Vagina, vagina, vagina. It took a very long time for people
to be comfortable enough with themselves to be able to say that word. It took millions of feminists, thousands of
books, and hundreds of lectures for society to appreciate the woman for what
she is rather than what she can cook. And this comfort barrier that has been
broken when it comes to the word vagina isn't always a good thing. Sometimes
those people, who begin to use the word comfortably, take advantage of the progress
that others have made, and in turn, take the vagina and detach it from its
owner.
Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell took the word vagina to a
new level with a violation that continues to shock me every time I press the replay
button on the YouTube clip. Recently Virginia’s House and Senate passed a bill to enact a medically unnecessary vaginal
probing of a woman if she wishes to undergo an abortion in the state. This probing
is to be done against the woman and her physician’s consent if she desires to
have an abortion and was surprisingly passed thanks to the help of the
republicans in Virginia. The only reason why the subject was mediatized was because
democrats in the state required that the republicans in the legislature spell
out the conditions of this procedure in the bill. When the media caught wind of
the fact that republicans were basically signing a bill for the state to rape
women legally, the republicans including McDonnell backed down and claimed they
“were not aware of how invasive the procedure could be.”
Of course there were protests and the media bombarded the
legislature. But this plan to “bully women into not having abortions,” as
democrat David Englin states in the clip, is absurd! You cannot penetrate
(which is exactly what it is, penetrating) women without their consent just for
the sake of reinforcing your personal beliefs and those of your political
affiliation. News and the government just gets weirder and weirder every day.
Just as Rachel Maddow bodly says, “what a difference people paying attention
makes.”
We mock him because we aren’t as courageous as him. It’s sad but true. People often poke fun at others who posses qualities out of the realm of societal norms only because we ourselves do not contain the special brave cells in our body to play this outcast role. We make excuses for the reasons why we despise these people and fill our day with clever jokes and puns directed towards the “weird” segment of our society. But as you look closer, you should realize that the only thing that separates us from these people is that they have the guts to express their rhetoric while we stand idly by.
We all know the Williard Preacher. The ballsy man who posts out front of the side entrance to Williard and expresses his attitude towards the activities that Penn State students participate in according to his religious beliefs. This is the most pure form of rhetoric. He argues his point of view about the reckless college student’s behavior regardless of the stares and whispers he receives. And when others disagree, which is often, he stands behind what he believes in, in rain, snow, and sleet. He is not a professor here or a student, just an outspoken member of the State College community who has a lot to preach.
Originally, I ridiculed him. Strutted past him on my way downtown wondering why in God’s name he would even consider preaching to students who obviously do not care. Was this his hobby? But clearly he enjoys what he does. It’s not just a hobby, rhetorical expression is his life. Using his hobby as a way to amuse yourself while rushing to your next class is pathetic. We should all be more like the Williard Preacher. At least he’s actively doing something he believes in. When can you say the last time you did that was?
Welcome to the world of feminism. Where everything and anything that is said or done is analyzed to the point of obnoxious. Things that may not seem sexist can be spun around to be as prejudice as the 1960s. When I come across these feminist spin arounds, I can’t help to wonder whether the situations at hand really are as prejudice as they seem or if the fact is a fictitious run of a crazy feminist’s imagination to make the world hate the male gender.
If any of you have ever taken a woman studies course in your educational pathway, you quickly realize you either absolutely despise it, or you can’t wait to fill your coffee mug up so you can grab the first available front row seat. Whether my approach is to hate it or love it, I can’t help but to respect this one article I read in the class.
The Egg And The Sperm by Emily Martin demonstrates the secretive language of our everyday text books. Words that have forever been hidden in the biology books that we have been reading since the middle school days are exposed in this intriguing essay about the relationship between the reproductive systems of men and women. This short but sweet article explains how the depiction of the sperm and the egg can illustrate the classic fairy tale stories of the night in shining armor (sperm) courageously rescuing the damsel in distress (egg).
Martin notes how in the most common biology text books of our youth explain how the sperm is an active part of the system who is rescuing the egg by penetrating through it. While the egg is a passive creature, waiting for the process to begin. The mere words in biology books illustrate how the egg is ultimately less important and adventurous as the sperm. The sperm is the main reason for a successful child birth and the egg is just there for the sperm to do its job. Medical Physiology by Vernon Mountcastle even states, “Whereas the female sheds only a single gamete each month, the seminiferous tubules produce hundreds of millions of sperm each day.” Our textbooks throughout the years have been providing us with negative connotations towards the egg and positive ones with sperm without notice from teachers, students, or parents.
Only feminists like Martin recognized these hidden depictions. But as the bigger picture comes into play, we can wonder how many of these hidden descriptions exist. People we blindly trust, because of the number of degrees they hold or signatures on books they carry, could possibly have been placing this sort of persuasive rhetoric to make readers believe certain things for generations. Saying rhetoric is everywhere is an understatement. Rhetoric to convince young minds things through their subconscious is the new form of deception but is undoubtedly still a form of rhetoric.
