1.What is the author arguing?
In this document the author is arguing that all women should have the same rights and privileges as men. It goes over basic laws and states that women, in the eye of the law, is civilly dead. So why then do women need to pay taxes, or follow the laws that she had no say in? The point is that men and women were created equally. If woman is equal to man, then they should be able to have the same rights as men, seeing as they are citizens of the United States.
2. How does the author appear to logos, pathos, and ethos with their argument?
In this document the author used lots of reasoning which appears to logos. She stated many facts about how man was not being fair to women and that we are also citizens of the united states so we should have a right to vote and put our word into what laws we should or shouldn't have. Second, the author appears to pathos by saying things like, "He has made her, morally,and irresponsible being.." and "He has endeavored, in every way that he could, to destroy her own confidence in her powers, to lessen her self respect,and to make her willing to lead a dependent and abject life." Lastly, the author states that women have immediate admission to all the rights and privileges which belong to them as citizens of the United States. What she is saying is nothing but common sense and the right for women to be treated as normal human beings.
3. What is the historical significance/ relevance of this document?
The Seneca Falls Convention was held on July 19-20 1848. Here women had the right to demand there equality in legal and social terms. If these women and men didn't hold these conventions, or write this document the United States would not have been as impacted with the idea of women's rights and privileges. This document helped women's rights become what they are today. Without it, who knows how much longer it might have taken for women to be taken seriously,instead of for granted.
4. Do you find the author's argument convincing? Why or why not?
I definitely found this argument convincing. When there is a document based on treating a person a better way, or giving them the rights and privileges they deserve, how can you not agree? I guess i might be a little biased seeing as I am a woman. The author wasn't saying that men we bad and everything is corrupt without a women's input, but saying that we as humans deserve to have a say in what is happening. To me, it all seems like common sense. So yes. I find this argument convincing and absolutely agree with it.
It is obvious that the author is arguing for equality, practically the equality of women. The author also mentioned how in due time someone will act out of the norm to assume a position that, according to the society at the time, is not meant for said person. “When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one portion of the family of man to assume among the people of the earth a position different form that which they have hitherto occupied, but one to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes that impel them to such a course.” In this sentence the author also mentions how God entitles everyone the same rights and therefore should be treated equally amongst one another.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the author used a lot of logos. The logos was very evident especially in the listed offences men had against women; withheld her inalienable right to elective franchise, forced her to submit to laws she had no voice in, withheld rights from her that were given to the most ignorant and degraded men, taken away her right to property, law providing a husband the ability to deprive his wife of her liberty, ext. He also used Elizabeth Cady Stanton as an ethos character by her role in the women’s right movement with her books; A History of Woman Suffrage. The author also threw pathos in by mentioning that by law a woman married could commit many crimes of impurity, as long as their husband was present at the time of the actions. “-he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master-“ this portion of a sentence is another one of the author’s pathos uses. By comparing the women to slaves shows how little respect women get from men and even from their husbands.
This is historically significant since it is about the women’s rights movement. If it weren’t for the movement women would still be treated as house slaves meant to do whatever their husbands demanded. For the longest time women could be raped by their husbands with no punishment administered to their husband. This movement saved a lot of women from a life of subjugation and segregation. Now not all men were as horrible as the ones mentioned in this reading, but there were still a large number of men that were.
The author’s argument was very convincing to those who looked at things logically. With all the facts that author pointed out it would be hard to argue otherwise, but for those were blinded by society the reading would be extremely offensive since the author is basically challenging their way of life.
Also i agree that the argument in the Declaration of sentiments, Seneca falls convention 1848 is about how humans should be equal. A good question you asked "so why then women need to pay taxes, or follow the laws that she had no say in?" According to my thoughts i think us women should not follow the laws if we did not get the same privileges or i believe that if the women was married to her husband she can follow the laws just because her husband voted.
ReplyDeleteThe author is very convincing to me. Just because I am a female i just have to agree with the author on everything that was stated about women getting missed treated. on the other hand for instance when it comes to some law saying "He" as in men denied her the facilities for obtaining a thorough education or he allows her in church. That saying will make my decision that the Author is convincing