Close Reading #2

The G.O.P.'s Feminine Mystique

By: Samantha Bee

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/opinion/sunday/the-gops-feminine-mystique.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

*I enjoyed the picture included with the article too much that I didn't have the heart to not include it with my analysis of the article.*

This interesting opinion article was about how women in the Democratic Party seemed to look more masculine in facial features than women in the Republican Party. The study was taken by the U.C.L.A.'s Department of Psychology. The article says that "...researchers analyzed the faces of the House of Representatives in the 111th Congress based on objective measures of feminine facial structure. The faces were then rated according to gender-typical femininity, and shown to undergraduate students..." The students then had to guess which political party the faces went with, and apparently most of them were correct in their guessing. 

Figurative Language:

The figurative language that Bee uses gives off what seems to me to be an offended tone. She sounds sarcastic and a bit angry at the fact that being in one party classifies a woman as looking more like man than the women of the other party. I got the impression that she is a Democrat and was not too keen on the idea of being told that she is in a party with women that look like men. When she says "The flip side being that more liberal female politicians tend to have less feminine facial structures. As in: they’re more masculine, I guess. As in: terrific," her tone here seems more sarcastic due to her choice of putting in "terrific" instead of a word actually conveying how she feels about this. I think that this adds strength to her argument of anger at this idea because she doesn't outright say how she feels but lets her audience figure it out, making her feelings sink into the reader more. 

Imagery:

I really enjoyed the imagery she used in one part of the article, even though she used it all throughout. She uses lots of voice in the article to keep her reader's attention and to draw us in. One way with her imagery.  She refers to Michelle Bachmann in a rude manner (yet another indication of her anger at this idea), indicating   Bee's dislike of the woman. She writes that the "Michelle Bachmann Effect", which is what the researchers called this idea of Democrat women looking more masculine than Republican women, is "the tingly feeling that overtakes me when I read or hear something so profoundly ridiculous that I briefly consider living the rest of my life in monkish isolation on a mountaintop with only the cold wind for companionship." A long sentence to get through, but once you do you can see envision that perfectly in your mind's eye and can even feel the shiver down your spine as you imagine cold air rushing at you. Her great usage of voice and imagery helps give her support in her article.

Syntax:

I liked her usage of syntax in this article because it was set up how people speak. Giving off that vibe makes reading the article stick in someone's brain more because they feel like they just had a conversation with someone. Sure she has the long, drawn out sentences like we saw before with her imagery of Michelle Bachmann as well as this one where she writes "It’s the type of research done after three days of being yelled at on the convention floor by people in 10-gallon hats, with only a steady diet of Coke Zero and SunChips to keep you upright." Long and drawn out, but she uses this to set up the scene. She then follows this with a two word sentence to create emphasis on her main idea: "You’re punchy," describing one feels after the image she gave us above. With this structure throughout the article, it makes it easier to read as well as more enjoyable and sticks in your brain longer.