These readings clearly called for revolutionary change and Grimke and Willard were up against a firmly established social order. I thought it was interesting that Grimke’s argument continually referred to another interpretation of the biblical texts. I feel like I take it for granted that today we understand there can be multiple interpretations of one text, so it was a very bold move for her to present a view of the Bible, in her time, without the Patriarchal lens. I agree with one of my fellow classmates when she said Grimke couldn’t have appealed to her audiences emotions – she had to utilize the most powerful source of wisdom, the Bible. I felt it was a strong argument to show how certain translations of words could change the entire meaning of a passage. She structured her argument as if she was presenting a case in court – using phrases such as “I shall now examine” and “because it was expressly stated”, and I thought this benefited her case because she demonstrated a logical argument in the language that men in her time would expect to hear in a court of law.
In the same way, Willard understands the importance of persuasive language for furthering their cause and explicitly details a means to address an audience. Throughout her writing I saw continual call to utilize Pathos and Ethos when addressing the potential members. Her entire argument was logically based as well. There were certain lines that stood out to me, such as when she is discussing preparation, she says “We want no scattering fire in our public utterances, but the sober second thought of your brightest and most studious hours” (1137). I felt this illustrated that she believes all are capable of persuasion so long as one prepares. I also enjoyed the example she used to illustrate the importance of picking your team, when she said “You are trying to launch a life-boat, but if the captain be near-sighted and the mate a blunderer, your craft will swamp before it gets beyond the breakers” (1139).
I thought Flynn’s pedagogical approach appealed to Patricia Bizzell’s concept of Contact Zones, only here she focused on gender borders rather than cultural. I feel that men and women do think differently, not to say that one is better than the other, but that we are different – but I think that’s a good thing. I felt that Flynn illustrated this very well. I thought her approach in presenting these gender issues seemed to get the students to really consider the matter. As will cultural differences, I think it is a good thing to expose students to a variety of works by women to gain a better literary perspective. The more exposure one has to different views the better their understanding will be, because the more angles you can examine something the better you will come to know it.