http://jezebel.com/5945524/iranian-women-banned-from-77-college-majors-because-they-were-getting-too-educated
Iranian Women Banned from 77 College Majors Because they were Getting too Educated
(obviously, this title is sarcastic, immediately setting the tone)
This article, in general, is from a feminist perspective (the website itself is news with a feminist perspective).
Diction:
"Alarmingly, the ban was only instituted last month; while no clear reason for the new restriction has been cited by the Iranian government, officials have been disturbed by the declining birth and marriage rates and attributed this change partially to the sea change in accessibility of women's education in the country."
This paragraph shows clear bias against the Iranian government's policies restricting women's education, with such words as alarmingly, and disturbed, words that have connotations that emphasize the Iranian government's backwards notions about the progressive change in women's roles.
Later in the article, word choices such as doubly sh*tty and damn mystifying emphasize how confusing and backwards this decision is.
Details:
" Iran was one of the first Middle Eastern countries to give women access to university studies, and since 1979 has encouraged women to get a higher education. But it appears that officials think it's gone too far: as of 2001, women officially outnumbered men in the Iranian college student body for the first time, a statistic that's now up to 60% female. Another element of the decision came from the amount of women present at Tehran protests over Iran's tumultuous 2009 presidential election, as shown above (not to mention both candidates' vocal wives)."
As you can tell, the article uses a lot of specific details from recent Iranian history. This kind of shows the reader how the culture there has progressed in regards to women's equality, and how shocking it is that the government would actually curtail this kind of growth. It also talks about how strict they are politically, and if the rise of educated women gives them political voices that the government is opposed to, well, just take away their education!
Language:
In general, the things the article says evoke a feeling of indignation. With such phrases as "This is doubly sh*tty because Iranian history actually shows a pretty good track record for women and education." and "As for the full list of actual majors off-limits to women, it's pretty damn mystifying. While some of them will lead to high-salaried careers that could make women veer off the married-with-kids track, others are... English literature."
These sentences make you feel like saying "what the heck, Iran? What are you doing?", which, I assume, is probably the article's whole point.
Iranian Women Banned from 77 College Majors Because they were Getting too Educated
(obviously, this title is sarcastic, immediately setting the tone)
This article, in general, is from a feminist perspective (the website itself is news with a feminist perspective).
Diction:
"Alarmingly, the ban was only instituted last month; while no clear reason for the new restriction has been cited by the Iranian government, officials have been disturbed by the declining birth and marriage rates and attributed this change partially to the sea change in accessibility of women's education in the country."
This paragraph shows clear bias against the Iranian government's policies restricting women's education, with such words as alarmingly, and disturbed, words that have connotations that emphasize the Iranian government's backwards notions about the progressive change in women's roles.
Later in the article, word choices such as doubly sh*tty and damn mystifying emphasize how confusing and backwards this decision is.
Details:
" Iran was one of the first Middle Eastern countries to give women access to university studies, and since 1979 has encouraged women to get a higher education. But it appears that officials think it's gone too far: as of 2001, women officially outnumbered men in the Iranian college student body for the first time, a statistic that's now up to 60% female. Another element of the decision came from the amount of women present at Tehran protests over Iran's tumultuous 2009 presidential election, as shown above (not to mention both candidates' vocal wives)."
As you can tell, the article uses a lot of specific details from recent Iranian history. This kind of shows the reader how the culture there has progressed in regards to women's equality, and how shocking it is that the government would actually curtail this kind of growth. It also talks about how strict they are politically, and if the rise of educated women gives them political voices that the government is opposed to, well, just take away their education!
Language:
In general, the things the article says evoke a feeling of indignation. With such phrases as "This is doubly sh*tty because Iranian history actually shows a pretty good track record for women and education." and "As for the full list of actual majors off-limits to women, it's pretty damn mystifying. While some of them will lead to high-salaried careers that could make women veer off the married-with-kids track, others are... English literature."
These sentences make you feel like saying "what the heck, Iran? What are you doing?", which, I assume, is probably the article's whole point.
I think you chose an excellent article to capture voice! (Your voice is also very distinct in the explanations.)For the details section, although that quotes gives a brief summary of the Iranian woman's history, how does that specific section enhance the voice of the article.
ReplyDeleteYour specific examples in the diction section really help back-up your point.
This is a nit-picky observation (I'm really grasping at straws here), but when explaining the article you said something along the lines of
"This kind of shows the reader.." 'Kind of' gives your opinion a wishy-washy feel & might make the reader doubt your point. You are correct! As Ms. Holmes says, "Dare greatly and fail boldly!" Not that you're failing, but...be bold!
General question: does anyone know if the close readings are supposed to be in essay or list format?
I must say, I really enjoy the title of your blog post! :D
ReplyDeleteYour examples of diction are great, and clearly shows how the individual words add to the overall voice.
I agree with Miriam in that i'm not sure how the passage for detail given adds to the voice of the article.
As for the language section, I feel like the passage given fits diction better (which you did mention in your diction section), since language refers to figurative language.
But still a good..essay? I also wonder if it's supposed to be an essay or a list...
Though I'm not sure this was supposed to a list, I really liked the format. I was never confused as to which technique you were talking about--it was clear and concise. I found it interesting that you didn't say a whole lot about the swearing in your section on diction (that's not to say you're wrong, though). I thought the author's frequent use of um...colorful...language gave the piece a rather offended feel, as opposed to the confusion you mentioned.
ReplyDelete