RSS Feed

October, 2014

  1. “The Clues to a Great Story” TED Talk

    October 30, 2014 by Hannah Conroy

    I found Andrew Stanton’s TED talk very entertaining. The most effective aspect was, I think, Stanton’s establishment of credibility. To achieve this he discussed movies he had worked on and showed clips. I have heard of the movies he mentioned, I know they are incredibly successful and critically acclaimed films. Stanton obviously knows what he is talking about, he is more than qualified to speak on telling stories. I also found the clips and other “evidence” to be especially powerful in making his case. He cited examples of characters who have an “itch”, a motor inside them pushing them to fulfill a certain goal. Characters such as Marlin from Finding Nemo and Don Vito Corleone of The Godfather are ones I have heard of and can relate to as being effective players in a story. I also really enjoyed Stanton’s rules and guidelines for telling stories. His list of official “rules” from Pixar was very entertaining, however his other guidelines were especially interesting to me. The concepts such as “show 2+2, not simply 4” and “make me care” are ones I can now identify as critical to a story, but which I had not considered before.

    I think I can integrate several of his techniques into my essay and TED talk. However, I feel it will be easier to integrate them into my TED talk than my essay; the TED talk tells more of a story than the essay, in my opinion. I think both could benefit from proving why the reader or viewer should care about the information, proving what the impact is. Also, having an underlying theme or thread running through the paper in order to bring everything together seems especially effective. Furthermore, I feel I could make the audience “work for their meal” by presenting different pieces of the story (the decline of newspapers) and then having them work to figure out the ending (the societal implications and impact) before revealing it. Overall, I found Stanton’s TED talk to very entertaining and informative; it has provided me with strategies I hope to use to make both my essay and TED talk more effective.


  2. “Gubernatorial” Is A Great Word

    October 30, 2014 by Hannah Conroy

    The elections for Pennsylvania’s governor take place in just four short days. If you are not registered to vote, you sadly cannot participate in this election (you must be registered 30 days before an election in Pennsylvania). However, I strongly encourage you to register soon so you can vote in the future. I think voting is the easiest way to make a big impact on your community and have your voice heard, but my weird love of voting is a whole other topic.

    On Tuesday, November 4th, the candidates for Pennsylvania governor while face off. The incumbent Republican governor, Tom Corbett, is facing opposition from the Democratic candidate Tom Wolf. The two candidates take very different positions on key issues and present different directions for the future of Pennsylvania. Currently, the polls have Tom Wolf winning the gubernatorial election; both Real Clear Politics and 538 favor Wolf to win with a little over half of the vote. So, what makes these two candidates so different?

    Firstly, Corbett is currently facing pushback for cutting the state education budget by millions of dollars. He did so to close a budget gap in Pennsylvania, and has faced severe opposition for this decision. Corbett also made some questionable remarks about gay marriage, including seemingly comparing it to incest. However, Corbett does support legislation to end LGBT workplace discrimination, which is currently allowed in Pennsylvania. He does not support the recognition of same-sex marriages in Pennsylvania, although he is not fighting the decision to allow them to occur. Concerning abortion, Corbett is pro-life and has supported legislation to further this position. Corbett would like the minimum wage to stay at the current rate ($7.25/hour), and allow the federal government to adjust it if necessary. On natural gas, Corbett opposes an extraction tax. He has also lowered taxes on small businesses in Pennsylvania. Privatizing the state liquor stores of Pennsylvania is a controversial issue at the moment; Corbett supports privatization. Corbett opposes legalizing marijuana for recreational use and the decriminalization of small quantities. He does, however, support research into medical marijuana that could aid seizure-prone children. Corbett supports capital punishment and will continue to implement the death penalty in Pennsylvania. Overall, it seems Corbett’s past legislative decisions and positions are working against him.

    Wolf, the Democratic candidate, has gained support in Pennsylvania. Wolf wants to introduce a fair-funding formula to school funding in order to even out funding across the state. He would also increase funding to public schools by $1 billion (AP). Wolf also supports reduced tuition for veterans, easier access to higher education for low-income students, and the development of a DREAM Act for Pennsylvania to serve immigrant students. On social issues, Wolf is pro-choice and supports the recognition of same-sex marriages in Pennsylvania. Wolf also supports a raise in the minimum wage, to $10,10 over 2 years. Unlike Corbett, Wolf supports a 5% severance tax on natural gas, which would be an extra tax on the companies who drill in Pennsylvania. Wolf is also a supporter of increased regulations on gun ownership, including expanded background checks. Rather than privatizing state liquor stores, as Corbett wishes to, Wolf would amend the existing regulations to make them more profitable. Wolf also wishes to make medical marijuana legal in Pennsylvania (past the current standards set by Corbett) and supports the decriminalization of small amounts. Wolf opposes the death penalty and says he will not sign any death warrants in Pennsylvania until issues raised in the PA Supreme Court have been adjudicated.

