Throughout my reading of The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan, I've been intrigued by how she pulls back -- and then tears apart -- the layers of sexism in 1960's America. In each chapter, Friedan covers a specific topic and brings in various devices to support her ideas (discussed in my previous IRB post). However, at the end of each chapter, Friedan seamlessly transitions into the next topic by raising questions about how certain sexist standards came to be and their effects on American women. Unfortunately, I wasn't sure if this device had a name, or if it even was a rhetorical device. Thanks to Mr. Mulherin, learned man of history and apparently rhetorical devices, I learned that this is called the Socratic method. (What is it with ancient Greek dudes and English class?)
Friedan discusses women's insatiable search for sex and love in a chapter titled "The Sex Seekers." She makes the claim that women endlessly search for affairs and secret trysts in order to fill a void, a void which is created by a lack of identity and challenge. Toward the end of the chapter, she utilizes the Socratic method by raising several questions, "The shadow of sex without self may be dispelled momentarily in a sunny suburban dream house. But what will these childlike mothers and immature fathers do to their children, in that phantasy paradise where the pursuit of pleasure and things hides the loosening links to complex modern reality? What kind of sons and daughters are raised by girls who become mothers before they have ever faced that reality, or sever their links to it by becoming mothers?" (335-336) These questions are resolved by Friedan in the following chapter discussing a growing passivity and infantilism in America's youth.
In writing The Feminine Mystique, Friedan mainly targeted housewives in 1960's America with the purpose of providing them solidarity and a justification for their frustrated feelings. However, Friedan was also aware that the entirety of America would be criticizing her book -- especially the college presidents, psychologists, and corporations whose sexist actions she calls out. By integrating the Socratic method, Friedan appeals to logos. She progresses from not just from one aspect of sexism to another, but from one layer to another. This shows the breadth and depth of the ways in which misogyny permeates everyday life. Furthermore, the logical progression keeps her skeptics reading in a time when they were all too ready to dismiss her theses.
Saturday, October 31, 2015
Saturday, October 24, 2015
TOW #7: Cecile Richards Defends Planned Parenthood (Written)
"It's just, it's a shame to think that there are people in this country who are so committed to ending women's access to both birth control, and safe and legal abortions, that they'll really resort to any means to try to entrap people, twist the truth, in order to reach their ends, but again, we believe, and why I'm here voluntarily today, is that the facts are on our side; we're proud of the health care we deliver every single year, despite the animosity by some, and we're grateful that the American people stands by Planned Parenthood, as I think the Wall Street Journal showed last night."
A few months earlier, the anti-abortion group Center for Medical Progress released "undercover" videos, which resulted in accusations that Planned Parenthood illegally profits from fetal tissue donation. In investigations since then, the videos have been shown to be doctored and misleading. Nevertheless, that has not stopped a concerted effort from the U.S. government to shut down federal funding to Planned Parenthood. A little less than a month ago, Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, faced a 5-hour-long hearing in front of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The above statement is from Richards defending the organization.
In spite of the statement's length, Richards manages to use a number of rhetorical devices to convince both the House and the American people to bolster their support for Planned Parenthood in a time of unfair and misogynistic scrutiny. Richards appeals to pathos with conniving diction. The verbs "entrap" and "twist" conjure a sinister view of the Center for Medical Progress, as opposed to a simply dishonest one. She makes a point of saying that she is voluntarily at the hearing to imply that the committee's drastic concerns are unfounded and to parallel an emphasis on individuals' (mostly women's) right to choose. Finally, Richards also uses first person plural pronouns when describing Planned Parenthood to create a personal connection with the audience. It is imperative that Richards maintains transparency under such close examination, and the alternative third person would create too much distance and mistrust in the audience.