The arts aren’t for everyone. Well let’s make this a little more magnified: the arts aren’t necessarily for the typical macho man, as stereotypical as that sounds. So it wasn’t a surprise to me that the only people who replied with a yes to my request to go see the play Frozen by Bryony Lavery at the Downtown Theatre were girls (minus my friend Tim who is a theatre major). No current boy thing of mine was eager to go, regardless of my plea and rants about doing things I like, instead of being stuck in front of the ESPN network all day with the occasional switch to Call of Duty every hour on the hour.
Penn State School of Theatre students who peform these fantastic plays. Check them out here !
But as Frozen went on, and that two hour time span was chock full of emotional moments of crying and philosophical arguments that I know my boy thing wouldn’t have grasped anyway, I was glad I came with my girls (minus Tim). Not only did I have time without vigorous button pounding, but I had time to contemplate the overall message of the play. Frozen had hidden deep meanings throughout it, but for the purpose of rhetoric blogs, I chose to point out one specific act that struck me as interesting in the rhetorical aspect and its relationship to the real world.
Frozen is about three separate life experiences occurring at the same time that all interconnect. One is a mother, Nancy, who lost her daughter, Rhona, at the age of 10 when another character, Ralph, abducted, sexually assaulted, and murdered her in a shed not far from Nancy’s own home. The third character in the play is Agnetha, an American scholar who travels to England to present her thesis about whether or not murder is a forgivable act. Agnetha determines her decision on the thesis after doing multiple cognitive studies on Ralph while he is imprisoned for the murder of not only Rhona but several other young girls in England.
One act in the play is a monologue by Nancy in which she speaks to the audience about the organization she is leading to find the lost children, like Rhona, of parents in England. She tells how she gets up in front of hundreds of people to speak about her experience and persuades them to donate money and assist her in locating the children around England who have been kidnapped. Her actions to find Rhona are an example of rhetoric. Her rhetoric is filled with emotion and personal experience which forces people to think of no other option but to help her find the lost children.
However, as Nancy is giving her monologue, the audience can see a different twinkle in her eye that is not just for other parents to find their children. Nancy stresses to the audience (the people present at the play) that her goal is deceiving, that she honestly could care less about the other lost children of England, and that she really just desires something more selfish, to just have Rhona back in her arms.
This example of rhetoric allowed me to witness that rhetorical arguments that we often see are sometimes misleading. Not everyone is truthful in the hopes they wish to accomplish and they may actually have a different goal in mind that would not necessarily be approved by their audience. Speakers may throw out inspirational words and personal experiences to persuade you to do a certain thing, but in reality their motives are narcissistic. Promises by political leaders would probably be the most common form of this deception, but we may also hear the most influential, historical, and widely respected people practicing the same actions.
Rhetoric might be used for more evil than good. We are noticing the things people are saying, but what about the things they aren't saying? It makes me wonder, who can you really trust to persuade you if aren’t present for their monologue?
If you and I are having a peaceful night-in, popping microwaveable goodies and downing as much caffeine in our systems as humanly possible and I don’t scream at you to find the clicker so that we can change the awful and pointless commercial on, that’s how you can be certain that this commercial is a good one. Commercials like this are rare. You know, the ones that intrigue you from the initial second and keep you laughing until the final 30th second. Due to our irony-hungry and easily jaded generation, more and more we viewers are seeing commercials that are not just informatory, but interesting as well.
There is a strict criteria for a successful commercial. It must be persuasive, captivating, humorous, relatable, and memorable. All of these elements demonstrate forms of rhetoric that the creator forces on the audience to get their point across. Once the point is apparent to the viewer, the main goal is for the audience to follow, purchase, or spread the word about the subject seen through that magical talking box.
The Cingular commercial below in particular illustrates a simple form of rhetoric in which the company is attempting to persuade current and new costumers to purchase the unlimited texting. The commercial uses common ideologies, or a commonplace, about modern American families.
Cingular carefully positions the commercial in the setting of a typical upper middle class household which is the primary demographic of their customers. They use an argument to spark a sense of familiarity in the viewers due to the inevitable confrontations between every parent and teenager that have ever walked this fine earth and also the rise of “text lingo” that baffle all people still. This understanding is a way of using ethos and pathos to generate emotion in the audience rather than using something like a dying cat to make viewers feel heartbroken. Cingular’s approach creates familiarity but keeps the element of humor intact.
Even the minute things, like spelling out the foreign language (well it might as well be foreign) of the teenager at the bottom of the screen keeps the viewers transfixed. Also, keeping the commercial short, sweet, and to the point and then introducing an entire screen of bright colored orange to grab attention once more forces the audiences’ mind to relate back to the main argument at hand.
All these features of the rhetoric Cingular commercial not only solved my conflict a couple years ago of excessive texting which led to not-so-excessive checking accounts, but still has me saying “idk my bff jill.”
