Daughters in Boxes (Kishida) Speech Analysis Outline

Subject/Purpose: To convince parents, particularly mothers, to make their daughter’s boxes (minds) wide, spacious and to fill them with knowledge and education.  The wider and more free the box is, the less likely the daughter will run away or elope, which is appealing to parents as they’d have to waste resources to get her back (this point/appeal is the last line of her speech)

Effectiveness: For the period and the way Japanese are about women, it was really controversial and out of the box (no pun intended). Due to the controversy in her argument, it really stands out in your mind.

Audience: Fellow feminists and parents

Context: Speech in front of other feminists in Kyoto, monitored by the police, during the Meiji Restoration where the old ways of government were abolished and all centralized powers were centralized and modernized (mostly imperial rule with a limited parliamentary rule).  This was during the time of the first feminist movement in Japan and Kishida was one of its leaders.  The government passed many laws that denied women everything (rights, property, ability to participate in government etc.) and mainly, freedom.

BIAS OF AUTHOR: Upper class girl, spoke more properly/formally, might’ve used different slang and words than the people listening (some of these words might’ve been lost in translation)

BIAS OF SCRIBE: The one who copied down the speech was a listening police officer, who when writing what she was saying, might’ve missed other points she was saying.

BIAS OF TRANSLATOR:  The translators of this speech are Rebecca L. Coperland and Melek Ortabasi.  There are some words in different languages that just can’t be translated into others, so the full and truthful meaning of something could be lost due to the language barrier.

Tone/Diction: Very formal and polite, probably because she was of the upper class and might’ve have a more sophisticated vocabulary and sentence structure.  By speaking formally she would’ve been respecting her audience showing them that she thought they were equal or if there were older members in her audience she would’ve been respecting her elders, which is another part of Japanese etiquette.  This way of speaking would’ve appealed to the parents in the audience.

Appeals

Pathos: She believes in the daughters and thinks that they have a great capability to attain great knowledge which invokes pride and happiness among her audience

Ethos:  Uses her own experience with the box (she had a wide, educational filled box); she also analyzes the three different boxes (the ideal one and the two bad ones).  This shows that she’s put a lot of thought into the idea and really understands it.

Logos: She didn’t use much logos, except what might be considered common sense.

Rhetorical devices: Though Kishida’s speech is short, its jam-packed with big ideas, metaphors and symbolism.  Her style is clear and to the point.  Even her symbolism is easy to comprehend.

Techniques: The box metaphor symbolized the mind of the daughter.  The box/mind need to be open, wide, spacious, strong, well built, and filled with knowledge.  The box doesn’t have walls and is made of heaven and earth (that point appeals to the Japanese regard for nature and the many gods that come from it).

General Evaluation 

·      She criticises the unfairness of how middle and upper class girls are tucked away from the world.

·      Girls miss opportunities outside the home because they are boxed away.

·      Saw Japanese girls as capable of great knowledge and capacity to learn (pathos).

·      Speech demonstrates the possibilities of Japanese girls (pathos).

·      Highlights other themes from previous speeches (strengths and capabilities of women.  By using the same themes, her keeps her stance and arguments similar and this somehow makes her argument seem more steady when she's so clearly built her foundations on the same grounds.

WWII Leader Speech Comparison

Churchill and Goebbels both effectively have a strong hold over their respective audiences.  Though Churchill was the newly selected Prime Minister of Great Britain, he showcases his credibility throughout his speech.  Goebbels, on the other hand, uses force disguised as patriotism and pressure in order to control his audience.

Although Churchill and Goebbels were on the complete opposite sides of the war, they both use similar techniques in their speeches.  Both preach of, “Victory at all costs!” as well as their respective empires not being able to survive if they lose, or they will forfeit the futures and the history of their cultures which would be subject to the winners jurisdiction. Both men utilise persuasive techniques like ethos and pathos.  However, in my opinion, I think that Goebbels does a much better job at using pathos because he is constantly poking patriotism to the Germans.  If they feel proud of their country, then the more willing they would be to defend and work hard for it, which is really what Goebbels wants; to get every citizen to do something to help the war effort.  Churchill utilizes more ethos than pathos due to the fact that he needs to convince his audience of his authority and credibility before he can make them emotional. 

