In Rebecca Solnit’s “Men Explain Things to Me” and Lesley Kinzel’s “Why You’ll Never Hear Me Use the Term ‘Mansplain’” they both focus on the common occurrence of men trying to explain things to women even if they do not fully understand what they are talking about. This is a topic that has become better known in recent years and the term “mansplaining” was created to describe this phenomenon. The authors agree on the problem, but go at it from different angles. While Solnit uses strong examples in her article to try to persuade the reader, Kinzel uses more effective rhetorical strategies and portrays a better understanding of what her intended audience, the male population, wants to hear.
Solnit starts out her article by telling an anecdote about a time she went to a party and the host of the party tried to pretend to know more about a book she had written. Her tone is very much sarcastic in the first few paragraphs, as she gives the owner of the house the nickname “Mr. Very Important.” She does this to lighten the mood before she dives into the much darker topics of rape, murder, and restraining orders. She concludes her article by talking about how women have made progress and are being taken more seriously now, but still are a way away from where they want to be.
Kinzel starts by talking about something personal as well, but talks about her relationship with her husband instead of starting with an anecdote. She goes on to explain what “mansplaining” is, why she does not like the word, and talks about how anyone is capable of dismissive conduct. Sprinkled throughout her article are slang words like dude and cuss words. This makes her writing much less formal and allows her to use a lighter tone to address a potentially dark ...
... middle of paper ...
...t how in Middle Eastern countries women’s testimonies cannot be used in the conviction and talks about a Marine who was killed by one of her superiors while waiting to testify that he raped her.
All of these stories are intended to instill anger in the reader and make them feel sympathetic. This is another rhetorical strategy used by the authors known as argument by emotion or pathos. Knowing that women are being the object of crimes, are rarely believed in the Middle East, and often do not get the credit they deserve.
While Solnit uses powerful examples in her article to try and sway the reader, Kinzel is more effective at using rhetorical skills and portrays a better understanding of what her audience wants to hear. The authors have many similarities and differences in the way that they approached this topic and do a great job of portraying their knowledge.
In 1996, Captain Derrick Robinson, Sergeant Delmar Simpson, and Sergeant Nathanael Beech were arraigned for their suspected involvement in one of the biggest sex scandals the United States Military had seen. According to CNN, between these three men, charges of rape and adultery were pending in a huge case of sexual misconduct against female soldiers at Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland (CNN, 2996). Following this incident, the United States Military took it upon themselves to open a telephone hotline to encourage the reporting of similar harsh crimes. Furthermore, the spike in reporting influenced extensive research to examine the prevalence of rape against women soldiers in the U.S. Military (Titunik, 2000). This paper will explore the dynamics of rape against women soldiers in the military and the research done on its prevalence.
Even though women such as Lucy demonstrate stereotypical female weakness, characters such as Mina defy the conventional submissive female, as an independent woman, a role uncommon of novels in this era. In addition, Mina, in comparison to men, possesses substantially stronger emotional fortitude and controls her emotions, while the men who are supposed to be strong expose emotional weakness and frailty. Ultimately, however, no matter Mina’s intelligence or strengths, the men continually suppress Mina’s vast amount of wisdom in order to maintain their perceived dominance. Nonetheless, Stoker’s messages throughout the novel regarding women silently protest the sexist expectations of the overly limiting Victorian era. Should today’s modern feminists take Stoker’s peaceful approach and protest subtly hoping for long-term change? Or should feminists act with violent protests in hope for prompt change? Gender equality will not happen overnight, however, instead of rushing minuscule modifications with violent protest, society must patiently wait for productive and peaceful change, in order to prevent an even larger
Deborah Tannen wrote “ Talk in the Intimate Relationship” to help people learn something about how men and women's interactions differ. She is a language scholar and has past experience of failed relationships and she feels as though this was because of lack of communication. Her main focus is on metamessages, these are messages that go beyond what we say. She states that the people that are literal minded, miss out on the context of what communication is. What this essay will consist of being what Tannen calls metamessages, summarizing her article on how men and woman talk, deciding whether Tannen is favorable to both genders and last but not least if I agree to an extent with Tannen says in her article.
Deborah Tannen’s, “Fighting For Our Lives,” explores the ideas and concepts behind human sociology. She delves into the sociolinguistic relationship between women and men in conversation. Tannen amplifies the importance between language and gender and how they affect interpersonal relationships. Tannen showcases her analytical thinking processes by using rhetorical strategies to support her claim on conflicted communication within the argument culture. Specifically, focusing on politics, the law, education, spousal relationships, the media and within work environments. She gives many examples to support her claim by using figurative language and literary devices such as metaphors and logic and reasoning to accurately convey her message.
