Author

The author of the New York Times article is Maggie Doherty. She appears in many other publications as well. She has a Ph.D. in English from Harvard and teaches there currently. This makes her a credible author. 

Rhetorical Situation/Exigence

The article was published on August 26 which is the anniversary of Women’s Equality Day. It marks the passage of the 19th amendment giving women the vote. The author is shedding light on the hardships women had to go through to achieve this success while also nodding at the process made acknowledging the inequality that remains. Especially as the election is drawing near it is a reminder that voting has not always been a given.

Audience

The target audience for this text is primarily for women to celebrate the day. The author assumes that readers are reading to gain historical knowledge. The title, “Feminist Factions United and Filled the Streets for This Historic March”, alluded to that fact.

Purpose

The purpose of the text is to inform readers of how the celebratory march took place 50 years ago and still remains a big step of progress. The central point to outline the obstacles that had to be crossed for progress to be made.

Genre

The genre is a newspaper or magazine feature. The author mirrors this format by taking a serious tone and a developed vocabulary. The author writes in third person.

Stance

The author’s stance on the subject is supportive as she openly praises women and advocates for further change in the future. 

Source

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/26/us/womens-strike-for-equality.html

Author: The article, “I am Pro-Life. Don’t Call me Anti-Abortion,” by Charles C. Camosy who explains how she is Pro-Life and not Anti-Abortion despite the majority of people assuming her stance in the pro-life and pro-choice debate.

Rhetorical Analysis/ Exigence: This article was written to inform people of the difference between pro-life and anti-abortion and to clarify the reason why she specifically is pro-life. In her article, she explains how she “…strongly support rights and protections for mothers and children, including prenatal children, and other vulnerable populations.” In this quote, the term “prenatal children,” is described as what she uses to describe what others call “fetus”

Audience: This article is mainly for people who have a misconception about the perspectives of pro-life activists and people who want to educate themselves more about the debate between pro-life and pro-choice. In addition, this article has extreme relativity towards mothers or would-be mothers, and people deciding on whether or not they should abort their child.

Purpose: The purpose of this article is to educate the people who have misconceptions about the perspective of pro-life activists and to inform what the goal/ideology pro-life activists have on abortion. Camosy stated in her article that critics often times would describe the “prenatal child” in terms such as fetus, parasite, potential life, or tissue, and she wants to clarify what exactly is “the cluster of cells” in the mother’s body.

Genre: This article is a personal essay written by Charles C. Camosy on her experience as a pro-life activist and her experience with critics. In her article, she clarifies on areas where people would have misconceptions about her perspective and why she is a pro-lifer.

Stance: Ultimately, the writer  Charles C. Camosy is a pro-life activist, this doesn’t mean she is anti-abortion but simply she values life, and especially the life of mothers and prenatal children.

In the article “The 7 biggest challenges facing refugees and immigrants in the US” author Christian Nuñez describes her experience with refugee people when she was working with several refugee camps. She has encountered the hardships immigrant people face even after moving to the states. Which starts with difficulty speaking English, helping their kids with school and better education, securing work, accessing service, securing housing, transportation, cultural barriers.

Coming to the states with little to no knowledge of English is the biggest struggle for most immigrants. It is already hard to move to a different country and build everything from scratch, not knowing English just makes it extremely difficult. The struggle behind immigrant parents raising their children is extremely difficult. Raising their children in a different culture is devastating for them because they feel like the kids are quickly becoming more Americanized. The language barrier also keeps the parents away from their kids school life, where kids face bullying very often because of the difference in culture.

Everyone comes to the country with more hope about having a better and secure future. Many of them tries to start with a simple job, however a lot of them struggles to communicate because of the language barrier. Most of them face discrimination because of the differences with everyone else in the workplace. Living in a country like America seems like the best opportunity a person can get but the struggle they have to go through while trying to fit in gets washed away in others eye. Living in a tiny apartment with a big family is not the best way to live but that is the reality of many peoples life.

Even though immigrants and refugees face challenges throughout most of their lives, they work hard like no others. They are grateful for the opportunity they get and use it make a better future for their children.

Nuñez, Christina. “The 7 Biggest Challenges Facing Refugees and Immigrants in the US.” Global Citizen, Global Citizen, 12 Dec. 2014, www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/the-7-biggest-challenges-facing-refugees-and-immig/.