Both leaders have a tight hold over their audiences.  Despite the fact that Churchill is a new Prime Minister, he established his credibility early on by describing all of the things that he’s already done in the government, like forming a new administration as well as a war cabinet, which represents the different parties so as to unite the nation.  He says that this happened because they’re in war and there isn’t any time to dilly-dally. Goebbels on the other hand compliments his German audience by relishing their distinct and fine culture and saying that it must be preserved.  Goebbels also addresses the different social groups of German society, including women, the poor, the wealthy, and soldiers. He says women must work in any way possible in order to add to the war effort.  He uses force and underhanded threats that basically all say, “If you don’t help, we will come after you and make sure that you do.”

Both Churchill and Goebbels both have power and control over their audiences by using similar techniques, but in different ways.  Goebbels uses force, threats, and pathos, whereas Churchill uses ethos and his newly instated authority.  Despite their different methods for achieving victory and their manners of persuasion, they ultimately have the same: victory.

Machiavelli vs. Thoreau

Though Machiavelli and Thoreau both speak of the human condition, they both have very different views of human nature.  Machiavelli is much more harsh and Thoreau views humans in a much brighter light.

In Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience, he says that people should always do what they believe is right and not to “go with the flow.” If someone believes in something, then they need to do everything in their power to change it and to make a difference to the best of their abilities. Machiavelli, on the other hand, in his work, “The Prince,” believed that a prince had to do whatever it took to stay in power and to remain in control.  Machiavelli’s ideas are more ruthless in the sense that Machiavelli preached to ignore religion, morals, and society in order to get what you want.  Thoreau’s ideas are more ethical and might be considered more “wholesome.” 

Machiavelli says that men are, “…ungrateful, fickle, liars, and deceivers, fearful, of danger and greedy for gain.” (Machiavelli, 461) Machiavelli sees the worst in humans and cannot seem them for their good.  His negative impression of the masses also affects his text as he advises all princes to invoke fear rather than love over his subjects.  Fear is much more powerful than love and all princes should care about is power and control.   Thoreau sees the lighter side of the human condition and has more faith in humans.  Thoreau thinks that the State can only achieve complete and total power when individuals are considered the epitome of significance.  For the majority of history, the majority has been more valued over the individual, but Thoreau’s idea is quite revolutionary in saying that the complete opposite is true.

Another major difference between Machiavelli and Thoreau is that Thoreau is more concerned with the State (the U.S. government) and the people, whereas Machiavelli cares more about the Prince and the power he holds.   For example, Thoreau was very much against the war with Mexico.  He believed that its cause was not a just one.  However, he is not against fighting and war: he is against fighting without a cause.  Machiavelli, according to “The Prince,” wouldn’t care whether or not the war had a cause, but only if it would pay off eventually. 

The Finished Product: Social Change 2013

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z9MrA3P-sM

Social Change Video (rough draft)

Getting the Right Reps

I can assure you that if you looked at any magazine, billboard, clothing commercial, or even at red carpet events, you wouldn’t be able to spot a woman who looked like your mother, next door neighbour, teacher, or the lady behind you at the super market.  Instead you’d find a stick thin woman, but with someone excellent assets, and with pounds of makeup.  Of course that woman is the one you, a teenage, or just in general, a girl, should look up to and aspire to be like: thin, pretty, and perfect.  Of course, that’s what society tells you to do because all the women in the media look like that and you should too (if you want to fit in, which of course you do: you’re a girl!) 

            These women of the media are technically women, but are they really with all the airbrushing, PhotoShopping, enhanced, and slimmed down they go through?  Since they're setting the ideals of beauty and how women should look like, they make all other women look bad and sub-par.  Everyone believes that these women are the real women of the world and sets their standards at the Kate Moss and Megan Fox level.  I want women, particularly girls, to know that just because they don’t look like supermodels, doesn’t mean they’re not beautiful.  By creating a YouTube video, I will be able to project my idea to the Internet that will hopefully be able to illuminate this misrepresentation of women.  The Internet billions of users a day and would be the most prudent to getting my message across to as many people as possible.

