Richard Duff- Cusack 1

2015 Language Analysis Examination Task

In light of the recent chaotic and violent actions towards women that has
seemingly encased Australia's society with particular concern given to the
safety of women on Australia's trains editor Olivia Oakley and responder Dan
offer two conflicting views on the introduction to women only carriages within
the Victorian network. Olivia Oakley, the leading editor at an independent
Australian magazine company contends in her published magazine blog
entitled 'Is one too many?' and released on the 14th of January 2015 that
women only carriages are a much needed addition to our public transport
system. Through a concerned yet informal style Oakley utilises various
language and assisting visual aids to direct her article towards the users of
public transport, especially men and individuals concerned with gender
equality and safety issues. Contrastingly, Dan from the Melbourne suburb of
Croydon, in his comment to Oakley's article a day after the publication was
released, contends in his response entitled 'Safety in Numbers' that individuals
such as Olivia Oakley are overacting and that the introduction of women only
carriages will be more of a hindrance in the war of sexual assault than an aid.
Utilising a rational style, Dan similarly targets women who may be fearful for
their safety on public transport and hence supporters of a segregated sex
carriage scheme. Thus both pieces intend to coerce the audience into taking a
strong stance on the issue of women only carriages.
Oakley initiates her article in an anxious tone, arguing that despite the low
number of sexual assaults and violence occurring on Melbourne's trains, the
extreme measures that women need to go to to ensure their safety requires
that women only carriages be implemented within the Victorian fail network. In
opening, Oakley specifically targets the male population in stating "Men: have
you ever noticed..." before rhetorically querying whether these men have
actually ever observed the actions women have to do to ensure their safety.
Thus, by specifically targeting her male audience, Oakley challenges these men
to consider and as such sympathise with the constant "assessment" of threats
and vigilance that these women must partake in, in order to simply ensure they
"feel comfortable [where they are] sitting". Thus through these means, Oakley
intends to invite the male audience to become fundamentally aware of
women's lack of safety on trains and therefore support any methodologies that
will improve their safety. Continuing, Oakley refers to the "familiar experience"
of "leering, grabbing and catcalling" for women on public transport. This works
on two differing levels to affect altering target audiences. Firstly for women it
instils a sense of fear into travelling on a transport system whereby they are
continually under "threat" of such misogynistic attacks and rampages. On a
differing level, for men it seeks to raise concerns about the welfare of the
important women that they have in their life, instigating the protective side of
men to protect these women through anyway possible. Thus the option of
women-only carriages is hence presented to these male and women target
audiences as a "safe haven" and viable alternative to the "misogyny missiles"
of the current public transport design. Additionally, the author utilises
undeniable examples where "women-only carriages... currently operate" in
countries such as "India", "Indonesia" and "Thailand" to create a sense of
heightened concern within the reader that these schemes already exist within
developing countries and yet the Australian government, a developed nation is

Richard Duff- Cusack 1

yet to implement such "women only carriages". And hence in doing so Oakley
again provides women only carriages as a simple and necessary
implementation within the Victorian system. Oakley also makes use of visual
aids in order to further the sense of fear that is instilled within the Victorian rail
network. Through the depiction of a large icon of a women, accompanied by
the text written in bold capitals; "WOMEN ONLY" Oakley, especially when
contrasted with the insignificant crossed out male depiction, seeks to bring to
light the idea that this issue is for women only as it is their safety and security
that is at risk. Additionally, the image also seeks to accentuate the visibility
and vulnerability of women to attacks by depicting the women in a large and
lonesome manner. Similarly the image also seeks to marginalise men who are
misogynistic to such women by depicting them as inferior in size and crossed
out representing their lack of acceptance by society. It is hoped that by utilising
such an image that the female audience will be positioned to see how severely
this issue affects them and how men should re-evaluate their behaviour to
ensure that they aren't depicted as one of these men marginalised from the
remainder of society.
Oakley then moves into a more rational tone upon describing that despite the
"great arguments" that exist against her view on women's only carriages,
women's fears on public transport "might not seem rational but it's real" and
therefore there is a subsequent need for women's only carriages. It is through
these repeated assertions of "I know" that Oakley is presented as informed and
rational in her view, clearly identifying that opposing views are tedious and
obsolete because they have already been analysed and likewise presented as
worthless. Hence, in being depicted as ultimately informed and rational in her
argument, this coerced the reader to likewise support the contention of such an
authoritative and well informed analyst. Further, Oakley utilises a more
demeaning tone when dismissing the viewpoints of those against her. Through
describing these individuals as people with their "head in the sand" and
"thoughtless 'manspread[ers]" she seeks to clearly identify the ignorant
insensitive nature of those who oppose women only carriages. By alienating
those who oppose the idea of a women's only carriage, the author wishes to
comparatively present her point of view as well balanced and level headed
while also discouraging readers to side with the opposing point of view as they
too will be identified as self-obsessive and moronic if they choose to do so.
Progressing through the article Oakley acknowledges how "the vast majority of
men are gentle, kind and considerate law-abiding people" allowing the male
readers to distinguish themselves between those exhibiting "predatory
behaviours". This ensures that it is made clear to the male audience that the
scheme for single sex carriages is not driven by a "man hating thing" and
hence will make those readers within the male audience more inclined to
support the authors stance as they can see the author's contention as balanced
and fair rather than an attack on them as a person.
Finally, the author transcends into a more critical voice advocating that it is not
only "the threat of direct violence" that requires the implementation of
women's-only carriages within the train system. In rhetorically querying the
audience as to "who hasn't had their car broken into at one time or another?"
and clearly stating that "more people are assaulted on public transport than
having something stolen from their car"; Oakley seeks to express the common
occurrence of assault within the rail system. This primarily targets the male

