A list of GoFundMe/PayPal Links that you can donate.

There are many more links that you can share, so donate to one of the links and support them. If you don't have the funds to donate, you can just spread the word.

I have been on here for a long time and today i haha god this name was supposed to be a joke genuinely ive been an entire year clean from well my name and im back yay god im scared my grand parents are dying my grandma karlyn has cancer and my life is going to shreds ive lost any semblance of friends i used to have and now im truly alone i dont know what to do anymore i was depressed then my depression hit and now im just i dont know hopeless suicidal i dont know im a fucking idiot its just every word i write i feel just a bit better like im telling it to someone i know who never judges and this helps alot thanks god this really help i feel just barely lighter

Hey! I made something:)

I had to write something for school, so of course I wrote a sweet wholesome love story!!

@burrs-missing-umbrella thanks for helping!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ever since I can remember, people always complimented my smile. I’ve always tried to be a positive person, so I took the compliments. Now I think that if only they could all see my smile now, they’d have nothing to say because in this moment, slow dancing in my wedding, I’m powerless to stop my joy. Bright-eyed and sick from laughing, I stare in amazement at all the flowers glittering like freshly cut gems, the brilliant stars beginning to dust the pale sky, and the salty ocean spray bubbling up from over the sea cliff. The water begins to become gilded golden by the dying sun, which only adds to the sense of peace and pure love embracing every guest and object. I breath in the fresh lavender and violet bouquets dotting every free space and can nearly taste the towering cake dominating the center table. I feel airy, floating away from any burdens. Indescribable contentment replaces my very blood as I twirl my skirts around to face the love of my life.

“Do you like it?” Helios asks, smoothing a hand over my shoulders, brushing out the wrinkles in my suit jacket. I had a custom outfit made because I couldn’t decide if I wanted to wear a tuxedo or a dress, so I blended the two together. The lower half is a black and white skirt, billowing lazily in the breeze. The top half is a standard black suit jacket, white shirt, and a tie. My partner gushed over the idea like a golden retriever would get excited over a new toy, practically shaking with enthusiasm.

“I absolutely love it. I never thought my fairy tale wedding would happen, but you always know how to make my dreams come true.” I say, taking their hand and leading them to the smooth rock overlooking the sea, looking up in awe at the brilliant stars dusting the pale sky. If our friends notice our absence, they don’t come looking for us. Good, I think, I want some peace after today’s chaotic whirlwind. I wouldn’t change a single thing about it, but it was still an overwhelming mess of emotions. The night was so thoughtfully crafted by Helios and I and, yet I am still being swept off my feet everytime I open my eyes.

“You know what I think?” my partner sighs, brushing a kiss to my cheek.

“Hm?”

“Maybe you should stop smiling so much, or else you cheeks might get stuck like that!” Helios laughed, poking my cheek. I poked their stomach back before they continued. “Not like anyone would mind seeing your gorgeous smile everyday.”

“I think that we should always remember right now because we’re different after this. I think everything is going to change and wonderful things are going to happen,” I sighed, not wanting this moment to end. My partner -no- my wife turns to face me, and in that moment I am pulled back through a tunnel of memories, all of Helios and I. I recall when we met, at the basketball court in the gym. And then our first kiss during the Winnie the Pooh movie. So many beautiful glimpses into the past.

“We’re going to do great things, Sappho. It’s just going to be us, two girls taking on the world, together.” I am suddenly aware that while they were speaking I have been leaning closer and closer until we are barely inches apart. I smile, and no wrong exists in the universe.

“Together”

Andrew Duggan is an Irish artist whose lens based works, installations, performances and projects explore the intersections between body, myth and place and the modes of presentation in the public sphere.

His work is concerned with contested, constructed and imagined spaces and trace histories. At the heart of his work is the use of body, material and gesture as way of mediating these ideas.

His work is supported by Ealain na Gaeltachta/Arts Council of Ireland and Culture Ireland and has the support of The Irish Museum of Modern Art, The National Gallery of Art, The Hugh Lane Gallery.

“Duggan walks the fine line between definitions.”-Karlyn De Jongh

Presenting work primarily in the public sphere, he selects spaces for their social, historical and architectural resonance. Working within the context of a defined space, Andrew chooses to collaborate with actors, dancers and participants to explore particular movements, scripts or actions creating new meanings and definitions between person and place.

“ Duggan [makes] subtle visual interventions at various points, either by writing with charcoal on various surfaces, such as the pavement, or by leaving some photographs accompanied by a word or two. ” -Vasilis Karamalegos

https://hellas.postsen.com/local/438886/The-Coastal-Paradox--Prolonged-wandering-in-the-port-of-Syros.html

He has created installations in handball alleys, war memorials, former quarantine outposts and disused creameries and created video pieces in previously used film locations and pre abandoned housing estates. His works feature the US Military, dance artists Jazmin Chiodi and Alex Iseli, Cindy Cummings, sports player Paul Galvin, actor Olwen Fouéré, composer Seán Ó Dálaigh, performance artist Hollie Miller and members the National Folk Theatre of Ireland.

Andrew Duggan has received numerous awards, was the first Irish artist to be awarded the prestigious Arts Council of Ireland's Location One Fellowship in New York City. Other residencies include Centre Culturel Irlandais, Paris and The Project Arts Centre, Dublin. His work has been selected to be part of the many Culture Ireland international programmes.

“ [Andrew Duggan’s] commissioned works often interrogate art housed in public institutions […] ”- Joanne Laws

“ Born in Cork and raised in Dublin, I live on the Dingle Peninsula, Ireland with photographer Siobhán Dempsey and our three children Oisín, Isolde and Jude. I see the Gaeltacht (Irish speaking area) as an outlier; a space in which I can push the boundaries of (my) art practice. ”

Andrew Duggan studied at the Crawford College of Art and Design, Cork, under Jo Allen, at the National College of Art and Design, Dublin under Dorothy Cross and Willie Doherty and at the University of Ulster, Belfast under Moire McIvor.

*What is Rhetoric to Me?*

https://drive.google.com/file/d/14O-Ge9BoT7hdz3nXbXy4CAcq7bD4tCqH/view?usp=sharing

This essay intends to highlight how my definition of rhetoric changed after taking Comm 380, Rhetorical Traditions. At the beginning of the school year, I believed that rhetoric was “the intentional use of speaking, images, designs, and acting for a persuasive purpose. It can include word order, grammar (punctuation), images, camera angles, word choice and placement. It is also determined by a situation or place.” After taking this class, I believe rhetoric’s scope is much more comprehensive and dynamic than persuasion and uses more styles and nuanced means of communication to reach audiences. The evolution of my definition of rhetoric has been influenced by rhetorical theorists Karlyn Kohrs Campbell, Bonnie Dow, Marie Boor Tonn, Karen A. Foss, Kennth Burke, Rita Felski, and Jurgen Habermas. After considering their contributions to rhetorical theory, I contend that rhetoric is a way of communicating through diverse styles or mediums which seek to push against the symbol systems of dominant ideologies for the emergence of new economic, social, political, and cultural spaces.

Dow and Tonn’s research on the feminine style and Karen A. Foss’ writing on Harvery Milk’s “queer style” inform my definiton by discussing how rhetoricians use multiple styles of speaking to achieve their purpose of creating a “new rhetorical space” (Foss, 79). Within these new spaces,“alternative modes of political reasoning” can emerge (Dow & Tonn, 288). In the context of my definition, utilizing these communication styles empowers and reaches diverse audiences which in turn shifts the conversation from a limiting hegemonic way of thinking and gives those of all backgrounds an opportunity to deconstruct societal systems of power. By extension, allowing “contradictions to exist side by side,” Harvey Milk created a space in 1970’s San Francisco where new possibilities could emerge which allowed him to use his queer identity to connect with unlikely constituents and challenge the rhetorical situation (81). With the emergence of new voices and ways of communicating, rhetors have the ability to deconstruct and challenge hegemonic ways of reasoning and replace them with communication that works to create new spaces of discourse by expanding the possibilities of language and styles of speaking.

