Language Analysis - Gender Equality Article

[Monkeymafia]

Hey,

I was wondering if anyone was able to provide some feedback for an LA essay I have written. If you are able to give me a score out of 10 that would be awesome!

Article: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/susie-obrien/susie-obrien-on-workplace-equality-we-all-benefit-if-women-are-given-a-fair-go/news-story/895a1fe0f2956ee38e3d49acd992de80

Essay: In response to the recent issue of gender inequality in Australia, an opinion piece was written by Susan O'Brien on August 22nd 2016, entitled: "We all benefit if women are given a fair go". Published on the Herald Sun Online, O'Brien uses a critical tone when targeting the government. The visual portrays a scale, with a female and male on either side. The author aims to appeal to our sense of authority and equality,  where we must give women and men equal respect, demonstrating we are equal on the spectrum.

Using a scathing tone, O'Brien uses clear and blatant examples of condemnation towards male-orientated funding, attacking the government in the process. The author opens her opinion piece by attacking the state government, for their lack of funding towards female-based activities. O'Brien scathingly states how "[t]he government spends billions and it's only reasonable that it asks companies… to make things fairer for women." This attack appeals to our sense of authority, positioning readers to condemn the ideas and viewpoints of the government, so we can make affairs fair for women, through use of large quantities of monetary value. The author continues to disapprove of the "huge gap in the pay, representation and participation of women" in various sports. The use of the word "huge" has connotations of unfairness and inequality, evoking feelings of empathy  within readers; believing it is irrefutable that there is this major gap. O'Brien adds to the condemnation of sport bodies that pay men sports advantageously to female sports. The evidentiary support that "the women's rugby sevens team… [earning] about $55,000 compared with the men's team's earning $99,000 each. This adds to the credibility of the writer, having readers understand that it is indisputable to have different salaries between males and females because of gender.

Throughout the opinion piece, the author embraces certain proposed strategies and individuals. The author wants us to embrace the Gender Equality Strategy, one "of the strategies more controversial aspects of encouraging sporting bodies to pay men and women equally". The strategy aims to provoke readers into approving of it as it will provide a "fair go" for women; the appeal to equality positions readers to empathise with the strategy, which will provide salaries for the same job. The author continues to approve of Fiona Richardson, Minister for Women. Her credibility of being an expert and wanting a "gender lens applied to state government decision-making, funding and employment", positions readers to sympathise with her viewpoints and attitude of wanting this issue resolved. Furthermore, the author continues to emotively state how "women continue to earn 14 percent less for doing the same job as their male peers." The fact that women earn "14 percent less", arouses  empathy in the reader, positioning them to feel sorry for the women who work hard everyday and do not earn the same as males.

The author encourages the government to provide a "fair go" for women and men in all aspects of society. The author uses a scare tactic, that "it will take us 177 years to reach gender equality in the workplace." The use of the long period of "177 years" places fear in the reader's mind that the case is irrefutable and something must be done to resolve this issue. Additionally, the author encourages readers to take her stance, by promoting a list of possible factors including: "more leadership courses, training and networking for women." The fact that the author wants equality amongst genders, evokes sympathy in the reader's mind to agree with O'Brien's points.

O'Brien ends her piece in a rhetorical tone, asking readers to consider whether it is time for males and females to be given "a fair go." Using a combination of attacks, emotive language, rhetorical questioning and appeals to sympathy, in conjunction with appeals to fear and tonal changes, the author is likely to leave a message that we must end the ideology that males and females are not equal.
 
Would you have any tips for how I can improve structuring my intended effect on reader - I am really struggling with this?

Thanks!

[zhen]

Hey,

I was wondering if anyone was able to provide some feedback for an LA essay I have written. If you are able to give me a score out of 10 that would be awesome!

Article: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/susie-obrien/susie-obrien-on-workplace-equality-we-all-benefit-if-women-are-given-a-fair-go/news-story/895a1fe0f2956ee38e3d49acd992de80

Essay: In response to the recent issue of gender inequality in Australia, an opinion piece was written by Susan O'Brien on August 22nd 2016, entitled: "We all benefit if women are given a fair go". Published on the Herald Sun Online, O'Brien uses a critical tone when targeting the government. The visual portrays a scale, with a female and male on either side. The author aims to appeal to our sense of authority and equality,  where we must give women and men equal respect, demonstrating we are equal on the spectrum.

