Outline the information Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez gives on the encounters in front of the Capitol and what has motivated her to deliver her speech.

Analyze how the speaker conveys her message. Focus on communicative strategies and use of language.

Choose one of the following tasks:

or

In her speech in the U.S. House of Representatives, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez outlines an encounter with Representative Ted Yoho in front of the Capitol and explains what motivated her to deliver the speech.

Ocasio-Cortez describes how Yoho verbally attacked her while she was walking up the steps of the Capitol. He approached her aggressively, pointed his finger at her and insulted her. Although she considered his behaviour disrespectful, she ignored the incident, entered the Capitol and continued her work by casting her vote for her constituents. When she left the building, Yoho insulted her again in front of reporters by calling her “a fucking bitch” (l. 15). Ocasio-Cortez stresses that this was not only a personal attack but also an example of the sexist treatment many women experience. She argues that such dehumanising language reflects a broader pattern of discrimination against women.

She explains that she initially intended to ignore the incident because she had experienced similar verbal abuse before. However, she decided to speak publicly after Yoho justified his behaviour instead of offering a sincere apology. She wanted to make it clear that such behaviour and excuses must not be accepted, especially by young girls and victims of verbal abuse. Furthermore, she rejects Yoho’s attempt to justify his actions by referring to his wife and daughters, arguing that a person’s character is shown through treating others with dignity and respect and by taking responsibility for their mistakes. Finally, she uses the incident to draw attention to the widespread problem of sexism and the everyday mistreatment of women.

In her speech, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez aims to condemn sexist behaviour, expose the broader problem of discrimination against women and persuade her audience that such behaviour must not be accepted. To achieve this, she combines personal experience with emotional and logical arguments and uses a variety of rhetorical devices.

At the beginning of the speech, Ocasio-Cortez establishes her credibility (ethos) by thanking colleagues from both political parties for their support (cf. ll. 1–3). This creates a respectful tone and shows that the issue goes beyond party politics. She then recounts the incident in chronological order (cf. ll. 4–15), making it easier for the audience to follow the events. Her detailed description, including the insults and Yoho pointing “his finger in [her] face” (ll. 6–7), creates vivid imagery and underlines the aggressive nature of his behaviour. By mentioning that she continued her work and voted for her constituents (cf. ll. 10–13), she presents herself as a responsible politician who puts her duties before personal feelings, thereby strengthening her ethos.

Furthermore, Ocasio-Cortez appeals strongly to the audience's emotions (pathos). She emphasises that the attack was not only directed at her but at “every Congresswoman and every woman in this country” (ll. 16–19). This generalisation broadens the issue from an individual conflict to a societal problem. The inclusive pronoun “all of us” (l. 18) encourages female listeners to identify with her experience and creates solidarity.

Another important communicative strategy is her combination of personal experience and wider social criticism. Although she explains that the insults did not hurt her personally because she had experienced similar language before (cf. ll. 20–23), she argues that “dehumanizing language is not new” and represents “a pattern” (ll. 24–26). The repetition of the word “pattern” (ll. 24–25) emphasises that the incident is not an isolated case but part of a systematic problem.

Ocasio-Cortez also uses repetition and parallel sentence structures to reinforce her message. The anaphora “I could not allow” is repeated three times (ll. 31–35), highlighting her determination to speak out. Likewise, the repeated structure “to see” (ll. 32–34) stresses what she wants to prevent, namely that young girls and victims of abuse accept such behaviour as normal. These repetitions make her arguments more memorable and increase their emotional impact.

In addition, she refutes Yoho's justification through contrast and parallelism. After mentioning that he referred to his wife and daughters (ll. 41–42), she argues: “Having a daughter does not make a man decent. Having a wife does not make a decent man. Treating people with dignity and respect makes a decent man.” (ll. 43–44). The parallel sentence structure highlights the contrast between superficial family roles and genuine moral behaviour. She reinforces this argument by describing what a “decent man” should do after making a mistake, namely apologise sincerely rather than “save face” or “win a vote” (ll. 45–47).

