This is good... but at the beginning to seem to set out to prove that women should not be in engineering, and at the end you seem to have turned around on that. Is that what you meant to do? Am I missing something here?
it is indeed what i ment to do. i figured the most effective way to show women are as capable as men was to show how rediculus the opositions arguments were. if you notice the lack of any real support for any of the conclusions, the sweeping generalities and assumptions made, there is no way that you can take the argument really seriusly
It seems to me that your first argument is saying that women shouldn't be in engineering because they have a period and get pregnant. I mean, how does that translate only to engineering? It seems to me that to make that argument credible, you'd have to be arguing that women shouldn't hold jobs at all, which is a ridiculous statement (and I reeeeeeally hope you agree). And while what you did in the conclusion was kind of interesting, it's also really confusing, since you're just changing your stance (or you seem to, even if you actually aren't) in the middle of the paper, which kind of undermines your whole argument. The other two arguments were good though. Congratulations on writing an inflammatory paper just for the sake of writing an inflammatory paper! Now you're almost as cynical as Junger!
Well, the whole point of the paper was to prove how rediculus the arguments were adn to undermine them completely with common sense. i hope that you can clearly see the point of this essay now. if not, then FUCK OFF. :-D
Oh, and GOD DAMN IT i was cynical and bitter BEFORE junger even thought of it as an option. bitch
Comments 6
Reply
Reply
Reply
Oh, and GOD DAMN IT i was cynical and bitter BEFORE junger even thought of it as an option. bitch
Reply
Yeah, I thought of that as I wrote it, but decided I needed some way to end such a lengthy comment, so I wrote it anyway.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment