Feminist Rhetorical Practices Part I and II

Opening the book, I assumed I knew very little about the subject. I was pleasantly surprised to recognize a few names and theories. Starting my second year, I feel as if I’m finally beginning to get to know the characters in the story, the researchers in the field. I recognized the research methods and the difference between method and methodology described by Nickoson and Sheridan. From Composition pedagogy, some of the references to teaching methods and feminist pedagogy were familiar. Public Rhetoric and Digital Activism introduced me to the concept, and importance, of counterpublics.

While I recognized these ideas, there is much I still anticipate understanding on a deeper level. I learned that there is a vibrant realm of study that involves much more than the name “feminist rhetoric” implies. Yet, feminist rhetoric does importantly relate to women and empowering the voices that have not been heard. The four terms of engagement (especially critical imagination) were particularly fascinating. I’ve long believed “that stories matter, so to see it confirmed in an academic setting through direct statements but also through application and written proof was both affirming and hopeful (Royster and Kirsch 3). (While it doesn’t necessarily relate to the other themes of this short paper, I also loved learning about the needlework project and unwritten rhetoric (Royster and Kirsch 61).)

All that said, I’m only in my second year, still new to all of this—I found myself wishing I had a broader visual on the very basic emergence of the terms. Maybe I need to read the introduction and first chapter again, but I feel as if I’ve dived into the deep end. I haven’t waded through years of misunderstanding to see this perspective become necessary and important. My graduate experience has included the questions that are introduced; my professors have equally and abundantly treated all voices with respect. The framework and foundation for the emergence of these concepts is fuzzy. Though the implications that end each chapter seem important, they leave me wanting more because I’m not sure I understand how (beyond the obvious) exactly this all should be used in my research and path.

As for seminar projects, the ideas about the public domain of the Internet that changes the research and roles fascinates me (Royster and Kirsch 24, 58, 65). As the writing of the everyday shifts (texts, grocery list apps, snapchats), how does the rhetoric shift? Do females use social media differently from males, and does this matter (67)?