The Hidden Cost of War

Jennifer Turpin’s “Women Confronting War” is about the staggering effects war has on women. Turpin brings to light just how many women casualties there are, how many women and children are uplifted from their roots and how often sexual violence towards women happens as a result of war.
Turpin grabs the attention of the reader immediately as no one generally thinks about war in the way she frames it with the rhetorical appeal of logos. She utilizes inductive reasoning by using several specific examples of what happens to civilians, who are mainly women, to present the larger picture of how women are brutalized by war. In general, this is very effective as her examples are shocking and touches the raw emotional nerve of the reader. I feel Turpin is attempting to teach this to everyone, but the piece comes across mostly directed to women’s studies.
Turpin’s most effective examples are when she is the most specific. In the paragraphs pertaining to Wartime Sexual Violence Against Women, Turpin uses quotes from eyewitnesses of such sexual violence as well as information from essays and interviews. She does this to emphasize that “[r]ape has been used as a weapon for ethnic cleansing, using attacks on women to humiliate and attempt to exterminate another ethnic group” (Turpin 326). Not only is this reaching out to the reader because it emotionally shocking but it also gets us to think about the psychological effects of war. It is also effective because the sources of her arguments are recent, in relation to when it was written. We tend to view the Serbian, Muslim and Croat soldiers she is referencing as being from a modern Western country that would be above using rape as a wartime strategy but this is contradicted.
Turpin’s least effective examples are when she drifts away from specific and modern points. This can be seen when she states “During World War II, brothels linked to United States military bases generally had two separate entrances: one for men of color and another for whites” (Turpin 327). This is dated and irrelevant and is followed with generalizations about Pilipino prostitutes serving the American serviceman (Turpin 328). This seems to me to be more of a speculation on why sexual violence happens and is more suited for a classroom discussion. Turpin would be more persuasive to stick with hard facts that previously had been advancing her argument.
I feel Turpin does a compelling job of conveying her thesis, pointing out Western nation’s guilt in the perpetration of wartime violence against women.

Do you think Turpin’s piece would be as compelling had she included brutal detailed examples of African warfare making it more of a global issue rather than just focusing on the Western nations?



Works Cited
Turpin, Jennifer. “Women Confronting War.” Perspectives on Contemporary Issues. Ed. Katherine A. Ackley, G. Kim Blank, Stephen E. Hume. Toronto: Nelson, 2008. 324-329. Print.

Media Hype

Sissela Bok uses "Aggression: The Impact of Media Violence" to educate on the negative correlations media violence has on anyone exposed to it. Bok claims the violent media exposure, especially amongst the young, makes us fearful, numb to violence and wanting more violence with a set of aggressive impulses that would not be present without such media. Within the first paragraph I start to doubt Bok as a believable writer. Her statements like "the widespread belief persists that it glamorizes aggressive conduct, removes inhibitions towards such conduct, arouses viewers, and invites imitation" aren't credible because there are no sources backing up this claim and she is assuming the reader is not thinking critically. Perhaps this is why the rest of her piece is written in paragraphs that begin with an inflammatory tone on the argument against violent media followed by the undermining of her arguement through inadequate supporting evidence. Bok states her awareness of these inadequacies which makes her point unclear one way from the other. When Bok does provide a background for her assertions they are either a second hand anectdote, such as John Grisham's proposed legal action, or a seriously weak inductive reasoning, such as the tying of unrelated links between smoking and cancer as well as drinking and driving to aggression and media. By that line of reasoning you could argue anything.

Is television responsible for society's changing morals or is it merely a reflection of these changes?