See Student responses
Student responses: Refer, “Why can we hit our kids?” by Dr Helga Johnson, p. 40
The morality of physical punishment for children and the parent’s stand within this issue is commonly debated by adults in the Australian media. (1) This polemic is explored by Dr. Helga Johnson through her opinion article ‘Why can we hit our kids?’ (The Daily 12/12/12). She employs an adamant tone to discredit the ignorant laws and attitudes of adults who are unaware of the magnitude of the problem and their own responsibilities. (2) Alternatively, the accompanying image further supports the author’s stance by appealing to a sense of equality between children and adults.
The rhetorical remark within the headline of the article immediately places the audience in a position where they may question their right to physically reprehend children. From this, Dr. Johnson establishes her authority by confidently stating her opinion of how ‘smacking should definitely be banned’ and through her personal inclusive language. (3) Furthermore, the writer also ‘have had encounters with families where bashing has led to some horrific accidents among children’. Due to her use of first-person persona and career of being a ‘counsellor at the Royal Hatton Hospital’, the audience may hence become inclined to agree with Dr. Johnson’s statement due to her knowledgeable stance on this issue. (4)
Additionally, the writer then uses this as a spring board to appeal to the audience’s sense of equality and justice by undermining the ‘legal inconsistencies’ of current Australian laws. (5) To position readers to view children as vulnerable victims, Dr Johnson highlights how children are treated as ‘second-class citizens’ and how the laws ‘seem to condone bullying’. The emotive appeal of using violence against a ‘younger, smaller and weaker person’ is immoral. Hence the audience may become compelled to criticize the injustice of this issue and also feel ashamed towards the idea of the big bullying the weak.
Furthermore, the lack of justice within children treatment is supported by the accompanying image. (6) This illustration depicts a father relentlessly spanking his wailing child. Firstly the eyes of the audience are drawn to the contrast of facial expression between the two characters. Readers may be positioned to feel sympathy for the suffering child and view the cruel abusive father in a negative light, as the cartoonist suggests – a tyrant. Secondly, the comparison of sizes of the small child with the larger embodiment of the father expresses the sheer oppression adults have over their children. Thus this may evoke a sense of resentment and antipathy in readers towards the unequal way children are treated. In addition, the humorous and ironic caption suggests desperateness for change of rights and simultaneously interlinks with Dr. Johnson’s notion of the ‘legal problem’. (7)
Moreover, Dr. Johnson continues to showcase her stance by evoking the sense of responsibility within readers as adults who have children. This is achieved by the use of an analogy that emotively appeals to the audience’s morality and common sense. Through questioning the audience with phrases such as ‘if I were to hit you’ and ‘those who are entrusted to our care’ – readers may hence feel guilt and remorse. Likewise, they may engender an obligation to support the Dr. Johnson’s claim of physically punishing our children is not ‘reasonable’. (8)
To further highlight the urgency of the issue, Dr. Johnson includes statistics from the Australian Childhood Foundation. (9) Un-acceptable results such as a large ’45 per cent of respondents thought hitting so hard as to leave a mark was acceptable’ and some ‘thought it acceptable to shake children or strike them across the head’ may leave readers shocked and enraged. In conclusion, the writer once again appeals to the sense of care for the younger generation. By highlighting the obvious; (10) ‘if we don’t want our children to swear, we don’t swear in front of them’, Dr. Johnson is able to summarise the ignorance displayed by many adults towards the welfare of our children. Furthermore, the final statement brings readers back to the main contention of this article. Hence these concluding devices, place the audience in a position where they may feel urgency for change towards the treatment of children as ‘the laws seems long overdue’.
Both the article and the image employ different techniques to persuade the audience to support Dr. Johnson’s stance. The opinion piece attempts to provoke anger and disgust in the audience and contemplate about the main highlighted contention – a change to the Australian laws that currently ‘[treat] children as second-class citizens’. (11) The accompanying cartoon further supports the writer’s stance by illustrating the injustice of children whilst under the oppressive tyranny of adults. This issue is likely to ignite further debate in the Australian media as readers consider whether they should take immediate action to ensure ‘a revision of the laws’.
(1) Not a clear beginning. Please reword, esp. “stand within this issue”.
(2) This sentence does not clearly pinpoint her view and attitude. It’s not that the laws are “ignorant”, but adults are manipulating the laws to treat children inappropriately.
(3) Please be specific with regards to “personal inclusive language”. How is this used?
(4) You could be more concise; perhaps suggest that her personal and professional experience as a counselor endow her views with credibility and predispose parents to be aware of the consequences of smacking.
(5) Well done! You are showing a connection between ideas/techniques and explaining the implications.
(6) Good point of comparison and good analysis of cartoon, but might have been better to show the similarity also between the depiction of parents with the results of the statistics. (See Ms Johnson.)
(7) This point connects with the earlier one about “legal inconsistencies”, so the essay would flow more coherently if you dealt with these points together and explored implications. (This would avoid repetition.)
