Mr. Romney’s Version of Equal Rights
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/opinion/mr-romneys-version-of-equal-rights.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
In the editorial, Mr. Romney's Version of Equal Rights, the author (assumed to be female) argues that Governor Romney's approach to equality for women is no equality at all. She denounces his attempts to gain more female voters, and by extension, his campaign for the presidency as a whole, by her use of negative diction, specific details, and syntax.
The author's choice of diction provides a negative tone throughout the article. In the first paragraph, she informs the reader that Romney "bumbled his way through a cringe-inducing attempt to graft what he thinks should be 2012 talking points onto his 1952 sensibility." Using the term "bumbled", denoting failure and incompetence, the author paints Romney into the form of a incapable leader, which then causes the reader to question whether Romney is appropriate to be the next president. Her tone continues in the ninth paragraph, where she writes that "started a slow, painful slide into one of the most bizarre comments on this issue we've ever heard," and sarcastically points out that his comment about finding qualified women was said in a way that made it sound "as if it were a herculean task." The words "slow", "painful", and "bizarre" all have a negative connotation that ridicule the governor's comment. The line referring to the "herculean task" furthers the ridicule by comparing Romney's effort to a nearly insurmountable quest, downplaying Romney's attempt to hire women. Through her word choice, the author brings out the ludicrousness of Romney's stance on women and indirectly jabs at his appropriateness for being president as a whole.
The details given in the article also illustrate the author's view of Romney's equality in the rights of women. She points out incongruencies throughout his campaign in the subject of women. In the second paragraph, she mentions his vow in ending Planned Parenthood and his criticism in requiring employers who are not religiously affiliated to provide coverage for contraceptives. She then contrasts that to his statement that he believes all women should have equal access to contraceptives in the next paragraph. Further examples of his actions which contradict his statement were listed below, as the author explicitly points out "how hard it must be for him to remember where he stands at any given moment." Later, she changes the topic to equal opportunity, another subject in which she has given plenty of details which illustrate his inconsistency. She contrasts his opposition of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act with his line about being given "binders full of women" to have as representatives in his cabinet. By showing his inability to decide on a single stance in his policies on women, the author points out his flawed approach and seems to emphasize his failings as a presidential candidate.
The author's formatting of the editorial also highlight the absurdities of Romney's views of women. In paragraph six and seven, the author uses an anaphora, starting both sentences with "perhaps" to give possible explanations for Romney's changing stance on contraceptives. The parallel structure also emphasize the contradictions between the two different explanations, which she hammers home in the next sentence: "But all those possibilities are just reminders of how hard it must be for him to remember where he stands at any given moment." Later, she furthers her point of his views of equality by the usage of questions. He spoke of flexibility for women in their jobs due to their need to take care of their families. She points out several of his unmentioned but well-known stances on other versions of equality through her questioning of "But what if a woman had wanted to go home to study Spanish? Or rebuild an old car? Or spend time with her lesbian partner? Would Mr. Romney have been flexible about that? Or if a man wanted similar treatment?" By asking questions, the author allows the readers themselves to draw conclusions about how Romney would respond, making the thoughts of the reader's own, even if all the conclusions are, as she intends them to be, similar. In the editorial, the syntax also allows the author to convey her point on the problems surrounding Romney's view of women and equality.
Through these techniques, the author overwhelmingly casts a negative light on Romney's views of women and the lack of equality illustrated by his claims. The editorial points out the flaws in his stance and seems to attempt to weaken his qualifications as a strong presidential candidate for this year's election.
4 comments:
You did a really good job of finding DIDLS in this article. I like the way you had an example for each DIDL and that the close reading flowed very well. I think you should work on putting more of your own opinion on it to rather than spewing out what the article said. It would add more of a personal touch to the close reading. I think you did pretty well with finding a good article to attack with the close reading. Great job.
I liked the syntax part, particularly how you said the author implants the questions in the readers' minds. That was pretty neat. I did sort of lose track of the smooth thought process at: "Later, she furthers her point of his views of equality by the usage of questions. He spoke of flexibility for women in their jobs due to their need to take care of their families. She points out several of his unmentioned but well-known stances on other versions of equality..." It's clear what "He" means but it feels to me as if it should be specified anyway there. And I had to reread the section because "unmentioned" confused me.
The diction part was good. An alternate theory behind the diction could be that it is perpetuating the existing image of Romney as this awkward, unrelatable fool. I think "bizarre" and "bumbling" fit into that rather well.
I thought that your paragraph on diction was very strong--your example really pointed to a sentence where plenty of negative words were hurled at Romney. Perhaps, though, you might have said specifically that this sentence used invective? This only occurs to me because we just took the terms test, but I think that would be a good way to term your ideas about "negative diction." As a side note, I was thinking about your many strong examples of negative diction found in that quote you included. I found the writer's use of the word "graft" to be quite interesting. I liked how it connoted not only an somewhat unpleasant, incongruous addition--like a skin graft--but also its involvement with political corruption and money. That sort of adds to the negative diction you were talking about, culminating in the argument that Romney isn't fit to be President. It may have made your paragraph a little bulky, but I think it's interesting!
In September, your peer reviewers suggested that you focus more on tone. You have done that very well here. For next month, I'd like you to try moving to the next level and specifically naming the tone--not just "negative" but "derisive," etc. Excellent work, again =)
Post a Comment