Matt Walsh

Matt Walsh is a very honest writer. He writes how he thinks, and he isn’t afraid to step on anyone’s toes. In fact, it seems that he tries to get a reaction out of all of his audience, whether it be good or bad. I enjoy his style of writing because it is entertaining and makes me really think about the specific issue he is writing about, but there are times when many people could take offense at what he says. In his blog post titled, “Good news, fellas! Only women are required to be modest, apparently,” Walsh is trying to get across the point that while he believes women should dress modestly, he thinks men aren’t without blame, and that there are many different types of modesty other than that pertaining to the body. The rhetorical devices he uses to address these claims are evidence, metaphor, imagery, and connotation, among many others.

            One of his reasons for why he thinks women should dress modestly is because they will feel better about themselves. He uses the example that so many women complain of being objectified by men, and yes that’s party the fault of the men, but some of the blame is on the women. This example does make sense, but it could also get a rise out of many people. The evidence he uses always seems to appeal to a certain type of people, usually Christians. He also uses some metaphor to get this point across, when he says, “We are modest for the sake of our dignity, so as to avoid making of ourselves a shell, a construction, a label, a category; a phantom of someone else’s desires.” This creates vivid imagery in the minds of his readers, and is an effective way to help them to visualize what he’s saying.

            His validity for why men should be held accountable for immodesty as well is that they are being immodest by looking at these women. He uses metaphor to describe this phenomenon, beginning by saying that women are described as a “stumbling block” to men when they are being immodest, but going on and saying that men aren’t really trying to avoid stumbling whether a block exists or not.

            His last and main point is that bodily immodesty isn’t the only type of immodesty we should care about. He uses a connotation of the word modesty as a rhetorical device from the Catechism, “It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden… It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity.”
           

            Through his use of well thought out rhetoric, Walsh effectively rallies his readers to care about different types of modesty and how we dress ourselves, while also infuriating those who are not fans of his writing methods. I don’t think he will ever please both sides of the issue, nor tries to, but if his intended audience is people who care about being modest, he successfully convincing them of his views by these methods.