(8) Can you be more specific, i.e. why is it urgent? Specifically, it is urgent because parents think it is acceptable to use force to intimidate their children.
(9) Can you do a bit more with this? By highlighting an obvious appeal to role-modelling and thereby to common sense …. The author implies that parents are foolhardy to think that smacking will not breed violence.
(10) Maybe avoiding quoting in conclusion if it is not necessary. Could just say “unjust laws”.
(11) Overall, think about the main points. You are reinforcing appeals to justice throughout, so this appeal could be used to achieve greater coherency and depth. For example, appeal to justice and its implications: and then connect to the depiction of children (as victims/ sympathy for their sense of powerlessness) and parents (unjust use of force and implication of parents as intimidators and foolhardy etc.).
Second Student Response: Exercise 8, Why can we hit our kids? P. 26
The issue of smacking children has sparked mixed criticism from various politicians, authority figures, respected institutions and has dominated media headlines. Dr Johnson, a counsellor at the Royal Hatton Hospital, contends whole-heartedly that abusing children is unreasonable and unjust as she states that this form of domestic violence should come to a halt. Accompanied by a predominantly censorious tone coupled with a rational one, Johnson critiques parents who are plagued with trouble who continue to abuse these adolescents, and the government who allow this devastation to occur by creating laws which encourage such violent activities. Amidst this media frenzy, Dr Johnson suggests that if rightful, corrective action is not imposed, the consequences can become detrimental to future society.
Paragraph 1
Dr Johnson castigates the government and fellow politicians who imposed laws which support these violent acts of parental control over children, adopting a scathing attitude,(1) to instil a sense of disgust in readers. (2) Johnson states that according to Australian law, “children are treated as second class citizens and (the government) condone bullying”. This denigrates the credibility of the politicians who constitute the government (3) as they are depicted as ruthless leaders of this nation who express no sympathy towards our children of today’s society who are victims of harsh abuse.(4) This may entice anger at the fact that children are being unfairly treated due to their lack of power as opposed to parents. Moreover, Johnson employs an analogy which invites the parent’s knowledge into competence rhetorically questioning,(5) “if I were to hit you, because I didn’t like the way you were pushing your supermarket trolley, I would (be) at the police station being charge. So why is it acceptable to assault children who are entrusted to our care?”(6) Johnson’s contention, empowered by frustration, is made emphatic as she places magnitude and weight on the notion that parents do not understand what it feels like to be in the position of children who are constantly attacked physically. This may evoke sympathy from parents who are made to feel the pain endured by children from their violent abuse they experience, and thus, may be persuaded to agree.
———————————-
Comments on the above paragraph:
(1) As the tone descriptor grammatically relates to the author, it would be better to move this phrase next to the author; otherwise this phrase is without a clear subject, appears to “hang”. This is a common error; ie. “Adopting a scathing tone, Dr Johnson ….”
(2) Continue to set up the paragraph. What is a common thread throughout? For example, Dr Johnson seeks to isolate those who disregard children’s rights while evoking sympathy for “second class” citizens who are afforded less power than strangers.
(3) Word choice: perhaps “challenges” rather than “denigrates” the credibility of politicians.
(4) Unpack implications of “bullying” which is typical of her emotive language throughout that creates a picture of aggression in those in a position of power and authority
(5) Awkward expression
(6) Explain the purpose of the analogy (which contrasts with jargon): use of laymen’s terms to relate to a wide audience and present a more familiar situation.
(7) The quote is too long.
(8) This paragraph also focuses on a negative characterisation of parents and largely repeats the first paragraph. It would be good if you explored in more depth the subtext/ implications of the characterisation (different aspect).
Paragraph 2
Dr Johnson lambasts the prime suspects of this ruthless act of injustice, the parents themselves, as she uses statistics and numerical evidence to highlight her point of view. She states that in a survey conducted in 2006, “45 per cent of respondents thought hitting hard and leaving a mark was acceptable …” This reference to statistics would shock the readership as they are made to realise that “whacking” has turned into “homicide” this generation and this act of treachery is equivalent to a criminal act which should logically lead to prosecution. In addition, Dr Johnson adopts a scathing tone and is quite critical of parents and the detrimental consequences of domestic violence. The counsellor states that “if we don’t want our children to swear, we don’t swear …”(1) this downplays the self interest of adults as Johnson suggests unconditionally that they are partly to blame as they fail to fulfil the role as a role model for our children, the pinnacle of today’s society. Selfishly occupied in their roles, she states that … This evokes an emotional response from parents who may feel guilty of smacking their children and may develop new initiatives with other parents to solve this problem. (2)
(1) This quote is too long.
(2) This paragraph also focuses on a negative characterisation of parents and largely repeats the first paragraph. Would need to explore in more depth the subtext/ implications of the characterisation.
Return to Exercise Summary Page: Orange Workbook