    The above issues are just some of the key differences between Tom Wolf and Tom Corbett. Personally, I am a supporter of Tom Wolf (surprise). I favor an excise tax on natural gas drilling and support his policies on social issues. As of right now (Thursday afternoon), it appears Wolf is going to win the election. Why do you think this is? Do you support Wolf or Corbett? What are you going to be for Halloween? All of these are equally important questions of our time.

    Sources:

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/governors-races-are-close-but-theres-more-upside-for-democrats/

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/governor/pa/pennsylvania_governor_corbett_vs_wolf-3535.html

    http://www.delcotimes.com/government-and-politics/20141011/corbett-vs-wolf-where-they-stand-on-key-positions

     

     


  3. Elevator Pitch

    October 23, 2014 by Hannah Conroy

    My elevator pitch discusses the recent decline of the newspaper industry. American culture is shifting from one that values print news sources to one that values online sources. Online magazines, news websites, and social networking sites, such as Twitter, are eclipsing newspapers as dominant news source in American society. I will begin my pitch by briefly discussing possible reasons for the shift to online sources. For example, online news sources offer convenience, cost, and up-to-the-minute information. I will then discuss the effects the rise of the internet has had on the newspaper industry; newspapers are struggling to make a profit due to competition from the internet. Furthermore, I hope to grab my audience’s attention with a statistic from Pew Research Center:

    “From 2004 to 2012, the number of Americans who said they regularly read a daily newspaper fell from 54% to 38%.”

    That is a very drastic decline, and something I think will shock many people. I feel it is common knowledge that newspaper readership is declining, but a drop as severe as this one may come as a surprise to many people. I also hope this fact will leave people curious, wanting to know more about the factors behind this decline. What has caused this decline, how did it happen? Why have internet news sources eclipsed print sources so quickly? Also, how have the newspapers reacted to this decline? I briefly answer these questions in my elevator pitch, but the audience will hopefully be curious to know more in-depth answers; they will want to seek more information. There is much more to this paradigm shift than can be covered in a 30 second elevator pitch, and I hope I have covered enough to give my audience an overview of the topic, and still leaving them curious about the underlying forces at work and overall consequences of the shift.

    Source:

    http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/number-of-americans-who-read-print-newspapers-continues-decline/


  4. The Sentencing Of Oscar Pistorius

    October 23, 2014 by Hannah Conroy

    On Tuesday, Oscar Pistorius was sentenced to five years in jail for the killing of Reeva Steenkamp. Pistorius is a South African Paralympic athlete who competed with able-bodied athletes in the 2012 Olympics, the first Paralympian to do so. In February, Pistorius shot and killed his girlfriend, Steenkamp. Pistorius claims he thought his girlfriend was an intruder, which is why he reacted so violently. Others believed Pistorius knew it was his girlfriend behind the door, and he intentionally murdered her. The court ruled in favor of Pistorius, convicting him of culpable homicide, which is like involuntary manslaughter in America (New York Times).

    Oscar Pistorius killed Reeva Steenkamp on February 14, 2013. He claims that he thought there was an intruder in the house. South Africa is a nation plagued by crime, and home invasions are a constant threat. Pistorius testified he believed Steenkamp was in bed as he shot through a bathroom door, at a person he believed to be an intruder. Pistorius is a double amputee, missing both his legs. He did not have his prosthetic legs on at the time of the shooting, which he claims made him feel especially vulnerable. A neighbor testified she heard terrified screams coming from the house that night, which she believes to have been Steenkamp and Pistorius arguing, and then Steenkamp yelling in fear.  Pistorius denies having argued with Steenkamp that night, though, and the defense claims the screams were simply Pistorius yelling in fear of the intruder. There is not much hard evidence in the case, making it an especially difficult one. There are no juries in South African trials, so the judge ruled Pistorius was guilty of culpable homicide, not premeditated homicide, and handed down his sentence shortly after.

