HW Feb. 25th

Describe three of LaPierre's main claims.
LaPierre writes this article on reflection of the Newtown, Connecticut shooting in December of 2012. This tragedy resulted in the deaths of many young children at a school due to a mental unstable man by the name of Adam Lanza. The first claim that LaPierre makes in his article is that something must be done, today, now, in order better protect our generation of children in schools. There must be action taken to prevent further tragedies like this one. The second claim that LaPierre makes is that guns do not have to translate to a "bad" thing. He mentions that police with guns are good guys, secret service agents with guns are also good guys, why not implement good guys like these at schools to install a better peace of mind? Finally LaPierre claims that the NRA is going to bring all of its knowledge dedication and resources into establishing a National School Shield Emergency Response Program for every school that wants it. Which should be implemented in all schools across the nation.

What are two strategies he uses to persuade his audience?
Two strategies that LaPierre's utilizes in persuading the audience is through many quotes of reliable, trustworthy authority figures in the nation (Authorities/Big Names) , as well as many examples and statistics (logos). 

What are some of the strengths of LaPierre's argument (consider the rhetorical situation).
Some strengths of LaPierre's argument is his ability to get the audiences attention. Through using big names of authority throughout the paper, he builds trust and a sense that if more powerful people are in support, we as an audience should be in support as well. He also instills a fighting sense in all readers as well when speaking about "our" children, "our" loved ones. LaPierre makes the argument all the more personal to everyone. Lastly, a strength that is also evident is his use of factual evidence in the form of statistics. These catch the readers attention in regards to the large numbers that LaPierre uses to convey information.

What potential weaknesses can you identify.
Some potential weaknesses that I can find in LaPierre's writings is that in certain areas of the texts his tone can be a little condescending. Its as if he is scolding the readers and yelling, when he should be trying to rally their support and inspire them to do more about the situation at hand. 

Paper #1

Haydar v. Abu-Lughod

            Veiling amongst the Muslim community is a very common practice around the nation and the world today.  To get a better look at veiling we can look at Maysan Haydar and Lila Abu-Lughod, two Muslim women. It is pointed out by both of these authors that there are many misinterpretations, stereotypes, and wrongs about what one may perceive of veiling. The articles by Maysan Haydar and Lila Abu-Lughod are titled, “Veiled Intentions: Don’t Judge a Muslim Girl by Her Covering” and “The Muslim Woman: The Power of Images and the Danger of Pity”, respectively. Maysan Haydar is a young woman from the Midwestern United States, and a respected copy editor for the magazine “In these Times” based in Chicago, Illinois. “Veiled Intentions: Don’t Judge a Muslim Girl by Her Covering”, was originally published in 2003 by Seal Press in a book titled, “Body Outlaws: Rewriting the Rules of Beauty and Body Image”, a book directed towards women everywhere. Haydar’s main argument regarding the Muslim veiling tradition is blatantly the title of her article as well. In her own words she explains her experiences as to why Muslim women veil and that it can reduce objectification, promote authentic relations, and foster important ways of thinking for women. The second author is Lila Abu-Lughod, an Anthropology and Women’s and Gender Studies professor at Columbia University of New York City, who follows the same general subject but just sheds a different light onto the situation than Haydar. Eurozine, an international magazine, published “The

Muslim Woman”, in 2006. This article has a very large audience, and Abu-Lughod utilizes legitimate facts to gain readers attention. She argues that the veil must be “redefined”, to reflect what the veil truly represents to a Muslim woman, and should not be mistaken for what it is not. In order to better understand both of these articles, I will outline the main claims ad strategies used in each.

