Argumentative Essay On Australian Women

The recent issue of Australian women being allowed into front-line combat has generated community debate. Those who are in favour argue that it’s their choice and if they want to they should do it. Those opposed contend that it is too dangerous for them, and will cause combat to more dangerous for the men. The issue has sparked serious debate within the media, who proffer various opinions on the subject.

In an incensed yet condemnatory manner, Greg Sheridan, in a Newspaper Editorial for ‘The Australian’ titled “Women have no place in combat” (29/09/2011) contends that Women are too weak both physically and morally to be of any adequate use in combat roles for the ADF. This piece appeals to its target audience of a male dominated society,
The way he has done, sort of makes me feel like breaking his nose, dislocating his fingers one by one and bashing his head in with a brick.~)

Conversely, in an exasperated manner with a blatant and sustained bias, Esmeralda Huckleberry in a letter to the editor of the ‘Herald Sun’ entitled “Who really cares?” (21/10/2011) contends that the “decision to allow women to assume combat roles in the ADF” was a good one. This piece appeals to its target audience of women’s rights activists and women in the ADF who feel underprivileged, through its biased yet ill informed presentation and style. The primary tone, constructed through Repetitive language and rhetoric, is that of exasperated joy.

These appeals augment persuasive techniques used, which seek to persuade the reader to endorse Ms. Esmeralda’s contention, namely that If women fulfil the requirements to assume combat roles then they should be allowed to do so. Esmeralda uses a lot of repetition in her exasperation: “If girls meet the standards (physical, mental, aptitude, etc), and understand all the job entails (including the risks) then go for it!”, “If the meet the requirements, let them do it” and “as long as the females meet the physical and mental requirements to fulfil these combat roles, then there should be no problem.” to persuade the reader of her contention that women meeting the required
The cartoon seeks to persuade the reader by using exaggeration and irony. Consequently, the reader is left with a sense of sorrow and disgust at the ‘unnecessary’ death of a man and woman on the battlefield. This sense of sorrow and disgust accentuates the tone of the piece, namely ‘unnecessary death’. This is because the sight of Julia Gillard and Stephen Smith running in with a stretcher to ‘save’ the dead/wounded soldiers evokes distressing feelings in the reader and as such, the cartoon positions the reader to endorse Greg Sheridan’s contention, because it put the reader into a frame of mind that will more readily accept an argument that is against women assuming combat roles in the