            By making a YouTube video, I think this will be the most effective medium for me as I have a passionate and powerful voice.  For me, I can more easily get my point across through diction rather than the written word.  And since YouTube is public, anyone would be able to hear what I have to say.  I have personal experience with the negative effects of the misrepresentation and will be able to use my ethos and pathos to have people understand how serious this situation is.  In addition to this, I will use logos by utilizing all of the facts and statistics I have about suicides, depression rates, and eating disorder rates all due to poor self-image. 

            Before actually making my video, I will have all of my points and facts written out and well practised so as to make my video as concise and clear as possible.  My goal is to utilize all my modes of persuasion through my video and for people to become aware of this situation.  In my video, I will use several editing techniques like putting different statistics on screen and switching to quotes so as to visually aide my audiences rather than them just looking at me and having to take my word for it.

Toulmin Analysis of Ethos Blog

The major claims of my previous blog were that women are being misrepresented in the media and according to the media, there is a very specific way a woman must look in order to be considered beautiful.  There are impossibly high standards that women must adhere to.

My data was lacking, and even though I included a quote from Tina Fey's autobiography, some wouldn't consider that true data as it is an interpretation of something (though as a woman, everything she said is so true and accurate- but hey, that's just me).  In my rough draft I will include statistics of teenage girl suicides and further information about the eating disorders that plague America's youth.

My warrant is that because the women that are in the media don't actually show real women, teenagers and older women have self-esteem issues and this lack of confidence causes suicide, mental illness, and eating disorders.

A rebuttal to my argument could be that because the women shown in magazines, on TV, and in the movies are beautiful, thin, and flawless, that this has girls have a goal to aspire to look like.  For example, if one girl admires Keira Knightly for her thin stature, then that might "inspire" her to lose weight by eating less or eating healthier.  Some might think that is a positive thing to want to lose weight.  These women might also make girls want to put a lot of time into their appearances by getting a haircut, get nicer clothes, etc.

My qualifiers are that I am a teenage girl who is a target of this representation.  I am constantly exposed to this and its always a slap in the face.  I've been through the negative effects of this and I know what its likfe and this makes me a credible source.

My backing is facts about this will be the poll I took of BMHS girls about how compared to celebrities and models, if they felt inferior/not as beautiful.

Social Change Project Audience Brainstorming

Possible Audiences

BMHS

CGS students

High school students in general

The Internet (YouTube, Tumblr, FaceBook)

Local Newspapers (The Darien Times for instance)

The Fashion Industry (mostly Victoria’s Secret)

Women

Narrowing it Down

High School Students (specifically girls)

This misrepresentation of women is targeted at me.  Teenage girls, in high school and in college are the ones being most affected.  Young women get hit the hardest by this false image of women and they need to be illuminated about what its doing and why it needs to stop.  People, not just girls, are exposed to this constantly, across the world and since its so common, its become okay, no questions asked.

YouTube

The Internet is a wonderful place to display your opinions and thoughts.  YouTube is even better because of the video sharing and how quickly things can spread across the Internet, and therefore, across the world.  YouTube is an open field where literally anything can be posted or said or done.  Not only is it free, but it opens a much broader range of people that are able to view than just one place, like one school for example.  So instead of just having a very narrow range of people hear my thoughts, I could have the entire Internet listening to me.

The Media

I’ve been published in the Darien Times more than once and I think I might be able to do it again.  By being published in a newspaper, there is a much wider audience to view my idea, specifically mostly adults and not just teenagers who, in my opinion, are the main audience of this issue.  My goal is to get as many people thinking about this issue as possible and spread it like wild fire.

I think that my best bet is to post my idea as a video to YouTube. I'm fairly good at speaking and I know that I will be able to get my idea across much better if I'm able to speak it.  People then could hear the passion in my voice, which I think is critical to any argument.  YouTube is also a very public site that is visited constantly.  And because it's the 21st century, posting the link to my video on any social media site or emailing it to family and friends is a good way to get as many views as possible and to spread the word.

