Both Kramarae and Daly put a lot of faith in the power of words. As rhetoricians, they should, but I question if they are perhaps idealistic. Kramarae advocates using vocabulary as a means of allowing it to enter common conversations, thereby changing mindsets and ultimately making society a more hospitable place for women. She mentions a theory in which women "adapt their ideas and expressions in order to speak through the communicative modes of men" (19). I'm not convinced the communicative modes of men and women differ enough to draw any conclusions. We might be able to find certain patterns, but these are likely the result of upbringing, education, and individual circumstances.
Daly, on the other hand, goes so far as to change established words through punctuation. For example, gynecology becomes gyn/ecology. Reading her work seems very foreign to me. I was constantly slowed down and distracted by her odd punctuation. In addition, her "new" words meant little to me unless the definition was explained. I therefore question how effective her prose really is. Most of my annotations on her readings said "She's insane," or "that's insane." The background and foreground might be an effective conceptual representation of society, but her ideas in general are far from concrete, and she gets caught up in the creation of words. If her goal is to create change, I doubt she can do it through language (sadly).
Her actions were quite inspiring, such as sticking with Boston College through years of discrimination and tenure refusals. The readings, however, did not provide adequate insights into the side of Boston College itself, so I felt like I was not getting the whole story. I was persuaded to fight for her side, however, so the readings were an example of effective rhetoric in that regard.