            The first that I will discuss will be the article, “Veiled Intentions: Don’t Judge a Muslim Girl by her Covering” by Maysan Haydar. As briefly addressed in the introductory of this paper Haydar’s main argument is that the veil can be “feminist, forward thinking, and progressive”. One of Haydar’s first main claims is that veiling can help women avoid “damaging” experiences and express values such as modesty. To better portray this point she states, “[the veil] allows me to be seen as a whole person instead of a twenty piece chicken dinner” (Haydar, 259).  She says about her interactions with high school boys, “I was being liked for who I was beyond my body”(Haydar, 261), and “I could relate to everybody in a very natural way, without all the confusing sexual pressure”(Haydar, 261). Haydar also points to how veiling can lead to less harassment even in her current setting although she still gets the typical, “I like your skirt!” or “Girl I would marry you!” (Haydar, 260) from construction workers. The next major claim by Haydar is that many people hold mistaken assumptions about the veil and Muslim women. Despite Haydars motives for veiling and “the practice of covering hair and body is a choice” (Haydar,260) she still states that, “many Americans see veiling as an oppressive tool forced on Muslim women”(Haydar, 260). In her experience on a subway she explains that a woman noticed her veiling and stated, “[I can’t] understand how they could dress that way. ‘Me I got to be free’”(Haydar, 260). Growing up Haydar was taught a verse of the Quran, “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (Haydar, 260), and that freedom is within. Further into the article

Haydar announces, “the heart of her veiling is personal freedom” (Haydar, 265). Freedom is of upmost importance to Haydar and she admits, “I’m married to a man who was raised Catholic, I love heavy metal, I consider myself a feminist, and I sport a few well-disguised piercings.” (Haydar, 259). A little different than the typical assumption that Haydar points most of the public holds.

The basis for majority of Haydars article is to convince readers by use of many personal anecdotes and connections. In these efforts it was clear that she tried to connect with the audience through ethos as well as personal anecdotes from her past. This is a very bold strategy considering that most of her arguments rely solely on experiences that only Haydar herself has had. This is effective in the way that it builds up credibility and builds levels that we can all relate to yet also have a downfall too. Haydars strengths and weaknesses are one in the same. Strength is in her ability to connect to readers, yet her weakness is that she fails to offer facts or legitimate evidence to her beliefs. Not to say that her experiences are not legitimate, but that they are very one sided.

The second article that I will discuss is Lila Abu-Lughod’s, “The Muslim Woman: The Power Of Images and the Danger of Pity”. In this article, the central claim is the politics behind the veil, the traditions, as well as the element of free choice. Her first main claim is that the images of veiled Muslim women are problematic due to the limited capture of diversity and the inaccurate portrayal of what the burqa means to Muslim women. She states, “our [American public] lives are saturated with images, images that are strangely confined to a very limited set of tropes or themes” (Abu-Lughod, 1), these images create “a seemingly huge divide between “us” and “them” (Abu-Lughod, 2). False images that circulate the media make it hard for people to understand that “veiling itself is a complex practice” (Abu-Lughod, 2). There are so many variations as to why a Muslim women might veil including, “symbolizing modesty and respectability” (Abu-Lughod, 3), “signify[ing] belonging to a particular community” (Abu-Lughod, 3), or “[a] mark of piety [that] can be read as a sign of educated urban sophistication, a sort of modernity” (Abu-Lughod, 4). It must be “recognized that and even appreciated the different terms in which people live their lives” (Abu-Lughod, 6). Practicing the veiling tradition should not be seen as “oppressive”, or “degrading”, but should be recognized as free choice. The second major claim of Abu-Lughod’s article is that people should beware of pity and feeling the need to “rescue” or save a woman, instead we should work towards helping Muslim women in alternate ways.  To elaborate, Abu-Lughod states, “If we are concerned about women, including Muslim women, maybe we can work at home to make US and European policies more humane” (Abu-Lughod, 8). If we are to make a positive difference it should be “in the spirit of support…to make women’s (and men’s) lives better” (Abu-Lughod, 8). This should be done in “terms of alliances, coalitions, and solidarity rather than salvation or pity” (Abu-Lughod, 8).

            In Abu-Lughod’s paper, the main strategies that are utilized are ethos and logos. These are evident in the way that her paper is portrayed to readers. This article is published in a well-known international magazine known as Eurozine, which can explain her use of legitimate facts throughout with little personal anecdotes dispersed as well. Abu-Lughod wants to get her message across in a precise, professional matter yet still keep readers interested and connected to the piece with her subtle emotional appeals. This is a very unique and strong approach to writing about a subject such as veiling. Abu-Lughod’s strengths lie in her tone and ability to incorporate many real life examples from current day events. However, her weakness lies in some aspects of her tone. Despite this, it is safe to say that the strengths outweigh the weaknesses.

