Guest Blogger Lisa Stockton on feminist rhetorics

Feminism as a “movement” in America is largely played out. The work here is mostly done. Jonah Goldberg Los Angeles Times March 29, 2011

            When I read the opening lines to Jonah Goldberg’s column a few weeks ago, I was incensed by his careless proclamation. Many readers, I am sure, nodded in agreement, as they read his challenge to those who wanted to continue the fight that they should go to Afghanistan where “real” injustices abound. Two things, Mr. Goldberg: many feminists, both men and women, are fighting for the rights of women in Afghanistan already; and no, the feminist work is hardly done here as long as human beings are discriminated against, abused, objectified, colonized and exploited. Mr. Goldberg seems to be buying in to the Second Wave feminist myth--now that some women represented in the workforce are highly educated and earn a decent wage, we can close the chapter on the past decades of spotty progress and focus on more pressing matters for the women in the countries in which the United States has started wars.

            Recently, at the 4C’s in Atlanta, I had the opportunity to expose the “feminist project” I have been

Comparative Rhetoric, or Is My Game Slippin?

Today's question mark is brought to you by comparative rhetoric.

Or, rather, it was brought to me by comparative rhetoric.  And RSQ.  That's not a bad question mark, either.  It's a way of saying, "How did I miss this?"  So I figured I'd ask you smart folks.  Is "comparative rhetoric" something that I should have known about?  I'm feeling a little inadequate as a rhetorician right now...

More on Egypt - digital and feminist rhetorics

Vince contributes the following links on the revolution in Egypt:

A piece in the Kansas City Star from just last weekend that mentions the ways that digital and new media have made it possible for Egyptian-Americans to contribute from afar (Vince mentioned that this is interesting in terms of thinking about agency in a new media world).

Another piece from Democracy Now! that looks at the role of women in the uprising.

Any connections here to what Kundai was writing about in his really excellent commentary on issues related to rhetoric (as a disciplinary field or area of inquiry with all its messy disciplinary boundary issues) and Egypt?

(Not) Speaking of Egypt

As I listened to coverage of events in Cairo (mostly on Democracy Now!--theirs was the best), I heard experts from a variety of fields share their opinions: historians, political scientists, philosophers, comparative literature people etc. Our discipline was conspicuously not represented among the scholarly types media tapped to help breakdown the revolution. MSM would much rather interview a "professional" pundit than bother to engage a academic rhetorician. Nothing new there. A couple of years ago Richard Vatz noted that

The reason that rhetoricians have never preponderantly been the primary sources that media go after is that we are just one of many competitors interpreting reality, and often we are looked at as purveyors of ‘‘mere rhetoric”

Fair enough. After all, our experts don't just rely on MSM to disseminate their opinions on current affairs. That's what blogs are for right? That's what I thought.

Late last week I trolled around the "rhetorical blogosphere" (the RSA Blogora has a decent blogroll) wanting to see

News of the Weird: Dr. Frankenstein on Trial at MU

I'm a Tiger, and I still get Mizzou emails. Mizzou doesn't indulge quirk very often, but here's a pretty large dose of quirk coming from the Law School:

MU School of Law Puts Dr. Frankenstein on Trial

Why not? Mizzou has a group called the Historical and Theatrical Trial Society (HATTS) that stages trials for people accused of crimes or wrongdoings. With Dr. Frankenstein's trial, they take a look at a literary figure for the first time.

This is interesting to me because

Rhetor v. Rhetorician

I have a question for you, Ars Rhetorica.

Recently, I was talking with someone about the differences between studying rhetoric today versus studying rhetoric in ancient Greece. This person doesn't study rhetoric and was confused about whether I was studying rhetoric to be a good communicator, debater, persuader, etc. I clarified by making the following distinction:

That's the difference between being a rhetor and being a rhetorician. I'm a rhetorician, someone who studies what rhetors do.

Is that

Language, Rhetoric, SOTU/POTUS

I'm a rhetorician, no doubt, but I'm also interested in language qua language, not just as it's used for rhetorical purposes. So things like this analysis with NYTimes' On Language columnist Ben Zimmer (rest in peace, William Safire) are particularly interesting to me. You don't even have to watch the video to ponder what commenter #3 says, which is what I want to bring to your attention here anyway: linguists should be linguists, not rhetoricians.

Interesting. I don't know that the two are so easily separated. Perhaps what we ought to be arguing for isn't that one discipline should be in its corner while others with shared interests are in different corners; perhaps the linguists need rhetorical knowledge and awareness and that rhetoricians need to be able to talk about language (if written and oral communication, as opposed to visual, etc. communication, is what they do) with some level of expertise.

Your thots? The comments are open!