Two specific speeches given by Susan B. Anothony and Emmeline Pankhurst, though given years
apart, argue the same point; by denying women the same rights as men, society admits to viewing
them as lesser humans. In Anthony’s speech, she claims that the Constitution was always meant to “protect the people in exercise of their God-given rights”(lines 25-26). She asserts that the government has betrayed their mission to defend the rights of the people by not allowing women those rights. By giving only men the right to vote, they’re only pushing the belief women are lesser, less as humans, unable to have the level of intelligence men do. She argues multiple times the point that women are humans just as men are, and yet people must be constantly reminded and goaded to treat them with the …show more content…
In an argument like this, arguing what is ethical in government, or any environment considered traditionally “masculine”, it is important to focus on the emotional response. At some times, it is the only tool- human emotion, as arbitrary as it comes, is unreliable- to depend on emotion is a gamble- though in this case, it is what Anthony has to go on. Choosing the correct phrasing is difficult when appealing to emotion; if someone chooses to be assertive, it must be clear that it is not an attack, but passion. In a situation like this, it is a matter of going for sympathy without begging. When it comes to women’s rights, anything said can be picked apart and used as ammunition against the speaker. The claim women are emotional to a fault is often used to invalidate arguments. Anthony had to argue using pathos knowing it would be used against her, trusting the odds that her words would reach them. Sometimes, this is all that can be
apart, argue the same point; by denying women the same rights as men, society admits to viewing
them as lesser humans. In Anthony’s speech, she claims that the Constitution was always meant to “protect the people in exercise of their God-given rights”(lines 25-26). She asserts that the government has betrayed their mission to defend the rights of the people by not allowing women those rights. By giving only men the right to vote, they’re only pushing the belief women are lesser, less as humans, unable to have the level of intelligence men do. She argues multiple times the point that women are humans just as men are, and yet people must be constantly reminded and goaded to treat them with the …show more content…
In an argument like this, arguing what is ethical in government, or any environment considered traditionally “masculine”, it is important to focus on the emotional response. At some times, it is the only tool- human emotion, as arbitrary as it comes, is unreliable- to depend on emotion is a gamble- though in this case, it is what Anthony has to go on. Choosing the correct phrasing is difficult when appealing to emotion; if someone chooses to be assertive, it must be clear that it is not an attack, but passion. In a situation like this, it is a matter of going for sympathy without begging. When it comes to women’s rights, anything said can be picked apart and used as ammunition against the speaker. The claim women are emotional to a fault is often used to invalidate arguments. Anthony had to argue using pathos knowing it would be used against her, trusting the odds that her words would reach them. Sometimes, this is all that can be