An Analysis of the Techniques Used by Michael Kimmel in his essay, “A War against Boys” to Critique Gerry Garibaldi’s “How the Schools Shortchange Boys”
(Student’s Full Name)
An Analysis of the Techniques Used by Michael Kimmel in his essay, “A War against Boys” to Critique Gerry Garibaldi’s “How the Schools Shortchange Boys”
According to the text, “They Say/ I Say” : The Moves that Matter in Academic Writing, the techniques which can be used to anticipate the objections of skeptics to my writing include using general terms to name to refer to critics such as “many” “skeptics” or “readers” as illustrated by the following example: “Yet some readers may challenge my view on the decriminalization of ganja by indicating that it might cause or worsen mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia.”
Another technique which can be used by indicating possible objections of named groups of opponents to your position. This is highlighted by the following example: However, followers of the philosophy espoused by Malcolm X may contend that violence is necessary and in securing one’s fundamental rights. Nevertheless, in order to “minimize the problem of stereotyping” it is advised to “refine and qualify” the use of labels (Graff & Birkenstein, 2014, p. 84). This is exemplified by the following: Although fundamentalist Christians believe in portraying Jesus as a symbol of worship and admiration, New Thought Christians tend to advocate the believe that Jesus was merely a Way-Shower instead someone who is to be worshipped.
Questions can also be used to introduce objections from critics, such as the following: “But is my proposal realistic? What are the chances of its actually being adopted?” (Graff & Borkenstein, 2014, p. 84). In addition, I also have the option of allowing my critics to speak directly, as indicated by the following: “‘Impossible,’ some will say. ‘You must be reading the research selectively’” (Graff & Birkenstein, 2014, p. 85).
Techniques which Can Be Used to Persuade an Audience to Care about a Topic or Central Argument
According to the writers Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein, it would be best to name specific persons or groups who do have a vested interested in your claims (2014, p. 95). This is illustrated by the following example: Researchers have long assumed that coconut oil was unhealthy and could potentially increase the risk of having high blood pressure.
Another technique is to refute “earlier thinking” as it pertains to a particular issue, such as depicted by the following: This interpretation challenges the work of those critics who have believed that coconut oil is mainly unhealthy and should not be consumed frequently (Graff & Birkenstein, 2014, p. 95).
Additionally, a writer could also indicate the specific group or individuals who should care about his claim, such as those indicated by the following: At first glance, teenagers might say a good education is not necessary to become successful in life. But on closer inspection, teenagers are now accepting the importance of applying themselves academically (Graff & Birkenstein, 2014, p. 96).
Furthermore, a persuasive writer will attempt to connect an interested group to “some larger matter that readers already deem important” (Graff & Birkenstein, 2014, p. 97). This is depicted clearly by the following example: Although neurocriminology may seem of concern to only a small group of experts, it should in fact concern anyone who cares about crime prevention and reduction (Graff & Birkensteain, 2014, p. 99).
How Michael Kimmel Argues His Point in His Essay
Michael Kimmel mainly argues his point by answering the objections of his point of view expressed in the essay, “A War against Boys?”. He quotes the statistics of Tom Mortenson, for instance, and show his fallacies in his assumption which indicate that the “‘graduation line in 2068 will be all females’” (Kimmel, 2011, p. 447). In addition to statistics, he uses an anecdote which describes how Doug Anglin intends to sue “his school district for sex discrimination” (Kimmel, 2011, p. 447). Furthermore, the writer uses emotional appeals in his essay to argue his position. This depicted when Kimmel asserts that rather than “shrugging our collective shoulders in resignation and saying ‘boys will be boys’” is setting the standard too low for boys (Kimmel, 2011, p. 452). He contends that boys can do much better, “[t]hey can be men” (Kimmel, 2011, p. 452).
Kimmel also uses questions within his essay to anticipate the objections of the critics of his stance, such as the following: “If boys are doing worse, whose fault is it? To many of the current critics, it’s women’s fault, either as feminists, as mothers, or as both” (Kimmel, 2011, p. 448). He then opposes this viewpoint by indicating that this thinking espoused by his critics “creates a false opposition between girls and boys” (Kimmel, 2011, p. 449). The writer uses statistics to refute the claims of his critics, such as Garibaldi, who appear to argue that there is a gender imbalance at all college and universities, as he attempts to point out that males outnumber females at Ivy League colleges and universities (Kimmel, 2011, p. 449).
References
Graff, G., & Birkenstein, C. (2014). They say/ I say : the moves that matter in academic writing (Third ed.). New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
