Rhetorical Analysis Of My Problem With Her Anger

Hol(e)y Matrimony

Even the most durable substances can fall apart. Marriage, a structure built upon the union of two people for eternity, can be destroyed—especially when the two feel threatened by the inevitable stress and frustration that follows. Eric Bartels, an author for the Portland Tribune, wrote in his article, My Problem With Her Anger, about receiving anger from his wife and his own discontent in his marriage. Bartels establishes his opinion that fundamental differences between men and women can deter marriage, through his use of strands and diction to describe reactions to stress from marriage based on gender; however, with his use of generalizations and loaded language to attack the female audience, his claim is limited.

While he is effective in defining his sacrifices, his self-victimizing diction limits his claim as he blames his wife for his suffering and frustration. He discusses the social sacrifices he made as he no longer has personal time to have smaller liberties such as “time with friends...basketball games, beer” (Bartels 58) However, more importantly, he feels blindsided as he “wasn’t informed that [he] would give up golf altogether...not warned that sex would become a rarer commodity” (Bartels 63). Because Bartels claims he was unaware he would have to sacrifice so much with marriage, he places the blame for his dissatisfaction onto someone else’s shoulders, mainly his wife. Using a militaristic strand of diction, Bartels depicts his wife as an aggressive and offensive threat. Bartels explains how he has a consistent “fervor to confront(defeat)” problems that arise in his marriage, alluding that he exhaustingly fights through the problems he faces to meliorate the situation(Bartels 63). Additionally, Bartels feels as though his “castle, it is under siege. From within” which conveys his experience from menacing frustration and anger as well as his self-victimizing action by describing his sense of peril (Bartels 59). If Bartels places himself as the hero who nobly fights against danger for the greater good of the marriage, there must be an antagonist to the story. He vilifies his wife by portraying her as a constant threat, and consequently, not taking responsibility for his own emotions. Instead, exemplifying the a hasty generalization fallacy, he blames her inability to control her anger for all problems he faces throughout the marriage. Because he does not accept any responsibility and accuses his wife of his stress and sacrifice, his claim crumbles, even though he was able to provide specific examples of the sacrifices he