    Tuesday marked the end of Pistorius’ sentencing trial, which saw him receiving a five year jail sentence. The judge thought this sentence balanced cruelty and leniency, sending a powerful message. Sentences for culpable homicide can range from no prison time at all to 15 years in prison. The judge did not want to go too far and punish Pistorius too harshly, but she also did not want to send a message to the community that a crime of this caliber would be treated lightly. The law states Pistorius only must serve 1/6 of his sentence, ten months, and the rest of his sentence can then be converted to house arrest.

    There is public disagreement over whether the sentence Pistorius received was appropriate. Race is very explosive subject in South Africa, and some believe that because Pistorius is white he was given a more lenient sentence than a black man would have been given. Steenkamp’s family has said they accept the sentence as fair and would like to move on from this tragedy. Pistorius’ family echoes this sentiment, saying they will not appeal the sentence and view it as appropriate. His family has also asked for privacy as they work to move past this unfortunate situation.

    Pistorius’ trial received a great deal of media attention, in South Africa and around the world. The entirety of the trial was broadcast and live-tweeted across the world. People from all countries weighed in and formed their own opinions about Pistorius’ guilt or innocence. The trial has gained a lot of media attention, and is a very divisive subject around the world, and especially in South Africa.

    I think this is a very hard subject to have an opinion on, especially the sentencing. I know nothing about how judges decide sentences or what is considered a “fair” sentence for culpable homicide in general. Honestly though,  I’m not sure if I believe Pistorius truly thought an intruder was in his bathroom and mistakenly shot his girlfriend. What do you think, was it truly an accident? Was his sentence fair? Any other thoughts?

    Sources:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/22/world/africa/oscar-pistorius-sentenced.html?ref=world

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/13/world/africa/oscar-pistorius-verdict-guilty-of-culpable-homicide.html


  5. Paradigm Shift

    October 16, 2014 by Hannah Conroy

    The article “Against Transparency” by Lawrence Lessig chronicles the paradigm shift of public support for transparency through the years. Originally, the public did not care if the government and other agencies were transparent. Today, the public the public would prefer if everything were transparent; total transparency of all information is the goal today. There is a much newer, emergent thinking, though, that not everything should be transparent; total transparency is detrimental to society. Lessig argues that the new idea of total, “naked” transparency has a dark side too.

    Naked transparency could have negative effects on the culture of American politics. As a culture, Americans assume money has a lot of influence on politics. If a citizen were told a member of Congress received money from an oil company then voted for a pro-oil bill, the instinct is to say that vote occurred because of the donation. However, this is not necessarily true. The money could have been given to the Congressperson because they expressed support for the bill; the money came because of the vote. Or maybe the money had nothing at all to do with the vote. Thinking outside of the “money buys votes” is not the first reaction of most Americans, and having all the donation and vote and information for a candidate mapped out would only encourage this thinking. As Lessig puts it, “this default, this unexamined assumption of causality, will only be reinforced by the naked transparency movement and its correlations. What we believe will be confirmed, again and again”. The shift to wanting to know everything all the time could have unwanted side-effects. It is not realistic to want every American to closely examine all of the possible reasons their representative cast a vote, and it’s not doable either, there is really no way to know. Lessig argues however, “Yet even if rational, this ignorance produces predictable and huge misunderstandings. A mature response to these inevitable misunderstandings are policies that strive not to exacerbate them”. If releasing all of this information will lead to problems, the smart thing to do is not release it. The shift to total transparency is big one, as previously it was not thought of often. Lessig argues the shift will have negative cultural implications and alternatives should be examined before damage is done.

    Honestly, I disagree with the Lessig; I think full transparency is a good thing. There definitely are downsides, as the author points out, but I think the positives outweigh the negatives. Especially concerning government, I think Americans have a right to know who donates to a politician and how they vote after the donation. An important part of democracy is freedom of information, the right for the people to decide for themselves what they make of information. People may just automatically assume the money is what caused a politician to vote the way they did, but they already think that right now. Keeping information secret is not going to change that. More information may confirm the belief that money has extreme influence on politics, but at least the public is deciding that for themselves. Information is necessary for the public to form their own opinions, and the public has a right to do so.

     


  6. Fans in Florida

    October 16, 2014 by Hannah Conroy

    Okay guys, I’m not gonna lie; I chose this as my current event topic solely because I think it is hilarious. And kinda sad. But mostly hilarious.

