James Johnson

Language & Literature HL

Mark Brown

28th November, 2019

Write an analysis ​comparing and contrasting​ the following texts. Include comments

on the significance of context, audience, purpose and formal and stylistic features.

Females have seemed to struggle continuously with feelings of security

outside of their homes, the one thing that can bring that to them, is a safe

transportation environment. Articles; “The Pink Rickshaw” and “Ladies Who Cab”

both discuss this trauma and solutions behind them with their innovative

“female-only” transport systems. Both systems propose a form of taxi that is

exclusively to be used and operated by females to preserve a feeling of safety of

which is not liable from all men. The systems both provide sources of income for

females in a male dominant industry. The two texts represent their ideas through

both different and identical textual devices using emotion and reason while

advertising to different audiences to put their ideas forward.

Each text seems to have a different narrative while approaching the same end

goal of getting users to accept and/or support this idea of female-only transport. Text

A, while more in-depth, is very much an informal story of the app’s developer along

with their and other females’ experience with male taxi drivers. The article also

touches on what specific actions and notions female passengers seem more
comfortable with when they have a female driver versus a male one. Text B on the

other hand has a much more monotone theme and focuses much less on stimulating

their audience through dialogue and storytelling but instead uses a much more

provocative and persuasive approach. Having a completely different audience than

that of the NYTimes. Text B, being a “GoGetFunding.com” site, has a much stricter

or “guided” main purpose of which is to gain attraction and donations. Therefore, to

allow them to put their idea into reality. While its goal may seem more bland, it too

uses a variety of linguistic techniques. One of which would be it’s situational use of

emotion. While text A focuses on the protection of females during transport it does

not focus on the development of economic stability for females like the other, likely

due to the basis of the text in New York, a developed country facing less economic

strain for females. Text B however uses this unfair economic standards for women

as a main driver for the article. They characterize the women in such a way that they

are described as “middle and lower-middle class women in Pakistan,” who would

benefit from these transport methods. and are ‘helpless,’ stating that they “depend

on their brothers, fathers and husbands to get to work, school, hospital runs and for

other errands.” This could for a certain number of reasons on its own be a great

motive for donation. Providing jobs for the less fortunate women of the world, why

wouldn't you want to? However they also make it a statement in the text that it is not

just to create jobs for women but use it as an opportunity to talk about the other ways

that they can benefit from the other fundamental changes that will be brought with

the function of the program. They talk about how women can be harrassed while

waiting for public transport and even being abused by those who are present with

them during their commutes, something that can resonate with females across the
globe and something that can put males into their shoes, almost like a scare tactic.

The text seems to do this often, for example when it states “encouraging other

women to follow suit as drivers and enter into other male-dominated

professions/trades or as service providers.” and “the initiative’s effect will perpetuate

a virtuous cycle of women becoming self-reliant independent and productive

members of society.” It seems that they are targeting a much more specific audience

with this text as opposed to that of text A. In text A they are simply trying to inform

and spread this idea in the works while catering to a large set of audiences (mainly

their own, New Yorker readers), while in text B they target those who may have

experienced similar things on the streets of their own cities and men who have

witnessed this or been told bone-chilling stories about them to gain revenue for their

project. Text A has a basis of simply reporting information that can be perceived as

interesting for their readers, not to sell you on the idea. While text A is less 'straight

to the point’ it uses much more statistics to sell its ideas mentioning the “six hundred

cab rides taken in New York” per day and the “sixty percent” of which are females.

This can create a strong sense of need for the product as being more prone to the

form of transportation. Text B on the other hand tends to not use any statistics likely

due to the lack of information regarding Pakistani transport much less female specific

data. While both texts have this idea of supporting women economically through the

transit system and to break stereotype in a male-dominant industry. While this is the

case for both, it is only stated and/or used in text B, this is an interesting detail as

most of the reason it could be put across is for that very reason however it is never

explicitly mentioned in text A. Overall both texts use differing techniques in their

language, style and emotion to put across their ideas effectively.

 While they may differ in audience and style the texts have much more in

common than meets the eye. While both texts try to target different audiences they

end up being quite similar with one very specific way that they do this. They tend to

use female empowerment effectively while not trying to demonize men and revoke

their support. Both texts manage to do this in a way that still allows them to suggest

distance between the two genders without targeting or generalizing males. In text A

they do this brilliantly by using dialogue between the app developer and a male taxi

driver. The driver seems kind and very charismatic while listening to and questioning

the subject of the app reasonably. This can create a sense of respect for the

developer as they justify their app through this seemingly meaningless dialogue, and

don't represent their ideas as simply just a reason to stray from men but instead to

comfort themselves and feel secure under the supervision of a fellow female figure

who may understand them more. Text B does this very same thing by not mentioning

the word “man,” or “men” a single time in the duration of the article. They are building

this neutral relationship with men as they discuss the issues that are unspoken.

Along with this use of equal representation, both texts have an ulterior motive, some

sort of effect to them that leaves you thinking about it. Not just their ideas, but the

people behind them and what they may have gone through to get to the point of

creating a platform that ensures their separation from males during transit. This idea

can be fear. Fear for our society and fear for the women subject to its negatives. This

fear can bring anybody to their knees and time-to-time has proven itself to be one of

the most effective advertising techniques plausible being used in some of the most

successful political and product advert campaigns. This use along with the neutral
representation of both parties in the text can create a common perspective on the

current state of transportation for females and will leave us all commending the

developers for their efforts to combat it and providing our support.

Overall, the use of both different and identical textual and emotional devices

and the techniques put forward to advertise to their different audiences is well put

together and offers a variety of perspective and meaning. Both text A and B can

create feelings of pity and gratitude for the same cause regardless of your place in

the situation and whether it can benefit you. Both texts can utilize and exploit their

different subjected product target audiences to develop these techniques and put

them forward in their texts. While the texts are targeted around the same ideas they

seem to deal with them and attack the issue in very different ways while using some

of the same tactics. While they both may not have had the approach of gaining

approval of the services pitched both texts have perspectives that are very prevalent

and allow the reader to take their own stand on the product and its ideas.