Lapierre Analysis

            A few of Lapierres claims consist of protecting our children, enforcing armed security guards at all schools across America, and promoting the benefits of the NRA. Two strategies he uses to get these points across to his readers are transitional questions and pathos. Lapierres ability to emotionally attack his audience is very strong. He implies extensively that the reader’s children are at risk and that they need to do something about it. He does not use a lot of logos or ethos for his statements seem questionable and he has no evidence to back them up. He uses statistics that have no background and he never quotes or uses in authorities figures to persuade his audience. For example, Lapierre says, “A child growing up in America witnesses 16,000 murders and 200,000 acts of violence by the time he or she reaches the ripe old age of 18.” Where is he getting this information? Does this mean that they are physically there at the seen of the crime or through films and video games or the media? Lapierre leaves a lot of open-ended statements and does not have enough evidence to back them up for them to be accurate or believable. Another example is when he says, “The media call semi-automatic firearms ‘machine guns’ – They claim these civilian semi-automatic firearms are used by the military, and they tell us that the .223 round is one of the most powerful rifle calibers . . . when all of these claims are factually untrue. They don’t know what they are talking about.” Well how are we supposed to know that he knows what he is talking about? He doesn’t show statistics or evidence to prove that his statement is right either. He just blatantly says that he is right and that the media is wrong and that you should believe him.  Needless to say, Lapierre has a valid point, but fails to persuade his audience into believing him.

Gun Safety

Gun Safety

In author Nicholas Kristoff’s article, “Do We Have the Courage to Stop This?”, he claims that the reason there have been numerous homicides in America is due to the N.R.A.’s inability to create a better system as to the selling of guns. Kristoff also claims that the way to reduce deaths by guns is to approach the issue from its origins. Through the use of rhetorical questions and all of Aristotle’s Appeal’s, Kistoff is able to influence his audience that there should be regulations on the distribution of guns. His most effective tactic was his use of statistics for they were gathered from well-known associations and brought a sense of shock to the reader. One thing that caught my attention was his last two sentences: “Some of you are alive today because of those auto safety regulations. And if we don’t treat guns in the same serious way, some of you and some of your children will die because of our failure” (Kristoff 20). I felt that this was a very aggressive move, for Kristoff brought the readers families into a scenario in a negative way. This use of pathos gave Kristoff’s audience something to think about after reading his article and convinces them to consider his claim more than if he hadn’t included it.  Kristoff’s article was convincing and sends a message to his audience.

Is Veiling Failing?

Dane Hollar

Christopher Werry

February 23, 2015

RWS 200

Is Veiling Failing?

Feminism is an on going global issue and the stances on how feminism is represented are causing an uproar amongst individuals. The act of veiling by Muslim women has drawn multiple opinions from different groups of feminists throughout the past few decades; especially after 9/11.  Mayson Haydar, a young Muslim woman raised in America and Lila Abu-Lughod, a Middle Eastern Muslim professor of anthropology at Columbia University, both share their opinions on how the act of veiling affects feminism within their articles. Haydar’s article, “Body Outlaws,” has an Americanized Muslim point of view and uses anecdotes to make her argument better understood by her reader’s. Abu-Lughod’s article, “The Muslim Woman,” has a Middle Eastern Muslim point of view on veiling and primarily uses facts to persuade her audience that veiling is choice. Both authors are attempting to reach out to their audiences, which consist of mainly American feminists who believe that veiling is the opposite of what feminism represents. Although both share similar claims and strategies, their abilities to get their audience attention and inform them of their arguments differ. Within this paper, I will expand upon Haydar’s and Abu-Lughod’s rhetorical strategies, such as rebuttal, analogy, and definition, as well as their claims.

Veiling derives from the Islamic religion and is common amongst many Muslim women. Both authors claim that Muslim women veil because they believe in Islam, but many western feminists believe that it is demeaning and demoralizing. In Abu-Lughod’s and Haydar’s articles, they are able to take the opposition and construct it to support their arguments that veiling is the opposite of what many western feminists believe. Abu-Lughod says, “it is common knowledge that the ultimate sign of the oppression of Afghani women under the Taliban-and-the-terrorists is that they were forced to wear the burqa. Liberals sometimes confess their surprise that even though Afghanistan has been liberated from the Taliban, women do not seem to be throwing off their burqas . . .” (Abu-Lughod 3). Here Abu-Lughod is interpreting the views of Americans and describing what they believe Muslim women should do, for it is thought that men have control over what women wear, like the burqa. Abu-Lughod later goes on to take the opposition by describing why many Muslim women have kept the veil on, even after the Taliban were liberated: “Religious belief and community standards of propriety require the covering of the hair in some traditions . . . People wear the appropriate form of dress for their social communities and are guided by socially shared standards, religious beliefs, and moral ideals” (Abu-Lughod 3).  Muslim women have a choice to veil and most continue to wear it for their own purposes, whether is be religious or moral ideals. It is a sign of independence rather than male domination or fear. By using this rebuttal, Abu-Lughod is able to take the argument that many Americans have and give a reason that contradicts their argument and supports her own.

