There are three main points in Blitzer’s passage. He speaks of the three aspects of the rhetorical situation. The first is exigence, he essentially says it is something that cannot be altered in the situation. The examples he uses are death, or natural occasions. He states that is any given rhetorical situation there can be at least one controlling exigence and it helps specify the audience. This leads to the second point he speaks of which is the audience. In a rhetorical situation there has to be an audience because the point of a rhetorical situation is to persuade an audience. The third main point is the constraints. The constraints could be anything that tries to alter the exigence. For instance beliefs, attitudes and traditions can alter the exigence. The constraints all depend on the audience. Thus these are the three points which make up a rhetorical situation.
Through the passage there was several points that caught my attention. However the conclusion is what really stuck to me. The passage in general was rather confusing for me. The last section just seemed to really make sense to me. He speaks of how in the real world, there are many rhetorical exigences. He also mentions how the “world invites change”. He essentially summarizes rhetoric as the art of persuasion and the practicality of it in the real world. Through several examples he describes how it used in every day life. (Blitzer uses historical examples.)
Audience: The members of the United Nations and whomever is listening in, secondary audience.
Constraints: I think it would be anti feminists because they are opposing her because of their beliefs. Her past can also be considered a constraint because it under values her point in some people’s perspective.
Exigence: The exigence would be the inequality between men and women in society whether it be social status or wages, etc.
I like how well organized your writing is. You did a good supporting exigence as well.
From reading your blog i can see that your really understood what the passage was saying. Good response to the argument!!
I like that you talked about what caught your attention while you were reading the passage. I agree with the conclusion-it caught my attention too!! You have a very thorough argument that shows your understanding of the passage.