We, The Women

This chick knew how to throw some shade!

I seriously love Susan B. Anthony. Girl, you are my hero.
As I was reading through her speech given on a tour to various cities following her arrest for voting in a presidential election, I couldn't help but feel like cheering her on. And a lot of it has to do with her A1 writing. Here's why:

She utilizes ethos, logos, and pathos like a boss. As Anthony goes throughout her speech she appeals to ethos, logos, and pathos in a chiasmic style.

• First, gives the details of her arrest. It sounds absurd and--considering the social expectation of the time for a woman to be well-behaved--hearing of a woman being arrested has a sense of sensationalism that grabs your attention. Good. You're listening.
•  Second, she goes straight into quoting the Preamble of the Constitution. By tying her argument early on to a widely accepted and credible source, she establishes a sense of ethos. She's already got your attention, now you know continuing to listen to her is worth it.
• Next, she establishes the logic of her argument. It's not "we, the white male citizens," it's "we, the people." She makes her point pretty clear, from the beginning of the constitution, women were covered by its protection.
• She continues on using heavy legal terminology. Good, sounds like she knows what she is talking about. +1 for ethos.
• She concludes by tying in the plight of the women for enfranchisement to the plight of the American revolutionaries. Repetition of the word "oligarchy" evoke a sense of oppression in the American psyche that draws sympathy in support of women's rights. We're right back where we started--a good punch in the pathos.

She also aims her speech perfectly at her audience. It isn't polarizing like Elizabeth Cady Stanton's speech given at the Washington Convention. It is open and non-demonizing. Here is a speech that can appeal to a wide variety of opinions and draw in those who may be sitting on the fence.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton's speech, I was less than a fan of. It seemed heavy on the man-hating. Too caustic for my taste. It's played heavy on stereotypes that in many ways seem to pigeonhole women and men into flat caricatures of their multi-faceted reality. Wholly not 21st century.

But that's the point. She wrote perfectly to her audience. She spoke to a group of people who already agreed with her point of view. The intense, polarizing language pulled them closer together within their own side. She didn't have to worry about gaining new adherents. She was instead focusing on unity amongst those that were already there. In the 19th century, the stereotypes of gender our society mocks were upheld and revered. By capitalizing on them, she aligns her argument with the prevailing thought of the time. And then she goes on to end with an emotional appeal of how women's suffrage could help with the protection of the sanctity of life. Considering that the Civil War had ended less than four years before, that would be a connection that hit home. I'd be surprised if few of the people in attendance hadn't lost a friend or love one to the horrors of that war. 

So whether or not their speech appealed to me specifically, you have to admit, these suffragettes new how to write.

I'd vote for them any day.