While Abu-Lughod focuses more on veiling in the Middle East, Haydar is able to describe her own view as a Muslim in American culture. “. . . many Americans see veiling as an oppressive tool forced on Muslim women by the men in our culture. Yet the practice of covering hair and body is a choice for many women - and is not specific to Islam” (Haydar 260). Similar to Abu-Lughod, Haydar describes the negative view that Americans have on veiling, and plans to contradict their argument with reasons why veiling is not an “oppressive tool”. She later describes an encounter with a girl on a bus, in New York City, that couldn’t understand why Haydar would wear a veil:

“(the girl said) ‘Me, I got to be free.’ To my eyes, her idea of freedom involved a complicated hairstyle, loads of makeup and jeans she probably had to sew herself into. If anything I would find that ensemble more caging, more oppressive, and more painful than clothes that would allow e to walk in front of construction sites confidently, with minimal risk of harassment” (Haydar 260).

 Haydar’s rebuttal is able to capture her audience’s attention for it is something they can relate to. Haydar contradicts the “oppressive” interpretation by describing American views on veiling and then opposing it with a personal anecdote. Both authors use the oppressive outlook that many Americans have and use it to support their argument on the religious aspect of veiling and how it should be seen as a choice.

            Veiling is as much of a choice as choosing what religion to believe in. When Muslim women choose to believe in Islam, they are doing so on their own terms, which is why veiling is part of that choice. Similar to any other religion, people choose how in-depth they want their religious experience to be. Haydar says, “all through high school, I wore a jilbab exclusively, because I didn’t have to spend any effort worrying about what was in season or what I would be expected to wear to fit in . . . My once-strict interpretation of modesty has been adapted to my urban lifestyle” (Haydar 263). Haydar chose to veil because she did not have the desire to dress how others dressed to fit in with certain social groups. She was not forced to veil, but merely did it for personal reasons. Haydar’s use of analogy emphasizes her freedom when it comes to veiling.  Abu-Lughod on the other hand has a more religious based view on choosing to veil. She relates back to the Taliban liberation by saying: “To draw some analogies, none perfect: why are we surprised when Afghan women don’t throw off their burqas when we know perfectly well that it wouldn’t be appropriate to wear shorts to the opera? Religious belief and community standards of propriety require the covering of the hair in some traditions – Muslim, Jewish, and Catholic until recently” (Abu-Lughod 3). By comparing wearing shorts to the opera and not wearing a burqa, Abu-Lughod is able to relate to her readers and give them a different view of veiling. Her use of analogy creates a link between two societies while presenting her case on the importance veiling has amongst Muslims.

            Feminists have been striving for equality between men and women for decades. Western feminists feel that when Muslim women cover their bodies, they seem to be hiding and it defeats the purpose of feminism. In contradiction to that, Abu-Lughod and Haydar attempt to disprove these allegations through the use of the rhetorical strategy, definition. In Haydar’s article she says, “. . . my mother knew the best way to introduce veiling to me was to emphasize its feminist, forward-thinking reasons: Covering removes that first level of being judged, of being assessed based on my measurements, and it absolves me of the need or desire to be wanted solely for my looks” (Haydar 260). Here, Haydar is able to use a personal anecdote to describe her experience with veiling and its feminist views. She uses definition to describe to her audience those views and what they mean to her. On the other hand, Abu-Lughod relates veiling to freedom to suggest its feministic quality. “ . . . we have to resist the reductive interpretation of veiling as the quintessential sign of women’s unfreedom. What does freedom mean if we know that humans are social beings, always raised in certain social and historical contexts and belonging to particular communities that shape their desires and understanding of the world?” (Abu-Lughod 4). Here, Abu-Lughod uses rhetorical questions to define “women’s unfreedom.” By questioning her readers, she emphasizes the points in which she is defining what freedom means to people and how it relates to feminism.

