Rhetoric

I know very well how little Reputation is to be got by Writings which require neither Genius nor Learning, nor indeed any other Talent, except a good Memory, or an exact Journal.
–Jonathan Swift, Gulliver’s Travels, Part 4, Chapter 12

This makes me feel a little better (and worse) about my blog, which is its own form of journal and which requires no genius, though I would hope it uses learning and talent. Hmm.

But it made me smile today to read it in GT when I was working on my critical essay for publication, so I thought I would share it here.

I was talking to an associate dean today. I am not sure that she said what I think she did, but this is how I interpreted the conversation.

I told her that I was getting a critical analysis of Gulliver’s Travels published by Ignatius Press.

She said, “Don’t you want to teach composition?”

I said yes.

That was the end of the conversation because someone came along and interrupted us.

But I got the feeling that she meant, “Why are you writing something on literature if you want to teach composition?”

I have a couple of answers.

1. If I am going to teach composition, shouldn’t I be able to prove I can write?

2. Just because I want to teach composition does not mean I have no interests in English outside of rhetoric.

3. Because they accepted my proposal.

Maybe I was taking the question the wrong way. But if I wasn’t, those are my answers.

The Frontier, says William Tucker in The American Spectator.

In 1893, Frederick Jackson Turner published a seminal essay in which he argued that having an open frontier on our westward boundary had been a decisive influence in shaping the American character. The frontier experience had leveled the class traditions from Europe, proffered opportunity to the common individual, and created a spirit of independence that had constantly posed a challenge to entrenched Eastern elites. Populist movements that had continually reinvigorated American politics had all arisen on the frontier.

It is no accident that this year the two Republican candidates come from thinly populated Western frontier states. Sarah Palin perfectly embodies this frontier spirit and both candidates are considered “mavericks,” earning their spurs by taking on entrenched interests. Obama, on the other hand — though he may not realize it — draws his strongest support from Eastern colleges and established hierarchical institutions. He is the candidate of the non-profit sector, that odd hybrid of a capitalist society in which educated people try to claim money from profit-making institutions and “turn it to good use,” usually following their own proclivities.

He discusses many other influences, including race and money.

It is an interesting and, perhaps, foundational read.

Is Ms. an insult? It appears so.

It is certainly less polite than higher titles, Senator and Governor, and less commonly used to talk about someone who is married than Mrs.

So why is it happening so much in the New York Times?

Big Arm Woman at Tightly Wound:

1. The media is sexist. Well actually this one wasn’t a news flash. I mean, I’m not a big HRC fan, but come on–if you’re gonna criticize a woman for having birthing hips on the campaign trail, then I demand equal time for some analysis of the Biden Comb Over. Because really, that thing is scary.

There are more!

Based on the headlines in the news stories today, both on the web and on the radio, Washington outsiders and reformers are our heroes, too.

“Palin presented herself as a Washington outsider”

“Palin paints herself as a Washington outsider and reformer”

America’s heroes can be deduced from who our politicians refer to in their speeches. Let’s look at Sarah Palin’s speech for our heroes:

John F. Kennedy:
Our nominee for president is a true profile in courage

Our troops:
[Track] he’ll deploy to Iraq with the Army infantry in the service of his country.
My nephew Kasey also enlisted, and serves on a carrier in the Persian Gulf.

Our families:
We met in high school, and two decades and five children later he’s still my guy
My parents are here tonight, and I am so proud to be the daughter of Chuck and Sally Heath.

Harry Truman:
Long ago, a young farmer and habber-dasher from Missouri followed an unlikely path to the vice presidency.

A writer observed: “We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty, sincerity, and dignity.” I know just the kind of people that writer had in mind when he praised Harry Truman.

Jesus:
But we are expected to govern with integrity, good will, clear convictions, and … a servant’s heart.

This paper was originally presented at MLA in 1992.

This is the conclusion written and given in December of 1992.

After this paper was composed and submitted to MLA, I taught technical writing three more semesters.

Summer class aberration
The class I taught this summer had two papers in it which contradict two of the gender issues compiled from a review of past major paper assignments. One of the papers was from a male student who dealt with a female stereotypic topic: How Family Affects Work. Kenny explained his topic by saying, “Family areas such as marital satisfaction and child care responsibilities have an impact at work. Some effects that family can have on work include decreased productivity, increased pressure on supervisors, and a need for an expanded family policy. This report investigates these effects and what employees and organizations can do about them.”

Another student used personal anecdotes as a method of persuasion in his paper on job loss. Drew chose the topic because his father had been out of work for over a year. He quoted some research on psychological affects of job loss and wrote, “Many can hide the symptoms of dissatisfaction and low self-esteem. However, with my father, the signs are present if you look deep into his eyes.”

Explanation?
I do not have any explanation for why, in the summer of 1992, two students wrote papers which by-passed the gender differentiated approach to writing assignments.

I do not think that these two papers discount the significance of the issues I noted through examining approximately four hundred student papers. Rather, they offer a new avenue of questioning to pursue. Are they the start of a new generation of students who are not only able to be females using male strategies but also males using female strategies? If they are not, then their aberration from the norm is worth examining. What makes them different and how can we pass the differences on to other students?

Part 5

Part 4

Part 3

Part 2

Part 1

This paper was originally presented at MLA in 1992.

This is the original conclusion, which was sent in with the original paper in January of 1992.

Summary
Six years and four hundred students have been enough to note some gender issues in my technical writing classroom. Female students write on gender-related topics; male students do not. Female students use personal anecdotes as persuasion; male students do not. Both female and male students use sexist language, despite education and punitive attempts to change their language usage at least for one course.

Implications
What are the implications of these facts? Our students reflect the world around them. As Deborah Tannen noted in You Just Don’t Understand, men and women have different styles of communicating.

When they must communicate with each other in groups, both change their styles but the women change more. Female students have to learn how to cope with a previously male-only business world.

Their papers on gender related issues are a way of seeking to learn how to adjust, I think. Female students use personal anecdotes as persuasion because these are seen as persuasive by women; however, not all female students employ it. Even those students who had personal reasons for choosing their topics did not always include this information in their papers.

Neither female nor male students are using inclusive language; it is uncomfortable and unaccepted. So the female students use language which excludes them from the very things they are attempting to gain entrance to by completing their university degrees.

The workplace, including the university, is still a male dominated environment to which women adapt either because of conscious choice or because it is easier to fit in than to be different.