Richard Duff- Cusack 1

audience, who unfamiliar with the common occurrence of misogynistic calls

towards women, will quite possibly be able to associate with thefts occurring
within their motor vehicle. This will exaggerate through something the male
audience can clearly associate with; theft from their motor vehicle, just how too
commonplace violence towards women is on the train system. This will likely
cause these male audiences to support any calls that will improve women's
safety, including the implementation of women's only carriages on trains, as
they will be fully aware of the harrowing extent of the situation. The
accompanying table of recent transport crime gives further support to Oakley's
claim that there is something to fear on trains, as the possibility of
experiencing violence seems alarmingly high. In proceeding through the article
the author also heavily utilises military based dialogue referring to women as
being in the "firing line" of "misogyny missiles". Through such heavily based
combat-like lexicon the female readers are coerced into feeling as though they
have something to fear, while male readers are made to feel scared that they
may be intimating females within purpose. This is utilised by the author, as
with females in fear and males anxious about their treatment of women it is
likely that they will support calls for a women only carriage so women can ease
their fears and men can alleviate their concerns of unintentionally intimidating
women. In concluding Oakley utilises the phrase "What do men have to give up
to make it happen?" One carriage. One single carriage. It's not too much to ask
is it?" in order to draw parallels between the implementation of a women's only
carriage and the little required work by men in order to ensure women's safety.
Specifically this is in reference to the articles title "Is one too many?"
suggesting rhetorically that indeed giving up one carriage "is not too much to
ask" and that little work needs to be done in order to ensure the welfare of the
female population. As such, as the male audience comes to acknowledge the
little effort it will take to alleviate women's safety concerns they will be more
inclined to "loose one carriage" in order to address safety concerns as it
requires little work from them.
In contrast, Dan from Croydon utilises a range of similar language techniques in
order to present his contention in a clear manner. In utilising many of Oakley's
quotations, Dan uses a rational tone in order to present his opinion as more
succinct and coherent than Oakley's. Through utilising Oakley's words that "the
majority of men are gentle, kind and considerate law abiding people" he twists
Oakley's words to assert that having these exact type of people on the train
will subsequently "make it safe". By adopting a more wholistic approach as to
the idea of travelling with males on trains, Dan seeks to diminish the credibility
of Oakley's arguments as someone who is unaware of the fully reality of
travelling on public transport. Similarly, Dan criticises Oakley's perceptions of
'manspreading' on trains stating that they are not a "declaration of gender war"
and thus not only presenting Oakley's opinion on 'manspreading' as
fundamentally flawed but who entire arguments as irrational. Thus this will
place the reader in a position where they are likely to decide with Dan as he is
seen as more wholistic and clear in his argument.
Both Olivia Oakley and Dan utilise a range of similar language techniques,
while Oakley also utilises visual techniques, in order to persuade their target
audiences of their differing contentions. Dan predominantly adopts a rational
yet sarcastic tone in order to encourage the reader to adopt the opinion that
women only carriages will be more of a hindrance to the fight against sexual

Richard Duff- Cusack 1

assault than aid. Alternatively, Oakley utilises a critical tone in order to coerce
the reader into coming to the realisation that women only carriages are
essential for the safety of women within the Victorian rail system. Regardless of
their differing contentions, both pieces represent opposing views in the ongoing
debate of women's safety on trains in the Victorian rail system.