My name is Melissa McCleery, and I'm an undergraduate studying political science and women's studies at Penn State University.
My e-portfolio represents my best work in relation to my study of rhetoric-- the art of effective discourse and communication. Besides showcasing my most successful academic pieces, this portfolio also reveals my passions of philanthropy and human rights. Both are areas which require a mastery of communication in order to achieve success, and both are areas that I intend to explore more in my coming years at Penn State.
Within this portfolio, you will find examples of an essay, a speech, and blog posts. Please use the navigation tools above to explore these pieces, and feel free to get in touch with me via my "contact me" page with any questions. Again, my e-portfolio can be found by clicking here.
Enjoy!
Monday, April 30, 2012
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Project Unbreakable
As some of you may know, this week has been Sexual Violence Awareness Week on campus. If you've been invited to the event on Facebook, you've probably seen various posts of support groups, interesting public service announcements about sexual violence, etc. One girl posted this website the other day, and I decided to take a look. I encourage you to look at it for a few minutes before reading the rest of this post. Put simply, it is a tumblr blog of pictures of rape victims holding up cards with quotes said by their attacker.
The main purpose of Project Unbreakable is to provide a form of closure for victims by allowing them to tell their stories in a safe, understanding place. However, its secondary function, for those reading it, is to raise awareness and concern for the heinous issue of sexual violence. Project Unbreakable executes this secondary function perfectly.
After looking through just a few posts, I was really disturbed. The words are disgusting, demeaning, and scary. The pictures of victims with their attackers' quotes create a bond between the reader and the content because the content is so shocking. This helps readers to empathize with the attacks the victims were put through, and creates discomfort with this status quo. Ideally, this discomfort will translate into readers taking action against sexual assault, in order to change the status quo. The fact that these victims remember the exact words used by their attackers also plays upon pathos, emphasizing how emotionally painful and scarring rape is, such that every detail is engraved into the victims mind.
Another interesting rhetorical aspect to Project Unbreakable is how the pictures are taken. Some are taken with the card taking up most of the frame, covering the victim's face, while others are held right next to the face, while still others have just half of their face showing to the side of the card. This also plays upon pathos, demonstrating shame and embarrassment felt by victims.
The main purpose of Project Unbreakable is to provide a form of closure for victims by allowing them to tell their stories in a safe, understanding place. However, its secondary function, for those reading it, is to raise awareness and concern for the heinous issue of sexual violence. Project Unbreakable executes this secondary function perfectly.
After looking through just a few posts, I was really disturbed. The words are disgusting, demeaning, and scary. The pictures of victims with their attackers' quotes create a bond between the reader and the content because the content is so shocking. This helps readers to empathize with the attacks the victims were put through, and creates discomfort with this status quo. Ideally, this discomfort will translate into readers taking action against sexual assault, in order to change the status quo. The fact that these victims remember the exact words used by their attackers also plays upon pathos, emphasizing how emotionally painful and scarring rape is, such that every detail is engraved into the victims mind.
Another interesting rhetorical aspect to Project Unbreakable is how the pictures are taken. Some are taken with the card taking up most of the frame, covering the victim's face, while others are held right next to the face, while still others have just half of their face showing to the side of the card. This also plays upon pathos, demonstrating shame and embarrassment felt by victims.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Ann Romney's Economic Credentials
My homepage has been blown up with the Ann Romney story. If you haven't heard, Mitt Romney says he is in touch with women's economic concerns, and gets a lot of insight and information from his wife, Ann. Hilary Rosen, a Democratic strategist on CNN responded that Ann Romney had "never worked a day in her life," and she was thus an inaccurate measure of women's economic concerns. This was a big deal, and it is interesting from a few rhetorical standpoints.
First, Rosen should have been more careful in her word choice. Rather than saying something heated like she did, she should have said Ann never worked outside the home, or never dealt with economic struggles, or something to that effect. Transferring her argument from one of pathos to one of logos would have fit the rhetorical situation (professional, reliable news broadcast) much better, and her message could have been heard by more audiences with slightly less criticism.
