “Nobody knows you here, just the work you do, just the color of your face” has words that represent a tool: “just the work you do, just the color of your face” talk about the characteristics of how we see a tool, which are seeing if the tools works and rusty color of the tool. All of these words placed are with thought.

(68). Because Myra unknowingly spoke on behalf of Sebold’s rape, she seems to convey a confused tone on the subject. By saying “no one’s interested in me that way” she alters the rapist’s image from one with malicious intentions, to one who simply is seeking a romantic relationship. Not only is Sebold forced to handle comments like

In the essay “What’s Wrong with Gay Marriage?” (2003), Katha Pollitt refutes all of the reasons why people think gay marriage is wrong. The author expounds on this argument by first showing that procreation is not a requirement for marriage because there are many straight married couples who don’t have children, the next argument that is refuted is that women domesticate men, but married men and un-married men still commit suicide and still do drugs so marriage won’t change that, and the final argument that was refuted was the argument made about historical marriages, but marriage has always been here and always will be and much of historical marriages polygyny was often as well as forced, arranged, and child marriage. By refuting

To a certain extent the theme rich vs poor can also relate to society. For instance, because the first impressions of the “hood” are always bad, we just assume they are belligerent and bad. However, in reality, people that dress well and have an impressive demeanor is not always good. As people make these assumptions, they often do not see the dreadful and idiotic things they do. For example, Donald Trump had been accused of sexual harassment by eight women and there has been nothing done to help these women.

James Michael Nichols invites readers of The Huffington Post to “Meet the First Openly Gay Miss America Contestant In History”. “Missouri Woman Is Miss America Pageant’s First openly Lesbian Contestant”, writes Christine Hauser for The New York Times. Monica Hesse of The Washington Post asks “What’s a nice lesbian like you doing at Miss America?” All of these titles share a common theme. They celebrate the sexuality of the latest Miss America Pageant winner, Erin O’Flaherty.

Greta Christina’s observation and opinion is clearly stated in her essay, “Trans People and Basic Human Rights.” Christina addresses one of the biggest topics that is greatly discussed about today, cisgender people and their botheration with transgender people. Her thesis, why do cisgender people care, is straightforward in that she starts off by agreeing with the opposing side and going to explain why cisgender people care and how they should not care. Although Christina’s point of view is skewed toward her opinion, she clearly explains the process she goes through when accepting transgender people, how she cannot be the voice of transgender for she is not one herself, and later goes into statistics that support her point. However, her argument is invalid because of the fact that she herself is not transgender (as she states) and her attempts at bringing down the opposing argument are weak.

She becomes sarcastic once more as she states “ I have never been called crude names, like “fatso” or “lard bucket.” In reality, she has been called all of those crude names which is precisely why she does not want to call others of size the same names that she is being called. The crude names that others have called Peck demonstrates her point of view of discrimination against people of size. Progressing on, the author addresses more about how she never picks up magazines and reads the criticism that the authors receive for portraying overweight women. Peck is highly cautious with her words as she says “I have never picked up a magazine with the photograph of a naked woman of substance on the cover, to read, in the following issue, thirty letters to editor addressing sizeism..”

Persecution comes from people who are prejudiced. Prejudice” (chapter 26) this quote is extremely ironic throughout this novel and she is showing complete arrogance as she is acting in the same mannerisms as Hitler as she targets a single group of people but instead

Dimming was quick to tell Catherine that Melody shouldn’t be there to take a tryout test for the quiz team, and later the whole team ended up discriminating her for her disability. “You know; I don’t think it’s appropriate for Melody to be there. This is not a recreational activity just for fun. The purpose of this meeting is to choose our official team.” Catherine was quick to tell him the law and politely let Melody take the test.

She was only written with negative character traits which made it so characters or readers were never able to sympathize with her. Next, no character ever had a turning point where they saw Curley’s wife as more than exactly that, Curley’s wife. And finally, he never gave her a name. There was a great imbalance between sexism and making the readers question the sexism. If Steinbeck had chosen to give the woman some justice the message against sexism would have been stronger.

argued that Adam had not been made in the image of God, and that Adam had never received the seal of the spirit. Anne Hutchinson believed that she was directly inspired by the spirit of the scripture. Many felt that Vane and Hutchinson were suggesting that the instructions of the scripture was unnecessary. Hutchinson’s criticism of the Puritans for what she considered to be a narrow concept of morality and her protests against the authority of the clergy were widely supported by Bostonians at first. But soon afterwards when John Winthrop opposed her she lost much of her support after he won election as governor.

Not only did the reaction of Kitty 's neighbors demonstrate how gruesome this era was, but they also displayed a recurring theme in American history. Nobody that noticed Kitty 's altercation attempted to aid the helpless woman. When interviewed, most replied, "I didn 't want to get involved" (122) or some form of that response, such as, "I didn 't want my husband to get involved" (122). One woman even responded with, "We thought it was lover 's quarrel" (122). Although none of these are reasonable excuses, they do not reach the level of selfishness one man 's response does.

She believes the growing political correctness in our country and government censorship solves nothing and actually causes more problems than it solves (660). She claims that such actions “selectively [erase] history” (660). Reynolds claims that political correctness and censorship are actually hurting efforts to overcome racism and other acceptance issues. She states not being able to freely discuss issues such as “race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation” is harming the efforts for understanding and acceptance because individuals are not discussing them at all and therefore it hinders them from gaining new perspectives (660). She finishes her argument by stating that the bill will smother our freedom and ability to have productive conversations about Native American history in our culture (660).

Moreover, O’Brien’s miscellaneous word choice, and fragmented sentence structure play a huge role in reflecting his thoughts on the war. It helps readers understand the significance of the chapter, and connect us to the author on a deeper level. O’Brien’s short, and repetitive sentences mirror his personal struggles, and allow the audience to learn more about him. For example, the last sentence of “Spin” is, “..nothing to remember except the story.” (39)

Though O'Brien's use of juxtaposition and shifts in point of view, he is able to not only show the “crazy powers of war”, but also conveys how war stories aren't true unless they are unbelievable. O’Brien talks about how believable war stories are made up as well as how “a true war story is never moral [and]... if [it]... seems moral, do not believe it” (O’Brien 65). The Vietnam war was a dark and horrific place for a lot of people, and O’Brien helps share those emotions through his “non-moral stories”. In one of the stories O’Brien describes a story where they are in middle of the jungle they heard “chamber music “ and “all these different voices…[then a] cocktail party” (O’Brien 71).