Heather Mac Donald, author of the article ‘it doesn’t have to be a woman
User Rating: 0 / 5
- Details
- Hits: 28822
Rhetorical Analysis
Heather Mac Donald, author of the article ‘it doesn’t have to be a woman,’ aims at convincing the audience that a recent nomination in the United States Supreme Court did not necessary have to pick a woman. Donald claims gender or race should not be considered when making critical nominations. Rather, the merit of the person, whether male or female, white or black, should play a role. Donald’s delivery of information in this article is also done very passionately. For instance, he gives a vivid description of Meirs unsatisfactory qualifications, ‘little judicial experience, abysmal writing skills, as well as unsophisticated constitutional philosophy.
The author recognizes the reasons the Republican government gives for the nominations. This is quite proper of him in a rhetorical situation, where it is important that the woman be picked in order for other women get role models. The other one is that women have a way of thinking different from men in that they are empathic to the victims. Here, Donald demonstrates that he agrees with some underlying values of the readers oriented toward Republican politics. He then analyzes the reasons, each at a time, an act he does so systematically to extent that any keen reader tends to go to his side. To counter the first reasons, he views that women should be pioneers and not followers, and; therefore, it is not necessarily prerequisite that there is a woman in an attractive position so that other women can follow her example. In an attempt to seek their support, Donald says that such thinking belittles women. He clearly demonstrates pathos in his rhetoric because he stirs the emotions of his readers when he claims women were the ‘alleged beneficiaries’ of Mier’s nomination to the Supreme Court. It is true women were the beneficiaries, but Donald’s reference to ‘alleged’ is just meant to stir women’s emotions and sway them to his side. He also claims the nomination is ‘an insult to women.’ This is also meant to sway women to support his point of view. To add onto the pathos he asserts ‘this is completely unacceptable.’
Donald is quite presentable, making him credible. He demonstrated adequate knowledge on the topic and best suited to write on it. This is an appeal of ethos. To start with, Donald is not new in making commentaries in the United States federal periodicals; he is a renowned commentator. Currently, he is working for City Journal, and he is a notable figure at the Manhattan Institute. Just the mention of those qualifications makes him reputable enough and apparently suitable to comment on the sensitive issue of gender. He has also demonstrated much knowledge on issues relating to the law. He points out judicial personnel need to have judicial experience, somehow sophisticated constitutional philosophy, as well as abysmal writing skills. In addition, they must be people with the ability to implement the emotional \o7separation\f7 from logic. In addition, the legal jargon he uses provides evidence he is not just going through issues on which he has little knowledge about. He uses terms like ‘plaintiff,’ ‘rule of law,’ and ‘\o7separation\f7.’
Donald has a remarkable logos appeal. He uses facts to support his claims, a fact that demonstrates he has a lot of material on the subjecting on which he is commenting. He sheds some light on court rulings and the basis on which any sound judgment is made. He has also shown he has adequate knowledge on gender issues. Women, he asserts, should be the leaders; they should not just trace where other females have tread (Donald 13). Nevertheless, Donald’s rhetoric is lacking in figures. One would expect such a distinguished writer to include some startling statistics in his writing to make it more credible to the readers.
Emily Alpert Reyes is the author of the article ‘men stuck in gender roles.’ The purpose of his article is to point out that while women are increasingly permeating into traditional male roles, the males want to maintain the status quo and retain their roles, which women have really encroached. The author is encouraging men to consider taking up traditional women-dominated roles because women are now doing things believed to be typically masculine. Reyes suggests that people have lopsided the phenomenon of gender. The American society is faced with radical transformations, which are assigning ‘male roles’ to women, and not giving men anything in return. He says a girl who assumes male behaviors is viewed with high opinion among other girls. She is considered more powerful, able, and courageous, among many other praise-bestowing words. On the contrary, if a boy does feminine things, fellow boys will see him as a weakling, and he will be despised. Such contempt forces the boy to revert to being a ‘boy proper.’
In the choice of college majors, women are increasingly pursuing courses that were traditionally believed to belong to men. Men, on the other hand are very reluctant and rarely do work that they believe requires empathy, kindness, and gentleness. For instance, few men pursue nursing and kindergarten teacher education. While women have asserted their competence and ambitiousness match that of men, no man has claimed his level of nurturing, compassion, and gentleness can match the one of a woman. The author tells us such an admission would not only be laughable but also seem inappropriate in a society that associates strength and ability with men (Reyes 9).
Reyes’ ethos appeal is not brought out in a way the readers would consider him suitable to discuss gender issues. Not even a single statement has been made about his profile. Although he has written this article, the readers may not know his field. They may be pushed to take him as an online blogger from his use of facts derived from online platforms. His appeal to pathos becomes questionable when he quips he avoids speaking his mind online to avoid criticism. Nonetheless, the author has presented enough facts about gender identity, which he has broken down so well. He also uses logic to convince the readers his facts are well thought. He, thus, appears to possess wide knowledge on the topic. His appeal to logos can be said to be excellent.
Comparing the two articles, Donald’s arguments are stronger more effective at persuading the audience. The argument that the Supreme Court is too important an institution with which to achieve gender, and racial equality is plausible. In the opinion of the author, only merit should guide any nominations to this institution. The idea of picking the nearest woman is colloquially used to denote the act of nominating before one carefully considers the qualifications and suitability of a particular nominee. Donald’s argument is very convincing, and the passion with which the author presents his ideas is remarkable. The flow of those ideas is beyond reproach and can even sway a reader with a contrary opinion to Donald’s point of view. On the other hand, Reyes presents an argument that men have stuck to their traditional roles, but fails to come out passionately on his point of view. He demonstrates a lack of confidence for his own ideas when he admits he does not dare posting his thoughts on blogs to escape criticism. Overall, he opines men should also encroach in female roles, but his argument is not strong enough to sway a considerable portion of his audience.