My first definition of rhetoric evolved to consider how our words and actions took on significance to form dominant ideologies through symbolism. Before I discuss how rhetoric pushes against dominant ideologies, a discussion of symbolism is necessary. Kenneth Burke theorizes that symbols constitute everything in our society including the framework of our prevailing ideologies (58).  Burke reflects on the prominence of symbols when he writes, “can we bring ourselves to realize . . . just how overwhelmingly much of what we mean by ‘reality’ has been built up for us through nothing but our symbol systems?” (58). Through symbols, humans have created meaning and in effect have given significance to belief systems that dictate their existence. In its best form, rhetoric should be used by groups outside the sphere of influence to deconstruct the symbol systems which work to uphold dominant, limiting ideologies.

Symbolism works in a way that gives privilege to certain populations and in turn creates out groups, or counter-publics. Publics and counterpublics are individuals existing outside of the government who form discursive groups defined by rhetoric (Felski, 164). The “public sphere” was a term first used by Jürgen Habermas to describe a group that was a “historically determined formation” of  “male property owners and the enlightened aristocracy” (164). Considering my definition, the public sphere represents the dominant ideology and rhetoric should be used by various counter-publics, or those seeking access to the public sphere’s privilege to push against the hegemonic, or dominant public. Counter-publics seek to gain access to the public sphere’s privilege by situating themselves in opposition to the institutionalized identity of the public (166). Symbols which rhetoric pushes back against could be those which seek to deny members of counter-publics access to new places of economic, social and political opportunity.

My rhetorical artifact of me playing saxophone from my senior recital is an embodiment of a new space that rhetoric can create when it uses diverse forms of communication which challenges the dominant expression of western classical music, a version of a public sphere. The piece, Le Frêne égaré, is a contemporary work for solo saxophone written in 1979 by French Composer François Rossé. Le Frêne égaré incorporates compositional influences from “non-Western traditions” such as Africa, Asia, and Grece (Even, 18). The piece expresses its non-Western roots by employing many contemporary, or avant-garde techniques, like quarter tones, (notes whose pitches sound in between black and white keys on the piano) multiphonics, (the production of two or more sounds simultaneously) breath sounds, and flutter tonguing. In addition to contemporary techniques, Le Frêne égaré refelcts non-Western influences by transcending time and meter; time signatures (determine time and beat distribution) change frequently in the piece. This freedom allows the performer to “shape gestures and phrases in a personal way without forfeiting complete control” (Even, 18). Le Frêne égaré represents a counter-public of composers, performers and musical styles which have been traditionally shunned from concert halls because their expression of music is not contingent with the Western classical music tradition. However,  Le Frêne égaré and pieces like it allow composers and performers to create new cultural spaces by pushing back against the limiting symbol systems of the Western music tradition.

Much like Harvey Milk redefined the rhetorical situation by allowing “new opportunities to emerge” (Foss, 78), diverse expressions of music reach both diverse and traditional audiences and challenge them to reconsider their symbol systems of what “music” is. Le Frêne égaré allows saxophonists, musicians, and audiences to challenge the primary Western expression of music through utilizing the diverse, expressive, technical and sonic capabilities of the saxophone. When musicians utilize diverse musical languages, they expand and challenge the public’s perception of what music is, thus pushing back against the symbols that construct our perception of music that hinder creative and artistic human potential.

After considering the theorists covered in this class, I believe that when used in the best form, rhetoric is a dynamic tool of social critique and construction that utilizes diverse forms of styles or mediums which seek to challenge the symbol systems of dominant ideologies for the emergence of new economic, social, political, and cultural spaces. When rhetoric fulfills this role, social systems that once hindered human economic, social, political, and creative potential are deconstructed.

Burke, Kenneth. On Symbols and Society. Edited by Joseph R. Gusfield, Univ. of Chicago  Press, 1989.

Dow, Bonnie J., and Mari Boor Tonn. “Feminine Style’ and Political Judgment in the Rhetoric of Ann Richards.” Quarterly Journal of Speech, vol. 79, no. 3, 1993, pp. 286–302., doi:10.1080/00335639309384036.

Even, Noa. “Examining François Rossé's Japanese-Influenced Chamber Music with Saxophone: Hybridity, Orality, and Primitivism as a Conceptual Framework.” Bowling Green State University , 2014.

Felski, Rita. Beyond Feminist Aesthetics: Feminist Literature and Social Change. Radius, 1989.

Foss, K.A.” Harvey Milk and the Queer Rhetorical Situation”. In C. E. Morris III (Ed.), Queering Public Address: Sexualities in American Historical Discourse, University of South Carolina Press, 2007, pp. 74–92.

Influential Women of Rhetorical Feminism

Cheryl Glenn Rhetorical Feminism and this Thing Called Hope: Theories

I really enjoyed having the opportunity to read and discover several rhetorical feminists who have contributed to the matriarchal aspect of the study of rhetoric. Glenn discussed how the early feminist theoretical goal still remains in the 21st century, “one of expanding the realm of rhetorical possibility and democratizing rhetorical studies” (49). This is done is a way that seeks to expand multivocity within the study, accommodating a “greater representation and inclusivity of everyday rhetors by encouraging misidentification with those elitist and exclusive” (49). This makes me question what the “everyday rhetor” looks like. It quite possibly could include those who have critical perspectives of power regimes of those to which they do not necessarily belong, which corresponds to the idea of disidentification theory. Feminist theory explores beyond the dominant public sphere and adapts the methods of the elite male rhetors of the past to include silence and listening (50) so that “emotion and experience balance logic and reason” (50).

Glenn argues that rhetorical feminist theorizing is an “act of resistance” (50). This is in conversation with Ciroux’s pleading for women to write. In the 1970s, feminism had its second wave and invaded the homes of countless American families. Her plea for women to write felt like a plea for women to regain their power using their own words, their own voices, their power, to gain a sort of consciousness, to awaken the authority within them that might have otherwise been dormant or suppressed by the patriarchal society to which they belonged. She felt that “writing is precisely the very possibility of change, the space that can serve as a springboard for subversive thought, the precursory movement of a transformation of social and cultural structures” (879). The very idea of a woman writing being “subversive” certainly speaks to the times from which she was writing.

And while there have been significant changes in our culture since then, women still have a long way to go and are still possibly considered subversive when they choose to fight to keep the momentum going until there is true equality and equity of not only women but all marginalized groups. The age of listening has blossomed and some of those associated with the dominant power structure have listened, or rather have been infiltrated to some degree by women. The Me Too movement is proof that listening has gained power and some of those who have been wronged have been heard. This is particularly evident with the prosecution of Bill Cosby, Brett Weinstein, Larry Nassar, R Kelly, Catholic clergymen, and many more. This would not have been possible if it weren’t for the empowerment of women speaking out against their oppressors, encouraged by strong feminist leaders of our past and present. Nor, without listening.

Here are a few quotes from the text that I felt the importance to highlight:

“I have not yet unlearned the esoteric bullshit and pseudo-intellectualizing that school brainwashed into my writing” (52) Gloria Anzaldua

“Her [bell hooks] goal is to think critically together with her audience about their context and standpoint, take seriously their rhetorical agency, confront their domination, and thereby, change the world” (58).