Author: Author and activist, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, is known for her many works of literature and for inspiring men and women around the world to become feminists and to fight for gender equality. Adichie has spent almost her entire life fighting for her own equality and trying to move away from the gender standards which were very present in her everyday life as a Nigerian woman. Within this text specifically, she speaks about significant events in which she experienced gender inequality, which mainly was used in very subtle forms, how she has learned from those experiences, and how she plans those standards.

Rhetorical Situation/Exigence: In her speech, Adichie speaks about her own experience with gender inequality and how prominent it is in our everyday lives. As per the title of the speech, she attempts to convince her audience why we should all be feminists and why the fight for gender inequality is fundamental for the overall development of our society. Chimamanda Adichie is responding to the problem with gender inequality and how it impacts women all over the world.

Audience: Adichie’s target audience would be both women and men who believe there is an issue within society and its approach to gender equality. As she speaks, she does not try to force feminism upon those who don’t want to be informed about it. But she speaks as though her audience contains people who are already knowledgable about the subject and are willing to attempt to change the situation for the better. Adichie speaks about her experiences as if her audience can already relate and connect with them. Thus, convincing the listener that her audience has prior knowledge on the subject.

Purpose: The purpose of this text is simply to convince the audience why becoming a feminist is so important. Within her speech, she is trying to explain the impact of gender inequality on society by using her own personal experiences. Adichie wants to make the effects of gender inequality known in order to make life easier for future generations. She states how she would want others to raise their children to be themselves and have their own identity rather than being forces to conform to the gender standards with their cultures or within the world in general.

Genre: The genre of this speech would be considered a persuasive speech. Adichie uses her own experiences and the perspectives of someone on the other side of the argument in order to persuade the audience. She attempts to persuade the audience to become feminists and support the movement for gender equality.

Stance: Chimamanda Adichie makes it very evident how supportive she is about the women’s movement and how she too is a feminist. She explains what feminism is and how all of the experiences she faced throughout her life and how they motivated her to try to bring about the change she wanted to see in the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hg3umXU_qWc

Author: The article “Children were Dirty, They Were Scared, and They were Hungry” by by Lizzy O’Leary, a writer who takes her interest for immigrant families journey coming to the United States to a written stance. O’Leary teams up with an Immigration Attorney who describes her journey when explaining what she has witnessed at the border.

Rhetorical Analysis/ Exigence: The article was written to uncover the horrible conditions migrant families experience when seeking asylum in the United States. Many immigrant families seek a safe environment, better education, and escaping the violence their home brings. Innocent people shouldn’t be locked up in cages and treated as if they are an animal. This worldwide issue needs to be heard and O’Leary and Muhkerjee apply pressure onto the fact that innocent children are being held in crowded cages with little to no food, as well as no medical attention if needed. The tone and word choice used in O’Learys article puts focus on the importance of the issue, by using words like “Degrading” and ” inhuman” to describe the treatment the children are experiencing in the Federal Custody Facilities.

Audience: The article attracts an audience of readers who would like to further educate themselves on the social issue of  how immigrant families are being treated in Government facilities. Therefor, what Muhkerjee writes is pointed towards people who want to better their understanding on the social issue that is happening right under our noses.

Purpose: The purpose of the article is to educate the audience about the social issues of migrant children being detained in Government facilities under harsh conditions. The writer wants to inform the readers about what is exactly happening to these children that the Government isn’t showcasing. O’Leary mentions her little understanding to the crisis, As a result she invites Elora Mukherjee, a professor at Columbia Law School. Elora Mukherjee has been working on issues related to the crisis, and has interviewed immigrant families being detained in migrant facilities. The writer informs her audience about the “Inhuman” and “Degradation” conditions as described from Professor Mukherjee’s Interview with the immigrant families.

Genre: The article is an informational because the writer continuously addresses how she interviewed professor Elora who mostly educate the readers on what she witnessed while visiting the facilities. The writer’s whole purpose is to educate her audience on what is going on with immigrant families who are seeking asylum in the United States. In addition, informational articles are used to communicate a point and further educate the audience to understand the topic clearly, and that is exactly what Mukherjee does.

Stance: The writer Lizzie O’Leary believes that no person should be treated with such inhuman and degrading conditions. The author demands more attention for these children who are living under these conditions with little to no help and attention. O’Leary asks her readers to reach out to congress regardless of ones background and political background.