    On Wednesday night, Florida held a debate between the two candidates for governor. One candidate, Charlie Crist, is the former governor of the state, where he was elected as a Republican in 2007. He is now running as the Democratic challenger to the incumbent Republican governor Rick Scott. The debate was set to begin and everything seemed normal. Then, something very strange happened. The debate moderator got very confused and then said he was unsure if either candidate was going to take the stage. A moment later, Charlie Crist stepped on stage and took his place at this podium. The moderator went on to say Governor Scott would not be taking the stage. According to the moderator, Scott was not taking the stage because Crist had a small fan under his podium (presumably because they were in Florida and it’s really hot there). However, the debate rules state the candidates may not have any electronic devices on stage with them. The visibly confused moderator explained this rule and announced Rick Scott would no longer be participating in the debate.

    Eventually, Rick Scott did take the stage and participate in the debate. His campaign says his delay was not due to Crist’s fan, but because he was unsure if Crist was going to show up. Officially, “Scott’s campaign claimed the governor ‘never refused to take the stage,’ but rather was under the impression Crist was still in an ‘emergency meeting’ with organizers ‘pleading for his precious fan” (Fox News).

    Honestly, I think this is really funny, but maybe I’m just way too into politics. Basically, a small fan managed to derail a major gubernatorial debate, and now the campaigns for both candidates are releasing fan-related statements. My favorite post-fan-debate statement would have to be one released by Scott’s campaign stating: “Charlie Crist can bring his fan, microwave, and toaster to debates – none of that will cover up how sad his record as governor was compared to the success of Rick Scott…Crist should buy a fan for the 832,000 Floridians who lost their jobs while he was governor” (Fox News). This fan has become major national news. Another part of this story I find really interesting is Scott’s reaction to the situation; his reasoning for not coming on stage right away seems kind of sketchy. Crist was on stage, he was obviously present at the debate and ready to participate, why would Scott think Crist wasn’t there? However, the alternative is, in my opinion, even weirder. Would an acting governor really refuse to participate in a debate because of a small electric fan?

    This story does have a somewhat sadder side though, in my eyes. Now, no one really cares what happened in the debate, myself included. We all just like the funny story of a small fan. Also, now all the political rhetoric revolves around a fan, with tangential connections to real issues. This whole fan debacle could have a bright side though. I never would have even thought about Florida’s gubernatorial debate if it not been for this incident. Perhaps more Floridians are not engaged in the debate and the issues discussed because of the publicity arising from the fan mishap. Overall, I think this is pretty funny and really weird.

    Do you think this is funny or did I just spend way too much time thinking about it? Why do you think Scott refused to take the stage? Any other thoughts?

     

    Sources:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/16/ill-wind-florida-governor-debate-begins-with-fight-over-disputed-fan/

    http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/fanning-the-flames-floridas-race-governor

     


  7. Marriage Equality and The (Lack of) Supreme Court Decision

    October 9, 2014 by Hannah Conroy

    On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to hear cases regarding same-sex marriage. This was a really, really big deal. Why? The court said they wouldn’t decide on a case, so nothing should happen right? That’s why it’s a big deal, though. By not ruling on a case, the Supreme Court is letting the decision of each Circuit Court of Appeals stand. They are essentially deferring to the rulings of a lower court. The rulings of Circuit Courts of Appeals apply to that “circuit” or area. This can be several states or just one state. So, the Supreme Court said, “We don’t want to rule on the constitutionality of banning gay marriage, leave us alone and go listen to your circuit court”. Specifically, the cases concerned rulings made by the 4th, 7th, and 10th Circuits (MSNBC). Thankfully, for gay-rights activists, many of these rulings stated gay marriage was legal, and should be allowed in the states. The Supreme Court’s decision allowed for gay marriages to begin immediately in Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin. These were states where Circuit Courts of Appeal had ruled gay marriage legal in the state, and the state had brought the appeal to the Supreme Court. The states were hoping the Supreme Court would overturn the ruling, making it illegal in the state. However, there is no Supreme Court ruling, so the law defers to the ruling of the Appeals Court, making gay marriage legal.

    Six states, Colorado, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Wyoming, can  now decide to legalize gay marriage or to continue fighting for bans in court. This is where it gets kind of confusing, at least for me. This explanation from Slate is one I found particularly helpful:

    “Among the states in the 4th Circuit, North Carolina, South Carolina, and West Virginia do not yet allow gay marriage. Among the states in the 10th Circuit, Kansas, Wyoming, and Colorado do not yet allow gay marriage. But the law of the 4th and 10th circuits states that gay marriage bans violate the Constitution. Lower court judges in Colorado, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Wyoming, then, are now legally obliged to strike down their states’ gay marriage bans.”

