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.