Finally, Ocasio-Cortez ends the speech with irony. She claims to thank Yoho “for showing the world” that powerful, married men with daughters can still mistreat women (ll. 48–52). The repeated sentence pattern “You can … and accost women” (ll. 49–51) underlines the contradiction between a respectable public image and sexist behaviour. She concludes with two short, parallel sentences: “It happens every day in this country. It happened here on the steps of our Nation's Capitol.” (ll. 53). This ending links the specific incident to a widespread social problem and leaves the audience with a powerful final message.

Overall, Ocasio-Cortez conveys her message effectively by combining ethos, pathos and logical argumentation. Through personal storytelling, repetition, parallelism, contrast, inclusive language and irony, she transforms an individual incident into a powerful statement against sexism and the normalisation of verbal abuse.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez argues that remaining silent in the face of discrimination means accepting it. By explaining that she could not allow young girls and victims of abuse to believe that such behaviour was acceptable (cf. ll. 31–34), she highlights the importance of speaking out publicly against injustice. While I agree that public opposition to discrimination is essential, I do not think that everyone has the same obligation to do so.

On the one hand, speaking up can help challenge prejudice and encourage social change. Public criticism makes discrimination visible and can give victims the feeling that they are not alone. In addition, influential people such as politicians, celebrities or teachers have a particularly strong responsibility because their words reach a large audience and can shape public opinion. If they remain silent, discriminatory behaviour may appear to be acceptable or unimportant.

On the other hand, it is unrealistic to expect everyone to speak out publicly. Victims of discrimination often fear negative consequences, such as losing their job, being harassed online or becoming targets of further abuse. Others may not feel safe enough to express their views, especially in countries where freedom of speech is restricted. In such situations, protecting one's own well-being is more important than fulfilling a moral expectation to speak publicly.

Nevertheless, everyone can contribute to fighting discrimination in different ways. People can support victims privately, challenge prejudiced comments in everyday conversations, report discriminatory behaviour or promote respect and tolerance within their communities. These actions may not attract public attention, but they can still make a meaningful difference.

In conclusion, speaking up publicly against discrimination is highly desirable because it raises awareness and can inspire change. However, it should not be regarded as an obligation for everyone. While those in positions of influence have a particular responsibility to use their voices, individuals should be free to decide how they can oppose discrimination in a way that is both effective and safe for them.

Can Upbringing and Education Break Gender Stereotypes?

Despite the progress many Western societies have made towards gender equality, gender stereotypes continue to influence people's lives. They affect career choices, family roles and even the way children see themselves. While laws and political reforms are important, real change begins much earlier. Upbringing and education play a crucial role in overcoming gender stereotypes, although they cannot solve the problem on their own.

From early childhood onwards, children learn what society expects from them. Parents often encourage boys and girls to behave differently without even noticing it. Boys may be praised for being brave and independent, whereas girls are more likely to be encouraged to be caring and polite. Toys, books and media can reinforce these expectations by presenting stereotypical images of men and women. As a result, many children develop a limited understanding of what they can achieve.

Schools therefore have an important responsibility. Teachers can challenge stereotypes by using inclusive language, presenting diverse role models and encouraging all students to pursue their interests regardless of gender. For example, girls should feel equally welcome in science and technology classes, while boys should be encouraged to consider careers in education or nursing if these match their talents. In addition, discussing topics such as discrimination, equality and respectful behaviour helps young people develop critical thinking skills and question traditional gender roles.

However, education does not end at school. Social media, films and online influencers have a growing impact on young people's attitudes. While some promote equality and diversity, others spread outdated or even harmful ideas about masculinity and femininity. For this reason, media literacy has become an essential part of education. Young people need to learn how to evaluate online content critically instead of accepting stereotypes as facts.

At the same time, it would be unrealistic to expect upbringing and education alone to eliminate gender stereotypes. Social norms, workplace structures and cultural traditions also shape people's beliefs and opportunities. If women continue to earn less than men in similar jobs or if fathers are discouraged from taking parental leave, children receive conflicting messages about equality. Lasting progress therefore requires support from families, schools, employers, the media and politicians alike.

In conclusion, upbringing and education are among the most powerful tools for overcoming gender stereotypes because they influence attitudes from an early age and prepare young people to question prejudice. Nevertheless, they can only be fully effective if society as a whole promotes equal opportunities and challenges outdated expectations. Gender equality is not achieved through a single lesson or campaign; it is the result of everyday decisions made by all of us.