Week 6 -- "Fie on the Falsehood of Men"

I have selected female rhetoricians Jane Anger and Rachel Speght as the foci of my reading response paper. I chose these two women for a number of reasons: each accomplished some "first" (e.g. Anger holds status as the first woman to be on paper for discussing how language constructs gender and Speght holds such in regards to pointing out the real-world implications jokes and banter on women have), each writes in extremely poetic, pleasing styles (both use imagery, metaphors, and analogies), and to each I responded with some kind of emotion or excitement ignited by the passion both demonstrate while making their plea or call to action. My (working) thesis will focus on analyzing the similarities of their rhetorical styles, but will also note definitive differences between these two women. Main points to support this thesis will include looking at their approach to their message, how they construct it, the content within, and to whom each targets her message. One particular difference I noted rests in how they each make their arguments in terms of language and citations. Anger displays in indirect ways her level of education by noting the gods and goddesses and drawing on the Surfeiter's book for her argument. Contrarily, Speght demonstrates a comprehensive and profound education, particularly in regard to Latin, classical literature, and rhetoric. For instance, she draws on Socrates to make her argument against Swetname in "Mouzell for Melastomus."
In looking at theses two authors, I chose the best method of comparison would be to do a rhetorical analysis. In this regard I can analyze how they insure their credibility, how they arranged their piece and why, which rhetorical appeal they most implement, and where strengths and weaknesses exist within each piece of writing. Also, I plan to include some cultural and social context of the Renaissance, when both women made their arguments. For example, I believe the dominant views of the "natural" condition of women at that time is significant to understanding both Speght's and Anger's writings.

Annotated Bibliography

For an upcoming reading response paper, my professor asked that we write an annotated bibliographic on two sources we found. Below, I have done so, using Meg Lota Brown's article on Rachel Speght and A. Lynn Magnusson's on Jane Anger. For my paper, I will be analyzing the works of Speght and Anger, as well as comparing them and examining cultural context surrounding their work.

Brown, Meg Lota. “Rachel Speght.” Dictionary of Literary Biography Vol. 126. Ed. M.       Thomas Hester. Detroit: Gale Research, 1993. Literature Resource Center. Web. 11 February 2011.

      Brown discusses everything from Speght’s life to her few pieces of writing. She reveals that while no evidence supporting Speght’s formal education, Speght’s writing clearly demonstrates a grasp of rhetoric and classical literature as well as contemporary, and an understanding of Latin and the Bible. She also points to contemporary reaction to “Mouzell for Melastomus” including Speght’s complaint in a later work that few people credited the work to herself but rather to her father, James Speght.

      For my paper, Brown’s analysis of Speght’s “Mouzell for Melastomus” will certainly help in that Brown focuses on Speght’s analogy of Adam and Eve to the modern standing of men and women. She also points at Speght’s approach differing from Swetnam’s as far as restraint in “argument and tone.” I particularly found Brown’s mention of Speght as a “protofeminist” interesting. Having never heard that word before, I looked it up and now understand the term to refer to “feminists” prior to the 20^th Century when the word actually surfaced. This will provide another lens through which I can analyze both Speght and Anger, looking at them both as precursors to feminism despite neither of them yet arguing women’s status below men.

Magnusson, A. Lynn. “Jane Anger.” Dictionary of Literary Biography Vol. 136. Ed. David A. Richardson. Detroit: Gale Research, 1994. Literature Resource Center. Web. 11 February 2011.

       Magnusson begins by noting that no knowledge of Jane Anger’s life exists and quickly moves on to dispel an argument made by some that a male authored Anger’s writing. She goes on to interpret Anger’s “Her Protection for Women” by highlighting key phrases and attacks on “Boke, His Surfeit on Love.” In doing so, she highlights how Anger made the first real defense of women by women as well as making an attack on men in the process. She extends her protection not just to virtuous women, but the feminine sex in general. Magnusson also emphasizes the way Anger reworks the Surfeiter’s arguments against him as well as uses popular tools of male rhetoric to form female rhetoric of the time.

       Magnusson’s interpretations of Anger’s work have implications for my paper in regards to identifying the importance of how Anger twisted instruments of male rhetoric around and used them in her own way. This will help in my own discussion of Anger’s work in comparison to Rachel Speght’s. Additionally, Magnusson identifies important cultural context surrounding Anger’s work pertinent to my own analysis.

Education or Indoctrination?

We often hear, as in middle and high school, about how Lincoln "freed the slaves." If any of you are like me, you probably thought he sounded like a swell guy. Not so much. I haven't decided if the "stories" I learned in my history classes had to be simplified as a casualty of  a brimming curriculum or if teachers were told not to rock the boat and to make all the presidents sound like superheros, bereft of flaws.

On my first day of American History in high school, the teacher asked a question (I can't recall what it was) in regards to the class discussion of the British. I flippantly responded with my knowledge of all the people the British have historically enslaved, slaughtered, and culturally decimated under the guise of conquering (I purposely put "historically" because I really don't have anything against the British, I just don't believe in rewriting history in order to not make a race of people sound bad; no one cuts Germany any slack so why the British?). Apparently this was not the answer he wanted to hear. Brushing my answer aside, he went on to the point he wanted to make. In this way, students learn to disregard what tests, teachers, and the curriculum do not require them to know. They focus singularly on what's "important" (aka, predominantly white, male, and upper-class) and ignore sidebar stories (aka, women, racial minorities, and the lower-class).

I remember beginning to question my education as far back as seventh grade. My textbook had condensed the Irish potato famine into a paragraph. It flabbergasted me. As third generation Irish, I'm a little ways off of being able to claim that as my race. However, my father, proud of his Irish heritage, has made the culture and history a strong part of my upbringing. I won't go into another of my tirades about what actually happened, but I couldn't believe that such a tragic incidence of genocide had been so measly wrapped up into a paragraph and pushed aside. Again, Americans didn't want to make the British look bad.

Through these incidences, I learned that Americans value individualism, success, and achievement. I have trouble accepting these ideas because I know what lurks behind some of these "achievements." I know that for every race that looks strong, progressive, and dominant, another race lies trampled upon and oppressed. I mentioned Lincoln earlier and how he "freed the slaves" and went to war with the south over "slavery." First of all, you can discover those falsities on your own. Secondly, as Sherman Alexie draws notice to in his book "War Dances," in 1862 (one year before the Emancipation Proclamation, if you recall) Lincoln ordered the execution of 300 Sioux Indians, condemned in unfair trials. So if classes that place emphasis on certain people while leaving others out, reinforcing ideals and values by omission, do not qualify as rhetoric in the sense that they sway how people think about and view the world, I'm not sure what does.