Using a scathing tone, O'Brien uses clear and blatant examples of condemnation towards male-orientated funding, attacking the government in the process. The author opens her opinion piece by attacking the state government, for their lack of funding towards female-based activities. O'Brien scathingly states how "[t]he government spends billions and it's only reasonable that it asks companies… to make things fairer for women." This attack appeals to our sense of authority, positioning readers to condemn the ideas and viewpoints of the government, so we can make affairs fair for women, through use of large quantities of monetary value. The author continues to disapprove of the "huge gap in the pay, representation and participation of women" in various sports. The use of the word "huge" has connotations of unfairness and inequality, evoking feelings of empathy  within readers; believing it is irrefutable that there is this major gap. O'Brien adds to the condemnation of sport bodies that pay men sports advantageously to female sports. The evidentiary support that "the women's rugby sevens team… [earning] about $55,000 compared with the men's team's earning $99,000 each. This adds to the credibility of the writer, having readers understand that it is indisputable to have different salaries between males and females because of gender.

Throughout the opinion piece, the author embraces certain proposed strategies and individuals. The author wants us to embrace the Gender Equality Strategy, one "of the strategies more controversial aspects of encouraging sporting bodies to pay men and women equally". The strategy aims to provoke readers into approving of it as it will provide a "fair go" for women; the appeal to equality positions readers to empathise with the strategy, which will provide salaries for the same job. The author continues to approve of Fiona Richardson, Minister for Women. Her credibility of being an expert and wanting a "gender lens applied to state government decision-making, funding and employment", positions readers to sympathise with her viewpoints and attitude of wanting this issue resolved. Furthermore, the author continues to emotively state how "women continue to earn 14 percent less for doing the same job as their male peers." The fact that women earn "14 percent less", arouses  empathy in the reader, positioning them to feel sorry for the women who work hard everyday and do not earn the same as males.

The author encourages the government to provide a "fair go" for women and men in all aspects of society. The author uses a scare tactic, that "it will take us 177 years to reach gender equality in the workplace." The use of the long period of "177 years" places fear in the reader's mind that the case is irrefutable and something must be done to resolve this issue. Additionally, the author encourages readers to take her stance, by promoting a list of possible factors including: "more leadership courses, training and networking for women." The fact that the author wants equality amongst genders, evokes sympathy in the reader's mind to agree with O'Brien's points.

O'Brien ends her piece in a rhetorical tone, asking readers to consider whether it is time for males and females to be given "a fair go." Using a combination of attacks, emotive language, rhetorical questioning and appeals to sympathy, in conjunction with appeals to fear and tonal changes, the author is likely to leave a message that we must end the ideology that males and females are not equal.
 
Would you have any tips for how I can improve structuring my intended effect on reader - I am really struggling with this?

Thanks!

Take my advice with a grain of salt, since I'm going to be in year 12 this year and like everyone else, I'm probably completely clueless on how to approach language analysis.

First of all, I don't think you have analysed the visual at all throughout your paragraphs. You've mentioned it in your introduction, but you haven't mentioned it anywhere else. Also, I feel that your analysis of each quote doesn't have enough depth, as you only provide a one sentence explanation to each quote. I think to analyse more you need to ask yourself questions like how does this make the audience feel? What was the intended effect? Why did the author use this type of language? How does this strengthen the author's argument? Finally, the other significant thing is that your conclusion just seems to list the techniques used, which I think doesn't really help your essay at all.

[helloeveryone]

Got a bit lazy so I just marked the intro and a body paragraph (soz ).

[Monkeymafia]

Take my advice with a grain of salt, since I'm going to be in year 12 this year and like everyone else, I'm probably completely clueless on how to approach language analysis.

First of all, I don't think you have analysed the visual at all throughout your paragraphs. You've mentioned it in your introduction, but you haven't mentioned it anywhere else. Also, I feel that your analysis of each quote doesn't have enough depth, as you only provide a one sentence explanation to each quote. I think to analyse more you need to ask yourself questions like how does this make the audience feel? What was the intended effect? Why did the author use this type of language? How does this strengthen the author's argument? Finally, the other significant thing is that your conclusion just seems to list the techniques used, which I think doesn't really help your essay at all.

Thanks so much!

[Monkeymafia]

Take my advice with a grain of salt, since I'm going to be in year 12 this year and like everyone else, I'm probably completely clueless on how to approach language analysis.

First of all, I don't think you have analysed the visual at all throughout your paragraphs. You've mentioned it in your introduction, but you haven't mentioned it anywhere else. Also, I feel that your analysis of each quote doesn't have enough depth, as you only provide a one sentence explanation to each quote. I think to analyse more you need to ask yourself questions like how does this make the audience feel? What was the intended effect? Why did the author use this type of language? How does this strengthen the author's argument? Finally, the other significant thing is that your conclusion just seems to list the techniques used, which I think doesn't really help your essay at all.

Thanks so much!