Sunday, February 16
Let me first say that I think Socrates is full of it. He obviously does not look at rhetoric in a positive light nor is he true about his intentions when entering the dialectic, which is why I think he’s full of it. He comes into the conversation with a façade of wanting to learn from and converse with the great Gorgias; Socrates insists to speak with Gorgias who has agreed to briefly answer all questions to the best of his ability. Socrates denounces rhetoric – I can understand why – but then uses rhetoric all throughout the piece. His words and actions don’t match, making him a hypocrite and no one really calls him out on it. Polus thinks he can get the better of Socrates, but just falls into his trap. Not only does Polus join the conversation to give Gorgias a rest, but as Jacob says, is “tempted by what he thinks is an opportunity to give Socrates some of his own unpleasant medicine” and actually gets caught up in it (78). Callicles is the only one who shows his annoyance and wants the argument to end. At one point, he even tells Socrates that he alone can ask the questions and answer them himself. Nevertheless, he doesn’t stop participating in the discussion. All in all, Socrates is manipulating language to say that rhetoric manipulates people.
Aside from not liking Socrates in this text due to his hypocritical mannerisms, I do understand his frustration with rhetoric. So many times, I have wondered what rhetoric is and from the first day of this class, we saw that there are varying general definitions of the word. I can always define it with the words “persuasive”, “persuasion”, “persuasive devices”, etc., but it seems that I cannot grasp to one meaning outside of that. Socrates wants Gorgias to assign what seems like a subject or category to rhetoric, not of its own. Rhetoric cannot just be rhetoric for Socrates; it has to be attached to some other discipline. It’s hard to accept rhetoric as being synonymous for persuasion and I think this goes for everyone.
On the other hand, I do agree with Kristen (and Jacob) that it seems Socrates is against one form of rhetoric: flattery. A thousand times I’ve heard the phrase, “flattery will get you far in life”, and it still bothers me. To me, that’s not a right way of persuading someone of anything or getting what you want because it is pure manipulation. Whoever uses flattery knows his/her audience and knows what insecurities to take advantage of. To me, that is not fair or just.
Gorgias says (pages 94-95) that anyone can be a rhetorician on any subject (and he can be the one teaching him too). He believes that a rhetorician does not need to know the information, thus, he does not need to know the truth about the subject. He just needs to appear to know. Socrates explains it best when he’s putting words in Gorgias’ mouth: “there is no need to know the truth of the actual matters, but one merely needs to have discovered some device of persuasion which will make one appear to those who do not know to know better than those who know (95)”. Now this is when I had to stop for a second because earlier, Gorgias says that rhetoric is “that kind of persuasion” found in “the law courts and in any public gatherings” that deal “with what is just and unjust” (92). But if the rhetorician only appears to know so that he can sway the ignorant, doesn’t that mean he can sway the masses wrongly? Isn’t that unjust? Also, by taking the role of speaking to the masses, the rhetorician is, in a way, robbing the “knower” (like the doctor who actually truly knows the information) of his want, responsibility, and obligation to inform and educate the masses? Isn’t this also unjust?
If I’m on the right page (which honestly I don’t know I might have confused myself), doesn’t this make the rhetoric of that time, this specific rhetoric, inherently unjust?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sunday, March 2
Royster emphasizes the need for people of different cultures to respect each other through the process of listening to each other. She says several times that the process of communicating, especially across cultural boundaries, should not be "you talk, I talk" but rather a "you talk, I listen, I respond, therefore I am talking" process. I really like this about her because as many others have felt and some have mentioned in the posts tonight, there's something unsettling about not being heard let alone not having your voice taken into consideration. And I really liked how she pointed out that it's horrible to not only not be heard, but not to be believed, and to even be deemed not believable. I think it highlights the close mindedness of some people which is why we do need more hybrid people. Having perspectives in more than one culture allows me to think of ways to engage my future students who will come from all different cultures than myself, among all the chaos that comes with school and the anxieties of day-to-day life.
