Gearhart, Sally Miller. “The Womanization of Rhetoric.” Eds. Kirsch et al. 53-60.
Okay, so right now, this essay has very little to offer my 511 paper right now, but oh my god, this rocked. I was a little surprised by her strong stance “that any intent to persuade is an act of violence” (53). However, I think I agree with her, in part. I think she’s added to the voices in my head, and she’s added something valid.
Perhaps I can mention her in my paper, and that “communication, liike the rest of culture, must be womanized, that in order to be authrentic, in order to be nonviolent communicators, we must all become more like women” (59) or that “Communication can be a dieliberate creation or co-creation of an atmosphere in which people or things, if and only if they have the internal basis for change, may change themselves; it can be a milieu in which those who are ready to be persuaded may persuade themselves, may chose to hear or chose to learn” (57).
THIS ESSAY ROCKS. It reminds me of Rogerian Counseling and Buddhism. I think VTB mentioned in one of her comments to a journal I wrote that she has an article about Rogerian writing that she wrote. I know from an article I skimmed that Lisa Ede has written on this. I need to talk to both of them about this idea, because now, I’m beginning to think it’s feasable, whereas before, I doubted it strongly (it meaning Rogerian “arguments” or non-arguments, perhaps).
