Critical Introduction

Welcome to our blog “Bridging the 60s Gap!” We are a group of freshmen in ENGL101 at The University of Maryland, College Park Scholars Program, studying the intersection between the Civil Rights Movement and the Women’s Rights Movement. Our class has been analyzing the time period of the 1960s since it was a progressive time in American history, which brought upon monumental changes in thoughts and outlooks. Many people of this time realized that equality was not a reality, especially African American women. It was a time where people began standing up for their rights. We studied two speeches: “Ain’t I A Woman” by Sojourner Truth and “Equal Rights For Women” by Shirley Chisholm. These two speeches are very similar in terms of the speaker’s ethos and their content. They do, however, differ in their audience, tone, and their approach to establish their respective arguments to address the inequality towards minorities especially African American women. In the two speeches, “Equal Rights” by Shirley Chisholm and “Ain’t I A Woman” by Sojourner Truth, the two women use their African American background to passionately advocate the need for equal rights for all people and strongly criticize the double standard men place against women.

Sojourner Truth in "Ain't I A Woman" argues primarily to eliminate the double standard instilled into society by men towards women. Her main goal was to rally the women at the National Women's Convention in 1851 to stand by her in the fight for the Abolitionist movement and the Feminist movements in the mid-1800s. Shirley Chisholm in "Equal Rights for Women" argue primarily to pass her amendment for equal rights to all people because of her background as an African American Congresswoman. We hope that our audience will understand the importance of the Civil Rights and Women's Rights Movements. As we observed the movements in two different time periods, the 1850s and the 1960s, we can apply our knowledge of discrimination to present day. Although many have addressed the inequality and have implemented change, it is difficult and hard to accept that even now there are still many parallel examples of racism and sexism in the news. It is important to acknowledge the prejudices and address them. As the youth of this nation, it is our duty as citizens to understand the issues of racism and sexism and speak out about them and work towards eliminating unjust discrimination.

Both of the presented texts make similar but very different arguments. While both speakers argued for the equal rights of men and women, they made their arguments with different devices. Chisholm focused her argument more on logos, Truth used pathos to strengthen her argument. Both women spoke in a time where they found racial discrimination as well as discrimination due to gender unacceptable. In a time of restlessness, both women are asking to be given equal not “special rights”.They give heed to the idea that these issues stem from feelings of privilege and that the unjust treatment could be handled more easily than people make it seem. The argument that our blog proposed about the texts connections is that while these women fought for these rights in two totally different time periods, the rhetorical devices and urgency in their speeches were very similar. On the surface it appears that these two texts are completely different because one fights mainly for civil rights and one fights for equal treatment of women in the workforce. However, after analyzing both speeches we found that this is not the case.

The posts discuss the discrimination of both African Americans and women during the 1960s. To properly analyze the speeches by Truth and Chisholm we looked at what they wrote and the events occurring at the time. By focusing on the factual evidence of discrimination dictated by Truth and Chisholm our posts are reliable and straightforward. For example, Truth writes about the injustices she has experienced both as a woman and African American. These topics of feminism and civil rights seem to be resurfacing during our time with the same sense of urgency that they began with. We live in a time where our people want politicians to focus on the pay gap and the glass ceiling. We also live in a time where the Black Lives Matter movement has made itself the voice of a people that sometimes cannot find a voice.  Our blog discusses the components of the writings, mainly the experiences, so our audience will understand the reality of discrimination. Not only will they understand the reality of discrimination, they will understand what people wanted to be done about it years ago, and what can be done about it in our time. 

We began with introducing the ethos of the speeches so it understood why the authors are qualified to speak on the discrimination of African Americans and women. This would also give the readers a better understanding of the authors' themselves. Once the reliability of the speeches has been established the exigency of the issue follows. The reader will now be aware of the speech's purpose and hopefully feel more engaged in the cause. Now that the reader is engaged in the issue, factual knowledge has to be applied. With logos the audience can have a background in the subject and follow the fact, based component of the speeches. Kairos follows, furthering the historical, factual understanding the reader gains. Once the reader understands that part of the speech, our blog attempts to personalize the issues discussed in writings. We do this by analyzing the audience, causing the reader to understand that actual people were affected by the discrimination.

Through our text we hope that the readers feel connected to the text we have shared. We hope that we have inspired them to dig deeper in the issues of racism and sexism with our study of the intersection of the Civil Rights and Women's Rights Movements during the 1850s and the 1960s. The more knowledge you have on a topic the more leverage you have when trying to push for what you deserve. A good number of our readers will be young women aspiring to have successful careers. We want to encourage them to not settle and continue to fight for their rights. As Truth and Chisholm did not accept their "fate" we hope that the readers see they do not have to accept theirs. And although we have come a far way with progressive changes, we still have some way to go.

Stasis in Two Major Speeches

"Truth is powerful and it prevails."

