Genre: Persuasive Essay
Purpose: To look at the traditional Muslim practice of veiling woman from a perspective of tolerance in order to convince the Western world not to force feminist reforms onto people that may not want these reforms all at once.
Central Message: Forcing Western feminist values on the Middle Eastern Muslim population might prove more harmful than beneficial as veiling helps promote the ideal of family ties and honor in Muslim society.
World View and Assumptions: The author presents himself as a wise and educated person who can consider the other side of the argument on forced veiling. He realizes that different cultures have long lasting traditions and influences that cause societies to look upon certain ideas in different lights. Kurtz does no fall into the trap that many Americans tend to do, which is to be ignorant towards that fact that different peoples do not look upon values in a similar light and hold the same moral code. The author is non-judgmental of the Muslim tradition and one can tell that he keeps an open mind towards strange ideals instead of falling on the side of extremism and declaring his opinion before all facts are presented.
Use of Tools and Evidence: Kurtz uses a basic manner of logical reasoning to point out his argument against Western countries forcing their opinions on the Muslim world. At the beginning, he slyly uses phrases and sources given by Western feminists (Quoting an author who wrote the laughably slanted title Vagina Monologues) to point out to the average, moderate thinking American how ridiculously ignorant news media and members of the vocal extremists are towards the wearing of veils. The beginning of the essay proves how easily we are being manipulated to paint this Muslim value in black while we believe Western ideals are essentially white, or good. Kurtz’s following background information allows a refreshing departure from the “us versus them” philosophy that bombards us from vocal extremists and allows the reader to see veiling from the Muslim perspective. This background information not only gives useful information that feminist most likely ignore, but adds a little gray to the situation so the audience does not take blindly believe our ideals are inherently good while Muslim ideals are dark and evil. He finally is wise to include examples from history (U.S rebuilding of Japan) in which a “hands-off” approach towards societal values ended up creating a harmonious environment in which progress could be achieved. I personally appreciated the fact that Kurtz’s writing was similar to his argument; he did not force his opinion on his audience but merely reminded Americans that we are a people of tolerance and forcing our values on a fundamental society like the Muslim world would only result in backlash.