    In theses states the bans on gay marriage have been ruled unconstitutional, and the final appeal, the Supreme Court, has not overturned that ruling, so it stands. This means the states have to remove their bans. Then, the court cases currently pending in those states to fight for the right for gay-marriage will, one can assume, be ruled in favor of those who wish to marry. This means gay marriage will soon be legal in those states. Here we see the far-reaching effects of the Supreme Court’s decision, as the states next choice to fight making gay marriage legal is to appeal to the Supreme Court, which apparently does not want to hear the cases. In fact, Colorado decided to immediately begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. Also, federal appeals courts ruled the gay marriage bans in Idaho and Nevada unconstitutional on Tuesday. The states could appeal to the Supreme Court, but the Court does not seem to be likely to take the case. So, basically, the Supreme Court said it would not rule on cases regarding the legality of gay marriage, making gay marriage legal in many states.

    Some people argue that the Supreme Court is dodging their job by not hearing the cases. Four justices must vote to hear a case, and there are four conservative justices on the Supreme Court, who it was thought, would vote to hear the case. It is very odd that the court chose not to hear the cases, as it was unanticipated. Gay rights activists are very happy with this decision though, as it made same-sex marriage legal in many places, and paved the way for legality in several other states.

    I found this news very, very exciting. I fully support gay marriage and the right for anyone to marry who they choose. It makes me so happy to see progress being made little by little. With the fall of DOMA and same sex marriage being made legal in Pennsylvania earlier this year, the goal of equal rights marriage rights for gay people seems closer and closer each day. I do find it odd that the Supreme Court chose to not hear the cases regarding gay marriage, but it seems to have been an effective move in increasing the legality of it across the US, while leaving it a decision to be made by the states. The Supreme Court decision has had a very widespread effect on the state of marriage equality in the US, the country is “on track to see marriage equality in 32 states, plus the District of Columbia, up from 19 last week” (MSNBC). I think it is just too cool to see the legislative process in action and see real change being made from within the political system.

    What do you think, should the Supreme Court have ruled on the cases? Was it a good decision for them to let the lower court rulings stand? Does anyone else find this as weirdly complicated as I do?

    Sources:

    http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/yet-another-appeals-court-backs-marriage-equality

    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/supreme-court-denies-marriage-equality-cases

    http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/gay-marriage-supreme-court-111626.html

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/10/06/the_supreme_court_actually_just_allowed_gay_marriage_in_eleven_11_states.html

     


  8. Rhetorical Analysis Essay Revisions

    October 9, 2014 by Hannah Conroy

    One problem area of my Rhetorical Analysis Essay is the lack of background information regarding Emma Watson’s speech. I included background information on what feminism is and the common views of it. However, I did not include information on the speech or the HeForShe campaign. Originally, the information portion of the background paragraph read:

    “Feminism today is often thought of as “man-hating”, and people are reluctant to associate themselves with the word or movement. A Huffington Post poll found that only 20% of poll respondents considered themselves feminists, however 82% believe that men and women should be equal (Swanson). Feminism is the simply the belief that men and women should be equal in all arenas of life, including society, business, and politics”.

    This may be background on feminism, but doesn’t really tell the reader anything about the HeForShe campaign. To remedy this, I added some information to the beginning of the paragraph. Now, The paragraph reads:

    “Emma Watson’s “He for She” speech was the launching of the HeForShe campaign for the United Nations. The campaign is described as “A solidarity movement for gender equality” by the UN. In other words, the campaign aims to bring men into feminism. In her speech, Watson describes why she believes men need to be involved in feminism and why feminism is important”.

    Now, I hope, the reader knows more about the campaign and can better understand Watson’s message.

    Another area of my essay that needed some improvement was the conclusion of my essay. It does not leave an overarching, lasting impact, and the conclusion sentence reads almost like a thesis. Originally, the closing sentence of my essay was:

    “Her speech aims to persuade men to join the feminist movement and employs several rhetorical techniques to do so”.

    I like this sentence, as I think it adds summary and closure to the essay. I do agree with my peer-reviewers, though, that I should close a big, lasting impact, and not the thesis-like statement I had originally. To think of a new closing sentence, I tried to answer the “so what?” question again. Why is this persuasion important? What’s the point? My answer is: because the movement is important. Real change needs to be made in regards to gender equality and everyone needs to be involved to do it. My new closing sentence reads:

    “People of both genders need to be involved in the feminist movement if real change is be accomplished”.