“Mystified believers are of course commanded to deny their own intellectual integrity and blindly believe the babbling of men to whom god purportedly has revealed the nonsensical mystery” (61). - Mary Daly

“One transactional goal of Starhawk’s rhetorical feminism is to affirm the unique spirit that resides in each individual, the life force that binds all humans—and all living things—together. With self-conscious, self-aware rhetorical feminism, she advocates for the integrity and rights of every person” (63). “For Trinh, disruption works best; accommodation is outside the realm of possibility” (65).

“Although we believe that persuasion is often necessary, we believe an alternative exists that may be used in instances when changing and controlling others is not the rhetor’s goal; we call this rhetorical invitational rhetoric” (69). - Sonja K. Foss and Cindy L. Griffin

“Any intent to persuade is an act of violence” (70). - Sally Miller Gearhart

“Insofar as the role of rhetor entails qualities of self-reliance, self-confidence, and independence, its very assumption is a violation of the female role” (72). - Karlyn Kohrs Campbell

“We may dismiss nonviolence hastily because nonviolence does not always fulfill the scientific requirement for perfect replicability, cool cynicism, or the desired degree of detachment in order to prove its success” (76). Ellen. W. Gorsevski

*The Feminine Style*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LI4ueUtkRQ0&ab_channel=C-SPAN

In this entry, I will be examining the critical questions: How do you see the feminine style at play in this artifact - public or interpersonal? In which ways is it empowering and/or limiting? Overall, is it more empowering or limiting?

To examine these questions, I looked at Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s speech on the floor of the House of Representatives on July 23rd, 2020. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez uses many traditional elements of the feminine style, which helps her relate to and empower other women with similar experiences to hers. Overall, the cultural expectation for women to use the feminine style is limiting because the feminine style is less accepted in the public sphere. 

On Monday, July 20th, 2020 Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York was walking up the steps of the United States Capitol when she was confronted by Rep. Yoho of Florida. Yoho made some disrespectful remarks to the Congresswoman and then started to walk away. Following the confrontation, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez went into the Capitol building to cast her vote and walked back out. She ran into Rep. Yoho again and, in front of members of the press, was called a “fucking bitch.” After this was reported in the media, Rep. Yoho gave a speech on the House Floor in response to the criticism he was receiving. After Yoho’s speech, Ocasio-Cortez was still frustrated by the incident and Yoho’s speech, so the next day, she spoke on the House Floor. 

Dow and Bor Tonn (1993) apply Karlyn Campbell’s theory of the feminine style to the public speaking of former Texas Governor Ann Richards. The authors look at Campbell’s definition of the feminine rhetorical style as different qualities and speaking techniques that have traditionally been used by women. Some examples of these are “a personal tone, uses personal experiences, anecdotes and examples as evidence, exhibits inductive structure, emphasizes audience participation and encourages identification between speaker and audience” (287). Dow and Bor Tonn argue that the feminine style stems from traditional cultural expectations of women as homemakers and caretakers. This, coupled with the historical resistance of men to listen to female speakers has caused the development of the feminine style which can still be seen today.

One example Rep. Ocasio-Cortez using the feminine style is her reliance on personal experience with verbal abuse from men. Not only does Ocasio-Cortez talk about the experience with Rep. Yoho, but she also talks about other verbal abuse she has received from other members of the Republican party, as well as in her life before serving as a Congresswoman. She says. “I have walked the streets in New York City, and this kind of language is not new. I have encountered words uttered by Mr. Yoho and men uttering the same words as Mr. Yoho while I was being harassed in restaurants. I have tossed men out of bars that have used language like Mr. Yoho’s.” Towards the beginning of the speech, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez heavily relies on her personal experience of violent, disrespectful language coming from men. Not only did she describe the incident in question with Ted Yoho but talks about other experiences she has had, both within the political realm and outside it. Her citing of experiences within restaurants, bars and on the streets and subway of New York City are particularly important for Ocasio-Cortez to relate to women everywhere. While getting called a “f***ing b*tch” on the steps of the Capitol Building in front of reporters isn’t a relatable experience, receiving that type of insult in a bar or on the subway is much more relatable. Not only does this help women relate to her, but sharing these personal experiences serves to help empower women. By mentioning the disrespectful comments that she received before being elected to Congress, Ocasio-Cortez shows that she didn’t let those comments define who she was or doubt herself. She is a representation of someone who has taken those foul insults time and time again but has risen above them and has become successful, which is empowering for women.

Another factor of the feminine style that Ocasio-Cortez uses is inductive reasoning. She started her speech describing the incident involving Rep. Yoho, then describing her different experiences while living and working in New York City. It wasn’t until after she presented that evidence that she came to the conclusion that violence and violent language towards women is a cultural problem in the United States. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez states, “This is not new, and that is the problem. Mr. Yoho was not alone. He was walking shoulder to shoulder with Representative Roger Williams, and that’s when we start to see that this issue is not about one incident. It is cultural. It is a culture of lack of impunity, of accepting of violence and violent language against women, and an entire structure of power that supports that.” The use of inductive reasoning in the feminine style allows for people to start listening to the evidence presented and then after all the evidence has been stated, then come to the conclusion and Ocasio-Cortez does just that. By using inductive reasoning anyone who has a similar experience to the evidence she stated will then come to the same conclusion. This then validates the experiences of all women who have the same or similar experiences to Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. By using inductive reasoning and coming to this conclusion, Ocasio-Cortez validates the experiences of women who have experienced violent language towards them. It takes away any potential blame or self-doubt, instead placing the blame on the culture that has been created and perpetuated.

A final element of the feminine style used by Representative Ocasio-Cortez is creating identification between the speaker and the audience. Ocasio-Cortez helps all women relate to her through their shared experiences of having men use violent language against them. She says, “These were the words that Representative Yoho levied against a congresswoman. The congresswoman that not only represents New York’s 14th Congressional District, but every congresswoman and every woman in this country. Because all of us have had to deal with this in some form, some way, some shape, at some point in our lives.” Through this, all women are able to relate more closely with Representative Ocasio-Cortez through their shared experiences of rude language and comments from men being used against them. Not only does this help women related to Ocasio-Cortez and her experiences, but it also serves as empowerment. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez sends the message that no woman has to let the rude things a man says define them or limit them in any way. It serves as an empowering message that women won’t be limited or torn down by violent comments by men, but will continue to act as themselves and do great things.

Jamieson (1995) writes about the double bind that women, especially women in politics, face. Jamieson’s argument about the double bond is based on normative gender expectations and expectations of traditionally masculine qualities in politicians and leaders. When women gain leadership positions, cultural gender expectations are at odds with the expectations of being leaders, which value masculine qualities. This puts women in an impossible position. If they exhibit traditionally feminine qualities, they will be criticized for not exhibiting the necessary leadership qualities, but if they exhibit more traditionally masculine qualities to fulfill the cultural expectations of a leader, they will be criticized for not exhibiting traditionally feminine traits. In this scenario with Representative Ocasio-Cortez, and all situations where violent language is used towards women, they are put in a double bind. If they speak up and point out the obvious problem with men making rude, derogatory comments towards women, then they will be criticized for making a big deal out of something that happens all the time. While there are inherent ethical flaws within that critique, it will be used. On the other hand, if Ocasio-Cortez had just ignored the incident and moved on, like so many women do, she would have been criticized for allowing comments like this to happen in society. 

