Rhetorical Analysis Of Radical Feminism

In contemporary society, many people have begun to question whether or not the feminist movement is still necessary, as they believe equality has been achieved. Some people, beyond believing that men and women have become equal, believe that women have surpassed men in terms of gender equality and that men have become the oppressed group. This has lead to a recent trend of men’s rights activists, or “meninists” which started as a satirical stance on radical feminism, only to later be taken and turned into a movement. In this paper, the rhetoric of two articles on the topic will be compared and contrasted, one using an appeal to logos to invalidate the men's rights movement, while the other employs pathos and ethos to support the men's rights …show more content…
The author claims in this article that men’s rights are not needed and that feminism addresses most of the problems these men face, due to them being caused by patriarchal systems. The author demonstrates logos by addressing the views of men’s rights activists and expressing that he understands why they feel that way and eloquently explaining why they are not valid. He also incorporates statistics to appeal to logic and strengthen his argument. The author uses sentence structure as rhetoric by delivering his article in short, punchy sentences, as well as bolding important sections vital to his argument. He also uses rhetorical questions as a device; such as “if we can’t take a movement meant to empower women seriously, what does that say about our view of women?” ( Hernann Feminism for all). The article is published in a feminist online magazine, however it’s intended audience is directed towards men who are supportive of the men’s rights …show more content…
The most obvious being that, while the articles use a mixture of appeals, the article by Hernann utilises a more logical approach whereas Venker brings in a more pathos driven argument. Whereas many young people today, including me, have a very strong bias towards the article written by Herrend, it seems difficult to believe this article was more effective for its particular audience. Herrend’s article intends to reach men who believe in men’s rights and convince them otherwise, which despite the authors use of many effective rhetorical devices is quite challenging. This is partially because it is published in a feminist online journal, which obviously very few mens rights activists are actively looking for. The other article however, seems to not be addressing feminists in hopes of changing their minds, but rather simply reinforcing or amplifying the already present ideas in the white conservatives of which Fox news audience is already mostly comprised