Hey guys,
Could someone please mark my L.A and give it a mark out of 10?
The differing interpretations on whether one assault is too many or not to elicit action, drives much of the debate on the issue of sexual harassment experienced by women on trains. An opinion piece, ‘Is one too many?’, published by Olivia Oakley, anxiously and pleadingly contends that ‘women only carriages’ need to be introduced in the ‘Victorian rail network’, as females ‘want to feel safe’ and also questions how ‘much harassment and violence is too much’ before something is done. Conversely, a comment published by Dan in response to the article, boldly argues that ‘women-only train carriages’ will not solve the issues, but only ‘magnify’ ‘fear’ and ‘mistrust’ and that women should feel safe ‘if men are, as [Olivia] say[‘s], gentle, kind’, yet calmly asserts that if men’s legs ‘inadvertently’ get in the way, just ask them to be moved and men will ‘oblige.’
The title of Oakley’s opinion piece, ‘Is one too many?’ seeks to bring about the audience’s attention to the number of women being ‘sexual assault[ed]’ on ‘public transport.’ Indeed, Oakley attempts to indirectly question the morale of readers by asking how much ‘harassment’ and ‘violence’ is ‘too much’ before action should be taken and forcefully states that the ‘right answer’ is ‘one.’ Here, Oakley targets the sympathy of readers and aims to make them feel uneasy and that they have their ‘head-in-the-sand’ if they think that the correct answer is more then one. Such a notion seeks to define the opinions of audience members as out-dated and therefore, Oakley aggressively asserts that such opinions are a result of being unaware of the ‘appallingly high’ and ‘rising numbers’ of ‘assault’ on ‘public transport.’
Analysing the issue of the ‘high’ number of ‘assaults’ in a more collaborative approach, Dan assuredly claims that if most men are perceived as ‘considerate law abiding people’ then they should be present in trains to ‘make it safe’ for women. Through the juxtaposition of the titles ‘Safety in Numbers’ and ‘Is one too many?’ Dan attempts to accentuate that ‘violence’ against women in train’s can only be fixed together and through a greater number of people, and thus increasing the safety for both; men and women. Moreover, Dan critiques Oakley’s motto: ‘fear everything’ and attempts to illustrate to the audience that such a notion brings about negative connotations of ‘mistrust’ and ‘uncivilized misogyny’ and consequently, attempts to redefine the issue of a supposed ‘gender war’ into a terrible experience that can only be stopped by trusting one another. In contrast, Oakley boldly and vividly alleges that she has ‘never felt 100% safe on public transport’ and thus paints a picture to readers of the ‘threat’ and ‘uncomfortable’ feeling associated with being in a train with a man, in an attempt to both shock readers into the reality of train rides and also target male readers, underlining that their presence is received as dangerous even if their intention is positive.
Casting violence in a more general light, Oakley boldly argues that ‘direct violence is not the only problem’ and hence, indicates to readers that there is a ‘whole range of forms’ of ‘intimidation’ experienced by women on public transport. By noting that the ‘thoughtless manspread’ infers ‘dominance’ and is a threat to women, Oakley evidences the lack of empathy of displayed by men and as such, underlines to the audience that every train ride is a stressful and ominous situation. Furthermore, Oakley evocatively illustrates the ‘firing line’ women are placed in whenever they step foot into a train by projecting an alarming image to readers about ‘unwarranted and uncivilized misogyny missiles’ that essentially ‘terminate’ a woman’s psychological construct. However, Dan eagerly puts forward the idea that if ‘legs get in the way’, men would ‘happily oblige’ to move them as a means of counteracting Oakley’s excessively inaccurate depiction of the threat posed by legs, and therefore increasingly denying the reality of a war, let alone a ‘gender war’ to the audience. Thus, Dan’s rational nature contrasts with the immaturity of Oakley and therefore demonstrates her ‘magnif[ication]’ of the issue to the audience.
Oakley further aims to fortify her stance on the need for ‘women-only carriages’ through the juxtaposition of the two images. The first image depicts a woman standing next to a man, who has a red blocked sign in front of him. Also, the phrase ‘women only’ printed in black capital letters is included in the image, Such a depiction attempts to emphasise to the audience the ‘direct violence’ posed by men, which is a serous ‘threat’ to females and is the source of their inclination to ‘never feel 100% safe’ on trains. Moreover, the image also attempts to justify Oakley’s request for ‘woman-only carriages’ by linking it with the statistics of the second image, which reveals an increase in assault figures and hence, reaffirming Oakley’s vision. Additionally, the second image is a table that summaries the changes in ‘offences occurring in public transport locations’ between 2009 and 2014. The offence of assault portrays an increase in occurrence by 8 precent. By exhibiting such a discrepancy in the rate of assault over a five-year period, Oakley strives to warn readers about the severity of the ‘threat’ posed by men and elucidates the need for increased attention and awareness surrounding the issue of ‘sexual assaults’ on ‘public transport.’
Thanks guys
Home
Help
Search
Login