While Ocasio-Cortez was able to utilize the feminine style in this floor speech in a way that validated and empowered women, the feminine style as a whole is limiting. Through sharing her own personal experiences, Ocasio-Cortez helps women relate to her and other women, validating their experiences. She also serves to empower women by not letting men’s comments tear them down and demonstrating that you can have these violent comments hurled at you and not just let it happen. While the feminine style was empowering in this situation and is empowering in all feminist rhetoric, it is limiting in other situations. Cultural expectations, assumptions, and stereotypes of women often force them to act a certain way, as well as speak a certain way, in the feminine style. The usage of the feminine style can often lead to criticism and places women in the double bind, which is limiting.

Overall, Ocasio-Cortez used elements of the feminine style in her floor speech on July 23rd, 2020, which allowed her to validate the experiences of many other women and empower them. While the feminine style is empowering in this speech and throughout all feminist rhetoric, it is limiting overall in society because it sets expectations of how women should speak and often puts them in a double bind.

Works Cited

Dow, B. and Bor Tonn, M. (1993). “Feminine Style” and Political Judgement in the Rhetoric of Ann Richards. Quarterly Journal of Speech 79, 286-302.

Jamieson, K. H. (1995). Beyond the Double Bind: Women in Leadership. Oxford University Press

Ocasio-Cortez. (2020). Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) Responds to Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LI4ueUtkRQ0&ab_channel=C-SPAN

New Toolkit Helps Students and Teachers in the Fight Against Marine Debris

Marine debris in places like Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument threatens wildlife. Photo: Ryan Tabata/NOAA

Located in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument protects the most remote region of the most remote archipelago on Earth. Though no one lives here, its shores have a lot in common with urban streets: you can find discarded fast food wrappers, plastic straws, lighters, fragments of styrofoam, and more. This scene is not unique to Papahānaumokuākea: each year thousands of tons of marine debris make their way to marine sanctuaries and monuments and threaten aquatic ecosystems.

NOAA is combating this dangerous pollution through education and research. NOAA's Office of National Marine Sanctuaries and the NOAA Marine Debris Program have developed a new kit for students and educators in coastal and inland areas to learn more about marine debris and monitor their local waterways.

This toolkit serves as a unique collaborative effort to reduce the impact on marine ecosystems through hands-on citizen science, education, and community outreach, explains Alyssa Nally, program coordinator for the NOAA Ocean Guardian School Program. "Through surveying the debris found on their local waterways, students will be empowered to learn more about how to address this issue on campus, at home, and in their community," she says.

Debris can become wrapped around sponges and other invertebrates and block their access to sunlight and food. Photo: NOAA

Marine debris threatens marine life and coastal communities who rely on the ocean. It litters shoreline habitat and can potentially release contaminants into the water. Debris can break down into microplastics that are consumed by fish and seabirds, while discarded fishing nets can entangle larger species of marine animals like whales, dolphins, sharks, and turtles. Debris can also become wrapped around corals and sponges, blocking their access to sunlight and food. Because it occurs throughout the world's ocean, understanding the nature of marine debris is crucial and requires comprehensive wide-scale monitoring.

The newly developed marine debris kit seeks to address the root of this global problem by working at the local level through youth education. The kit consists of curriculum and classroom presentations, guidelines for marine debris monitoring, and resources for community outreach. It is designed to be fun and engaging for both students and teachers and has several options tailored to different grade levels. It can also be adapted for use by after-school clubs and local educational organizations, libraries, and more.

Students conduct marine debris monitoring in Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary. Photo: Karlyn Langjahr/NOAA

The kit prepares students to join the Marine Debris Monitoring and Assessment Project by walking them through data-collection surveys, safety tips, and easy-to-understand spreadsheets to record their data. Sherry Lippiatt, the California regional coordinator for the Marine Debris Program, is looking forward to the lessons the marine debris kit will teach students. "We're thrilled to have a new resource to guide students with marine debris surveys on their local shorelines, an experience that builds awareness of the connection between debris in the environment and our everyday use of disposable items that too-often escape proper waste management," she says. The kit also teaches students valuable scientific communication skills like how to analyze and display their data.

The kit encourages students to use the lessons they learn about marine debris to help their community become more sustainable. It provides several ideas on how students can engage in stewardship activities and empowers them to share their messages with their communities. Lippiatt recognizes that the outreach component of the kit is key to its far-reaching success. "Teachers who pilot-tested the toolkit indicated that the field experience stuck with their students and motivated them to engage with their local communities on efforts to ‘turn off the tap' and prevent this source of pollution in our ocean," she explains.

Students explore the issue of marine debris at Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary. Photo: Kelly Drinnen/NOAA

Some of the outreach activities include challenging students to a "Do Without" Week, where they select one disposable plastic item to stop using for a week and reflect on and share their experience. Students can also host a debris scavenger hunt around campus or write to local restaurant owners and government officials about the issue of marine debris.

For marine national monuments and national marine sanctuaries, turning off the tap on marine debris is especially important since many areas are key feeding and breeding habitat for marine life. "National marine sanctuaries have been identified as some of our nation's most significant marine ecosystems," says Seaberry Nachbar, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries education coordinator and Ocean Guardian School program director. "Our jobs as sanctuary educators are to provide young stewards a connection to these spectacular underwater treasures, as well as the knowledge of how to protect them. The marine debris kit offers a vehicle for students to identify locations within their sanctuary watershed where marine debris is an issue and then to take the steps to make a change."

Turning the tide against marine debris is a global challenge and necessitates widespread awareness of the crisis thorough monitoring and adoption of alternatives to single-use plastics. If you are a student or teacher you can get involved by using the marine debris toolkit in your class or encouraging your school to join the Students for Zero Waste Week challenge to reduce single-use plastics.

2015 Marine Debris Program Art Contest winner Emily E., Grade 1, Alaska

Karlyn Borysenko is an organizational psychologist who just so happens to be a lifelong Democrat. She admits to the fact that she always saw Trump supporters as...

Karlyn Borysenko is an organizational psychologist who just so happens to be a lifelong Democrat. She admits to the fact that she always saw Trump supporters as...

‘Shrill’ Shreds Hollywood Stereotypes About How Women of Size Eat

The first time you see Annie, the protagonist of the new Hulu show Shrill, eating, her meal doesn’t look particularly pleasant. Played by SNL cast member Aidy Bryant, Annie grabs a plastic container from the fridge, opening it to reveal three white disks — supposedly pancakes — from a Tupperware labeled “Thin Menu.” While standing in her kitchen, she tries to break off a slab, puts it in her mouth, and wrinkles her nose in disgust. Her roommate, Fran (played by Lolly Adefope), walks by to witness the three doughy pucks, and says, “Good God.”

It’s not the only time Annie eats in her kitchen. Later in the series, Bryant opens a sealed container of leftover spaghetti, standing alone over an island near the sink. She twirls noodles around her fork, grinning in anticipation. She looks confident, blissed out, holding her hand under her chin as a noodle inches toward her lips. She scrunches her eyebrows and crinkles her nose, the perfect opposite of her look of disgust eating the Thin Meal pancakes. She nods and smiles while chewing, enjoying the moment.

The annals of TV are full of stories where women change themselves, from Mad Men’s Peggy Olsen to Eleanor Shellstrop in The Good Place. But Shrill, the six-episode adaptation of writer Lindy West’s memoir of the same name, is a different kind of “transformation” story, starring a woman of size. The show tells the story of Annie, a Portland-based calendar editor for an alt-weekly newspaper, trying to jump start her career, earn the love of Ryan, a painfully oblivious loser, and become a more honest, self-assured person. What Shrill is not is a story of body transformation, of a fat woman getting thin. Although it shows Annie eating diet meals and exercising with her mother, her real goal goes beyond the universal challenge of self-acceptance — she wants to feel powerful, as a woman of size and simply as a woman. She wants to demand respect from the people around her.