The on going struggle of feminism and its meaning throughout the world is bewildering to those who do not believe in it and even those who do. Maysan Haydar and Lila Abu-Lughod exert their point of views on this issue through their articles using the rhetorical strategies: rebuttal, analogy, and definition. For most people who read this that are not as involved in the idea of feminism, the act of veiling may seem a bit puzzling, for they never thought to take a stance on the issue or have only been brought to light about this issue through stereotypical media manipulation. On the other hand, you have current feminists and women’s rights activists that have their own personal opinions upon the issue. Regardless, both authors attempt to persuade their audience that the act of veiling should be a personal choice and is in most cases, a feminist act. They believe that veiling allows them to be seen as a whole person and that there is good to come out of it. Although both authors have similar arguments, Haydar’s article is more successful than Abu-Lughod at capturing it’s audiences attention and persuading them as to why the veil is important for Haydar’s anecdotes are relatable to her audience. Personally, both articles have enlightened me on the act of veiling and has given me a different perspective on what it’s meaning. As a male, I have seen and partaken in situations where females are treated disrespectfully. I feel that the veil does nothing more than hide a females body behind a sheet of cloth. But I do agree with the fact that what you wear and how you present yourself is a choice, which I believe is the moral behind both authors’ articles. Therefore, I think veiling should be considered an act of feminism and freedom.

Works Cited

Abu-Lughod, Lila. “The Muslim Women” RWS 200 Course Reader. Ed. Christopher Werry. San Diego, Ca: San Diego State University, 2015. 1-9. Print

Maysan Haydar. “veiled intentions: don’t judge a muslim girl by her covering” RWS 200 Course Reader. Ed. Christopher Werry. San Diego, Ca: San Diego State University, 2015. 258-265. Print

Rough Draft for Haydar and Abu-Lughod

Rough Draft for Haydar and Abu-Lughod

Feminism is becoming a global issue and the stances on how feminism is represented are causing questions amongst individuals. Mayson Haydar, a young muslim women raised in America and Lila Abu-Lughod, a Middle Eastern Muslim professor of anthropology at Columbia University, both share their opinions on how the act of veiling affects feminism in their articles. Haydar’s article, “Body Outlaws”, has an Americanized Muslim point of view and focuses primarily on using the rhetorical strategy, pathos, to get her readers to understand her outlook on veiling. Abu-Lughod’s article, “The Muslim Woman”, has a Middle Eastern Muslim point of view and uses the rhetorical strategies, ethos and logos, by providing facts and using authorities throughout her paper, which helps to gain her readers trust.  Within Haydar’s writing, her goal is to connect feminism with Muslim’s and Americans and on the other hand, Abu-Lughod tries to separate the two. Both authors are attempting to reach out to their audiences, which consist of mainly American feminists who believe that veiling is the opposite of what feminism represents. These author’s want to redefine the act of veiling with a positive outlook on feminism. Although both authors share this common interest, Haydar’s tactic of rebuttaling arguments and analogy is more successful than Abu-Lughods use of ethos and definition. Within this paper, Haydar’s and Abu-Lughod’s rhetorical strategies and claims will be expanded upon.

            Within Haydar’s article we find multiple anecdotes describing her experiences with veiling and how the act of veiling positively affected her life and point of view on feminism. One of her main claims is that veiling should not be seen as a negative aspect of a Muslim women’s life. Haydar is able to portray her argument by recalling an experience she had on a bus with a non-Muslim girl. “ . . . she couldn’t understand how we could dress this way. ‘Me, I got to be free.’ To my eyes her idea of freedom involved a complicated hairstyle, loads of makeup, and jeans she probably had to sew herself into” (Haydar 260). Haydar is able to rebuttal the girls point of view with her own. The girl in this context represents many people that believe in the stereotypes of Muslim women and their veils. Haydar is able to connect with her audience through this rebuttal for she knows nobody likes to be judged negatively and shows how easy it is to judge others that do not understand Muslim practices.

            Haydar’s ability to dispute her opinion with stereotypes helps to strengthen her argument and describe to her readers how veiling can be beneficial for feminists. In her text, she is able to take the opposition and have it be beneficial towards her argument. For instance, she says:

“I’m not one for creams and blushes, but I understand that there are women who enjoy the beauty process and I see no harm in indulging it for the right reasons . . . To me, this demonstrates that Western priorities are out of line: American women spend hours getting ready for strangers to see them, but don’t give the same effort to those who see them in intimate settings” (Haydar 263).

Here, Haydar uses an analogy to argue that although she respects the way women doll themselves up for men, she sees it similarly to how Americans view veiling. Americans have a hard time understanding why Muslim women veil and think of it as demeaning to women, while Muslim women who veil see putting on make-up and glamor as a way of covering up who they really are.

