Register to read the introduction…
The democrats also wasted no time hanging onto Akin's every harsh word, and the flare-up definitely had furious responses appearing from all over. Even the GOP distanced themselves from his comment; it seemed that no one stood by his side through this matter. One demonstration of the public responses to this was an online article written regarding the recent news, "It's Not a War on Women, It's a War on Critical Thinking and Democracy". Soraya Chemaly, the author of the article, showed no hesitation to voice her fury over his statements. Chemaly argued against Akin's claim about legitimate and illegitimate rapes through the use of a heavily sarcastic tone; she reached out to the public with a unique and distinctive voice as well as a personal, informal and conversational tone. In addition to these unwavering strategies, Chemaly obtained utmost amount of ethos that enabled her to make and extremely persuasive and convincing article in favor
…show more content…
A generous amount is acceptable, but there is a fine line between what is simply far too much, and what is just right. Chemaly clearly had experience with using sarcasm through a means of pursuasion because it worked for her. What also worked in her favor was her ability to keep it at a personal level through her argument. As a reader, I felt that Chemaly was able to reach out successfully to explain why she felt the way she did. This was due to the conversational tone she maintained throughout the article. For example, straight from the text and verbatim, "Say what you will about men like Paul Ryan and Rick Santorum…" The fact that she says "say what you will" makes me feel as though she is speaking with me face to face. Another example that demonstrates her personal and witty voice is the way her language through the article is physically written. In the final paragraph, it reads "…at least in 20th century American political, versus loooonng standing classical Greek and Christian though terms)…". Chemaly actually writes the word 'long' as 'loooonng' in her article. Although this may be an extremeley minor element of her strategies, I do believe it to be significant in that it shows the informality manner in which she approaches her audience. Had it been an article direct from CNN or NBC, one would not see such a word spelled in that way. But because this is an informal argument, one where she
A generous amount is acceptable, but there is a fine line between what is simply far too much, and what is just right. Chemaly clearly had experience with using sarcasm through a means of pursuasion because it worked for her. What also worked in her favor was her ability to keep it at a personal level through her argument. As a reader, I felt that Chemaly was able to reach out successfully to explain why she felt the way she did. This was due to the conversational tone she maintained throughout the article. For example, straight from the text and verbatim, "Say what you will about men like Paul Ryan and Rick Santorum…" The fact that she says "say what you will" makes me feel as though she is speaking with me face to face. Another example that demonstrates her personal and witty voice is the way her language through the article is physically written. In the final paragraph, it reads "…at least in 20th century American political, versus loooonng standing classical Greek and Christian though terms)…". Chemaly actually writes the word 'long' as 'loooonng' in her article. Although this may be an extremeley minor element of her strategies, I do believe it to be significant in that it shows the informality manner in which she approaches her audience. Had it been an article direct from CNN or NBC, one would not see such a word spelled in that way. But because this is an informal argument, one where she