The empowerment of women is the major factor in the two pieces written by Susan Glaspell. The male detectives couldn’t figure out what may have happened, but when the women try to bring all the pieces together, they are thrown aside and not substantive. Glaspell shows how the women acted as if they were detectives, much more than the men by being contributing to the fact that they solve the case, showing they were just as valuable as the men, and actually much more.
Sexism is a highly talked about issue read about online, seen in the news, and experienced in the day to day lives of many. The importance of this issue can be found in many writings. Authors such as Sandra Cisneros, Linda Hasselstrom, and Judy Brady have all discussed the topic of sexism in writings and how they affected their lives. Although each writer addresses the issue of sexism, each author confronts a different type of sexism; the kind we are born into, the kind we learn growing up, and the kind that is accepted by society at the end of the day.
Writing Arguments. Fifth ed. of the book. Ed. John Ramage, et al.
Women respond very well to tone and word choice, which Tannen uses to her advantage. She uses personal experience to relate with her more female audience. For example, in the criticism section she uses a scenario that occurred between a male and female editors. Tannen “appreciated her tentativeness” that she gave Tannen when wanting to cut out part of her story(301). In contrast to that her male editor gave her a much different response, saying “call me when you have something new to say”(301). By stating a scenario with two very different outcomes, she falls more bias to women. This is effective to her more female audience because it paints women in a positive light and paints the men in a very negative light. The obvious bias towards women can arguably hurt her more than it could help her. Tannen automatically outs her male audience at a very awkward side, and makes it impossible for them to feel sympathy towards her. This hurts Tannen’s opportunity for having a broad audience, but for what she wrote it for she is very effective. If we are simply talking about how effective it was for women then Tannen hit home with them. Tannen’s choice of using what men say is also very smart, and helps with her effectiveness. She heard a man say, that after working for two women he realized neither of them have a sense of humor(304). By using examples like these
...ind this to be a typical male trait. Our surveys and research found however, that these types of traits are normally associated with men within the business world. Through our research, we found that in a male dominated society, adapt to the male styles of communication. As we have previously stated, the styles of communication between genders differ greatly. Men tend to use conversation to obtain data whereas women use conversation to create connections. Through our research, we also came up with some solutions for bridging the communication gaps between males and females. To reduce miscommunication, males and females must learn to interpret the messages being sent to them. They must learn to understand the speakers' motives and background. In effective communication, one must realize the experiences of the speaker and listener, and work to create a common understanding of the messages being created. Males should try to understand the female need for connection whereas females need to understand the male need for data. If the two cultures can learn to combine their styles by offering information while creating a connection, the male and female communication gap will be bridged.
This essay will explain both sides of the views and using critical thinking will uncover the real message the author intended to portray.
Tannen, Deborah. “His Politeness Is Her Powerlessness.” You Just Don’t Understand: women and men in conversation. New York: HarperCollins, 1990. 203-5. Print.
Tannen believes that men and women are cross cultural when it comes to conversation. While analyzing basic conversation, Tannen primarily focuses on married couples and marriage, in general. Whether implied or not, Tannen fails to deliver enough credible scientific research to inform the audience of her opinions and viewpoints. Tannen begins her argument explaining a personal experience with a married couple which she invited to a group meeting that she held. Tannen uses this dependable experience to confirm that American men talk more than women in public, and usually talk less at home. Tannen uses the word “crystallizes”, to display the accuracy of her research through this personal discovery. Tannen states, “This episode crystallizes the irony that although American men tend to talk more than women in public situations, they often talk less at home” (239). Tannen presents research as if a female is the only gender to, “crave communication” in a relationship, giving no background information to support this theory. Deborah Tannen gives numerous personal accounts of issues married couples seem to have, but hardly giving actual scientific
These women authors have served as an eye-opener for the readers, both men and women alike, in the past, and hopefully still in the present. (There are still cultures in the world today, where women are treated as unfairly as women were treated in the prior centuries). These women authors have impacted a male dominated society into reflecting on of the unfairness imposed upon women. Through their writings, each of these women authors who existed during that masochistic Victorian era, risked criticism and retribution. Each author ignored convention a...
[…] leaving their violent partners and telling their life stories – women are able to identify and isolate the view of women as abject and identify its dangers, while they simultaneously resist this reading of women’s roles and worth of their own individual lives.
However, even though a feminist view helps to encourage certain views in the text, it can be restrictive. This is because it does not allow the reader to discover other potential meanings such as a Marxist or a Psychoanalytical perceptive. For instance, in Salome a Marxist critic may be interested in the sexual power that the woman misuses. In addition, a psychoanalytic perspective allows us to see that it is the unconscious mind that is driving Salome to do such acts. This idea is reinforced through the Lois Tysons idea that “we unconsciously behave in ways that allow us to “play out”…our conflicted feelings about the painful experiences we repress”.