            Abu-Lughod attempts to redefine the meaning of veiling so that it captures freedom, control and respect for Middle Eastern women. She uses authorities, such as Hanna Papanek to help strengthen her argument. Papanek, an anthropologist that worked in Pakistan, “described the burqa as ‘portable seclusion.’ She noted that many saw it as a liberating invention since it enabled women to move out of segregated living spaces while still observing the basic moral requirements of separating and protecting women from unrelated men” (Abu-Lughod 3). Although Abu-Lughod is quoting an authoritative figure, she does a poor job of drawing her reader’s attention. This neither quote presents an uncertain stance, for Papanek said “many”, which is not an actual number nor does it make it sound like Papanek actually knows what she is talking about. Abu-Lughod’s use of ethos does not help her argument nor keep her reader’s attention.

            Abu-Lughod, being the University professor she is, finds the need to dumb down her article for her readers. She uses the rhetorical strategy definition to tell her audience what she is saying, although it is already obvious as to what her point is. For example she says: “We have to recognize that people don’t necessarily want to give up their cultures and their social worlds - most people value their own ways of life” (Abu-Lughod 7). Anyone who reads this is going to agree that they value their own way of life. Abu-Lughod presents belittling tone when she uses definition. Although it may seem like she is trying to emphasize her point, it is unnecessary.

Abu-Lughod and Haydar

Authors Maysan Haydar and Lila Abu-Lughod both have different opinions on how the Muslim veiling tradition has to do with the feminist movement. Within Haydar’s writing, her goal is to connect feminism with Muslim’s and Americans and on the other hand, Abu-Lughod tries to separate the two. Each author is able to successfully capture their audience’s attention by providing diverse facts and anecdotes to support their claims. Haydar’s article, “Body Outlaws”, has an Americanized Muslim point of view and focuses primarily on using the rhetorical strategy, pathos, to get her readers to understand her outlook on veiling. Abu-Lughod’s article, “The Muslim Woman”, has a Middle Eastern Muslim point of view and uses the rhetorical strategies, ethos and logos, by providing facts and using authorities throughout her paper, which helps to gain her readers trust.  Both authors are attempting to reach out to their audiences, which consist of mainly American feminists who believe that veiling is the opposite of what feminism represents.

            In Haydar’s article, one of her main claims is that veiling should not be seen as a negative aspect of a Muslim women’s life. Haydar is able to portray her argument by recalling an experience she had on a bus with a non-Muslim girl. “ . . . she couldn’t understand how we could dress this way. ‘Me, I got to be free.’ To my eyes her idea of freedom involved a complicated hairstyle, loads of makeup, and jeans she probably had to sew herself into” (Haydar 260). Haydar is able to rebuttal the girls point of view with her own. The girl in this context represents many people that believe in the stereotypes on Muslim women and their veils. Haydar is able to connect with her audience through pathos for she knows nobody likes to be judged negatively and shows how easy it is to judge others that do not understand Muslim practices.

            Haydar also claims that veiling helps young women cope with harassment from men. Haydar uses personal experiences involving men that allowed for her to not be harassed during her teenage years because of her veil. “The weirdness that normally clouds boy-girl interactions was lifted . . . I got to bypass a lot of damaging experiences” (Haydar 261). Haydar is able to grasp her reader’s attention by taking most women’s points of views that didn’t veil and then describe similar situations from her point of view. This allows for her audience to see both sides of the argument and understand where she is coming from.

            In Abu-Lughod’s article, she claims that Americans views on Middle Eastern women are problematic for the media creates stereotypes and puts labels on everyone. Abu-Loghod says: “…It is odd that in many of the images from the media, the veiled women stand in for the countries the articles are about. None of these articles in the New York Times Magazine, for example, was about Muslim women, or even Jordanian or Egyptian women. ” (Abu-Lughod 2). Here she is referring to magazines in which the covers have veiled Muslim women on them, which gives off a very stereotypical demeaning. Abu-Lughod is emphasizing her claim that the media is grouping Muslim women and non-Muslim women. She later goes on to say: “. . . they make it hard to think about the Muslim world without thinking about women, creating a seemingly huge divide between ‘us’ and ‘them’ based on the treatment or positions of women” (Abu-Lughod 2). Abu-Lughod is exposing the separation between Muslim and non-Muslim feministic views.

            Abu-Lughod attempts to redefine the meaning of veiling so that it captures freedom, control and respect for Middle Eastern women. She uses authorities, such as Hanna Papanek to help strengthen her argument. Papanek, and anthropologist that worked in Pakistan, “described the burqa as ‘portable seclusion.’ She noted that many saw it as a liberating invention since it enabled women to move out of segregated living spaces while still observing the basic moral requirements of separating and protecting women from unrelated men” (Abu-Lughod 3). Abu-Lughod’s use of ethos helps support her argument and gives her audience reassurance that she knows what she is talking about. By bringing in authoritative figures, Abu-Lughod’s readers can trust her more and her claims become more believable.