Bartels and Edelman : A Comparative Critique
In the essay “The Myth of Co-Parenting: How It Was Supposed to Be. How It Was” by Hope Edelman, and “My Problem with Her Anger” by Eric Bartels, Edelman and Bartels both share their views of their roles in their marriages. Edelman arguing that her husband did not do enough to contribute to the relationship, where Bartels states that he does do work in his relationship and does not receive enough credit for it. Though both of these arguments take opposing sides of a similar argument, their rhetoric does share a strong likeness. Edelman and Bartels both use rhetoric specifically designed to persuade agreement and sympathy out of the opposite sex.
The nature of the viewpoints that each author shares …show more content…
Both of the authors by doing this can gain some understanding from their target audience simply because they are putting their own emotions and words into a format that is easily recognized by the audience because it is relatable. Edelman’s rhetoric as a whole with it’s aggressive recount of her emotions and events, takes on a masculine way of telling her story. Releasing all of her frustrations crammed up next to one another as though she is yelling them all in a fit of fury and then letting her argument settle down everything returning to a calm state, similar to how the stereotyped image of male anger is displayed. Bartels does the same with his rhetoric, but in a more feminine manner, looping his argument around and making fine connections between each point displaying how everything is related, being precise yet firm about how he feels at the same time. Yet he still displays compassion and claims that anger should not be expressed but rather managed calmly and rationally, which is congruent to the traditional view of how women do not openly express their anger. For both of these authors this gives them the advantage of having their audience read the essay with an increased sense of agreement, despite the topic, because of the similarity in presentation with …show more content…
Those being that the argument does not reflect enough on what the other person 's view is to prove that they are more valid in their way of thinking than their respective spouses. Both essays relying heavily the reader 's emotions and comfort with familiarity to provoke agreement from them. This can give both of the authors validation for an argument that they believe and present as being the only right decision when it is indeed not. This can also further affect the negative emotions that each of the authors have about their relationship, and even the reader 's way of thinking, as it encourages independent thought without consideration of all sides of an
In the essay “The Myth of Co-Parenting: How It Was Supposed to Be. How It Was” by Hope Edelman, and “My Problem with Her Anger” by Eric Bartels, Edelman and Bartels both share their views of their roles in their marriages. Edelman arguing that her husband did not do enough to contribute to the relationship, where Bartels states that he does do work in his relationship and does not receive enough credit for it. Though both of these arguments take opposing sides of a similar argument, their rhetoric does share a strong likeness. Edelman and Bartels both use rhetoric specifically designed to persuade agreement and sympathy out of the opposite sex.
The nature of the viewpoints that each author shares …show more content…
Both of the authors by doing this can gain some understanding from their target audience simply because they are putting their own emotions and words into a format that is easily recognized by the audience because it is relatable. Edelman’s rhetoric as a whole with it’s aggressive recount of her emotions and events, takes on a masculine way of telling her story. Releasing all of her frustrations crammed up next to one another as though she is yelling them all in a fit of fury and then letting her argument settle down everything returning to a calm state, similar to how the stereotyped image of male anger is displayed. Bartels does the same with his rhetoric, but in a more feminine manner, looping his argument around and making fine connections between each point displaying how everything is related, being precise yet firm about how he feels at the same time. Yet he still displays compassion and claims that anger should not be expressed but rather managed calmly and rationally, which is congruent to the traditional view of how women do not openly express their anger. For both of these authors this gives them the advantage of having their audience read the essay with an increased sense of agreement, despite the topic, because of the similarity in presentation with …show more content…
Those being that the argument does not reflect enough on what the other person 's view is to prove that they are more valid in their way of thinking than their respective spouses. Both essays relying heavily the reader 's emotions and comfort with familiarity to provoke agreement from them. This can give both of the authors validation for an argument that they believe and present as being the only right decision when it is indeed not. This can also further affect the negative emotions that each of the authors have about their relationship, and even the reader 's way of thinking, as it encourages independent thought without consideration of all sides of an