"Religion without humanity is very poor human stuff."

"I am not going to die, I'm going home like a shooting star."

- Sojourner Truth 

"The emotional, sexual, and psychological stereotyping of females begins when the doctor says, "It's a girl."

"Tremendous amounts of talent are lost to our society just because that talent wears a skirt."

"When morality comes up against profit, it is seldom that profit loses."

- Shirley Chisholm

Defining the stasis in these two iconic historical speeches can be very difficult. In Shirley Chisholm's speech "Equal Rights for Women" she makes a clear argument for equal treatment of women especially in the workforce. As noted in one of her quotes at the top "tremendous amounts of talent are lost to our society just because that talent wears a skirt." Chisholm further argues this quote in her speech. She argues that women are just as capable of completing the same jobs of men at the same level. She argues that the number of women in managerial positions isn't acceptable when compared to the number of women in the population. While Chisholm advocated for women she was not asking for special treatment for women and this parallel can be seen in the speech "Ain't I A Woman" by Sojourner Truth as well. In Sojourner Truth's speech "Ain't I A Woman" her argument  is very complex and can be seen differently depending on how an individual chooses to analyze her speech. I appreciate her use of repetition of the phrase "Ain't I A Woman" as I believe this became the roots of several arguments  she makes in her speech. Truth speaks on the work she has done, pain she has endured, and the injustices brought against her not only for being African American but also for being a woman. She explains that if a woman can be helped across puddle or the street then that she be done for all women of any race. She argues that she is not inferior nor incapable of doing the things men do and there is no reason she should be treated like any less of a woman for being black, or any less of a human for being a woman. The complexity of her argument is very interesting and thought provoking. Both she and Chisholm do a great job of presenting their arguments, especially in terms of their audiences and their use of appeals and evidence. 

Pathos in "Ain't I A Woman" and "Equal Rights for Women"

Pathos refers to the authors persuasion through emotional appeal. In both of the texts, the use of pathos is very clear. However, in "Ain't I a Woman," by Sojourner Truth it is more prevalent. I believe that Sojourner Truth used more emotional appeal because of her audience. She was talking to a audience majorly composed of women. They would more likely understand and sympathize with her because they have experienced similar treatment. She refers to "mothers grief"and all of her hard work and the pain she has had to endure. The women in the audience are more likely to be receptive to what she is saying and be persuaded by her argument.

On the other hand in "Equal Rights for Women," by Shirley Chisholm the use of pathos is less evident. Chisholm was talking to a group mainly of men trying to advocate for an amendment. It would not be ideal for her to pour her heart out because they may not understand the injustice she has experienced. She has to prove that she is not just emotional but educated as well. Her argument is composed of a lot of facts and statistics. She does point out how frustrating it all is and uses the phrase "happy little homemaker" to show how demeaning it is to not be looked to as much. I believe this was a smart choice by Chisholm and think it helped her argument be more effective.

Audience for "Equal Rights for Women"

The audience of any type of rhetorical statement is key to how the author decides to perform. In the case of, "Equal Rights for Women" by Shirley Chisholm the tone and examples are specified towards her audience of government officials and women. Chisholm gave this speech in the House of Representatives on May 21, 1969. She was beseeching the lawmakers to make themselves aware of the sexist discrimination blatantly present in the work place. Chisholm's examples are based off work place experiences for example a woman being placed in simplistic positions. The audience assumably has a political and highly educated background. This would affect the tone Chisholm utilizes to most accurately convey her message. Chisholm's tone could be described as controlled, straight to the point as well as factual. By using facts and eloquent sentences Chisholm is able to demonstrate to her audience that she is a well- learned women who is qualified to speak about this. The tone also demands attention of the men and make them see Chisholm as an equal. Taking into consideration the audience is vital to executing the most affective speech. In this case the audience in 1969, when woman and african americans were treated as lesser, Chisholm had to direct her argument to the lawmakers, otherwise known as white males.

Audience in "Ain't I A Woman" by Sojourner Truth

The audience in "Ain't I A Woman" by Sojourner Truth is a very important rhetorical device in supporting her passionate speech that calls for equal rights for all people but specifically for African American women. Although her immediate audience are the women at the women's convention she is delivering her speech to, Sojourner Truth is directing her speech towards men both white and black. She calls them out as "that man over there" with little to no respect. Truth states how nobody "helps [her] in carriages, or over mud-puddles." The juxtaposition of the idea that men are stating women need extra help reveal the hypocrisy of men. The audience of the men allow her to expose their injustices towards women. She is angry that they are forbidding her from her natural rights that should be equal to all people. It leads her to declare "ain't I a woman" several times with pride. It is almost a slogan that she is rallying women behind. She is using the logic that she is a woman and has been doing everything men have been doing without any praise. Truth is proving the men wrong. Her fervor is rooted in her audience, the men. Without the men, her speech would have a completely different tone and message.