RA #3: "Appearances"

In the article "Appearances" by Carmen Vazquez written in 1992, the author discusses homophobic violence in San Francisco and how it is detrimental not just to homosexuals but to everybody. The author was motivated to share stories of heterosexuals that were facing homophobic violence because she felt this issue was under reported and not well known. This article seemed to be for individuals that were not homophobic and primarily heterosexual. The purpose was to educate people about the affects of homophobic violence and how people are being labeled by the clothes they wear. She claims that in order for homophobia to end, people will have to be pro active in their families and their work places to make sure that their children gain  respect for themselves and others and to also encourage other people in their lives to do the same.

The author supports her claim using ethos. Although she never talks directly about her involvement in gay rights groups in this article, her knowledge is apparent in the way she adeptly addresses the issues which supports her credibility with the audience. She also uses the adjective "our" frequently when describing the gay and lesbian community which implies that she is  a homosexual which reinforces her credibility on this topic. One instance where she uses this is when she is describing the constriction of gender roles and how it "suffocates many lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals, forcing them into closets without an exit and threatening our very existence when we tear the closet open" (475). One issue that I have with her use of the first person is that she uses it inconsistently. This may be on purpose but I feel this takes away from her writing credibility. It shows in the example above when she starts out with describing the homosexual community, "forcing them into closets" but then switches when she states "threatening our very existence". She does this several times throughout the essay.

The author also uses logos to reinforce her argument. She cites real cases involving homophobic violence against heterosexuals that are wrongly being perceived as homosexual due to their appearance. By using real events to base her argument of off, her claim becomes reinforced due to its validity. She also gives statistics involving this type of violence. Vazquez states that, "An average of 3 percent of the over three hundred victims seen by CUAV [Community United Against Violence] each year identify as heterosexuals" (474). By giving real numbers to support her claim she is able to convince the audience that this is really happening and their is proof to back her up.

Vazques also uses pathos to support her claim. In the first part of the article, Vazquez uses descriptive writing to lay out two incidents that support her claim. By giving vivid details she is able to invoke emotions in her audience that statistics can't. She describes one of the violent acts involving a heterosexual man named Mickey who was the victim, "Reeling to the music and immersed in the pleasure of his rhythms, Mickey never saw the ice pick plunge into his neck. It was just a bump with a drunk yelling, "Lame-assed faggot." "Faggot. Faggot. Faggot. Punk faggot." Mickey thought it was a punch to the neck. He ran after the roaring drunk man for seven steps, then lurched and fell on the dance floor, blood gushing everywhere." (473). By describing the gore and the emotion behind the attack, Vazquez allows the audience to see what one of these  situations looked like.

I agree with the authors argument because she provided persuasive evidence and I agree with her views regarding homosexuality. I don't think this article would have persuaded somebody that is not like minded though, but I don't believe they were the intended audience for this piece.

At the end of the article I feel the author failed to relate it directly back to the rest of the essay. She started out by focusing on homophobic violence against people based on their appearance, but then by the end she was just talking about how as a society we need to fight bigotry. I like that she did relate it to a bigger picture at the end, but I would have liked for her to then go back and directly tie this into the specific scenario that this article is about. Two weeks ago I criticized the author of "Two Ways a Woman Can Get Hurt: Advertising and Violence" of not relating to the bigger picture and offering solutions. I feel that there needs to a conclusion somewhere in the middle that expands on the idea without losing the subject of the rest of the essay.