Cicero makes the argument that a good orator, a full orator, is one who takes into consideration her audience, the knowledge of the subject being spoken, style, to create a certain needed eloquence. I think Royster has done just this. In her essay, she knows her audience and has one clear goal and maybe a more underlying, implicit goal. She wants people to realize that we dismiss each other (and yes, we are all guilty of this as well as victims of) and that it is not okay. This goal is intended for the audience as the ones guilty of this action. The other goal is not explicit but pretty obvious; Royster wants her readers to know that they are not alone. She has felt the anxiety and frustrations from being overlooked and told who she is and by doing so, creates an emotional bond with her readers. She also does write in an eloquent manner that excites her audience's emotions. Certain words consistently popped out of the text as they were also personal. It's not only what she says, but how she says it. I would love to hear her present this essay as a speech to feel her emotion and compare it to my own. Reading this, I felt as if she were putting into words my own thoughts. I completely agree with Ariane when she says "[Royster's scenes were able to extend her thesis and strengthen her argument by prolonging its delivery." I feel this is what Longinus would want to see in an orator/rhetoritician.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sunday, March 23
I really enjoyed Thomas Sheridan’s excerpt, “Lecture VI: TONES” of A Course of Lectures on Elocution, because of the personal quality of his language argument. He argues that in language, the tones in which we use to speak words are just as important, if not more important, than the words. Emotion is natural for men whereas rationality is a result of nurture (Bizzell 886). He begins his argument by explaining that speech is preferred for language due to convenience, but it does exist outside of speech such as through hand gestures utilized most by deaf people and in written language. Sheridan commends Locke on his notion that symbols/signs/words represent our ideas but then criticizes him for not addressing the “nobler branch of language, which consists of the signs of internal emotions” (Bizzell 882). But good thing Locke didn’t address emotions, or Sheridan wouldn’t have had to write his piece! To prove to his audience that emotions exist outside, separately, and independent of language, he explains that humans have come together to assign certain words to certain emotions – but words are just words for Sheridan. For example, the words “and” and “happy” are the same in that they are both words, but different in the sense that one word has a “connection with emotions of the mind” (Bizzell 883). He argues that words are created by humans, not universal to all, but passions and emotions are universal to all: “the language of the animal passions of man at least, should be fixed, self-evident, and universally intelligible” (Bizzell 884). Passions/emotions are “the same in all nations, and consequently can excite emotions in us analogous to those passions, when accompanying words which we do not understand” (Bizzell 884). These universal emotions for humans are also for the animal world as well because they are manifested in tones, not only words. For example, if I stub my toe on the couch and react with certain sounds that express my physical pain, not only will people around me understand my emotions, but also so will my dog because emotions are a part of nature. To connect back to elocution, Sheridan finds that it is not necessarily an art that must be fully taught: “we find, that man, in his animal capacity, is furnished, like all other animals, by nature herself, with a language which requires neither study, art, not imitation; which spontaneously breaks out in the exactest expressions, nicely proportioned to the degrees of his inward emotions” (Bizzell 886). Tones aid in making a person an expert on elocution and oration in the way he/she delivers his words to express the intended message in a more meaningful manner.
More than Sheridan’s piece, I enjoyed Peter Elbow’s “Inviting the Mother Tongue: Beyond ‘Mistakes,’ ‘Bad English,’ and ‘Wrong Language’” because he brings to light the problem, the solution, and how to actually solve the problem. As a writing teacher, he has two goals that I strongly believe all writing teachers should have. His first goal is his long-term goal: “to honor and help preserve multiple dialects of English and to legitimize their use in writing” (Villanueva 662). He believes one way of moving toward this goal is to create the writing classroom as a “safe haven”, a non-threatening, safe, and open space for students to express themselves through writing in their mother tongue, or own dialect. His second goal is for his students to attain the ability to produce Standard Written English (SWE) not because it is a better language/dialect, but because it will help them economically by obtaining jobs. He makes it clear that his strategies are intended for those who speak various dialects of English, not for those trying to learn English as a new language. He has received criticism in this area so he clears it up; strategies are intended to help students move easily from dialect to dialect, not language to language. He does suggest that these strategies might aid in moving from language to language as well, but translation is not always that simple. We’ve read so many essays about what writing students should be taught or why they should be taught it, but not so many on how students with language handicaps in regard to dialects should be taught. This is why I like this piece – Elbow gives different strategies we can adopt as future writing teachers that can be utilized in different steps of the writing process. His general classroom strategy is to allow students to use their mother tongue – their oral dialect – to first