Summary: Educated feminists are often masters of rhetorical manipulation. I will dissect a feminist opinion piece on the recent Ghomeshi hoax rape trial, in which the author employs a range of these tactics to pass off as reasonable and even compelling the proposition that sexual assault should be treated to a lesser standard of proof than the criminal one.
Body: As you are probably aware, Jian Ghomeshi was recently acquitted from multiple counts of rape and sexual assault after a trial uncovered lies and contradictions in the complainants' allegations. Feminists, of course, have made this trial into a political and para-ethical issue, ignoring or dismissing the facts completely (I say para-ethical because the 'ethics' they propose are rooted in emotion rather than logic and equality).
One article exemplifying the feminist take on the verdict is Catherine Porter's in the Toronto Star. Ms Porter has produced a masterful example of rhetorical manipulation, displaying a range of techniques by which an audience is compelled to agree with the thesis presented regardless of logical reasoning. Using quotes, I will highlight the techniques she employed, which psychological mechanisms they leverage and how they compel agreement regardless of logic. After reading this post, I invite you to read the full article and note the many more times the exemplified tactics are utilized.
Framing
There was a battle of the sexes outside Old City Hall yesterday, in the miserable freezing slush.
'Framing' sets up the mood and the context of what will follow, and is generally utilized at the beginning of a piece (the quote is the first sentence of the article). It takes the audience's blank mental state and paints it in the author's chosen colours, so that they will interpret all subsequent information in a way the author favours. In this case, the event is immediately framed as 'battle of the sexes', a contest of men against women rather than a test of the facts and logic. It happened in a 'miserable freezing slush', suggesting that something bleak and sad took place. Without knowing a single fact, the reader is already led to be badly predisposed towards this event.
Emotionally loaded language
Women held up signs and chanted “We believe survivors,” while a handful of men mocked them and sniped: “We believe the truth.”
The verbs used to describe the feminist demonstration speak of activism and positivity: they 'held up' (strongly, valiantly) their signs, they 'chanted' (beautifully). Opposing them, a 'handful' (few, thus weak and despicable) men 'mocked' and 'sniped' (that is, behaved in a confrontational, unpleasant manner). The use of emotionally loaded language legitimizes one side and pushes the reader to sympathize with it, while delegitimizing and demeaning the other, regardless of the validity of their stances.
Peer pressure
Disgraced CBC host Jian Ghomeshi is not guilty, but does anyone believe he’s not a creep? [...] Does anyone think she was not assaulted?
The framing of this rhetorical question forces the reader not to confront whether he himself believes these things, but whether he's willing to publicly believe them when, it's suggested, clearly no one else does. The reader is thus made to silence his own doubts, as it is put before him that there is only one socially acceptable position.
Dismissing counter-arguments
“Nobody can be a perfect witness.” True, these three women were far from perfect.
This statement preceeds the very brief admission that the complainants and their witnesses lied multiple times. Since this fact can't be challenged, it must be dismissed. Ms Porter achieves this by re-framing it as an excessive expectation that the witnesses be 'perfect'. Thanks to this rhetorical artifice, it does not matter whether the facts of the case hold or not, because any burden imposed on the complainants is automatically unreasonable. The principal objection which the reader is likely to have in mind is thus dismissed within the article itself, leaving no room for it to surface later. If it were ignored, a reader might end the piece thinking 'Yes, well, but she didn't mention the fact that they were lying did she?' and dismiss it.
False equivalence
Why did [Mr Ghomeshi] not have to answer even some softball questions, like what made him think they’d consented to being punched or strangled?
To the inattentive reader, this seems a perfectly reasonable question to ask of an accused man. But in our legal system, it's the job of the prosecution to show that a crime happened, not the job of the defendant to prove or explain his innocence. By setting up a false equivalence between the burden of proof required of the accusation and that required of the defendant, Porter induces the reader to think that the system needs to be re-weighted in favours of the complainants.
Assuming the conclusion
Cross-examination, particularly in these cases, often causes more damage to victims than the actual assault.
The entire piece is underlied by this rhetorical tactic, but here it is displayed in brutal clarity: by describing the complainants as victims, Porter pushes the reader to forget that whether a crime has even happened is precisely what is yet to be determined. She assumes the conclusion and, by embedding it into her reasoning, induces the reader to do likewise without thinking.
Feign innocence
She wished she’d understood “my memory, above all, would be on trial.”
Any reasonable person, and especially any educated person, understands that in bringing a criminal accusation the complainant's recollection of the events and any evidence they might be able to bring will be an integral part of the trial. But by feigning innocence, and pretending that women normally don't realize that they will be examined on their allegations, Porter substitutes the logical requirement for evidence with emotional sympathy for the complainants in the mind of the reader.
Leading the blind man
If we know sexual assault victims are almost never perfect enough [...] then maybe what needs revamping is the system, not us.
Butt suggests offering victims alternative forms of justice.
In a civil case, for instance [...]
It’s a proposal that certainly warrants investigation.
These four quotes come from the long, diluted conclusion of the article. The thesis to which Ms Porter wants to lead the readers is abhorrent: remove sexual assault from the domain of criminal justice, reduce the standard of evidence required for it to that of balance of probabilities. If she presented it directly, or led the reader too obviously towards it, she would meet with quick disagreement, because even in contemporary society most people understand the seriousness and importance of the criminal justice process.
Instead, she makes the reader blind by remaining carefully vague about where her aim lies. She leads him on winding path of supporting arguments (the conclusion is four paragraphs long), so that little by little the path is narrowed until the conclusion finally comes in full view. At that point, she compels the reader not to dismiss it by asking him (on the weight of all the emotion put in the preceding article) to simply take it into consideration. Which is the first step, of course, of legitimizing an illegitimate idea.
Lessons learned: for a brief review of lessons learned, scroll down the list of bolded names of rhetorical techniques, then read the full article and try to spot how many more times these techniques have been employed, beside the examples I chose. Afterwards, make a concious effort to spot these techniques in other articles you may encounter.
3 tips given to G_Petronius by the community for this post.