Writer’s purpose is more social criticism than scientific study. Actually he has two arguments – he is against the scientific research itself, and also about the conclusions drawn from that research. Seeks to examine the way we think about gender – where some of our ideas come from. First person approach takes us into this scientist’s thinking as he critiques the evidence and conclusions of his colleagues from a century ago. Summary of Argument 1.
An Analysis of "The Science of Difference: Sex Ed." by Steven Pinker In The Science of Difference: Sex Ed., Steven Pinker, Johnstone Family Professor of Psychology at Harvard and alumni faculty at MIT, argues that research from cognitive science and evolutionary biology supports Lawrence Summer’s hypothesis that innate differences between males and females can influence mathematical aptitude. Steven Pinker states that by the early ‘70s women in science was a given and there is no going back, to even talk about going back to when women weren’t would be morally wrong and scientifically disastrous. Pinker goes on to say that the way people reacted to Harvard President Lawrence Summers’s remarks was as if he had proposed that there were innate sex differences, when he just proposed the possibility. Summers was shamed into apologizing but his analysis of why there might be fewer women in mathematics and science is common.
Sean Hopper Welch ENGL1301-086 15Sept2009 Rhetorical Analysis of Sex, Lies, and Conversation The author’s goal in this essay seems to be to point out differences in the way men and women communicate in an attempt to eliminate a major contributing factor to divorce. She likens men and women’s difficulties in communicating with difficulties in communicating between cultures. She identifies several factors that contribute to why men and women have these difficulties. I feel she identified situations that are seen and experienced in everyday life of men and women and by doing so has helped relationships worldwide. She begins with a real life situation to set the scene for the essay.
Bilal Adem Professor Boyle English 111 18 January 2012 Response to the high cost of manliness Robert Jensen writes in his essay “The High Cost of Manliness” that our culture defines the idea of masculinity in a way that it creates certain expectations that have to be fulfilled. Jensen talks about the aspects biology and culture that affect our view of humanity. Jensen says that masculinity is associated with traits such as seeking control, aggression, and competition. Jensen also talks about the consequences such as rape and vulnerability that are connected to the fact that men and women are different, but Jensen later counters that argument by mentioning that men and women are more alike than they are different. Most importantly men can also be associated with the ideals of caring and sacrifice.
Resistance to Sex Research Film Reaction Paper #1 Resistance to Sex Research American biologist, professor, and sexologist, Alfred Kinsey pioneered Sex Research in 1947 at Indiana University (Condon, 2004). Alfred contributed greatly to the field of entomology but quickly developed questions to determine if human mating practices showed any similarity to those of gall wasps (Condon, 2004). Despite the influx of knowledge about the human nature of sex many people feared that the information would lead to unnecessary harm and unconventional sex. Dr. Kinsey’s research in his late years became questioned for it notability. This revolution is what leads and probes the following questions; what forms of resistance did Dr. Kinsey’s sex research actually encounter?
Recommendation Different genders clash with obscure communication styles while misunderstandings are built up more and more as pressure suppresses the imminent chaos between spouses. Males and females have a linguistic style that they speak to their same kind but creating clashes when speaking to the other sex. When taking marriage classes and improving relationships there are articles such as “His Talk, Her Talk” by Joyce Maynard and “Man to Man, Woman to Woman” by Mark A. Sherman and Adelaide Haas both discuss about the difference of language males and females talk rather than when the same gender communicates. Although Maynard focuses using pathos in her article to connect to the readers with emotion, however Sherman and Haas use a more
(Koons, 2009). As evidenced by these court cases, legalized and institutional discrimination against white men does exist. Our government has placed discriminatory regulations in effect which forces white men to go to court to battle against these regulations. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commissions’ policies operate in such a way that legalizes discrimination against white men. There is a term that negates opportunity most people do not hear about on a daily basis or perhaps not at all: “legal discrimination.” Throughout time, Affirmative Action has morphed into a program that deems it legal to hire women because they are women and minorities because they are a minority.
13. Do you think that women scientists are still discriminated against the way Rosalind Franklin was in the 1950s? 14. Aside from the direct effects of discrimination against women, please describe other possible consequences of the fact that science has historically been a profession that has been dominated by men, most of whom had above average incomes. Commentary Research Part II You need to research one of
Psychology constructs the female: Or he fantasy life of the male psychologist with some attention to the fantasies of his friends, the male biologist and the male anthropologist). Feminism & Psychology, 3(2), 195-210. doi: 10.1177/0959353593032005 1. Weisstein’s (1993) main argument was that the manner of obtaining correct information regarding women and psychology is flawed. The author argued that many theories come from “years of intensive clinical experience” but the discrepancy of the experimentsbased on the bias of the experimenter, and their preconceived ideas of how groups will react. They
“If you want to believe in intellectual freedom and the progress of knowledge and the advancement of science and all those other good things, then you must swallow hard and accept this: for as thickheaded and wayward an animal as us, the realistic question is how to make the best of prejudice, not how to eradicate it.” Jonathan Rauch wrote this in his article "In Defense of Prejudice: Why Incendiary Speech Must Be Protected" published in Harper’s Magazine in May 1995. Rauch goes on to defend incendiary speech and encourage what he refers to as “intellectual pluralism”⎯an expression of various types of bigotry. He also explains the other side of the spectrum, “intellectual purism.” Purism is described as a society completely lacking all kinds of prejudice, in speech and even in thought. Rauch notes in his article our scientific categorization as Homo sapiens, a tribal species whose natural instinct is to seek out people similar to ourselves. These are the people we identify with, a place where we can comfortably express our beliefs.