Nicholas D. Kristof's Looking At Women

Society’s view of women has drastically changed throughout history. Even today, the argument of how to view women is alive. Scott Russell Sanders, Malcolm Evans, and Nicholas D. Kristof each have a piece about their argument on viewing women. Each argument is different, and the authors approach them in different ways. Nicholas D. Kristof had the most effective argument of the three because of his use of language. “Looking at Women” by Scott Russell Sanders was the least effective piece. Sanders begins the piece with an anecdote to draw in the reader’s attention and peak interest. However, the author does not get to his point quickly enough and gets sidetracked too often, which both result in the loss of the reader’s attention. Sanders built his credibility through allusions and a high level of vocabulary. Only educated people …show more content…
Kristof was the most effective piece. Like Moral Equivalence, “Saudis in Bikinis” was very direct in its message, but the argument was more in depth than Evans’s piece. “Saudis in Bikinis” was very short and clear in its purpose. Kristof used language that was easier for the reader to understand, thus improving his argument. However, Kristof’s writing is not free from flaws. He used metaphors to mock the Saudi women and their wardrobe, with phrases such as “black ghosts” and “wear a tent”. Kristof interviewed educated Saudi Arabian women for his piece. He wrote, “All this created an awkward series of interviews. I kept asking women how they felt about being repressed, and they kept answering that they aren’t repressed,” (273). Despite Kristof’s sound evidence, he completely disregards it. He believes the women are “repressed” because he says they are. Kristof’s arrogance is easily discernable due to the tone shift. Despite his flaws, Kristof still has the better argument because he is more direct in getting to the point, and he uses words that are easier for the reader to