Tow #8 - Article - Saudi Women Rise Up, Quietly, and Slide Into the Driver’s Seat

On October 26th, women in Saudi Arabia started a demonstration. The demonstration protested the law of Saudi Arabia that it is illegal for a woman to drive. So on October 26^th, that’s exactly what a few activists did, they drove around the country. When it comes to women’s rights, Saudi Arabia remains one of the most restrictive countries in the world. Guardianship laws mean that a woman cannot marry, work or travel abroad without the consent of a male relative. This story was covered by New York Times columnist Ben Hubbard, who used biased diction to tell the story of the Saudi women drivers, and make them seem like the victims. Hubbard wrote very biasedly like for example, “On Saturday, a few dozen women insisted on violating one of the most stubborn social codes in staunchly conservative Saudi society, getting into their cars and driving, activists said.” The use of the word stubborn social codes creates a one-way viewpoint on the topic, and only sheds a light on the activists’ side of the story. This effectively helps Hubbard’s purpose of showing the bravery of the women activists and their story. Using biased diction, Hubbard also helps to appeal to pathos. It appeals to Pathos because Hubbard’s specific diction creates a rebellious mood. The mood affects the reader and immediately could make the reader feel for the women protesters. This is effect in the sense that getting the mass to agree with the protesters, then Hubbard successfully told the story to make the women drivers to look good. Hopefully, with this New York times article’s effectiveness, people will reach out to try and help the women drivers of Saudi Arabia, and maybe can overturn the guardian laws that are established there. Maybe even King Abdullah himself will read the New York Times article and be moved by Hubbard’s use of rhetoric to tell the story of the women protesters. That would be an example of the true power of rhetoric.

Tow #7 - "The Battle of the Ants" -Henry David Thoreau

Most people understand the concept of armed conflict that is war,. Upon first glance, Henry David Thoreau’s “The Battle of the Ants” seems like a basic story of a battle between two different kinds of ants, one black and one red, but if someone were to further analyse the text, they could see that Thoreau uses the ants and their battle as a symbol for human conflict..  “The Battle of the Ants” begins with Thoreau walking out to his wood logs as he discovers a battle between the black ants and the red ants. After this, he juxaposes these ants to humans, making the comparison clear from the start. “It was the only battle which I have ever witnessed… On every side they were engaged in deadly combat, yet without any noise that I could hear, and human soldiers never fought so resolutely” (575). Thoreau also uses hyperbole early in his essay to stregthen its anti-war theme as he describes the fighting ants to be in the middle of war. However, he infers that this war is miniscule by reminding the reader of its setting: a wood-yard. Although the battle of the ants is small, the metaphor of the ant fight to the art of war in humans is still effective. We picture a group of ants fighting over food pointless, as Thoreau wants humans to see war as, pointless. Thoreau is saying that the battle of the ants’ significance and the significance of any war is the same, and will have the same outcome, just mere violence Thoreau goes on to describe an even smaller battle he witnesses between two kinds of ants, again, amid the chips, giving more scope to the idea that war is irrelevant compared to the broader schemes of the world. “I watched a couple that were fast locked in each other’s embraces, in a little sunny valley amid the chips, now at noonday prepared to fight till the sun went down, or life went out… They fought with more pertinacity than bulldogs” (575).

Tow #6 - IRB Post

Ryan Dalsemer

Tow #5

The World in 2050 book analysis

This book, entitled “The World in 2050”, is an analytical article written by Christina Nuta, an author for the website “articles.com”. Through her purpose of explain how our world will transform and take shape in the year 2050, she uses many rhetorical devices to convey what she want us to understand. The type of rhetoric she uses is the use of rhetoric questions. She first starts out the article with three simple questions to help the reader get into the topic, “What picture do you have of the future? Will life in the future be better, worse or the same as now? What do you hope about the future?” The use of these rhetoric questions allow the reader to have the topic ready in his or her mind while he or she reads the article. Also, with the use of rhetoric questions, the author implies that the topic of the article is going to be centered around the three questions that start off the article. The rhetoric questions are similar to a topic sentence. Also, she ends with a question. The author writes at the end of the article, “by 2050, scientists will be able to produce clones of people and decide how they look, how they behave and how much intelligence they have. Scientists will be able to do these things - but should they?” This use of ending with a rhetoric question allows the reader to think a little bit more on the topic. The article suddenly changes from someone telling you information, to a personal decision. After reading the ending question the reader should ask him or herself, “Do I believe these things should happen?” With this rhetoric question there is no right or wrong answer, there is only your answer, and your beliefs on the topic.

Tow #5 - We Can Do It Advertisement

In 1942, artist J. Howard Miller from the city of Pittsburg, PA was hired by the Westinghouse Company’s War Production Coordinating Committee to create a series of posters to help boost moral during the War. One of these posters became the famous “We Can Do It!” poster Miller based his “We Can Do It!” poster on a United Press photograph taken of Michigan factory worker Geraldine Doyle.  Its only intent was to help recruit women to join the work force.  The poster was not initially seen much beyond one Midwest Westinghouse factory where it was displayed for two weeks in February 1942.  In later years, and in fact up to present times, these images have became iconic symbols of women’s rights struggles, and are occasionally adapted for other political campaigns as well.  The poster effectively creates a sense of nationalism and appeals to pathos. During times when women were not viewed as equals, it gave a sense of pride for women. The poster tells women, “while our men are away fighting, we can still support the through this war by joining a workforce to help the military.” With a woman showing the classic bicep flex, it says “were women, but we can still be strong.” It also appeals to ethos because although it is not the original speaker, it looks as though another everyday woman is trying to rally up women. Having a girl as the poster image effectively allows women to connect to the poster because, obviously, they are also women. If the author used a man to convey his message on his poster, it would not have worked as well. Miller made a smart choice by making it seem other women wanted women to join the WWII work force, not the government, which at the time was mainly men.