            In conclusion, both of these papers had alternate views on a subject that is relative to both of the author’s everyday lives. They both complement the other to show readers alternate ways of viewing veiling in today’s society. It is safe to say that Abu-Lughod’s article provides more of an extension of the central argument of veiling than Haydar does; yet Haydar challenges readers to think alternatively by providing so many examples from her own personal life. Overall, both of these articles can be and are significant to many people around the world. In reading both of these, I was able to expand my own personal knowledge on what veiling truly means. I can say that I will walk away from both of these papers having a different mindset of veiling in the Muslim cultures.

Beginning of intro and body

              Veiling amongst the Muslim community is a very common practice around the nation and the world today. Despite its large reach of active users, it has become a spiraling debate to inactive members of the veiling trend whether the veil is oppressive or if it is modest.  To get a better look at the Muslim side of this debate we can look at Maysan Haydar and Lila Abu-Lughod. It is pointed out by both of these authors that there are many misinterpretations, stereotypes, and wrongs about what one may perceive as a bystander looking from the outside in. The works by Maysan Haydar and Lila Abu-Lughod are titled, “Veiled Intentions: Don’t Judge a Muslim Girl by Her Covering” and “The Muslim Woman: The Power of Images and the Danger of Pity”, respectively. Maysan Haydar is a young woman from the Midwestern United States, and a respected copy editor for the magazine “In these Times” based in Chicago, Illinois. In her article she writes in a casual way to speak to readers in a sort of conversation, mainly directing her points at an all female audience. Haydar’s main argument regarding the Muslim veiling tradition is blatantly the title of her article as well. The veil is not what you see in cartoons, or news, or whatever other assumption one may have; it has hidden meaning and that meaning varies upon the wearer. In her own words she explains her experiences as to why Muslim women veil. The heart of veiling is personal freedom; that is of course according to Haydar. The second author is Lila Abu-Lughod; an Anthropology as well as a Women’s and Gender Studies professor at Columbia University of New York City who follows the same general subject but just sheds a different light onto the situation than Haydar does. This article is more of a scholarly piece aimed to speak to feminists everywhere in the veiling debate. Abu-Lughod argues that images of Middle Eastern women have been problematic simply because they are inaccurate and plain wrong representations. The veil must be “redefined”, to reflect what the veil truly represents to a Muslim woman, and should not be mistaken for what it is not. In order to better understand both of these articles, I will discuss the analyzation I have done of them and the claims and strategies that are provided in each.

            The first that I will discuss will be the article, “Veiled Intentions: Don’t Judge a Muslim Girl by her Covering” by Maysan Haydar. As briefly addressed in the introductory of this paper Haydar’s main argument is that the veil is a complete choice for all Muslims, and reasons to wear the veil greatly vary amongst wearers. The basis for majority of Haydars article is convincing readers by use of many personal anecdotes and life experience, personal connections. In these efforts it was clear that she tried to connect with the audience on a level where we are all familiar, emotionally; otherwise known as pathos. Based on her experiences with veiling she claims that the veil can help women avoid “damaging” experiences and express values such as modesty. To better portray this point she states, “[the veil] allows me to be seen as a whole person instead of a twenty piece chicken dinner” (Haydar, 259). Through this claim, Haydar suggests that women not veiling are not whole, that they are prancing around in fact for attention of their bodies. A claim that can be warped so easily, and a cause of offence to readers just contribute to less willingness to hear her story. Haydar also points to how veiling can lead to less harassment although she still gets the typical, “I like your skirt!”, or “Girl I would marry you!” (Haydar, 260), from construction workers that are attracted to her. However, through this point does she really convince readers that whoever walks through construction will be harassed in some way? Does she actually convince people that all men are unrespectable creatures? This evidence that she tries to use here is just weak because of its unrealistic qualities. Further into the paper readers notice her claim that, “Western priorities are out of line: American women spend hours getting ready for strangers to see them but don’t give the same effort to those who see them in intimate settings” (Haydar, 263).