Second, Mitt Romney should have thought about credentials and ethos before he made a public statement that he listens to his wife about women's economic concerns. Her ethos is just not established well enough, at least not publicly, to be regarded as a reputable source for that kind of information. Yes, she is a mother, and manages many houseworkers in multiple households, and that requires a high level of organization and patience. However, if she's never had to deal with economic hardship, it's less likely that she can properly convey the concerns of women who are struggling to feed their children. Of course, it's possible that Ann is very in touch with women's economic concerns, and has credentials to speak to this (although I have not seen any in my research). But being a woman does not automatically make her qualified to represent all women from all walks of life, and thus Romney should have explained why he thinks she is a good person to listen to on women's economic concerns. Since Ann is not well known, and neither are her credentials, her ethos should have been established explicitly.
First, Rosen should have been more careful in her word choice. Rather than saying something heated like she did, she should have said Ann never worked outside the home, or never dealt with economic struggles, or something to that effect. Transferring her argument from one of pathos to one of logos would have fit the rhetorical situation (professional, reliable news broadcast) much better, and her message could have been heard by more audiences with slightly less criticism.
Second, Mitt Romney should have thought about credentials and ethos before he made a public statement that he listens to his wife about women's economic concerns. Her ethos is just not established well enough, at least not publicly, to be regarded as a reputable source for that kind of information. Yes, she is a mother, and manages many houseworkers in multiple households, and that requires a high level of organization and patience. However, if she's never had to deal with economic hardship, it's less likely that she can properly convey the concerns of women who are struggling to feed their children. Of course, it's possible that Ann is very in touch with women's economic concerns, and has credentials to speak to this (although I have not seen any in my research). But being a woman does not automatically make her qualified to represent all women from all walks of life, and thus Romney should have explained why he thinks she is a good person to listen to on women's economic concerns. Since Ann is not well known, and neither are her credentials, her ethos should have been established explicitly.
Friday, April 6, 2012
Ethos
Ben's post today (in combination with the chapter we just read in the book) really got me thinking about ethos. Ben's post was about a video on how wasteful meat is, and Ben wrote that the guy in the video is a New York Times' food critic, and that makes him very likely to believe whatever this guy has to say. I have to agree, credentials are a big deal. It does matters where someone works, where they went to school, etc.
However, it also got me thinking about how this reliance on credentials can be potentially dangerous. Sure, if someone writes for the New York Times, they probably have their stuff together, and their posts are going to be well researched. And if someone is a Harvard professor, they probably know what they're talking about, too. But it's also possible for people to make mistakes, and this just reminded me of how important it is to be a skeptical consumer of media and information. However, after one big mistake, that New York Times writer or Harvard professor is probably going to get a lot of flak, and be much much more careful in the future with what they report, teach, or publish.
Sometimes we forget how delicate ethos is. It's very easy to screw it up with just one misstep. Thinking about this reminded me of Onward State's April Fool's Day joke posts. I'll be honest... I believed the one about Carly Rae Jepsen opening for Day Glow.... Whatever. But some of the posts were tasteless and not funny, like the one reporting a student's death. These April Fool's Day joke posts (along with other garbage articles) ruined Onward State's credibility for me, and I'm sure for many others.
It goes to show how careful you have to be if you want to be a reputable source for information.
However, it also got me thinking about how this reliance on credentials can be potentially dangerous. Sure, if someone writes for the New York Times, they probably have their stuff together, and their posts are going to be well researched. And if someone is a Harvard professor, they probably know what they're talking about, too. But it's also possible for people to make mistakes, and this just reminded me of how important it is to be a skeptical consumer of media and information. However, after one big mistake, that New York Times writer or Harvard professor is probably going to get a lot of flak, and be much much more careful in the future with what they report, teach, or publish.
Sometimes we forget how delicate ethos is. It's very easy to screw it up with just one misstep. Thinking about this reminded me of Onward State's April Fool's Day joke posts. I'll be honest... I believed the one about Carly Rae Jepsen opening for Day Glow.... Whatever. But some of the posts were tasteless and not funny, like the one reporting a student's death. These April Fool's Day joke posts (along with other garbage articles) ruined Onward State's credibility for me, and I'm sure for many others.
It goes to show how careful you have to be if you want to be a reputable source for information.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)