focus on creating thoughts, organization, arguments, and reasons, and then focusing on the surface of the level to conform to SWE. I think this general strategy is great because students aren’t turned off to writing and that’s one of the bigger issues. Many students believe they do not have the ability to write because they aren’t fluent in SWE and it is a sad reality. Allowing students to write in their own dialect, giving them the choice as Elbow says, will turn students on to writing. I think Elbow’s approach to tackling SWE grammar secondary in the writing process transcends into when grammar should be taught in the education system. The creating of ideas is much more important than grammar, but that is not to say that grammar isn’t important. Grammar should be taught after the fact – after students have created a system of thinking that works for their individual selves. Grammar will help to then communicate ideas and create a sense of unity for people rather than being a language on its own.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sunday, April 13
I have to say, I enjoyed this week’s readings very much because I could feel the passion the authors write with (even Bain!). Grimke focuses very much on gender and religion while Willard focuses on a sort of “how-to” guide of gathering women to join together for empowerment. Willard’s piece works on education, even though it is not a formal education. By laying out this chapter as a how to guide to hold meeting for Women’s Christian Temperance Union, she is teaching her reader, thus an informal education. It is not a type of education highly valued during this time – science, math, or rhetoric on its own – but nevertheless, still an education. In the beginning, she even gives a template – something teachers do very often – on how to phrase the local papers (1135-6). She focuses most on the organization of the meeting to captivate the audience and have them take action as well. She explains the type of audience that the reader will be receiving and recommends how to appear: “Put yourself in the attitude of a learner along with the rest. Thus your style will be suggestive and winsome rather than authoritative and disagreeable” (1137). It’s important for this specific audience to feel as if the speaker is with them, because the reason they are there is to get away from a power that is not with them or for them. Willard knows her audience, and she should, as she was very accomplished during her time and important to American history. She tells this upcoming speaker to get her audience involved in the meeting by calling out the “most inspiring response, the human voice divine” (1138). These women at the meeting do not usually speak out, but once they speak up, they gain an agency which lifts them a step higher in the social class.
The same idea, of moving up in the social class, is seen in Grimke’s piece. She wants men and women to both step up for women’s equality in the realm of religion. She believes religious texts to be interpreted by men who have assumed control; she gives multiple, direct examples revealing this misinterpretation, which may have occurred consciously or unconsciously. Her evidence proves that women are mentally and morally capable, equal to men. She does believe that it is not only the fault of men that women are looked down upon and kept at a lower social class: “Man has inflicted an unspeakable injury upon woman, by holding up to her view her animal nature, and lacing in the background her moral and intellectual being. Woman has inflicted an injury upon herself by submitting to be thus regarded; and she is now called upon to rise from her station where man, not Gd, has placed her…” (1053). Grimke calls for women to claim their rights and equates their treatment to that of the slaves. She wants women to be able to preach “the unsearchable riches of Christ” (1054) without scrutiny, as men are free to do this. Per the New Testament and Old Testament, prophets as well as “prophetesses” (1055) existed, and so that should roll over to the modern day. And this issue unfortunately doesn’t end in Grimke’s time, it still lives today. Reading this piece brought back memories for me. I remember as a young girl I went to temple with my mom and the women sat separate from the men. But it wasn’t only separate – women sat in the back of the room and squished together while the men sat in the front with the holy texts and more space than they needed. The offensive part was the curtain drawn in the middle so that the women cannot see the men praying. I asked my mom why the curtain was there and my mom responded with a worried but cautious face, and a shrug. She told me that’s just how it is. All the speakers at temple were and are today, only men. Women are not allowed to teach divine law as they are morally below men: “what is virtue in man, is vice in woman” (1052). I would like for women to educate themselves in their religion, rather than just accepting what they are told by men in charge who want to rob them of their agency. I would like for women to read Grimke’s piece today so that they can equalize the social platform that has for too long been tilted in favor of one side.
To answer the question about whether these two authors used religion as a doorway to present their arguments – yes, they may have. In the introduction to Willard, Bizzell and Herzberg mention early on that her main focus was to raise the status of women and was most interested in women’s suffrage. Not that she didn’t care about the temperance movement, but this was definitely a “gateway issue” to other important issues concerning women’s equality as well. As for Grimke, equality through religion seems to mean equality everywhere. She holds religion very dear to her and thus at the center of society. So if she gets both men and women to realize that religion says a woman is no less than a man, then socially and politically, women become no less than men.