    Hopefully, this statement connects the persuasion of the speech to it’s overall goal and leaves the reader with a message.

    Where do you think I could improve more? Are these improvements effective? Let me know!


  9. Michael Phelps and Poor Decisions

    October 2, 2014 by Hannah Conroy

    I love the Olympics; the showmanship of the opening ceremony, the determination of the athletes, and the spirit of the games all draw me in. By extension, I also love Olympic athletes. They work incredibly hard to become the best they can possibly be, and must embody grace in failure and success. The athletes represent their country to the world and serve as role models to people across the globe. However, they are just people; they may try to achieve perfection, but no one is truly perfect.

    Michael Phelps is an incredibly talented Olympian; he is actually the most decorated Olympian ever. Like everyone though, he is not perfect. Phelps was arrested on Tuesday for DUI, excessive speed, and crossing double yellow lines. This is not the first time Phelps has been in trouble with the law either. In 2004 he pled guilty to driving while impaired after he failed to stop at a stop sign and was pulled over. Phelps was also photographed smoking marijuana in 2008 and as a result lost many sponsorships and received a three month suspension from swimming in US-Swimming sponsored competition.

    Following his arrest, Phelps issued a public apology on twitter taking “full responsibility” for his actions and apologizing to “everyone he let down”. Phelps is obviously a public figure whose actions are watched by the whole world. Drinking and driving is an incredibly serious offense, and one that is taken very seriously. There are calls for Phelps to take a leave of absence from swimming or for him to be banned from participating in the next Olympics. I believe people’s personal lives should be separate from their public lives, though. I think that Phelps’s personal decisions should not have any effect on his ability to his job, to swim. He should be punished, but by the law, not by the public. Phelps should not have his livelihood taken away from him due to (incredibly) poor decision making. I wonder if it’s fair for Phelps to have to feel like he “let people down”. He obviously let down his family and friends, but did he let down the whole of twitter, everyone who is simply his fan? Does Phelps have an obligation to act a certain way to please his fans and the public? Part of me wants to say no, his fame should not make him accountable to more people for his actions than another person. His fame should not mean he is held to a higher standard of behavior than your average person. Another part of me does not really believe this though. He is a public figure that people, especially young swimmers, aspire to be like. Someone who is in the public eye, as Phelps is, is a role model, and role models need to act in ways befitting of their position. He did not choose this position though, he did not ask to be a role model. Is it fair to hold people to a standard they did not ask for?

    Obviously I feel very conflicted about this issue. Driving while intoxicated is incredibly dangerous and I do not want someone to aspire to be like a person who makes such questionable decisions. I do not think Phelps should be penalized further than within the justice system, because his personal life does not impact his private life, or ability to swim. However, do we want to teach those who look up to Phelps that this behavior is acceptable? Is that even the message allowing him to continue swimming would be? Should Phelps be banned from the upcoming Olympics?


  10. Rhetorical Analysis Thesis Statement

    October 2, 2014 by Hannah Conroy

    My thesis is based on the “He for She” speech recently given by Emma Watson. I will argue in my essay: “By demonstrating the need to bring men into feminism, Emma Watson hopes to make the world better for everyone”. In reaction, someone else may argue: “Through her speech, Emma Watson is demonstrating the need for feminism in the world, as it will help women live better lives”. I argue the goal of Watson’s speech is to better the world for both men and women, while another may argue her primary goal is to help only women.

    Another person may argue that she is using her speech to help only women, to make the world a better places for females. I, however, am arguing that she is working to improve the world for both genders. She is using rhetorical devices to persuade, and the goal of her persuasion is to being men in feminism. But “so what?”, why does she want men involved in feminism? Having men involved will make the world better for men too, not just for women. If women have equal power and pay and social standing, everyone benefits, not just the women themselves. Men reap rewards also. Helping men step outside of their prescribed gender roles helps women to step outside theirs. The issue of gender equality is a very current one, it is an issue faced by women around the world every day. By commenting on who can participate in feminism I would be bringing more people into the conversation, inviting more input.

    I believe this message is relevant to everyone, men and women. As Emma Watson is saying, you do not need to be a certain gender to participate in feminism, anyone can. I feel this is may be particularly relevant, though, to men who feel they are not feminists because they cannot be, their gender disqualifies them from participating. I Fathers could especially benefit from this, as they want their daughters to feel equal and have equal opportunities, and they want their sons to feel comfortable in their own skins. However, as Watson is saying, this message benefits everyone, men and women, young and old, and all across the world.


Skip to toolbar