Michael Kimmel Gender Class And Terrorism Rhetorical Analysis

1239 Words3 Pages

The article Gender, Class, and Terrorism by Michael Kimmel creates a convincing argument that makes the audience think about the effect of uniform unchanging expectations towards men in a quickly developing society. These effects are those relating to not only terrorism, but also towards the general consequences of the emasculation of men, past and present. This complex argument is accomplished by Kimmel using logos and pathos to appeal to the audience, giving several examples, and using the paper’s structure to his advantage. Despite his success in appealing to the audience through the methods previously listed Kimmel fails to show his credibility by not citing direct sources, as well as using fallacies to back his argument, which may leave …show more content…

Among these forms of support is the use of examples and the persuasive appeal to pathos. One way Kimmel uses pathos is when he discusses the backgrounds of Timothy McVeigh, Adolf Hitler, and Mohammed Atta; three men who, according to Kimmel, have something other than widespread destruction in common, this something is a feeling of emasculation and enervation, “What unites Atta, McVeigh, and Hitler is not their repressed sexual orientation but gender - - their masculinity, their sense of masculine entitlement and their thwarted ambitions (Kimmel par. 25).” Kimmel uses these three men’s backgrounds to make them appear more personable to the audience, as well as to revise the audience’s stereotypical beliefs about terrorists, creating a feeling of empathy towards these three terrorists from the audience that may not have been previously present, “Looking at these two men through the lens of gender may shed some light on both the method and the madness of the tragedies they wrought (Kimmel par. 7).” This quote gives a direct statement from Kimmel himself as he tries to gain understanding from the audience towards the men he is writing about, showing how Kimmel is looking for the audience to perceive these men’s acts of terror in sequence with the circumstances of which they were derived. Kimmel continues to constrain the audience and …show more content…

Kimmel uses quite a few fallacies in his argument, such as begging the question, guilt by association, and slippery slope. For example Kimmel uses guilt by association throughout this article in the same manner that he is using logic to prove his entire argument. Kimmel constantly compares the characteristics of individuals and uses these similarities to say that because they have all of these things in common, they must have the same reasoning for taking the same actions, which is in a way pairing people together just based on the fact that they are associated with one another in terms of background, which is an example of the fallacy “guilt by association”(Kimmel). The use of these fallacies would essentially damage the ability of the article to create a convincing argument, if the purpose were to strictly make the audience agree with his opinion. Kimmel’s credibility also “takes a hit” as he fails to properly state the origin of any of his proof in his article which once again would make the audience skeptical of his ethical standings and once again ultimately disprove his argument if it were for the sole purpose of

Open Document