Let me first say that I think Socrates is full of it. He obviously does not look at rhetoric in a positive light nor is he true about his intentions when entering the dialectic, which is why I think he’s full of it. He comes into the conversation with a façade of wanting to learn from and converse with the great Gorgias; Socrates insists to speak with Gorgias who has agreed to briefly answer all questions to the best of his ability. Socrates denounces rhetoric – I can understand why – but then uses rhetoric all throughout the piece. His words and actions don’t match, making him a hypocrite and no one really calls him out on it. Polus thinks he can get the better of Socrates, but just falls into his trap. Not only does Polus join the conversation to give Gorgias a rest, but as Jacob says, is “tempted by what he thinks is an opportunity to give Socrates some of his own unpleasant medicine” and actually gets caught up in it (78). Callicles is the only one who shows his annoyance and wants the argument to end. At one point, he even tells Socrates that he alone can ask the questions and answer them himself. Nevertheless, he doesn’t stop participating in the discussion. All in all, Socrates is manipulating language to say that rhetoric manipulates people.
Aside from not liking Socrates in this text due to his hypocritical mannerisms, I do understand his frustration with rhetoric. So many times, I have wondered what rhetoric is and from the first day of this class, we saw that there are varying general definitions of the word. I can always define it with the words “persuasive”, “persuasion”, “persuasive devices”, etc., but it seems that I cannot grasp to one meaning outside of that. Socrates wants Gorgias to assign what seems like a subject or category to rhetoric, not of its own. Rhetoric cannot just be rhetoric for Socrates; it has to be attached to some other discipline. It’s hard to accept rhetoric as being synonymous for persuasion and I think this goes for everyone.
On the other hand, I do agree with Kristen (and Jacob) that it seems Socrates is against one form of rhetoric: flattery. A thousand times I’ve heard the phrase, “flattery will get you far in life”, and it still bothers me. To me, that’s not a right way of persuading someone of anything or getting what you want because it is pure manipulation. Whoever uses flattery knows his/her audience and knows what insecurities to take advantage of. To me, that is not fair or just.
Gorgias says (pages 94-95) that anyone can be a rhetorician on any subject (and he can be the one teaching him too). He believes that a rhetorician does not need to know the information, thus, he does not need to know the truth about the subject. He just needs to appear to know. Socrates explains it best when he’s putting words in Gorgias’ mouth: “there is no need to know the truth of the actual matters, but one merely needs to have discovered some device of persuasion which will make one appear to those who do not know to know better than those who know (95)”. Now this is when I had to stop for a second because earlier, Gorgias says that rhetoric is “that kind of persuasion” found in “the law courts and in any public gatherings” that deal “with what is just and unjust” (92). But if the rhetorician only appears to know so that he can sway the ignorant, doesn’t that mean he can sway the masses wrongly? Isn’t that unjust? Also, by taking the role of speaking to the masses, the rhetorician is, in a way, robbing the “knower” (like the doctor who actually truly knows the information) of his want, responsibility, and obligation to inform and educate the masses? Isn’t this also unjust?
If I’m on the right page (which honestly I don’t know I might have confused myself), doesn’t this make the rhetoric of that time, this specific rhetoric, inherently unjust?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sunday, March 2
Royster emphasizes the need for people of different cultures to respect each other through the process of listening to each other. She says several times that the process of communicating, especially across cultural boundaries, should not be "you talk, I talk" but rather a "you talk, I listen, I respond, therefore I am talking" process. I really like this about her because as many others have felt and some have mentioned in the posts tonight, there's something unsettling about not being heard let alone not having your voice taken into consideration. And I really liked how she pointed out that it's horrible to not only not be heard, but not to be believed, and to even be deemed not believable. I think it highlights the close mindedness of some people which is why we do need more hybrid people. Having perspectives in more than one culture allows me to think of ways to engage my future students who will come from all different cultures than myself, among all the chaos that comes with school and the anxieties of day-to-day life.
