This is the Election of a Lifetime

Link:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVxRmNO6Qs0

This past September Deval Patrick, governor of Massachusetts, delivered a speech at the Democratic National convention titled “Election of a Lifetime.” His speech centered around three main topics: current democratic ideals, the potentially disastrous or prosperous future awaiting Americans, and the qualifications of both presidential candidates.  Governor Patrick was Mitt Romney’s successor as governor and pulled on his experience under a Romney Regime frequently to detail his shortcomings as a leader and what his ineptitudes would mean for America’s future.  During the portion of Patrick's speech where he discussed democratic and American goals he began each of his sentences with “we believe.”  This repetition allowed for a connection from one idea to the next and a sense of patriotism and community.  He continued to draw on this patriotism through pathos, reminding people that the election wasn’t supposed to be about which party you support but who would make America a better country.  By sayings like “government has a role to play…in helping people help themselves to the American dream” he caused his audience, democrats, republicans, and the undecided alike, to feel unified and safe in the knowledge that their government was not merely looking out for itself.  On the other hand, he also used pathos to generate fear.  In an election, people will not vote for a president who they feel will leave the country worse off than when they entered office.  By listing Romney’s failures as governor of Massachusetts (education cuts, deterioration of commercial buildings, high taxes, failure of small businesses, etc.) he forced his audience to face the harsh realities of a Romney America.  I believe that Patrick’s speech was well-worded, moving, and effective in getting people to not only believe in Obama, but doubt Mitt Romney.

Confessions of a Young Anti-Feminist

“I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat” (Rebecca West, English author, journalist, and literary critic).  To answer Rebecca West’s question, feminism is, in the simplest terms, the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.  The article “Confessions of a Young Anti-Feminist,” written by Australian journalist Josephine Asher, details how feminism is destroying femininity, chivalry, and romance in one fell swoop.  Asher described herself in the article, and in her biography on thepunch.com, a website dedicated to controversial debates, as a woman who would “rather dodge a flying pair of high heels thrown at me in anger than pin a man under a pair of mine” meaning that she feels it’s better to defend her traditionalist views to women than challenge a man’s masculinity.  And, from my side of the screen at least, shoes certainly were flying.  I personally found Asher’s argument to be ineffective, therefore leaving her purpose unfulfilled, despite her clear and well-articulated speech.  At one point she attempted to build up legitimacy by citing a renowned neurosurgeon, Charlie Teo.  She quoted him saying things like “They’re [men] there to be protective. A man has to have a good job…so he can…support his family. A woman has to be loving and caring.”  Instead of using this quote to generate ethos, as was intended, it made Asher’s argument seem archaic.  A man has to support his family?  A woman has to be loving and caring?  From both of these statements I am left with the distinct idea that women don’t have to do anything as long as they are loving and that men are allowed to be misogynistic brutes if they provide for their families.  This was one of many things about this article that made me want to hurl shoes at Josephine Asher.  Another was her attempt at showing how gender roles have changed.  By writing that “men are sporting aprons, doing their own ironing and pushing trolleys down supermarket aisles—roles that don’t exactly exude manliness” she came off as closed-minded.  This was because she basically said that men who do household chores aren't really men at all.  Asher truly tried to present a case for anti-feminism which fell short for one encompassing reason: she does not understand feminism.  Feminism has nothing to do with being manly at all (this also detracts from her argument by implying power and success are male characteristics).  It is merely the ability to choose for oneself.  If a woman wants to stay home and raise her children or become a CEO it is her choice; not because she is manly, but because she is a human being and deserves those choices.

Link:  http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/confessions-of-a-young-anti-feminist/