Richards also appeals to logos, albeit briefly, when she states that the organization believes the facts are on their side. Because this is a spoken defense given shortly, the audience understands that a more detailed explanation of these facts is to come. Those in the American population familiar with the background of the story will understand that some of the evidence is edited to untruthfully convey a certain point. With a mention to the Wall Street Journal, Richards also appeals to ethos. The reference to a well-known, third-party source is intended to convince the audience of Planned Parenthood's reputability. In a final appeal to pathos, Richards expands the magnitude of the hearing by saying that the American people stand by Planned Parenthood. The House and citizens listening understand that this hearing affects not just the organization, but millions of individuals.
- Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America[Transcribed from here]
A few months earlier, the anti-abortion group Center for Medical Progress released "undercover" videos, which resulted in accusations that Planned Parenthood illegally profits from fetal tissue donation. In investigations since then, the videos have been shown to be doctored and misleading. Nevertheless, that has not stopped a concerted effort from the U.S. government to shut down federal funding to Planned Parenthood. A little less than a month ago, Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, faced a 5-hour-long hearing in front of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The above statement is from Richards defending the organization.
In spite of the statement's length, Richards manages to use a number of rhetorical devices to convince both the House and the American people to bolster their support for Planned Parenthood in a time of unfair and misogynistic scrutiny. Richards appeals to pathos with conniving diction. The verbs "entrap" and "twist" conjure a sinister view of the Center for Medical Progress, as opposed to a simply dishonest one. She makes a point of saying that she is voluntarily at the hearing to imply that the committee's drastic concerns are unfounded and to parallel an emphasis on individuals' (mostly women's) right to choose. Finally, Richards also uses first person plural pronouns when describing Planned Parenthood to create a personal connection with the audience. It is imperative that Richards maintains transparency under such close examination, and the alternative third person would create too much distance and mistrust in the audience.
Richards also appeals to logos, albeit briefly, when she states that the organization believes the facts are on their side. Because this is a spoken defense given shortly, the audience understands that a more detailed explanation of these facts is to come. Those in the American population familiar with the background of the story will understand that some of the evidence is edited to untruthfully convey a certain point. With a mention to the Wall Street Journal, Richards also appeals to ethos. The reference to a well-known, third-party source is intended to convince the audience of Planned Parenthood's reputability. In a final appeal to pathos, Richards expands the magnitude of the hearing by saying that the American people stand by Planned Parenthood. The House and citizens listening understand that this hearing affects not just the organization, but millions of individuals.
Sunday, October 18, 2015
TOW #6: "So Relaxed -- Yet So Organized" (Visual)
Because this booklet was distributed by Wellesley and it has images specific to the college, it can be safe to infer that the purpose of the booklet is not just to aid students in the college application process, but to hint that Wellesley is the right school for their readers. The booklet is most likely directed to prospective college students, such as high school juniors and seniors.
The biggest goal for most high school students is -- well, everything. High school students dream of having good grades, spending time with friends, finding suitable careers, and making their family proud, all at the same time. Wellesley shows a great sensitivity to these goals by demonstrating their students have what readers want. It is important to note that the title first emphasizes that the students are relaxed. Even though these students are excitedly moving into accomplished positions, they are still able to have fun and enjoy free time. In the image, the three girls comfortably have their feet up and laughing with each other. The focus in this visual is not Wellesley's campus, academic programs, or financial aid. It is instead on the individual students and their futures. Only the students' first names are provided, which creates an intimate atmosphere with the reader. Students looking at the booklet will picture themselves at Wellesley, with a similar contentment in life and impressive resume. Because these things are what students want, readers will then have a positive connotation with the college. The visual primarily relies on appeals to pathos by including a small text caption and letting the image of the students speak for itself.
Saturday, October 10, 2015
TOW #5: "The Asian Advantage" (Written)
As I was merrily traversing the Internet for TOW ideas, I came across an article titled "The Asian Advantage," complete with a smiling middle-aged white man's author portrait next to it. I clicked on it, ready to hear some more pseudo-science about the Model Minority myth. Although I was pleasantly surprised, I finished the article feeling like the author, Nicholas Kristof, still had some ways to go in making his argument.