Cicero makes the argument that a good orator, a full orator, is one who takes into consideration her audience, the knowledge of the subject being spoken, style, to create a certain needed eloquence. I think Royster has done just this. In her essay, she knows her audience and has one clear goal and maybe a more underlying, implicit goal. She wants people to realize that we dismiss each other (and yes, we are all guilty of this as well as victims of) and that it is not okay. This goal is intended for the audience as the ones guilty of this action. The other goal is not explicit but pretty obvious; Royster wants her readers to know that they are not alone. She has felt the anxiety and frustrations from being overlooked and told who she is and by doing so, creates an emotional bond with her readers. She also does write in an eloquent manner that excites her audience's emotions. Certain words consistently popped out of the text as they were also personal. It's not only what she says, but how she says it. I would love to hear her present this essay as a speech to feel her emotion and compare it to my own. Reading this, I felt as if she were putting into words my own thoughts. I completely agree with Ariane when she says "[Royster's scenes were able to extend her thesis and strengthen her argument by prolonging its delivery." I feel this is what Longinus would want to see in an orator/rhetoritician.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sunday, March 23
I really enjoyed Thomas Sheridan’s excerpt, “Lecture VI: TONES” of A Course of Lectures on Elocution, because of the personal quality of his language argument. He argues that in language, the tones in which we use to speak words are just as important, if not more important, than the words. Emotion is natural for men whereas rationality is a result of nurture (Bizzell 886). He begins his argument by explaining that speech is preferred for language due to convenience, but it does exist outside of speech such as through hand gestures utilized most by deaf people and in written language. Sheridan commends Locke on his notion that symbols/signs/words represent our ideas but then criticizes him for not addressing the “nobler branch of language, which consists of the signs of internal emotions” (Bizzell 882). But good thing Locke didn’t address emotions, or Sheridan wouldn’t have had to write his piece! To prove to his audience that emotions exist outside, separately, and independent of language, he explains that humans have come together to assign certain words to certain emotions – but words are just words for Sheridan. For example, the words “and” and “happy” are the same in that they are both words, but different in the sense that one word has a “connection with emotions of the mind” (Bizzell 883). He argues that words are created by humans, not universal to all, but passions and emotions are universal to all: “the language of the animal passions of man at least, should be fixed, self-evident, and universally intelligible” (Bizzell 884). Passions/emotions are “the same in all nations, and consequently can excite emotions in us analogous to those passions, when accompanying words which we do not understand” (Bizzell 884). These universal emotions for humans are also for the animal world as well because they are manifested in tones, not only words. For example, if I stub my toe on the couch and react with certain sounds that express my physical pain, not only will people around me understand my emotions, but also so will my dog because emotions are a part of nature. To connect back to elocution, Sheridan finds that it is not necessarily an art that must be fully taught: “we find, that man, in his animal capacity, is furnished, like all other animals, by nature herself, with a language which requires neither study, art, not imitation; which spontaneously breaks out in the exactest expressions, nicely proportioned to the degrees of his inward emotions” (Bizzell 886). Tones aid in making a person an expert on elocution and oration in the way he/she delivers his words to express the intended message in a more meaningful manner.
More than Sheridan’s piece, I enjoyed Peter Elbow’s “Inviting the Mother Tongue: Beyond ‘Mistakes,’ ‘Bad English,’ and ‘Wrong Language’” because he brings to light the problem, the solution, and how to actually solve the problem. As a writing teacher, he has two goals that I strongly believe all writing teachers should have. His first goal is his long-term goal: “to honor and help preserve multiple dialects of English and to legitimize their use in writing” (Villanueva 662). He believes one way of moving toward this goal is to create the writing classroom as a “safe haven”, a non-threatening, safe, and open space for students to express themselves through writing in their mother tongue, or own dialect. His second goal is for his students to attain the ability to produce Standard Written English (SWE) not because it is a better language/dialect, but because it will help them economically by obtaining jobs. He makes it clear that his strategies are intended for those who speak various dialects of English, not for those trying to learn English as a new language. He has received criticism in this area so he clears it up; strategies are intended to help students move easily from dialect to dialect, not language to language. He does suggest that these strategies might aid in moving from language to language as well, but translation is not always that simple. We’ve read so many essays about what writing students should be taught or why they should be taught it, but not so many on how students with language handicaps in regard to dialects should be taught. This is why I like this piece – Elbow gives different strategies we can adopt as future writing teachers that can be utilized in different steps of the writing process. His general classroom strategy is to allow students to use their mother tongue – their oral dialect – to first