Yanes 1!

Kiara Yanes
ENGL 102
Professor Deadrick
2/29/16
Rhetorical Analysis Paper
The article Hollywoods War on Gender discusses the issue of gender equality in
Hollywood and the reality of the difference between men and women. Lorelei Branam Bennett
wrote the article for the online website politichicks.com. It is meant to address the people of
Hollywood. Bennett argues how the issue of gender equality should not be a problem in todays
Hollywood because there are bigger problems beyond this, and the issue was created by women
who really just wanted to be men. She implies that stereotypes do exist whether people want
them to or not. She also implies that the issue should not even be an issue because men and
women are not equal. Her claim is a variant of adversarial argument as she does not try to
compromise with the opposing side. The argument is put together by the beliefs and ideas of the
author. Bennetts argument is based on her own personal morals and idea of what is right and
wrong. In Hollywoods War on Gender, Bennetts use of rhetorical strategies and overall
argumentation is not effective or convincing.
The argument does not offer facts or evidence, and it consists of two logical errors.
Bennett makes hasty generalizations when she discusses the actor Ashton Kutcher, and how he
spoke on the lack of changing tables in the male public bathroom of Costco. She says, like it or
not, women are still the only sex to conceive and carry a baby. Although this may be true, men
are fathers and caregivers, and changing tables in the male restrooms are ideal. Men can help out

Yanes 2!
with their children, and it is not wrong to supply changing tables in the bathrooms. It is a
stereotype to say that women are the only ones that should have changing tables. Also, Bennett
avoids and diminishes the issue of gender as she tries to get the readers to focus on irrelevant,
distracting ideas. She does this when she brings up the issue of male babies from dairy cows
being tortured caused by veal production. By doing this, she lessens the importance of the issue
of gender inequality. The two issues are very serious problems that the world faces, but the veal
production issue is not related to the focus of the article and should not have been mentioned.
There is no appeal to logos involved which undermines the validity of Bennetts argument.
Bennetts argument does not appeal to ethos because she does not have a close
engagement with the subject. The article does not provide enough information about the authors
credibility related to the topic, and this makes her argument weak. Also, Bennett fails to
acknowledge the opposing side of her argument. The audience does not know how well she is
informed on the topic since she does not address the opposition. She does not try to recognize or
respect the opponents argument as she says, we are correct, and dont have time or inclination
to waste on sheer stupidity. She is biased towards her conservative political group and ideas,
and believes that they are better than liberals and people who think differently than her. Her bias
contributes to the ineffectiveness of her claim.
Bennetts use of rhetorical strategies in her argument are weak. She compares two ideas
that do not relate to each other. For instance, she states it is not equitable for an establishment to
solely place condom machines in their male bathrooms and tampon machines exclusively in the
womens room. Condoms are not only for men as women are able to get them, too. Also,
tampons are specifically for women because women have a different biological reproductive

Yanes 3!
system and they naturally menstruate, unlike men. The two objects do not compare which makes
this strategy invalid.
The issue of gender inequality is important to me because I strongly believe that there
should be equality between men and women. I may be bias on this issue because I am a woman,
but the article is disrespectful to women and men. However, I do believe that people are entitled
to their opinions, and close-mindedness should not be an excuse to disregard others beliefs,
principles, etc. Hollywoods War on Gender is demeaning to women, and the author is a
woman, which truly depicts how women are viewed in society, even by women themselves. The
article is stereotypical, and the author unfairly judges women. Bennett not only stereotypes
women, but men as well. She states that men should not have a womanly occupation or role
such as being a nurse or Boy Scout.
In retrospect, Bennetts use of rhetorical appeals, strategies and her argument as a whole
in the article Hollywoods War on Gender is ineffective. Her argument is ineffective because
she does not show evidence to back up her claim and has logical fallacies which weakened her
argument. Her credibility and her comparison rhetorical strategy were weak. After reading the
article, my original position on the issue did not shift and stranded strong. The argument would
be convincing to those who share similar beliefs and ideas as the author. The argument could be
improved if the author would include factual information and evidence, instead of just her
opinion to strengthen her claim. Also, she should stay clear from logical errors in order to not
seem prejudiced or bias. Bennett also should acknowledge and respond to the reasons that
challenge her argument. Methodically weighing all the evidence before reaching a judgement,

Yanes 4!
and becoming informed on the issue by reading and researching the information would help
improve the argument.

Yanes 5!
Works Cited
Bennett, Lorelei Branam. "Hollywood's War on Gender." Politichicks. N.p., 13 Apr.
2015. Web. 21 Feb. 2016.