Kristof wrote this Op-Ed for the New York Times and clearly intended to reach a general, fairly educated public. The purpose of his article is to explain why Asian-Americans seem to be so much more successful than any other demographic in the United States, but also to overcome the nearsighted mindset resulting from the model minority myth that racism is "over" for Asian-Americans. For what it's worth, Kristof seemed to understand the hesitations readers like me would have toward his credibility. Plain and simple, I'm always a little nervous when a white man decides to wax poetic about race relations in the United States. To appeal to ethos, Kristof references himself in some older articles he authored on white privilege. This shows audience members that he has, at least, a basic understanding of sociological theory and the effects of white privilege in American society.
To achieve the first part of his purpose, Kristof appeals to logos. He includes numerous statistics and studies on the effects of "positive stereotyping" and education status. In a compound appeal to ethos, Kristof also quotes findings from a book on the same topic written by Chinese authors. At the end of the article, when he reminds audience members that discrimination can still be hurtful to Asian-Americans and other racial groups, he uses allusion and narrative to appeal to pathos. He writes, "Why should the success of the children of Asian doctors, nurtured by teachers, be reassuring to a black boy in Baltimore who is raised by a struggling single mom, whom society regards as a potential menace?" Kristof references the string of highly publicized and controversial deaths of black men across the U.S. (Baltimore is likely a reference to the death of Freddie Gray) Additionally, the characterization of the victims appeals to readers' sympathies. He uses the word "boy" instead of man and "struggling single mom" to mimic feelings of vulnerability and helplessness.
Although Kristof covered his research extensively and still showed surprising sensitivity toward racial issues, I still felt that his explanation of "The Asian Advantage" was lacking. His biggest faux pas was to generalize all Asian-Americans as a monolithic, homogeneous group. The references of increased wealth are mostly about East Asians (Koreans, Japanese, Chinese), the group that most white people think of as Asian anyway. Many Southeast Asians (such as Vietnamese, Thai, etc.) struggle in the United States, though this number may not be represented in statistical studies because, guess what, most people forget that Asia includes more than Korea, Japan, and China. Finally, as an Asian-American reader myself, I would have trusted Kristof's argument if he had quoted from more Asian individuals than the single book. Two lone authors cannot possibly represent all the views of Asian-Americans, who, as I've stated, are incredibly diverse and numerous. The article was a fairly interesting read, but it was still a subpar representation of the Asian-American community.
Kristof wrote this Op-Ed for the New York Times and clearly intended to reach a general, fairly educated public. The purpose of his article is to explain why Asian-Americans seem to be so much more successful than any other demographic in the United States, but also to overcome the nearsighted mindset resulting from the model minority myth that racism is "over" for Asian-Americans. For what it's worth, Kristof seemed to understand the hesitations readers like me would have toward his credibility. Plain and simple, I'm always a little nervous when a white man decides to wax poetic about race relations in the United States. To appeal to ethos, Kristof references himself in some older articles he authored on white privilege. This shows audience members that he has, at least, a basic understanding of sociological theory and the effects of white privilege in American society.
To achieve the first part of his purpose, Kristof appeals to logos. He includes numerous statistics and studies on the effects of "positive stereotyping" and education status. In a compound appeal to ethos, Kristof also quotes findings from a book on the same topic written by Chinese authors. At the end of the article, when he reminds audience members that discrimination can still be hurtful to Asian-Americans and other racial groups, he uses allusion and narrative to appeal to pathos. He writes, "Why should the success of the children of Asian doctors, nurtured by teachers, be reassuring to a black boy in Baltimore who is raised by a struggling single mom, whom society regards as a potential menace?" Kristof references the string of highly publicized and controversial deaths of black men across the U.S. (Baltimore is likely a reference to the death of Freddie Gray) Additionally, the characterization of the victims appeals to readers' sympathies. He uses the word "boy" instead of man and "struggling single mom" to mimic feelings of vulnerability and helplessness.