I have chosen to analyze “10 Hours of Walking in NYC as a Woman” created by Rob Bliss Creative, featuring 24-year-old actress Shoshana Roberts. The author of this text is Rob Bliss, who is credible of his creation due to the fact that the video has reached 49 million views on YouTube. However,  Shoshana is the featuring actor. 

Rhetorical Situation/Exigence: The author of the video is responding to the street harassment of women while choosing to represent the ultimate cause of hidden cameras, and let the audience know the struggle women face every day, which is catcalling. The video is suggesting the reality of the consequences of a woman walking by in New York City streets, and the video brings awareness of the difficult times that women face in our society. 

Audience: The target audience for this text is masculine men due to the fact that it shows men committing such actions. It is a source to make men see their reflection and make them aware of the causes they are making. The author’s assumptions to the audience are that they are not knowledgeable of making those actions and that this video is a reflection of themselves, so they can see the damages they have done so they could stop doing so in the future.

However, I also think that there is another audience that the author points out. In this case, women and society as a whole. The author tries to point out the social issue of street harassment of women is unconsidered and not discussed. As evidence is the woman herself, walking by. 

Purpose: The main purpose of this text is to capture street harassment happening in the real world in the greatest city in the world, and let the watchers explore what it is like being street harassed. However another idea of challenging the traditional narrative of women being harassed because of their looks. In response to that misconception, Roberts was wearing black jeans and a T-shirt, opposing that women are a subject of street harassment despite what they wear. 

Genre: The genre of this text is the informal informational video that has a goal. The reason I say is informal is because it does not contain a script or use of graphics, however, it does have the narrator, which is Shoshana Roberts.

The Stance:  Although the author is not particularly presented in the video, the stance of the author is ultimately altered due to the fact that Bliss has chosen to share the theme of street harassment of women. 

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1XGPvbWn0A

The New York Times article “What is DACA? And How Did It End Up in the Supreme Court?” written by Caitlin Dickerson explains the DACA program and gives the readers an update of its stance in the Supreme Court. Dickerson is a “national immigration reporter based in New York State” whose work has received a Peabody Award and a Murrow Award. Since she is based in New York State, which has a high immigrant population, and primarily focuses on immigration and immigrants, it is clear that Dickerson is more than qualified to write this article, though she does lean in favour of the immigrants. In this article, Dickerson highlights the DACA Program, gives a brief overview of how it was created in 2012 by President Obama, and how it is now trying to be dismantled by President Trump. Seeing as the majority of this article was dedicated to explaining what DACA is, who it benefits and how it benefits its recipients shows how this article was aimed at people who are not yet familiar with this program. Dickerson carefully crafts her writing to make sure that she doesn’t use highly opinionated words or stark phrases that may offend people who may already have opinions on the DACA program. Instead, as a news article, she takes a more neutral stance, focusing solely on the facts of the situation by linking other articles and demographics to inform her audience. She chose to include demographics that had a favourable light towards immigrants and even made sure to mention how “Contrary to what President Trump has said, people with serious criminal histories (meaning a felony or serious misdemeanour conviction, or three convictions for any type of misdemeanour) are not eligible” for the program. Though Dickerson doesn’t use much pathos in her writing, the videos that she chose to include, especially “What ‘Dreamers’ Gained From DACA” By A.j. Chavar, which showcases the lives of DACA immigrants and their struggles, makes her sympathy clear. The point of all of these positive demographics and the sympathetical videos goes to show how Dickerson wants to imply that these immigrants are simply trying to better their lives in America.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/article/what-is-daca.html

“Conspiracy theorists burn 5G towers claiming link to virus” an article by Kelvin Chan, Beatrice Dupuy, and Arijeta Lajka addresses the social issue of misinformation and delusion. What they are talking about is of course the burning/destruction of the 5G cellular radio towers. The authors brought various information that details of how the misinformation of cell towers causing cancer and other health risks were brought to the world and changed ever so slightly with cell towers now able to spread virus instead on Facebook. This gets picked up by many delusional people and groups some including the anti-vaccine group. Then they started addressing this “false” problem to people and demanded to take the cell towers down. This quickly gets rejected which only made those delusional people take matters into their own hands by burning the cell towers down. The problem here is how can they know what cell towers are 5G? And so, many regular cell towers were burnt down which made communication by phone through countries and cities become useless, this made immediate calls for help unavailable. This however not only affected the nation but also the workers who are building the cell towers to get attacked.
The targetted audience is everyone including the conspiracy theorists, they hope to make the information known that 5G towers don’t spread viruses and this is backed by the top of the health organizations. The purpose is to inform the public about how and why the cell towers being destroyed and are causing problems everywhere. The genre is an informational news web site. The authors all very much want the public to know that there is no correlation between 5G towers and the virus outbreak. I know this because of how many times they have included information from knowledgable people that says there is no correlation between them and basically mentions how anyone that believes otherwise is wrong and possibly dumb.

