The Intolerances of a Tolerant Society: An In-Depth Analysis of Mark Steyn's "Komen Has its Awareness Raised"

When relating about the non-profit organizations of today that are supposed to epitomize the postmodern tolerant society we live in, Mark Steyn’s "Komen Has its Awareness Raised" makes use of rhetorical devices such as humor, tone, and irony to show how the diversity and tolerance movement are just an illusion to mask increasing intolerance and uniform ideals of organizations such as Planned Parenthood and the Susan G. Komen Foundation. Steyn cites evidence and makes assertions to increase his credibility and repeatability to the reader.

To begin, Steyn presents two occurrences, one that takes place in Sweden and one in Canada, to draw an emotional reaction from the reader. In Sweden, as Steyn states, it is illegal—even in a church setting—to “express a moral objection to homosexuality. Steyn also states an incident in Canada where a Catholic high school attempted to refuse a homosexual couple attendance to prom. The school was taken to court, however, and the court ruled in favor of the couple. While it is popular in today’s society to be tolerant, Steyn reverses the situation and calls into question the injustice of being unable to be a homophobe. While this is a bold move, it is done quite well because the reader realizes that the freedom, not to be homosexual, but to be homophobic is taken away. Realizing his audience consists mostly of conservative Americans, Steyn draws out angry feelings when he shows people’s rights are being infringed.

Steyn also shows how humorous this awareness ribbon business has become when he talks about the “periwinkle ribbon for acid reflux.” While acid reflux may plague many Americans today, making ribbons to support its awareness seems almost comical. In essence, Steyn argues that the only awareness being raised at this point is the awareness for colored magnetic ribbons.

Steyn then attempts to appeal to the reader’s own logic by stating inconsistencies in the practices of these supposed pro-feminist organizations. While not openly sharing his own opinion, Steyn shows what he believes by the information he presents. He contrasts two organizations, Planned Parenthood and the Susan G. Komen Foundation, and shows the inconsistencies, even borderline fraud, that occurs in such organizations. The fact that Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, a non-profit organization, makes over $580,000 per year and that the top eight executives of the same organization make over $270,000 per year, is outrageous. The reader doesn’t need Steyn to tell him that. While Steyn appeals to the emotions of the reader, it is still an obvious use of logos because of the facts Steyn presents to the reader.

The next incident described is one where, under testimony, Cecile Richards claimed that her organization provided the “life saving mammogram” while on the contrary, the organization does not. Because of this lie, the Komen Foundation stopped donating money to Planned Parenthood. An attack on the Komen website occurred shortly thereafter. In preparation for a marathon, the slogan “Help us get 26.2 or 13.1 miles closer to a world without breast cancer” had decorated the website. This was replaced with “help is run over poor women on our way to the bank” by some Planned Parenthood workers. This is another instance where Steyn, while not clearly sharing his own opinion, causes the reader to come to one logical conclusion that these pro-feminist organizations are not as honest and non-profit as they would like one to think. Instead, each organization has its own agenda and motives that may not always be what is best for the people that the organization is intended to serve.

Steyn also uses jargon and vocabulary that appeals to the reader. His writing style may be somewhat pompous and over the top, however, he captures the essence of the postmodern tolerant movement. When referring to the salaries of the top eight executives at Planned Parenthood he says “$270,000 . . . makes them officially part of what the Obama administration calls ‘the one percent’.” Because jobs and salaries are a big part of the upcoming Presidential Election, this type of phrasing is common to many Americans. Also, when speaking of the “Obamacare” policy, he states that the requirement for Catholic institutions to provide contraceptives and sexual education is “more to do with the liberal muscle of Big Tolerance enforcing one-size-fits-all diversity.” This captures the idea as a whole that in all, our tolerant society is becoming increasingly intolerant towards intolerance—ironic, right?

Lastly, Steyn connects with the reader well. Though he is a Canadian-born Brit who was educated at a prep school in London, he seems to speak the mind of a die hard, true blue American. While few Americans can connect to him in biography, it is not difficult to connect to him in ideology. Although he does not state his opinion openly, he presents facts that are concise and well picked to bring the reader to a similar conclusion as his own with only an incompetent person seeing a view dissimilar to his. While many persuasive writers attempt to argue based on superior logic, Steyn picks his facts well enough that the reader believes he is drawing his own conclusion, not that they are playing right into Steyn’s hands.

In essence, Steyn does a thorough job bringing the reader to a view similar to his own. Through his reasoning and evidence, Steyn makes a convincing argument that the liberal ideals that non-profit organizations such as Planned Parenthood stand for are really quite nonexistent; likewise, instead of really being concerned about the issue, the leaders of such organizations only have their own personal interests at heart.

Steyn's Article:
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/komen-338772-planned-parenthood.html