Why Doesn't Victoria's Secret Represent Me

You’ve probably noticed that I, Sophia E. Fredo, am generally average.  I am slightly taller than average, of a normal weight, and not too special in the looks department (except for my cheekbones; those things could cut glass).  But in all seriousness, the media do not value the qualities of the average woman. While I embrace girls with brains and character, who display honesty and are trusting and loyal, the media instead display a totally different ethos – one dominated by sexuality and completely superficial qualities.  Will you find someone similar to me in a clothes catalogue, or seductively posing on a highway billboard? No, you’d find a Megan Fox or Victoria’s Secret Angel type instead.  But why them and not me when I’m the type that these products are thrust at.  This misrepresentation of women in the media is highly unfair to girls all over the world and affects all girls.  I am a young woman, and I am a target of this.  This is happening to me and I am exposed to this constantly, as are millions of girls across the world.  This misrepresentation of women in the media sets unbelievably high standards for women to adhere to.  No one (normal) could possibly look like a Victoria’s Secret model, unless they are in fact a Victoria’s Secret model.

Tina Fey, in her autobiography Bossypants, said, “…I think the first real change in women’s body image came when J-Lo turned it butt-style. That was the first time that having a large-scale situation in the back was part of mainstream American beauty. Girls wanted butts now. Men were free to admit that they had always enjoyed them. And then, what felt like moments later, boom—Beyoncé brought the leg meat. A back porch and thick muscular legs were now widely admired. And from that day forward, women embraced their diversity and realized that all shapes and sizes are beautiful. Ah ha ha. No. I’m totally messing with you. All Beyonce and J-Lo have done is add to the laundry list of attributes women must have to qualify as beautiful.  Now every girl is expected to have Caucasian blue eyes, full Spanish lips, a classic button nose, hairless Asian skin with a California tan, a Jamaican dance hall ass, long Swedish legs, small Japanese feet, the abs of a lesbian gym owner, the hips of a nine-year-old boy, the arms of Michelle Obama, and doll tits. The person closest to actually achieving this look is Kim Kardashian, who, as we know, was made by Russian scientists to sabotage our athletes.” (Fey)
Though Fey’s writing is hilarious, it’s also quite accurate.  Fey also makes a good point: these women aren’t actually women.  They’re Photo shopped, airbrushed, enhanced, and slimmed down versions of real people.  So we have the .05% of what women look like setting the ideals of beauty and “perfection.”  This misrepresentation, or should I say, MISSrepresentation, doesn’t set a good model (no pun intended) for young girls and teenagers, who are the ones most affected by this.  This can lead to low self-esteem, anorexia, bulimia, depression, and even suicide.  In middle school, I was anorexic and depressed and this is exactly why I hated myself: because I didn’t think I was pretty enough, all because a stick slim model with great boobs made me look bad. This misrepresentation really does hit home for girls everywhere, especially for me, and if you’re a girl, I’m certain that you haven’t felt good enough or beautiful enough after flipping through Teen Vogue or watching celebrities on TV.           My real goal in this isn’t to rant and annoy the hell out of you, but to illuminate the fact that women are being shown in ways that don’t really show women.  I’d want models who are average people to set the standard for clothing sizes, strut on the runway, and work it at Victoria’s Secret.  After all, if a woman is airbrushed, Photo shopped, slimmed down, and enhanced, is she really a woman at all?

A Passionate Feminist's Rant

If there is one thing that gets under my skin, its the misrepresentation of women in the media.  In May, Kraft Foods Group released an advertisement depicting a man lying sensually (that is to say, naked) on a picnic blanket promoting a new salad dressing.  Unfortunately for Kraft, this ad received a lot of negative and angry responses.  Parents, particularly mothers, found this to be extremely vulgar and offensive.  Many thought that Kraft was trying to sell something other than salad dressing.  Through all of the negative comments received, I couldn't help but yelling at my computer screen: Of course this would bother you! When its a man depicted sexually in an ad, but when its a woman, well full speed ahead!"  Women have been shown in similar lights (and even more erotic than this) for decades and no one's really had any vendettas against those.  But why?  Certainly women across the globe would be shocked by the amount of skin of women that ads can get away with showing.  Not only is this selling whatever product is being shown, but its also selling the fact that the women, too, are for sale (for men to buy).  In my mind this relates to the idea that women are animals and savage and need to be controlled, an idea that is very obvious is Robin Thicke's "Blurred Lines."

