Buchanan,+Linda.++Regendering+Delivery

Chapter 3: Performing Gender and Rhetoric

This chapter lays out the essentials of Masculine and Feminine rhetorical styles of the 19th century, citing several examples of each, and recommends that rhetorical history equally consider rhetors from both styles, not only those utilizing a masculine style. This equal acknowledgment would be “an important step toward regendering the fifth canon, requiring scholars to acknowledge the innovative strategies of disenfranchised speakers and to redefine what counts as delivery” (80). Feminine delivery style, “a ladylike form of rhetorical subversion” (90): Used traditional gender guidelines in quietly subversive ways in order to help the needy and increase educational rights for women. Rather than speaking in public places, directly, about political matters, and/or to mixed company, feminine style rhetors used sort of parlor tricks to get around those “sins” while still conveying their message to the public. They would discuss political matters via the domestic sphere – both ideologically and spatially. Ideologically by claiming that political matters were within the domestic sphere (republican motherhood means that a child’s school district is included in a women’s sphere); spatially by conversing with senators in small groups within the home. They would get husbands or male family members to introduce them to senators who they would have private conversations with if in public spaces. If they needed a more public and direct venue (i.e. formal lecture), they would have a “surrogate delivery” where a male family member would give the speech while the woman sat silently on stage. Other feminine strategies included reading a written text instead of reciting and sitting instead of standing to lessen physical size and eye contact. Examples included: Emma Willard who “labored to expand women’s educational and professional opportunities” (80-81); Dorothea Dix who “traveled the state documenting the plight of the mentally ill and [arguing against] their inhumane treatment” (88); and Catherine Beecher who “conducted lecture tours throughout the East, soliciting funds to train and settle women teachers on the western frontier” (97). Masculine Style: Direct oratory, speaking on political issues, to mixed audiences, in public spaces. Example: The Grimke sisters. Though they did not begin by trying to challenge men’s and women’s speaking roles, their popularity encouraged them to take to lecture halls for women audiences, and men began to attend, refusing to leave even when asked. The Grimke sisters thereafter pushed for women’s rights to speak, regardless of audience or “sphere.” Contrast: Feminine styles were more accepted during the time period, but in historical perspective we honor the masculine style as rhetoric (often ignoring the feminine style completely or dismissing as other than oratory because the women didn’t deliver public speeches). Also, note how the content that each example women was discussing. None of the “feminine” style women here were fighting for abolition – do you think that the arguments about civil rights in abolition rhetoric lent itself to a more masculine approach? In the end, how useful are “appropriating cultural codes” (83) as the women did with feminine rhetoric? Further thoughts and questions: Do we achieve more by this sort of consenting or by complete rebellion? Where the Grimke sisters only able to defy gender in speaking because they were so popular already? Do we need to work up to rebellion? Like Reva mentioned before, when you’re a part of the inner clique, you can kind of choose what you want to do instead of jumping through all the hoops. There was a lot of talk about spaces in this article that reminded me of how we discussed the importance of space in the Hush Harbor article. Specifically when it mentioned how the change of space influenced the way people saw the Grimke sister’s oratory – a household = talks, but the same material in a hall = lecture (95). How does space change our views of rhetoric? How much does publicity really matter? We questioned a few weeks ago with Bacon whether reception mattered more than intent; does content matter or delivery style/medium/space? The section on Willard provides a great example of performance = argument. Simply by her physical presence at parties could Willard make an argument that an educated woman would not try to defy her gender-sanctioned roles (84). My two favorite/interesting tidbits (that I’d love to hear comments about): “Finally, reading allowed Willard to keep her eyes on the page, making her the object of the legislators’ gaze rather than the gazer herself” (85) “When antebellum women spoke for persuasive purposes in spaces gendered as masculine, they defied dominant gender ideals //mandating their public silence//, a rhetoric constraint that posed serious obstacles to their effectiveness (78, my emphasis).