Aren't I a Woman lit response

Markeia Scruggs
September 28, 2009
2 page lit response
In “Aren’t I a Woman”, Sojourner Truth responds to the colt of true womanhood. She uses strong diction and appeals to ethos in order to prove her claim. By doing so, she completely demeans the whole point of the colt of true womanhood. Truth defines a “woman” according to her standards, and her beliefs. The two different forms of her speech have two different meanings because of the different diction.
Truth states, “But what’s all this here talking about? That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud puddles or gives me any best place, and aren’t I a woman?” Sojourner Truth makes it known what men do for “women” only according to the colt of true womanhood. She appeals to ethos by stating that men don’t do those things for her and asking if she’s a woman. Her use of words help to reinforce that claim of her being a woman and an intelligent woman at that, but the following quote has a different meaning. The text states, “Dat man ober dar say dat womin needs to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to hab de best place everywhar. Nobody eber helps me into carriages, or ober mud puddles, or fibs me any best place!” Though both quotes have the same general and external meaning, this quote makes a different point than the other. This quote’s diction makes the reader sense Truth’s inferiority to white woman and men.
“I have plowed, and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me and aren’t I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man, and bear the lash as well and aren’t I a woman? I have borne thirteen children and seen them almost all sold off into slavery, and when I cried out with a mother’s grief, none but Jesus heard and aren’t I a woman?” the text states. She is saying that she’s just as strong as a man, but man is still of higher authority. She is strong enough to endure the greatest of pains, but she’s still inferior to man.
Though both speeches had the same general claim, they didn’t have the same objective. The first speech represents her intelligence and stance on the colt of true womanhood. The second speech appeals to ethos in order to make the reader feel as though Truth is inferior to men and white women. It completely debases the whole point of the speech while still proving the initial claim of the speech.