But back to my question, WHY ON EARTH IS IT OKAY FOR WOMEN TO POSE SENSUALLY, BUT FOR MEN, ITS A SCANDAL?  And completely ironically, its typically frowned upon for women to breast-feed in public, but it's alright to expose 90% of a Victoria's Secret Angel's decolletagé on a 20x20 foot billboard?  Why are you so offended by your own anatomy when it's thrown carelessly all around you?  And doesn't that make you a bit of a hypocrite to say how vulgar is it to display your body in public when the media's been doing it for decades and you've never had a problem with that before.  But I got to give props to Kraft for using a sexy man rather than a sexy lady in their ad.  And good for them, when most of their products are bought by women, so why not appeal to the ladies?  After all, they're the ones, who, according to you, are supposed to do the shopping.

**If you're further interested in this topic, there's an incredible documentary called MISSrepresentation, wonderfully free to view on YouTube, to which I thank for the illumination on this issue.**

To Be Cute, or to Have Money

Sentence Imitation

From Jamaica Kincaid's, A Small Place “And so you can imagine how I felt when, one day, in Antigua, standing on Market Street, looking up one way and down the other, I asked myself: Is the Antigua I see before me, self-rules, a worse place than what it was when it was dominated by the bad-minded English and all the bad-minded things they brought with them? How did Antigua get to such a state that I would have to ask myself this? For the answer on every Antiguan’s lips to the question “What is going on here now?” is “The government is corrupt. Them are thief, them are big thief.” Imagine, then, the bitterness and the shame in me as I tell you this.” (Kincaid 41)

And so you can imagine how I felt when, one day, at the Oyster Festival, standing by the dress racks, looking from one cute dress to another, I asked myself: Do I really need to spend, money, MY hard-earned money, on a $60 dress that I’ll probably never wear? How did I even decide that I wanted it? Is it because Caroline told me it’d look so cute on me? For the answer on my lips was, “Of course it is! Why else would I buy such a dress? All I wanna do is look cute.”  Imagine, then, my despair between wanting to look super cute and wanting to have money.

If You Really Wanted to Piss me Off, Look no Further

If you know me well, you'd know that there are hundreds of things, minor and major, that really get under my skin and that I rant about constantly. Obviously, I can't list all of them here for fear that you'd have to read War and Peace meets Gone with the Wind.

Personal Bothers
1. How expensive everything is, particularly in Darien. I'm sorry but I don't really need strawberries that are $6.99. I could buy 25 Munchkins with that plus an iced coffee.
2. Lack of sidewalks around Darien. I like walking, it makes me feel like I'm living in a city again, but alas, there aren't any sidewalks within a mile radius of my house (as is the case with lots of people in Darien) which makes it difficult for me to walk without almost dying once.
3. Movies nowadays. I remember when movies used to be good and wonderful, but now they're too expensive, and frankly, they suck.
4. How unhealthy food is- sugar, corn starch, and dozens of chemicals I can't even pronounce. Health rule no. 1- Never eat anything your great-great grandmother couldn't recognize (with the exception of Nutella)
5. How alcohol companies, specifically vodka companies, are making flavors targeted at teens and kids. If I wanted something marshmallow flavored, I'd have a s'more, not a vodka shot.
6. How tobacco companies are targeting electronic cigarettes at kids with fun flavors like chocolate, cherry, and lung cancer.

School Bothers
1. The fact that school starts so early- I love sleep, but for 75% of the year, I don't get to enjoy it.
2. The amount of homework we receive. I don't mind doing homework, but when its 2-3 hours per subject, I start to consider dropping out of school and becoming a hobo. If we had 30-45 minutes of homework per class per day, I might be able to actually enjoy my teenage years which are supposed to be "the best years of my life."
3. Too much wasted paper. Can't we at least recycle?
4. Scheduling conflicts. They restrict me from taking classes I actually want to take and instead put in me useless classes that I'd never go near normally.
5. How foreign languages are taught (with the exception of CGS). When I go to France, I won't be able to hold an actual conversation, but I will be able to conjugate 100 verbs in 10 different tenses.
6. Lack of good science and math teachers in the U.S.
7. How we have a school musical but not a play. I'm very interested in theatre and acting, but I can't do it because my voice sounds like nails on a chalkboard and I don't want to be doo-wopping or swaying in the background.