Those people often fat-shame Annie, whether it’s her obsessive online troll, her perpetually sneering editor, or an invasive personal trainer who eventually devolves into calling her a “fat bitch.” Still, Annie’s relationship with her body is more nuanced. Her insecurities are more often portrayed in physical details or unspoken interpersonal choices she makes because she feels that, in her words, “there’s a certain way that your body’s supposed to be and I’m not that.”

In media where a woman’s relationship with her body plays its own role, the eating scenes are telling. There are countless movies in which women devour ice cream during break-ups or lonely moments. And for years, when a person of size ate on screen, it was portrayed as comic relief, from Melissa McCarthy consuming a napkin in Spy to a cross-dressing Chris Farley on Saturday Night Live inhaling his friend’s french fries while asking, “Can I have some?”

Even in shows and movies celebrated for their representations of non-normative bodies, eating is reserved for emotional distress. In HBO’s Girls, Hannah Horvath (played by Lena Dunham) is often caught eating during low moments, like when she eats cake with her hands after her purse is stolen on the train. In Real Women Have Curves, it takes a conflict with her mother to get the protagonist, Ana (America Ferrera), to eat a bite of flan in a moment of overall positive defiance. Rarely do women of size get the opportunity to eat happily on screen without some tumult, some churning emotional hang-ups or interpersonal conflict. The exception, of course, is when people of size are shot eating healthy foods, like when the contestants on The Biggest Loser marvel over turkey burgers. But if a not-thin character is caught eating a cupcake, the audience is meant to laugh or cry at their expense.

When Annie eats so-called “indulgent” foods in Shrill, she’s not considered a failure, and it’s not used as a comic device. Instead, it’s often tied to a moment of personal or thematic triumph completely unrelated to her weight. By simply showing Annie eating the foods countless people love in a way that’s empowering, Shrill reinforces the idea that people, regardless of size, have the right to enjoy food in its entirety — not just salads and apples and other pious things, but rather the foods that are seen as permissibly comforting and luxurious for people of a smaller size. Like last year’s hit culinary travel show Salt, Fat, Acid, Heat, Hulu’s new series rewrites the rules for who gets to enjoy food on television.

Annie isn’t the only big millennial woman eating spaghetti on TV. In a scene on Girls, Hannah grabs handfuls of noodles from a takeout box, dangling them into her open mouth. There is an element of watching this scene that feels relatable, especially for anyone who lives alone, but nothing about that moment is sexy or empowering. At its best, it’s a moment of comic relief born out of universality; at its worst, it’s Dunham’s self-ridiculing humor shaming herself — and other women — for eating without control while not thin.

This is far from the only moment when a woman eating sugary, greasy, and otherwise “bad” foods on television works as a boiler-plate scene representing rock bottom. In her essay “Why is it sad and lonely women who turn to chocolate?” Telegraph culture writer Rebecca Hawkes recalls similar moments in romantic comedies, like when Renee Zellweger devours chocolates under a blanket in Bridget Jones’s Diary, or when Sandra Bullock turns to ice cream in Miss Congeniality. “When you look at the trope in more detail, the implication is that eating chocolate is something ‘naughty,’” she writes. “It’s something that (calorie-counting, figure-obsessed) women shouldn’t be doing, but can’t help resorting to in moments of extreme trauma — or simply due to a comedic lack of discipline.” In her essay, Hawkes also brings up another classic plus-sized person comically shamed and punished for their gluttony: Augustus Gloop, the rotund little boy in Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory, presumably killed for wanting to eat some of the chocolate in a literal river of chocolate — as if anyone wouldn’t.

Ryan (Luka Jones) and Annie (Aidy Bryant)

Photo: Allyson Riggs/Shrill

But still, beyond little boys, beyond thin ladies, it’s plus-size women whose eating is most often used as a thematic example of a psychological and/or personal failure, whether it’s comical or supposedly tragic. “With any overweight, unruly woman, there’s always a tendency to pathologize their relationship with food,” says Kathleen Rowe Karlyn, author of The Unruly Woman: Gender and the Genres of Laughter. “[For] women who dive in to the quart of ice cream or the box of chocolate, food is a source of comfort because life is not giving them other types of comfort.”

If women get fat as a plot device, they’re often shown eating something like pizza, ice cream, chocolate, or other sweets — take, for example, Goldie Hawn gorging herself on frosting post-breakup in Death Becomes Her. If a character appears to get them out of a slump, a chicken wing might be yanked out of their hands. And they won’t reach personal fulfillment until they’re skinny again. Meanwhile, women who are thin and confident — whether it’s Drew Barrymore in Charlie’s Angels, or the titular Gilmore Girls — are free to eat as much as they please, to the delight of all who watch them.

Annie didn’t originally eat the spaghetti. It was made by Fran’s brother, Lamar (Akemnji Ndifornyen), who spends the third episode, “Pencil,” visiting his sister and her roommate. For most of the first few episodes, Annie is busy obsessing over a man (Luka Jones) who is so embarrassed by her that he sends her out the back door of his apartment so his roommates can’t see her. On their first date, she eats a salad. When she arrives home after Ryan has stood her up, Lamar and Fran offer her the spaghetti. She turns it down.

Lamar, a chef, spends the episode quietly fawning over Annie. When he arrives, he gives her a box of chocolate turtles, an elaborate reference to a memory from their past. He lights up when she enters the room. And later, when she comes back after choosing not to see Ryan, he admits that he likes her, and that he always did. After they have sex, Annie tiptoes downstairs to the kitchen, where she finds the pasta he made. The scene is romantic and almost sexy, in a totally subtle, maybe even unintentional way. He didn’t make the pasta for her, specifically, but it was made by him.

But beyond the romantic arc of Annie and Lamar, the scene’s impact comes directly from what it means for her, in her path to self-respect: she’s giving herself what she wants and deserves, on her own terms. And the bewildered delight in her face as she eats is so contagiously joyful that the context of her weight becomes irrelevant.

Annie (Aidy Bryant) and Lamar (Akemnji Ndifornyen).

Photo by: Allyson Riggs/Shrill

Beyond the men in her life, one of Annie’s most fraught relationships is with her mother, Vera (played by Julia Sweeney), who’s responsible for the Thin Menu meals. During a pivotal rant, when Annie describes the ways the people around her have made her size seem like a moral failing, she says, “At this point, I could be a licensed fucking nutritionist because I’ve literally been training for it since the fourth grade, which is the first time that my mom said that I should just eat a bowl of Special K and not the dinner that she made for everyone else so I might be a little bit smaller.” One of Annie’s most significant plot developments with her mother, when she pushes back against her health policing, starts with a meal of meatball subs with her father. And when the season ends, we leave Vera lying on the ground with a bag of chips, suggesting that Annie’s number one advice giver also needs respite from controlling everything.

“Whether they’re very curvy like Mae West or they’re slender, I think what we haven’t seen in a long time is the ability of women just to be seen enjoying food,” Karlyn says. “Food is enjoyable (to women), not because they’re neurotic, not because they’re crazy, not because they’re sex-obsessed, just because food is a natural pleasure of life.” That’s how Shrill treats food, but also most of life’s joys: dancing at a party, swimming in a pool, having sex, being honest. Counter to the ways television and movies have previously presented plus-size women, as victims of their own lack of self-control, Shrill shows how restrictive life as a plus-size woman can be, and how often that’s a direct result of their self control. Shrill seems to be advocating for more self-designated freedom for women of size — the freedom to live with abandon. As Annie says, lying in bed and taking charge, “I’ve got big titties and a fat ass — I make the rules.”