Source:
https://apnews.com/4ac3679b6f39e8bd2561c1c8eeafd855

In “Income Inequality Is Costing the U.S. on Social Issues,” one very thought-provoking issue is the gap between rich and poor. As we all know, the United States has the most advanced technology available to mankind, but it’s not as good as we thought it would be, the United States is not keeping up with the times in what is now a rapidly evolving era. The birth rate of young people in the United States is very high, but more than twenty percent of people live in poverty. Also among adults, the number of people in prison is increasing every year, which not only shows the seriousness of the education problem, but also one of the main causes of the poverty gap. Furthermore, the United States has a very high mortality rate and very low survival and life expectancy, yet its health care system is very advanced, which means that the health and social cohesion of the American people needs to grow. This may be the result of “excessive inequality”. One of the more serious causes of the wealth gap is that working families are earning less and less, and the lowering of the labor market has led to a more difficult life for working families. The loss of jobs and income dissatisfaction has gradually increased the severity of the gap. In addition, The U.S. is trying to have more talent so that everyone has a college degree, thus boosting the income of lower-class families, however what is not thought of is that although education is expanding, there are not many people who actually learn and go on to advance in society, which can be seen in the graduation rate, low-income families stagnant school enrollment rate has led to the distance between the rich and poor children are also expanding. As a result, We need to change the various issues so that we can alleviate the wealth gap one step at a time, and America needs to have a better health care problem that needs to maintain a balance with medical technology. The second thing is to reduce crime and have a tougher education system that doesn’t allow things like students attending class when they want to and skipping class when they don’t. Lastly, there was the issue of the workforce, which needed to be proportional to income in order to have greater control over the widening gap between rich and poor in society.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/29/business/economy/income-inequality-is-costing-the-us-on-social-issues.html

“What’s wrong with Physics” is an interview with a relatively unknown quantum optics professor Chris Search. Horgan, the author and conductor of the interview, is more than credible for this interview. He has written multiple books on different topics and problems regarding science and directs the Center for Science Writings at the Stevens Institute of Technology. The questions he asks in this interview are mostly hard hitting and without fluff showing that he’s actually attempting to get some tangible response from Chris. Throughout the interview Horgan asks Chris about multiple disparaging problems going on in the Physics community. One such important and hotly debated topic is diversity within the Physics department of which Chris strongly believes there should be more but that there is relatively no change throughout the years as to its increase. The target audience of this interview is mostly students, faculty, researchers that are interested in science and physics and possibly even avid readers of scientific american. That is why the Horgan asks questions that would be known to people that are students or avid readers of scientific american such as, “If you were Physics Czar, would you pull the plug on any projects? Increase funding for any?” The point of this text is to get a high level physicists opinion on pressing matters happening within the community. However I think it is more telling of what Chris doesn’t say. He doesn’t talk about the problem of putting a paywall behind information which has plagued the scientific community for the past 20 years and instead says “war is good for physics”. He doesn’t talk about why there is such a lack of diversity in the field of Physics when asked about it. He doesn’t even make a case for the clear need for theoretical physics if we are to find a tangible way of measuring these so-called “immeasurable questions” as he refers to them. I think this instead points to the broader problem that because his life’s work is tied to an institution giving him funding he either cannot say much about things he really feels or refuses to feel them in the first place. The genre is an interview but it feels relatively one-sided. I think Horgan tried his best to get something interesting and something that would add to the conversation (or lack thereof for while trying to find articles on diversity in physics I could find relatively nothing) but is met with a brick wall or in this case a fat wallet. The questions he asked were hard hitting and necessary questions to ask, now more than ever, but I don’t know if the old dogs are the ones we should be hearing opinions from. 

Source: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/whats-wrong-with-physics/#