General, worldly things that really piss me off
1. The modelling industry. Seriously, no one looks like a Victoria's Secret Model, except the Angels themselves. How come they're the basis for clothes made for the majority of people when they make up .001% of the population. Why not use actual, normal-sized people, I mean, they ARE the people who'll be buying the clothes.
2. Rape, birth control, and abortion legislation. How come women officials aren't making any of these decisions? I never knew that 60 and 70 year-old men has uteruses and had to deal with rape culture. It's my body, I'll do what I want to it.
3. The war against Muslims because they're all "terrorists."
4. Saving to "save" Muslim women from wearing burkas and hijabs because its "confining" them.
5. Outsourcing jobs. Even though bringing manufacturing jobs to the U.S. would increase prices, but more people would have jobs.
6. Child labor (and sweat shops) particularly in China, where its basically slavery.
7. Apple and how expensive their products are and the fact that they're made by slaves for 10 cents, yet I have to pay $200 for an iPod that cost less than a dollar to make.
8. Cell phone contracts.
9. Contracts in general.
10. America's War on Women- All MEN are created equal. Maybe, but women? God no!
11. Rape Culture.
12. Blurred Lines by Robin Thicke.
13. The fact that gay marriage isn't legal in all 50 states yet.
14. How radio stations play the same 15 songs over and over again.
15. Lack of classical music on the radio. I'd love to listen to Tchaikovsky or Chopin or Waldteufel, but instead I get Nicki Minaj and Taylor Swift.
16. The switch from paper books to electronic ones. I pledge to read the printed word for life.
17. Misrepresentation of women in the media, particularly in magazines and advertisements.

A Sophia by Any Other Name Would Be Just as Wise? A Blogging

According to my mum and dad, I was named Sophia because it’s a beautiful Italian name (though the origin is Greek) with a slight influence from Sophia Loren, a beautiful Italian actress (though I am not an actress, hopefully I can be a beautiful Italian baker or Mario Kart champion or something).  Also, my dad said that we didn’t have to pay homage to any rich relatives by naming me after them so I could be named virtually anything, though my grandmother campaigned heartily for Charlotte which I associate with Charlotte the Spider, whose death has tortured me emotionally since childhood.

In Greek, Sophia means “wisdom.”  Now just because I’m named Sophia doesn’t necessarily mean I’m wise, but if its true that people’s names describe them, being wise wouldn’t really be such a bad thing.  Historically, the name Sophia originated from a misunderstanding dating back to the middle ages when the large basilica Hagia Sophia

(“Holy Wisdom” in Turkish) in Istanbul was created and people thought the name came from a saint who died of grief following the deaths of her three daughters.  I’m not really sure how I feel about my name originating from someone whose daughters died nor do I wish to be tied with such a tragic event, but I have to admit the story is intriguing and that's definitely a movie I’d see.  On a slightly happier note, Sophia was a common name in European royalty during the Middle Ages.  Sophia became much more popular in Britain by the Hanover House of Germany when they inherited the British Throne.  Since then it has been a name for characters in the works of Henry Fielding and Oliver Goldsmith in Tom Jones and The Vicar of Wakefield respectively. 

Not to be confused with Sophie, Sophia is, in my opinion, a completely different name.  Too many times to count have teachers on the first day taking roll call ask if I’d like to be called Sophie. As a Sophia, this insults me.  I love my name and I’d like to be called by it in full.  But is Sophia really too long a name to pronounce? The is ‘A’ at the end really too much work for you to say? It’s only six letters, not quite the mouthful like Elizabeth, Charlotte, or Madeleine.  For future reference, I’d like to keep Sophia and Sophie separate.  That extra syllable at the end really gives the name a certain je ne sais quoi that Sophie doesn’t have (maybe it's the extra syllable).  Though both names are similar (and actually have the same dictionary definition) as a Sophia, I see them as completely different. 

I’m not sure everyone can say their name is the capital and largest city of a country.  But luckily for me, I can!  Though its spelling is not exactly how I’d like it, Sofia, Bulgaria is a beautiful European city located at the foot of Mt. Vitosha. 

Considerably much cooler than my 16 years on earth, Sofia itself is 2,400 years old.  Not only do I have a Sofia city, but also a Sofia University where I will no doubt attend and receive a complete scholarship because sharing a name is a deep, spiritual bond.  I’m only kidding, but I wouldn’t say no to a trip to Bulgaria, it is, after all, a place with deep meaning to me. 
             Hopefully Sophia will be able to find Sophia in Sofia, with perhaps a group of other 
Sophias/Sofias (but no Sophies).