Brooke Jackson-Glidden is the editor of Eater Portland. Edited by: Greg Morabito

Eat, Drink, Watch.

Food entertainment news and streaming recommendations every Friday

By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy and European users agree to the data transfer policy.

Source: https://www.eater.com/2019/3/28/18284128/shrill-hulu-aidy-bryant-food-eating

Would anyone like to read two other stories I’ve written? They’re both kinda dark but it’s good for Halloween and one of them is wlw themed. Just let me now! :)

*The Feminine Style*

https://americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ruthbaderginsburgusscnominationspeech.htm

In this entry, I will examine the critical question: How do you see the feminine style at play in this artifact - public or interpersonal? In which ways it is empowering and/or limiting? Overall, is it more empowering or limiting? To answer these questions, I analyzed a speech given by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg upon her Supreme Court nomination in 1993. The speech exhibits the feminine style where, through the use of “examples as evidence” and “encouraging audience identification,” Ginsberg places herself in the public narrative of women’s empowerment by framing her success as the result of a shared collaboration with the audience (Campbell 13). Ginsberg’s strategic use of the feminine style is empowering as it frames the audience as fundamental or central to her success.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg was the second woman appointed to the supreme court in 1993 after Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was appointed by President Regan in 1981. Ginsberg battled gender discrimination in law school and the workplace before her appointment to the Supreme Court and has since been an advocate for minorities and the disenfranchised (Oyez, para. 2).This speech was given after Ginsberg was nominated by President Clinton in 1993.

Karlyn Kohrs Campbell’s “feminine style” is a style of communication that uses personal tone, experiences and anecdotes as examples, encourages audience participation and sees audience members as equals, and works to create identification with the audience (13). Traditionally, the feminine style is used by feminists to show their audiences that they can “act effectively in the world” (13). However, this conception has been reconsidered and now the feminine style is used interchangeably both by men and women to “empower audiences for the traditional purpose of gaining access to the existing political system” (Dow and Tonn 286). With this reconceptualization of the feminine style, Dow and Tonn assert that it can be used to “offer alternative modes of political reasoning” (288). To answer this question, I will consider how Ginsberg uses two specific traits of the feminine style, “personal experiences and examples as evidence” and “audience identification” (Campbell, 13). Furthermore, I will utilize Jane Blankenship and Deborah C. Robson’s essay "Feminine Style" in Women's Political Discourse: An Exploratory Essay which considers the different characteristics of the feminine style and argues that the style seeks to empower through deconstructing “the typical line drawn between private and public spheres”, or the dominant public and those seeking access to the dominant public (363).  Blankenship and Robson also contend that the feminine style stresses the “relational nature of being” and that women “actively solicit audience participation in the legislative process” so suggest a personal relationship that the feminine style seeks to establish between rhetor and audience (360). 

Ginsberg first places her accomplishments in the shared narrative of women’s advancement by using personal experiences and examples as evidence to highlight other women’s successes. Through this, Ginsberg suggests that her success is not her own, but is built on the success of other women. First, Ginsberg cites Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and other women who serve in a capacity as a federal judge by saying, “Today, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor graces the Supreme Court Bench, and close to 25 women serve at the Federal Court of Appeals level, two as Chief Judges” (Ginsberg, “Acceptance”). Next, Ginsberg communicates shared success by comparing her law school class of 500 in the late 1950’s which had less than ten women to law schools in 1993 saying “few law schools have female enrollment under 40 percent, and several have reached or passed the 50 percent mark” (Ginsberg, “Acceptance”). Using evidence to compare the disparity of female law students in the 1950’s with her, Justice O’Connor and other female Justice’s recent appointments, she suggests collaboration and a shared sense of accomplishment by framing her achievement as the result of other women who came before her. By doing this, she places her success in the shared narrative of women's empowerment. As a matter of fact, Blankenship and Robsen write that women focus on problems “holistically,” considering the “fuller system from which a particular problem arises and the interdependencies within the system” (362). By thinking about the problem or situation as an entity of experiences and shared effort, Ginsberg recognizes and frames her success as a result of the collective effort of women, and as we will see later, other counter spheres throughout time.

While one component of the feminine style uses examples as evidence, Ginsberg also “encourages audience identification” (Campbell, 13).  The “relational nature of being” suggested by Blankenship and Robsen reflects the idea that female rhetors seek to “create and maintain” relationships in their communication (360). Ginsberg’s speech seeks to forge a relationship with the audience built on the shared collaborative goal of empowerment and success. Referring to her nomination, Ginsberg says, “[I]t contributes to the end of the days when women, at least half the talent pool in our society appear in high places only as one at a time performers” (Ginsberg, “Acceptance”). Ginsberg uses her accomplishment to connect with her audience by showing how her accomplishment opens doors for women to be successful like her. By doing this Ginsberg places her story in the narrative of the women’s movement and encourages women to identify with her by sharing in her success. Furthermore, Ginsberg reflects on the lineage of women’s achievements crediting “a revived women’s movement in the 1970’s that opened doors for people like me, to the civil rights movement of the 1960’s from which the women’s movement drew inspiration” (Ginsberg “Acceptance”). By sharing how other movements have allowed her success, she seeks to identify with her audience; in this case she broadens the scope of the narrative of collaboration by connecting different counterspheres by means of a shared goal, inclusivity in the public sphere. Both of these examples of Ginsberg seeking a personal connection with her audience illustrate the value female politicians and Justices place on finding ways of governing that are more “inclusive” and consequently “extend this value of inclusivity into the populace” (Blankenship and Robsen, 360). Ginsberg encourages the audience to identify with her success story and empowers them to also be agents of inclusivity.

Ginsberg’s use of the feminine style is empowering as it works to enable marginalized genders and other counter spheres by crediting the audience as active in bringing about social change. This narrative of collaboration and a shared success reflects one of the goals of the feminine style, to “empower audiences for the traditional purpose of gaining access to the existing political system” (Dow and Ton 286).  By empowering her audience and showing how they helped bring about the situations of her accomplishments, she includes them in her collaborative narrative of success. Additionally, Ginsberg’s collaborative narrative works to “offer alternative modes of political reasoning” by showing how progress is cultivated through the work of the collective, not the individual (Dow and Ton 288). The argument could be suggested that this collaborative and shared framework for success communicates a limiting gender construction for women where success is conditional upon others’ achievements. However, this only upholds the masculine view of communication which is based on hierarchy and domination (Campbell 288). When we view success as conditional for other people’s success, we assign a hierarchy for which achievements are more meaningful than others. While in some ways the masculine style of communication suggests an unempowering hierarchy, the feminine style suggests collaborative success that seeks to allow everyone access to the public sphere.      

Ginsberg’s speech utilizes “examples as evidence” and encourages “audience identification” to place herself in the public narrative of women’s empowerment by framing her success as the result of a shared collaboration with the audience (Campbell 13). Ginsberg presents an empowering gender construction for women by framing them as fundamental or central to her success. To Ginsberg, success is not the result of one person’s work, but the product of those who came before her and those who will continue to build on her achievements.

Works Cited

Blankenship, Jane, and Deborah C. Robson. “A ‘Feminine Style’; in Women's Political Discourse: An Exploratory Essay.” Communication Quarterly, vol. 43, no. 3, 1995, pp. 353–366., doi:10.1080/01463379509369982.

Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs. Man Cannot Speak for Her. Greenwood, 1989.

Dow, Bonnie J., and Mari Boor Tonn. “‘Feminine Style’ and Political Judgment in the Rhetoric of Ann Richards.” Quarterly Journal of Speech, vol. 79, no. 3, 1993, pp. 286–302., doi:10.1080/00335639309384036.