focus on creating thoughts, organization, arguments, and reasons, and then focusing on the surface of the level to conform to SWE. I think this general strategy is great because students aren’t turned off to writing and that’s one of the bigger issues. Many students believe they do not have the ability to write because they aren’t fluent in SWE and it is a sad reality. Allowing students to write in their own dialect, giving them the choice as Elbow says, will turn students on to writing. I think Elbow’s approach to tackling SWE grammar secondary in the writing process transcends into when grammar should be taught in the education system. The creating of ideas is much more important than grammar, but that is not to say that grammar isn’t important. Grammar should be taught after the fact – after students have created a system of thinking that works for their individual selves. Grammar will help to then communicate ideas and create a sense of unity for people rather than being a language on its own.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sunday, April 13
I have to say, I enjoyed this week’s readings very much because I could feel the passion the authors write with (even Bain!). Grimke focuses very much on gender and religion while Willard focuses on a sort of “how-to” guide of gathering women to join together for empowerment. Willard’s piece works on education, even though it is not a formal education. By laying out this chapter as a how to guide to hold meeting for Women’s Christian Temperance Union, she is teaching her reader, thus an informal education. It is not a type of education highly valued during this time – science, math, or rhetoric on its own – but nevertheless, still an education. In the beginning, she even gives a template – something teachers do very often – on how to phrase the local papers (1135-6). She focuses most on the organization of the meeting to captivate the audience and have them take action as well. She explains the type of audience that the reader will be receiving and recommends how to appear: “Put yourself in the attitude of a learner along with the rest. Thus your style will be suggestive and winsome rather than authoritative and disagreeable” (1137). It’s important for this specific audience to feel as if the speaker is with them, because the reason they are there is to get away from a power that is not with them or for them. Willard knows her audience, and she should, as she was very accomplished during her time and important to American history. She tells this upcoming speaker to get her audience involved in the meeting by calling out the “most inspiring response, the human voice divine” (1138). These women at the meeting do not usually speak out, but once they speak up, they gain an agency which lifts them a step higher in the social class.
The same idea, of moving up in the social class, is seen in Grimke’s piece. She wants men and women to both step up for women’s equality in the realm of religion. She believes religious texts to be interpreted by men who have assumed control; she gives multiple, direct examples revealing this misinterpretation, which may have occurred consciously or unconsciously. Her evidence proves that women are mentally and morally capable, equal to men. She does believe that it is not only the fault of men that women are looked down upon and kept at a lower social class: “Man has inflicted an unspeakable injury upon woman, by holding up to her view her animal nature, and lacing in the background her moral and intellectual being. Woman has inflicted an injury upon herself by submitting to be thus regarded; and she is now called upon to rise from her station where man, not Gd, has placed her…” (1053). Grimke calls for women to claim their rights and equates their treatment to that of the slaves. She wants women to be able to preach “the unsearchable riches of Christ” (1054) without scrutiny, as men are free to do this. Per the New Testament and Old Testament, prophets as well as “prophetesses” (1055) existed, and so that should roll over to the modern day. And this issue unfortunately doesn’t end in Grimke’s time, it still lives today. Reading this piece brought back memories for me. I remember as a young girl I went to temple with my mom and the women sat separate from the men. But it wasn’t only separate – women sat in the back of the room and squished together while the men sat in the front with the holy texts and more space than they needed. The offensive part was the curtain drawn in the middle so that the women cannot see the men praying. I asked my mom why the curtain was there and my mom responded with a worried but cautious face, and a shrug. She told me that’s just how it is. All the speakers at temple were and are today, only men. Women are not allowed to teach divine law as they are morally below men: “what is virtue in man, is vice in woman” (1052). I would like for women to educate themselves in their religion, rather than just accepting what they are told by men in charge who want to rob them of their agency. I would like for women to read Grimke’s piece today so that they can equalize the social platform that has for too long been tilted in favor of one side.
To answer the question about whether these two authors used religion as a doorway to present their arguments – yes, they may have. In the introduction to Willard, Bizzell and Herzberg mention early on that her main focus was to raise the status of women and was most interested in women’s suffrage. Not that she didn’t care about the temperance movement, but this was definitely a “gateway issue” to other important issues concerning women’s equality as well. As for Grimke, equality through religion seems to mean equality everywhere. She holds religion very dear to her and thus at the center of society. So if she gets both men and women to realize that religion says a woman is no less than a man, then socially and politically, women become no less than men.