In the January 1995 issue of The Nation, Katha Pollitt writes an article entitle, "It Takes
Two: A Modest Proposal for Holding Fathers Equally Accountable." In her essay, she attacks
Newt Gingrich's current Personal Responsibility Act (PRA) saying that this act only recognizes the responsibility of mothers on welfare and the actions needed to be taken against them. Pollitt argues that the fathers of these children on welfare be held equally accountable by the legislature. To summarize the article, Pollitt states that male politicians always focus on the welfare mother's behavior in "a punitive way." She argues that it is the women and the mothers that are always issued the blame for the increase in welfare handouts and teen pregnancies. Pollitt …show more content…
All of these aspects make up the rhetorical situation. Pollitt's attitude is that the government has, and continues to, direct the blame of the increase in the welfare rolls towards the mothers alone, "Marion Barry's views on welfare are shared by millions: Women have babies by parthenogenesis or cloning and then perversely demand that the government 'take care of them.'" Pollitt argues that welfare does not supersede the roll of the mother, but rather it's purpose is to act as the substitute for the "father's cash." Her attitude towards politics and politicians is that they favor males, "male politicians always focus on women's behavior and always in a punitive way."
Because Pollitt believes that the PRA is a totally extremist act, her approach to the audience is to create her own extreme. She attempts to illustrate the ludicrousy of the Personal
Responsibility Act. Her audience is most likely to be liberal and to share her views to some extent because otherwise they would be put off by her male bashing tone. "you could, after all, see the plethora of women and children in poverty as the fruits of male fickleness,
Two: A Modest Proposal for Holding Fathers Equally Accountable." In her essay, she attacks
Newt Gingrich's current Personal Responsibility Act (PRA) saying that this act only recognizes the responsibility of mothers on welfare and the actions needed to be taken against them. Pollitt argues that the fathers of these children on welfare be held equally accountable by the legislature. To summarize the article, Pollitt states that male politicians always focus on the welfare mother's behavior in "a punitive way." She argues that it is the women and the mothers that are always issued the blame for the increase in welfare handouts and teen pregnancies. Pollitt …show more content…
All of these aspects make up the rhetorical situation. Pollitt's attitude is that the government has, and continues to, direct the blame of the increase in the welfare rolls towards the mothers alone, "Marion Barry's views on welfare are shared by millions: Women have babies by parthenogenesis or cloning and then perversely demand that the government 'take care of them.'" Pollitt argues that welfare does not supersede the roll of the mother, but rather it's purpose is to act as the substitute for the "father's cash." Her attitude towards politics and politicians is that they favor males, "male politicians always focus on women's behavior and always in a punitive way."
Because Pollitt believes that the PRA is a totally extremist act, her approach to the audience is to create her own extreme. She attempts to illustrate the ludicrousy of the Personal
Responsibility Act. Her audience is most likely to be liberal and to share her views to some extent because otherwise they would be put off by her male bashing tone. "you could, after all, see the plethora of women and children in poverty as the fruits of male fickleness,