Rhetorical Analysis Sample Essay

Calculate Price
Approx. price
$10

 

 

One woman, author Jessica Grose, wrote “Cleaning: The Final Feminist Frontier,” which appeared in The New Republic in 2013. She argues that because men’s lives have recently become more childcare and cooking, women are taking over the whole cleaning, and she writes that this is leading to an increase in domestic violence against women. At the end of the article, her attempt to address the reader’s emotions weakens her credibility and ultimately her argument. Grose begins to make it credible by citing compelling facts and statistics, citing personal facts from reputable sources, and successfully using emotional appeals.

In her article, Grose first presents a concrete scenario in the house where she was trapped during Hurricane Sandy. Men do not contribute to cleaning, cleaning is simply not fun, and the media advertise men’s kitchens and childcare, but not cleaning. One possible solution to this problem, she says, would be to create a diagram of what to do, divide the task into skills, accept a dirty house, and make cleaning the appliances more pleasant. In addition to comparisons to the larger feminist issue of the cleaning relationship, Grose also outlines the role of women in the cleaning work, as well as the relationship between men and cleaning and domestic violence.

In this piece, Grose uses many powerful sources to bolster her credibility, appeal to an ethos, support her arguments, and use a strong appeal logo. She also uses personal examples from her own life to introduce and support the issue, which shows that she has a deep understanding of the relationship between men and cleaning and domestic violence, as well as the role of women in the home.

She points to the facts of marriage and the distribution of household work: “In the apartment where I lived for eight months, my husband worked, we shared the midnight feeding, and I admit that I never cleaned the bathroom, made nine out of ten dishes, and barely knew the difference between a clean kitchen and a dirty one in the middle of the night.

Grose cites many statistics, many of which logically support her claim that men do not do their fair share of the work: “Only 18 percent of working fathers do at least half of their housework. These statistics are just one of many that support the claim that it is a significant and real problem for men to do more housework than their husbands. This fact supports Grose’s claim that women do a much higher proportion of domestic work than men in the United States, even in famously gender-neutral Sweden. The fact that women in Sweden work almost twice as much as their male counterparts, even though only 18% of the work is done for fathers, raises the question of who does the housework at work.

The details of these figures appeal to the reader and suggest that this is a debatable issue, but do not in any way contradict Grose’s claim.

The words evoke the negative emotions of cleansing, which make the reader sympathize with the woman who feels condemned and shunned because of these very negative feelings. The aim is to convey sympathy to the reader, but the image that evokes the high emotions that this woman feels at this time effectively introduces the argument and its seriousness.

But at the end of the article, he lacks the same effectiveness and appeal of that ethos. The document, developed by Dr. Merameca Grose and his colleagues at the University of California, Berkeley, recognizes the injustice that exists when women are cleaning. For example, he notes that men who do housework regard SIGH as barefoot, which is not true. The document is a powerful tool for those who feel frustration and anger at this injustice.

Moreover, the last statement of the article refers to the husband in a way that weakens the argument. This damages the credibility of his argument and undermines his credibility as a women’s advocate.

Discussing the solution, Grose says: “There’s nothing wrong with scrubbing toilets with iPods, but I bet your husband would buy you one.

Grose effectively convinces his readers of the unjust distribution of domestic work, and readers can see that the problem exists in every marriage in the world. Ultimately, the transition from humor to sarcasm makes readers take the problem less seriously. Grose could have dealt more seriously with the issue of women’s jobs, but he ultimately loses power at home, where he makes his arguments most. When he starts the essay, he finishes it in the place where he started it: the bathroom.