Tow Rewrite

I find it incredibly hard to hear that some feminists today still find that there are not enough women’s rights. Women today have adopted feminism as the norm, and find that they have to constantly be establishing their equality by competing with men or “fighting for their rights.” Women have been fighting for their rights for more than 150 years in America, and equality has been well established and it is easy to say that a woman can find power and success through meritocracy. In previous times, women wouldn't even have the right to work or vote. Their job would be to bear children.

Sure, I mean, I guess some women are victim to sexual harassment in the workplace, but to hear that as the main complaint of many feminists today is a little unnerving. Sure, its a terrible thing, but to even have a place to work for women in the first place is something that many societies even today can’t guarantee, and the horrors of the objectifying women is at a minimum in America.

I want to point the attention of these feminists to the gender-role situation in India. Gardiner Harris, a writer for the NY Times, writes a lot about different conflicts and events in India. His recent article highlighted the social changes between the genders in India, and how it has somehow led to an increase in rape and sexual violence from men towards women. Women are now finding a new sense of social mobility and economic success, and now, women are able to compete with men in the workplace. Women are matching men in education, and are participating as leaders in politics. This newfound success is met with a huge increase of gang rapes and domestic violence.

This article really caught my attention because it wasn’t just a bunch of statistics about how many incidents of sexual violence there was in India. The article was arranged in such a way that you could really sense the situational irony regarding the changing role of women in India. The increasing role of women in the industry, economy, and politics, caused for many men to feel challenged by this change, and fight their success with sexual dominance. Instead of allowing for social progress to occur in India as women fight for more power, men are making sure that women will still be able to fall to the whim of men in anyway possible.

The writer also uses imagery to appeal to pathos, the emotions of the audience. He really builds a picture of the developing society in India, while also contrasting it with the horrors of violent crimes against women. He uses both to emphasize his purpose, which is that there is an inherent hatred of women by men, and that social mobility will not be easy for these women, even though they have new and sudden success. This emphasis on the emotional aspect of the story really takes away from the writer’s persona. There isn’t really much emphasis on the writer’s persona, he makes observations and implications as if they are truth.

All of these devices are extremely effective in delivering the social implications of the article. I found that it was very hard to disagree with the purpose of the article and it left a very profound emotional impact. I really appreciate living in American society, and the rights I am guaranteed despite being a female. If American women today are feeling stunted because of the way American society is, they should really take a look at the situation in India.

Women in America today are being stunted by nothing but their attitudes. Stress, depression, and divorce are at an all time high, and it is due to the blurred gender roles and high expectations women have for how much respect their being female should demand. I think that these women who are unappreciative of their rights in America are expecting special rights as women, and I feel like America has done well to have actually fair roles and expectations from both genders.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/world/asia/in-rapes-aftermath-india-debates-violence-against-women.html?_r=0
http://voices.yahoo.com/feminism-sucks-masculinity-out-men-4231471.html

More Guns = More Killings

This week's article is an article called, "More Guns = More Killings", and it is an NYTimes article written about the different opinions on gun control. The context of the article is a widespread interest in finding ways to reduce gun violence, and since the Elementary School shooting of Sandy Hook, it has been a struggle to find out where Americans really stand on the issue of gun control. Many Americans strive for legislative action to create stricter gun policies, but The National Rifle Association suggested that the way to deal with gun violence and deaths caused by it is to give more guns to the "good guys" to act as a way of protecting citizens. The purpose of this article is to show that this idea is completely wrong and would lead to more violence. The author, Elizabeth Rosenthal, is a physical and science reporter for the NYTimes, and though her qualifications for making a stance on this article seem to be a little out of place, she justifies her strong opinion well with the use of the exemplification rhetorical strategy. She used the Latin American country Columbia to show that more guns and guards means that there are more gun related deaths.  She used these countries that are currently unstable in terms of politics and that using guns to stop violence shows that institutions are completely broken down. She also talked about Australia and their new stricter laws on gun control, and how that resulted in no mass shootings since. It was very effective for her to point these countries' gun policies to the intended audience, which is the general public who has a general knowledge of the gun incidents in the recent decades.