Ginsberg, Ruth Bader. “U.S. Supreme Court Justice Nomination Acceptance Address.” American Rhetoric, americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ruthbaderginsburgusscnominationspeech.htm.

"Ruth Bader Ginsburg." Oyez, www.oyez.org/justices/ruth_bader_ginsburg. Accessed 18 Nov. 2019.

**What is Rhetoric to Me?**

During my time in Rhetorical Theory I have learned many ideas and theories pertaining to rhetoric. This combined with independent research on this topic has completely changed my view on this field of study. In this essay I will describe my journey in defining rhetoric with the help of my professor Dr. Kunde. In the beginning of the term I thought rhetoric was just the way a person talked. Now, I believe Rhetoric to be a complex ideology of the way people speak in a manner that is trying to convey a certain point. 

To give a “right” definition of rhetoric is impossible, there is no way to give just one straight definition but rather you can be given pieces of information to help define it for yourself. Throughout my journey in Comm 380-Rhetorical Theory I have been given many theories, ideas, and ways to research the topic for myself. An article that helped me the most in my journey was Cambell and Huxman’s article on evaluating rhetoric. They give four criteria for evaluating the rhetoric of a person. In these criteria they take into account Artistic, the aesthetic of the way someone speaks, Response, the way someone reacts to your speech, Accuracy, how truthful and factual your argument is, and Moral, how ethical your speech is. This article helped me to decide which theorist I agree with the most.  I believe the theorist I mostly relate to is Gorgias. In his Encomium of Helen he gives a perspective of the way speech affects people. When referring to Helen leaving her husband for another man he says “If speech persuaded and deluded her mind, even against this it is not hard to defend her or free her from blame” meaning that we cannot blame people for being manipulated by speech. Gorgias believed that life had no objective meaning and so he just focused on the sensibility of arguments. I liked this theorist so much that I wrote my midterm paper about him, but with this also came some criticisms. He also helped me realize that I cannot agree with the Sophist idea of the Doxa. The Sophists believed that public opinions were the truth, rather than logical truth. Where the Sophists fell short, Plato and Iscorates came to save the day. Plato’s Dialog was the ideal “truth seeking” dialog where instead of trying to convince other people to believe you, you were engaged in finding the common truth. This really helped me change from “the way people speak” to them trying to convey a certain point. While the demeanor in which someone speaks is a part of rhetoric, it is not the whole thing. 

Without summarizing the whole class, these are some of the most important theorists and ideas that helped me to come to my conclusion that rhetoric is not just about how people talk, it is about why they talk and the message they are trying to portray. Understanding rhetoric is important in understanding politics and if someone is trying to manipulate you or not. This fourteen week course over a topic that could be a whole entire academic major and Dr. Kunde did a great job of giving the complexities while also making it a fun environment (while it lasted in face-to-face learning). 

Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs, and Susan Schultz Huxman. The Rhetorical Act: Thinking, Speaking, and Writing Critically. Vol. 3, Cengage Learning, 2003.

Gagarin, Michael. “Gorgias.” Early Greek Political Thought from Homer and the Sophists , edited by Paul Woodruff, Cambridge University Press, pp. 190–195.

“Plato on Rhetoric and Language: Four Key Dialogues.” Plato on Rhetoric and Language: Four Key Dialogues, by Plato and Jean Nienkamp, Routledge, 2016, pp. 85–104.

Comedic Feminist: Change of a pre-conceived form of rhetoric

In this entry, I will examine the critical question about how to challenge the contemporary feminist issues in an ironic humored way to then challenge them.

To investigate these questions, I examined a short clip that shows Tracy Jordan in the show 30 Rock. The clip shares a narrative behind the statement, “Oh no, I’m on my period”, that shows stereotyped exaggerations of what a female is like on a period. Exaggerations are shown through Jordans acting in a comedic setting, showing how some people think/perceive being on a period is like through the public narrative. 

Tracy Jordan is shown on the show 30 Rock, known for their comedic writing and examining issues of today’s society and challenges them. The show uses comedic rhetoric in a series of different ways. Most comedic writing is done in a form to bring in the audience to be challenged by what 30 Rock is saying at face value. The potential danger of comedic writing can be a minefield when dealing with different audiences. On the other hand, the people who are not seeing their comedy as jokes are the ones that need to be challenged. Feminist style of speech can be difficult to portray because a more masculine style of speech is what society is used too. But comedy is one thing that can be used with a feminist style of rhetoric, to then examine feminist issues that are being dealt with in society and see how they can be reframed.

One theory that can be tied with feministic humor, is how rhetoricians use feminine style within their speeches and also how the speeches can be used to culturally challenge another feminist counter-public sphere. Feminist public spheres allow for the public to analyze emerging ideologies that go against another ideology to challenge the existing one with the other. Rita Fleski, author of Beyond Feminist Aesthetics challenges the counter-public by saying, “Such a model makes it possible to situate the debate over library forms in relation to the conflicting needs of different sections of the women’s movement rather than simply assigning an abstract political value to particular techniques” (Campbell, 1991). Alongside this, Karlyn Campbell talks about feminine style by saying that the feminine style uses historical and contemporary feminist rhetors. Fem style also uses their audiences to show the form and function of feminist movements and the effectiveness alongside those strategies.

The public sphere is normally dominated by men, whereas the female population is pushed towards a more disclosed/private sphere. When being involved in a public sphere that is mainly dominated by the other sex, there is going to be some degree of issues based on the marginalization of those spheres. This is why feminists seek out people that want to reshape different understandings that society has pushed against women. The re-enforcement of structured relationships in society is something that a fem-style approach sought after. By involving a community to agree/disagree with your beliefs is something the fem style benefits from. By challenging the traditional public man with feminine values, there can be a conversation held between the argued division. A conversation can help reflect what society has previously based their spectrum on, and then look at different views to respect the marginalized female private sphere. Rita Felski says that “Unlike the bourgeois public sphere, then, the feminist public sphere does not claim a representative universality but rather offers a critique of cultural values from the standpoint of women as a marginalized group within society” (Felski, 1989). Felski is reinforcing the fact that the feminist public sphere is something that has been oppressed and discriminated against in culture. And when trying to find out how to make another counter-public see one’s case, there may be some strategies that are helpful to bring across a view. Comedy is one way to show meaning, through a different form of speech besides just saying what you want to change within a said speech. By engaging the counter-public speaking on feministic values through humor, it can be shown to show just how the existing structure of something can be exaggerated and exploiting the other public sphere. 

There are both advantages and disadvantages to this narrative, but the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. An advantage of comedic fem style is the risk that is brought into a comedic style of rhetoric. Different women have been using different styles of speech to become effective within their rhetoric, and comedy is on that make visible social contexts. Also, comedy has been used to go against controversies to make light of situations. The light can come from the rationalization of a concept suddenly being formed from past knowledge. By laughing and becoming a bit distracted from other conceptions, making light of a certain subject through comedy can make the audience rethink with a sudden emerging thaught of rationalization. On the other hand, disadvantages can be that some may take humor and misinterpret it to be the complete opposite. Some ironic statement could be taken in to face value and not have the same message as to how the speaker wished it had. If someone takes something as being shown as sarcastic and takes it literally, it has an opportunity to be again forced back onto the stereotypes the fem style user was trying to avoid. The “Oh no, my period” bit was something to be taken light-heartedly. Using jokes to explore questions in regards to womanhood is something 30 Rock does often to show just how misunderstood old feminine stereotypes can be. 

