Arguing about Shopping
Susan Reimer believes that the media and society should not disclose or judge the personal lives of wives of well-known politicians and football coaches “unless they are engaged in illegal or utterly reprehensible behavior.” She begins her article with the quote that a woman should “’never marry a politician or a football coach…not if you ever want to see your husband.’” Reimer once received this advice and uses it in her argument to establish a personal connection to the topic and give reason as to why she may have an interest in it. Next, she pulls in evidence that not only supports the quote, but also the fact that the media does bring light to personal aspects of recognized women’s lives. For example, she mentions how “Betty Ford’s loneliness was so profound that it produced a rehab center” and how “The Post reports, [Columba Bush] bought $42,311.70 worth of jewelry, including diamond earrings, bracelets and necklaces, and it has the receipts to prove it.” The public should not have access to this information because it has nothing to do with them. The evidence displays how the media interferes in personal lives. Then, Reimer adds her own commentary to the evidence provided by stating that she too would lie if she spent thousands of dollars on jewelry and how she would try to prevent the public from finding her receipts. The columnist admits that this invasion of privacy “was a naked attempt to humiliate a woman” and that the attempt would not “change how [she] will vote.” Society will use anything that it can get ahold of to manipulate a person or an audience, and the posting of private lives supports this. The end consists of questions that summarize the subject of the article – how politicians and coaches wives cope with being left alone – and Reimer’s opinion of the subject. The article consists of stories and examples of wives of coaches and politicians to support the argument. Reimer offers the example of a woman who “’lunches by herself at modest restaurants’…Another thing [she] didn’t need to know about a candidate.” The writer mentions how the fact makes her sad but would not skew her vote. This enhances the argument that the wives and their personal activities do not need flaunting to the public. It makes the media seem heartless because they only care about the story or the vote, not the person. The argument remains mostly solid with the efficient amount of evidence provided and the direct statement of Reimer’s opinion that the wives’ lives should not have a part in the public. However, the amusing tone at certain points such as, “I don’t know about you, but marriage to a football coach is looking pretty good right now” weakens the argument. The statement detracts from the argument because she mentions how media causes a lack of privacy which should not occur, and then she ends the article with the statement that the position “is looking pretty good right now.” This implies that she does not remain confident in her argument or does not take it seriously.