Monday Feb. 09 HW

             Veiling amongst the Muslim community is a very common practice around the nation and the world today. However, is can also be said that there are many misinterpretations, stereotypes, and wrongs about what one may perceive as a bystander looking from the outside in. The same can be said from the Muslin women’s sides as both Haydar and Abu-Lughod point out in their articles “Veiled Intentions: Don’t Judge a Muslim Girl by Her Covering” and “The Muslim Woman: The Power of Images and the Danger of Pity”, respectively. Maysan Haydar, a young woman from the Midwestern United States, is a respected copy editor for the magazine “In these Times” based in Chicago, Illinois. In her article she writes in a casual way to speak to readers in a sort of conversation, mainly directing her points at an all female audience. Haydar’s main argument regarding the Muslim veiling tradition is blatantly the title of her article as well. The veil is not what you see in cartoons, or news, or whatever other assumption one may have; it has hidden meaning and that meaning varies upon the wearer. The heart of veiling is personal freedom; that is of course according to Haydar. Then there is Lila Abu-Lughod; an Anthropology as well as a Women’s and Gender Studies professor at Columbia University of New York City who follows the same general subject but just sheds a different light onto the situation than Haydar does. This article is more of a scholarly piece aimed to speak to feminists everywhere in the veiling debate. Abu-Lughod argues that images of Middle Eastern women have been problematic simply because they are inaccurate and plain wrong. The veil must be “redefined”, to reflect what the veil truly represents to a Muslim woman, and should not be mistaken for what it is not. In order to better understand these articles, I will discuss the analyzation I have done of them and the claims that are provided in each.

            The first to be discussed will be the article, “Veiled Intentions: Don’t Judge a Muslim Girl by her Covering” by Maysan Haydar. As briefly addressed in the introductory of this paper Haydar’s main argument is that the veil is a positive, affirming choice for many Muslim women because it can reduce objectification, promote authentic relationships between men and women, and foster some important kinds of freedom. She claims that the veil can help women avoid “damaging” experiences and express values such as modesty, yet she also makes a controversial claim that specifically people in the US hold mistaken assumptions regarding the veil and that Americans also possess “out of line” cultural values. In order to elaborate on her claims Haydar utilized a lot of personal anecdotes and experiences of her own life. In these efforts it was clear that she tried to connect with the audience on a level where we are all familiar, emotionally; otherwise known as pathos. This is especially relevant when she talks about her first claim, she states, “

HW February 4 2015

What kind of audience is AL writing for? How do you know this?
AL is writing for an audience that can cause a change. Specifically readers that can make a difference in the world, I know this due to the specific diction and words she uses in her introductory paragraph. She uses a sort of depressing tone with her words such as "pressed", "strangely confined", and "ruled by". She wants people reading this to feel bad ash want to help make a change and/or stand up for or against the situation.

What genre is she writing in? What makes you think this?
AL is writing in a genre to make the audience feel a particular way about the subject. A genre that sucks people in and want to help/support the overall cause. I think this mostly because of her general tone throughout the paper.

In the first paragraph she uses the word "we" many times. Who is this "we"? How does AL's sue of "us" and "them" contrast with the way Haydar invites us to think about the relationship between young Muslims like herself, and other Americans?
"We" is in reference to to the American Public in AL's article. This greatly contrasts with Haydars use of "us" and "them" because when Haydar uses such pronouns it is implied that she is talking about her people. Or other Muslims from her central community, and around the nation. There is an absolute divide amongst people in Haydar's article whereas in AL's article she attempts to blend everyone and make the situation apply to all.

What are some differences you notice between AL and Haydar?
Some differences between Haydar and AL is the way they get their points across to the audience. They generally have the same message regarding the use of the veil in everyday life and beyond yet they have two very different approaches to this situation. Hayer mainly focuses majority of her argument on how she has gone through life with a veil. Life experience and personal anecdotes make up the entirety of Haydars argument whereas AL's argument incorporates some personal experiences yet she has several legitimate facts as well. This is the major area where I saw significant differences in the twos argument/message to their readers.