In the book, Look Who’s Laughing: Gender and Comedy talks about a comedian named Margaret Cho. Cho uses humor against people to make issues be dealt with in an easier/funny tone. She does this to create a platform that is true to herself and how she views society. Comedy, Cho says, opens doors to performance because people are less on guard when people are being ready to see a comedy show. This unguarded-ness is something that people like Tracy Jordan, use to their advantage to make an issue have no hard meaning behind those words. But the words can then be opened from that comedy, to then speak onto it with their audiences. For example, Cho talks about an encounter with an audience member talking about the certain role she plays when she is performing. “They had a real problem with me because I look this way but I talk this way (w/ no accent). So it’s like a problem. And they’re trying to be sensitive about it and they’re like, “Margaret, we don’t want you to take this the wrong way, by could you be, I don’t know, a little more Chinese?” Well, actually I’m Korean. “Whatever.” (Finney, 1994). Cho not only deals with contradictions between how she talks, but how she looks as well. Cho talks about how she uses the racist/sexist comments from audience members and looks at that as the construction of the opportunity to use for her standup. It may not be the easiest thing to do, but Cho uses it as a mechanism to go against the male counter-public sphere to show how mainstream a lot of audiences’ expectations are. 

 In conclusion, feministic style comedy might not solve all the problems in regards to male public-spheres issues but it does create a conversation with the public. Comedy isn’t an end all be all of the solutions, but instead acts as a starting point to change the past stereotyped views on womanhood and challenge their beliefs. Exposing the issue at hand is the start of a movement to start changing the preconceived notions of menstrual cramps. Thus, by critically examining fem rhetoric fem style rhetoricians/comedians can challenge the contemporary feminist issues in an ironic humored way to then challenge the past conceiving notions. By investigating these the short clip that shows Tracy Jordan in the show 30 Rock. It is seen to show that, “Oh no, I’m on my period”, shows a stereotyped exaggeration of what a female is like on a period. Exaggerations are then shown through Jordans acting in a comedic setting, showing how some people think/perceive being on a period is like through the public narrative through over-exaggeration. 

Cite Sources:

Blackjackstacks. "30 Rock: Oh No My Period!" Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 25 Jan. 2012. Web. 24 Sept. 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVgHaTPM38A

Campbell, K.K. (1991). Hearing women’s voices. Communication Education, 40, 33-48.

Finney, Gail (1994). Look Who's Laughing: Gender and Comedy. Vol. 1, Taylor & Francis.

Felski, Rita (1989). Beyond Feminist Aesthetics; Feminist Literature and Social Change.

*The Feminine Style*

In this entry, the focus will be on answering the critical question: How do you see the feminine style at play in this artifact - public or interpersonal? In which ways is it empowering and/or limiting? Overall, is it more empowering or limiting?

The artifact being evaluated is Barack Obama’s speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston. Going into the convention, Obama was relatively unknown, he was just a one-term senator for Illinois. However, Obama was able to use this opportunity to introduce himself as a powerful speaker to the Democrats and the nation, through usage of the feminine style. Obama portrays himself as relateable and nurturing towards the American people, and makes the audience feel as though they are a part of a special, united group. This is feminine style at work, and Obama takes full advantage of it to make himself sound presidential and inspiring. Barack Obama uses feminine style to inspire the democratic convention and America in general, by making his audience feel like a part of a greater whole and personally able to relate to him, thus creating an interpersonal and empowering piece of rhetoric.

Feminine style as analyzed by Bonnie J. Dow and Mari Boor Tonn in “Feminine Style” and Political Judgement in the Rhetoric of Ann Richards, will be applied here to the rhetoric Barack Obama used during this artifact.  Dow and Boor Tonn paraphrase Karlyn Campbell’s description of feminine style as “discourse that displays a personal tone, uses personal experience, anecdotes and examples as evidence, exhibits inductive structure, emphasizes audience participation, and encourages identification between speaker and audience.” (Dow and Boor Tonn 287). This definition displays how feminine style should be applied to rhetoric, and that is to create a personal bond with the audience using relateable experiences and identification. Feminine style in rhetoric also “demonstrates the declining usefulness of distinctions between public and private modes of discourse and thought, a distinction that has devalued women’s rhetorical and political contributions.” (Dow and Boor Tonn 299). Obama shows how feminine theory can prove to be valuable and powerful rhetorically, here in this artifact and later on as president.

Inside the artifact under analysis, we see Obama implement feminine style rhetoric, piece by piece to establish a strong bond with his audience over a short period of time. To establish personal tone and personal experience, Obama says: “My father was a foreign student born and raised in a small village in Kenya... my mother’s family (father) fought in World War II and settled in Kansas... my parents not only shared an improbable love, but they shared an abiding faith in the possibilities of this nation.” (THNKR). Obama divulges his family’s history to a crowd of strangers here and gives his audience some common ground and experience to latch on to. The audience has many parents who likely fought in WWII as well, giving Obama a personal tone and feel. These examples also provide evidence of Obama being a part of the group that he wants the audience to feel a part of, the American culture. “I stand here knowing I am a part of the larger American story and that I owe a debt to all those who came before me, in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.” (THNKR). Obama brilliantly ties in his personal origins with membership to the overall American group here, driving home his rhetoric on to the audience. The audience can relate to Obama’s personal story, and Obama’s story is only possible in the nation they live in, so therefore they must be a part of the great, unique nation group that is America. Obama has created a heartfelt, yet logically reasonable identity for his audience to latch on to and participate with. This is feminine style applied near perfectly and proves to be very effective as the crowd met it enthusiastically. This application of feminine style from Obama is interpersonal in nature as he strives to find common ground with the American people with personal details. “There’s another belief in the American saga and that is the belief that we’re all connected as one people... that matters to me even if that’s not my child.” (THNKR). Obama comes off as a genuine and personal guy who wants Americans to look out for each other, because they are all one people. The inspirational rhetoric here from Obama is uplifting and empowering because it reaches the audience on a personal, emotional, and caring level, creating a nurturing, feminine tone of mutual love. When Obama talks about uniting through love and common decency, the feminine style he uses is far more empowering than limiting, as the audience begins to believe in him more as the speech goes on, cheering louder and louder.

Further proof that Obama intended and accurately used feminine style in his rhetoric is found in The Story Behind Obama’s Keynote Address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention by By Mary Frances Berry and Josh Gottheimer from Beacon Press. “He wanted to write this speech...in a way that was personal.” Axelrod later commented, “Almost immediately he said to me, ‘I know what I want to do. I want to talk about my story as part of the American story.’” (Berry and Gottheimer Par 8). Obama wanted to reach the convention audience on a personal level that showed he really cared about them and that they were a part of a great, unified nation. The interpersonal and empowering tone of Obama’s rhetoric is derived from a clear and successful attempt at feminine style. “Obama’s draft read: “We’re not red states and blue states; we’re all Americans, standing up together for the red, white, and blue.” (Berry and Gottheimer Par 16). Tying the viewers together at the end with broad statements of unity like this one, were the master strokes of Obama during this speech, and put the finishing touches of feminine style on to his rhetoric.

Works Cited:

Berry, M. Gottheimer, J. The Story Behind Obama’s Keynote Address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Beacon Press. July 27, 2016. https://www.beaconbroadside.com/broadside/2016/07/the-story-behind-obamas-keynote-address-at-the-2004-democratic-national-convention.html.

Dow, B. Boor Tonn, M. (1993). “Feminine Style” and Political Judgement in the Rhetoric of Ann Richards. Quarterly Journal of Speech. Retrieved November 17, 2019.

Obama, Barack. The Speech that Made Obama President. THNKR. August 30, 2012. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFPwDe22CoY.