There are notable differences in the ways that men and women communicate with one another. In my experience, men are more short, sweet, and to the point. Conversations between men are extremely blunt and one can always know exactly what a man means when he speaks. On the other hand, women seem to possess a subtext in their conversations. There always seems to be another meaning or emotion underneath what is spoken aloud. For instance, if a woman says “do whatever you want,” this is basically code for “you should choose wisely and make sure I will approve of your choice.” This difference goes back to the stereotypes about men and women; men are strong while women are emotional beings. Therefore, the feminist invitational rhetoric that Foss and Griffin discuss, in my opinion, perfectly illustrates the difference between the communication of men versus the communication of women. Feminist invitational rhetoric does not focus on devaluing the opinions of other people like traditional rhetoric. Instead, this kind of rhetoric prompts a discussion rather than posing a persuasive argument. The audience is able to share their ideas and have people learn from one another. This kind of rhetoric challenges the ideas of the patriarchal society that we live in. However, just like how women like to chat for longer, this rhetoric takes more time because of the back and forth nature rather than having one person dominate the conversation. On the other hand, the traditional rhetoric that we discussed on the first day of class shows persuasion in an argument rather than discussing ideas. I feel as though this is more beneficial because it is more time efficient to state a case and give your arguments to your audience than to discuss the matter at hand. When someone wants to change the opinions of others, he can do so more effectively when he can state all vital points in the argument without being interrupted by his audience. Which kind of rhetoric would you choose when trying to change someone’s mind and why?