Although Kristof covered his research extensively and still showed surprising sensitivity toward racial issues, I still felt that his explanation of "The Asian Advantage" was lacking. His biggest faux pas was to generalize all Asian-Americans as a monolithic, homogeneous group. The references of increased wealth are mostly about East Asians (Koreans, Japanese, Chinese), the group that most white people think of as Asian anyway. Many Southeast Asians (such as Vietnamese, Thai, etc.) struggle in the United States, though this number may not be represented in statistical studies because, guess what, most people forget that Asia includes more than Korea, Japan, and China. Finally, as an Asian-American reader myself, I would have trusted Kristof's argument if he had quoted from more Asian individuals than the single book. Two lone authors cannot possibly represent all the views of Asian-Americans, who, as I've stated, are incredibly diverse and numerous. The article was a fairly interesting read, but it was still a subpar representation of the Asian-American community.
Sunday, October 4, 2015
TOW #4: The Feminine Mystique (IRB)
The most difficult part about reading The Feminine Mystique is that it was written in the 1960's for an audience living in the 1960's. Many times, I almost wished I could back to the 1960's and read Friedan's book then, so that I would feel just how enormous her impact was. For most of the book, I find myself nodding along in agreement, but I imagine that Friedan's words would have been earth-shattering to the many burdened housewives 50 years ago. Then, of course, Friedan reminds me that even professors and college presidents thought education and careers would "unsex" women, and I decide that maybe it's better to stay in 2015.
That being said, I must analyze Friedan's rhetoric with the perspective of readers in the 1960's. The people reading The Feminine Mystique when it was first published had little to no background in feminism or sociology. The mere idea that something was even wrong in society was ludicrous. Friedan had an enormous obstacle to overcome: the predispositions of her audience. So many people believed that women were happy as housewives; careers were unsuitable for women; or that women couldn't possibly be interested in anything beyond the household. For this reason, Friedan relied more heavily on appeals to logos and ethos than to pathos. (Friedan had every right to be an angry, impassioned feminist. But even more than they are today, angry, impassioned feminists were scorned in the 1960's.) Friedan includes extensive quotes from research papers, magazine editors, and housewives themselves. She weaves all of these elements together with calm and cool analysis. For example, when explaining how the fields of psychology, sociology, and anthropology have limited women, she tells a hypothetical anecdote:
That being said, I must analyze Friedan's rhetoric with the perspective of readers in the 1960's. The people reading The Feminine Mystique when it was first published had little to no background in feminism or sociology. The mere idea that something was even wrong in society was ludicrous. Friedan had an enormous obstacle to overcome: the predispositions of her audience. So many people believed that women were happy as housewives; careers were unsuitable for women; or that women couldn't possibly be interested in anything beyond the household. For this reason, Friedan relied more heavily on appeals to logos and ethos than to pathos. (Friedan had every right to be an angry, impassioned feminist. But even more than they are today, angry, impassioned feminists were scorned in the 1960's.) Friedan includes extensive quotes from research papers, magazine editors, and housewives themselves. She weaves all of these elements together with calm and cool analysis. For example, when explaining how the fields of psychology, sociology, and anthropology have limited women, she tells a hypothetical anecdote:
"If an old-fashioned grandfather frowned at Nora, who is studying calculus because she wants to be a physicist, and muttered, 'Woman's place is in the home,' Nora would laugh impatiently, 'Grandpa, this is 1963.' But she does not laugh at the urbane pipe-smoking professor of sociology, or the book by Margaret Mead, or the definitive two-volume reference on female sexuality, when they tell her the same thing. The complex, mysterious language of functionalism, Freudian psychology, and cultural anthropology hides from her the fact that they say this with not much more basis than grandpa" (141).Friedan's collected and blunt tone does not dramatize her findings, but presents them in a plain light. Without adornments or embellishments, readers are forced to confront her conclusions. There is no hiding behind figurative language or complex syntax. Armed with her research, it is difficult to deny Friedan's positions on the how's and why's of society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)