Rhetorical Analysis

We Will Never Stop

Belief in social, political and economic equality of the sexes.   A lot of people do not know what this definition is.  It is feminism.  When most people think of feminism, they think that it is a woman who hates men… and this isn’t the case.  Crystal Eastman a socialist feminist in the 1920’s tried to make her point and the points of other women known by simply writing and then speaking about what they needed to change in their society.  How can we change the way men perceive us and show us with respect just like the human beings we are?  Crystal Eastman, probably one of the few women who wanted this to change and was trying to make a point on why we need to change how women were treated.  Crystal Eastman isn’t a common name, and a lot of people don’t know of her, but her speech is a well-received one, and I think she gets her point out today.  Since this essay was written n the 1920’s I don’t think it was as accepted as it is today.  But today as I read this speech I think that if it wasn’t for her and her strong will, as well with other women, we wouldn’t be here today even if it had little or no effect in the 20’s.  Eastman appealed to females, if she did appeal to them, they would probably go un-noticed because, women had little or no say in the matter.  She uses inductive language, by simply stating what needs to be done and later on tells us how we can change it.  Eastman was there when un-equal rights for women was going on, so it gives her a lot of creditability, as well as putting emotion into it, whether if it was bashing men, or simply stating that men don’t treat their wives equally.  And depend on them to do the housework, with no gratitude in return.

            Crystal Eastman’s speech is towards women, to get women and possibly even men, to realize how it was in the 20’s and what women had to go through to get respect.  But it is a possibility that the women of today, realize what other strong women had to go through to get to where we are today. Crystal Eastman is a strong willed person; she wants people to know what she and others had to go through.  She has a lot of credibility because she was there and saw it and possibly even experienced it herself, she lived that life in that era.  Why would someone write something that isn’t supposed to effect people and the way the American society has changed?  Her reasoning is clear, maybe not acceptable back then, but today.  It is almost common sense that women get more creditability in the things they do, even if they are a homemaker, they get credit for it.

            Eastman describes certain instances in her speech to specify inductive examples… by stating what the problem is or what is actually going on and then giving us a way we could change it, or make it better.  If it is “making” a feminist son, to women getting higher education and men doing some housework.  “It was his mother's fault in the beginning, but even as a boy he was quick to see how a general reputation for being "no good around the house" would serve him throughout life, and half-consciously he began to cultivate that helplessness until today it is the despair of feminist wives.”  She gives us examples on how we can change the common man I suppose, by making sure our sons are not raised to go to work and expect their wives to do all the house work. In a way it is the mothers fault.  For example if the son wants to help her clean she would say no possibly and tell him to go play with his toys.  But it would also be the father’s fault because of the way his actions were seen when he would come home from work She tells us what the problem was and how it affects us, and what we could do to change it as well as how the outcome will come out if we succeed in doing so.  His wife would be right there with a martini and dinner on the table.  The man of the household would not have to do anything but go to work to earn the money for his dinner that his wife made for their family.  Our sons see this and they think that their only responsibility is to go to work, and not do anything but relax and be waited on. 

            Eastman uses a lot of descriptions of what life was like in the 20’s that appeals emotionally to women and possibly men.  She states that two women could live together not in a homosexual way, but both take responsibility of the house keeping in addition to outside work.  It is a “fun” environment when two women live together.  But with a man and woman it is never fun and it is never a “team effort”.  She stays home and is expected to do anything and everything to make their home enchanting.

            Eastman was there at the time and experienced it first hand it gives her a lot of logical credibility to speak about this.  If she were just doing research about how it was in the 20’s she would just merely have facts.  Yes they could possibly be correct, but since she was there at a time when women were not treated as human beings it gives her more of a reason to say these things and be respected for it in today’s modern society.  There were not that many women out there who would actually speak up about this subject because of the fear of losing more respect if she has any at all, and the possible consequences that wait for her at her home.

Since she did experience it, I think the listeners back then could relate to her, on more than one level.  She isn’t saying that men are evil; she is just stating that women have been waiting a long time to finally have somewhat of equal rights.  But it wasn’t until later that this became more effective.  If it wasn’t for feminist women today, we might still be little housewives that do nothing but housework.

            With this speech, she wants people to realize how much better their country would be if everyone were treated equal.  Those women have as much right as men do.  Eastman had good intent, and if she had not of spoken up and made a big deal about this, there is a possibility that women’s right would have never happened.  Even if these types of speeches weren’t acceptable back then, without it the country would still be living unsophisticated about the equality of women and men. 

            “Now We Can Begin”, is a speech that might not be viewed as exactly true, and people don’t get that this happened, that women were not really respected for the work they did.  People have ignorance and therefore they do not realize the torture women had to go through.  Starting off as a little girl, they look at what their mother did, even if it was playing with a little fake kitchen set, they still played with it.  She made their imaginary husbands dinner, and took care of the kids, but where was her education?  Is her education merely to know how to cook, sew, clean, etc.?  The only education she had to know was how to do house work, and she learned that from her mother… wanting to be just like her. 

            This speech had good success, probably more now then in the 20’s, because it gives us a view of how things were “supposed to be”.  It tells us that maybe it is us, women’s fault for… “Training” their sons to be like this, by not letting them help with certain house hold chores.  This article gives us a glimpse at what Crystal Eastman was like, she stood up for herself and other women who felt like they couldn’t, she opened her mouth about this subject and got it known.   I believe that this speech might have some huge stereotypes… at least at this day and age, but I think it is so well put you actually have to think about it.  I think that this is all true but she does use some stereotypes, but she uses them correctly to simply state a point she is trying to make.  The speech is straightforward, that doesn’t seem to have any misconceptions about what she is actually saying; you know what she is saying, because she is very blunt and open with it.  I think that Eastman does something that no one would have expected especially in that era, because she states how it is and why we need to change and even how to change it.   I had to read her speech at least three or four times, and write notes all over the place, but I think that maybe I got a bit of understanding into it, and I know that Eastman had good intentions and I think that I have clearly stated them.  Her article isn’t to bash men in general; her article is stating that we (women) needed.  To be deserved with more respect than we actually got.