Solnit's Argumentative Analysis

As we have discussed before, both violence and oppression manifest in various forms, however the idea of language-based violence is still novel to mainstream society. As the readings this week illustrated, language based violence and physical violence occasionally share a common root in gender-based oppression. Both Solnit and Anzaldúa write specifically about how "language is a male discourse" (Anzaldúa: 78) and how this discourse creates a knowledge among women that "this is not their world" (Solnit 2008). hooks states that the oppression created by structured languages and spaces as intertwined. She argues that activist must make the margin a site of resistance instead of a space of disadvantage, just as we must learn to accept the oppressor’s language as a tool for creating internal revolutions (hooks: 2009, 2004). Finally, Wright connects all three, space, language and gender in her analysis of the Nercopolitics and Femicide in Ciudad Juárez. Wright demonstrates how patriarchal language, such as the term "public women" when coupled with
While at first glance I felt that the article by Solnit and Wright were not connected they became ever more interested when I realized just how deeply associated they were in reality. The Solnit piece is one of my favorite pieces of writing because she clearly and eloquently explains situations I never knew how to describe. I also think she is touching upon one of the foundational elements that leads to the types of oppression the other authors explained. My favorite line in Solnit's piece is "Most women fight wars on two fronts, one for whatever the putative topic is and one simply for the right to speak, to have ideas, to be acknowledged to be in possession of facts and truths, to have value, to be a human being", because it concisely explains her larger argument and many situations I have personally