I read "A Threat in Title IX" by Christina Hoff. It can be found on http://www.washingtonpost.com/.
The main argument is that Title IX is detrimental to male athletics and will have a negative affect on the sciences.
She explained that Howard University tried to close the gap between male and female student athletes. The school ended up cutting men's wrestling and baseball and adding a women's bowling team.
Hoff addresses the opposing viewpoint that Title IX is necessary for math and science because of sexism. She rebuffs this by saying that men and women generally have different academic interests and abilities.
She uses argument by analogy because she is comparing Title IX in sports and in academics. She also uses argument by example when she says why Title IX was bad for men's sports.
I don't know if Title IX is bad or good. I also don't know why there is a gender gap in math and science. Maybe it is because of sexism, maybe it is partially to do with sexism, or maybe it has nothing to do with sexism. I just think that it's stupid that there has to be a Title IX in the first place. If there weren't so many sexist people, then this wouldn't even be an issue. I don't understand why men and women still can't be viewed as equals. In the end, we're all just people.
After reading this, I could construct the argument that while affirmative action and programs like Title IX are meant to be good, they can have unintended consequences.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Ken Buck Articles
I read the articles about Ken Buck. Ken Buck is the Weld County District Attorney is Colorado. He would not prosecute a rape case because the he thought the victim had had an abortion. She didn't actually have an abortion, though. She had a miscarriage. The baby's father was the victim's rapist, but the pregnancy occurred before he raped her. Buck didn't prosecute because he believed that the victim was lying about the rape to get back at her accuser for the supposed abortion.
The first one is called "CO-Sen: Ken Buck didn't prosecute rape case because he believed victim had an abortion" by Jed Lewison. It was published in the Daily Kos.The main argument is that Ken Buck was wrong in his idea that a rape victim's case should not be prosecuted because the victim had previously had an abortion.The author backs up his ideas by arguing that Buck's logic is flawed because if anyone has a motive for revenge it's the rapist, not the victim. He also said that Buck's facts were wrong because the victim never had an abortion; she had a miscarriage. The author uses argument by example.
The next article is called "CO-Sen: Buck's Growing Problem with Women." It's by Joan McCarter and is from dailykos.com. The main argument is that Buck's opinion on the rape case indicates that he is a sexist. He would not take the victim seriously and said that because she invited the offender over the night of the rape, she was asking for sex.
The next article is called "Ken Buck Accused Alleged Rape Victim of "Buyer's Remorse." It is by Yashwanth Manjunath and is from alan.com. The main argument is that Ken Buck should not be elected Senator in Colorado. The author uses Buck's refusal to prosecute a rape case to support his argument. The suspect confessed to raping the victim, but Buck still would not prosecute because he is very pro-life. The author argued that this shows that Buck is too incompetent to be a senator.
The next article is called "the Ken Buck Rape Case." It's by Nick Baumann and is from motherjones.com. The main argument is to inform the reader about the Ken Buck rape case. The author does not take a side; he just gives the information.
The last article is "Victim in Ken Buck Rape Case Speaks." It's by Nick Baumann and was published on motherjones.com. The purpose of this article is to get the victim's point of view. It is an interview with the victim.
After reading these articles, I am very upset. When I found out Buck was running for Senate, I looked up the Colorado election results and was relieved to find out that Buck was losing. I was then disheartened to see that he was only losing by 1% as of 2:43 AM. I can't understand why people would still vote for him after his blatant sexism. Not prosecuting a rape case because he believes abortion is wrong shows how unprofessional he is. He's stupid, too, because the girl had a miscarriage, not an abortion. Why would anyone want this man in the Senate? He's obviously not qualified.
That girl was raped. Her rapist even admitted to doing it. Why would someone just ignore that?
The first one is called "CO-Sen: Ken Buck didn't prosecute rape case because he believed victim had an abortion" by Jed Lewison. It was published in the Daily Kos.The main argument is that Ken Buck was wrong in his idea that a rape victim's case should not be prosecuted because the victim had previously had an abortion.The author backs up his ideas by arguing that Buck's logic is flawed because if anyone has a motive for revenge it's the rapist, not the victim. He also said that Buck's facts were wrong because the victim never had an abortion; she had a miscarriage. The author uses argument by example.
The next article is called "CO-Sen: Buck's Growing Problem with Women." It's by Joan McCarter and is from dailykos.com. The main argument is that Buck's opinion on the rape case indicates that he is a sexist. He would not take the victim seriously and said that because she invited the offender over the night of the rape, she was asking for sex.
The next article is called "Ken Buck Accused Alleged Rape Victim of "Buyer's Remorse." It is by Yashwanth Manjunath and is from alan.com. The main argument is that Ken Buck should not be elected Senator in Colorado. The author uses Buck's refusal to prosecute a rape case to support his argument. The suspect confessed to raping the victim, but Buck still would not prosecute because he is very pro-life. The author argued that this shows that Buck is too incompetent to be a senator.
The next article is called "the Ken Buck Rape Case." It's by Nick Baumann and is from motherjones.com. The main argument is to inform the reader about the Ken Buck rape case. The author does not take a side; he just gives the information.
The last article is "Victim in Ken Buck Rape Case Speaks." It's by Nick Baumann and was published on motherjones.com. The purpose of this article is to get the victim's point of view. It is an interview with the victim.
After reading these articles, I am very upset. When I found out Buck was running for Senate, I looked up the Colorado election results and was relieved to find out that Buck was losing. I was then disheartened to see that he was only losing by 1% as of 2:43 AM. I can't understand why people would still vote for him after his blatant sexism. Not prosecuting a rape case because he believes abortion is wrong shows how unprofessional he is. He's stupid, too, because the girl had a miscarriage, not an abortion. Why would anyone want this man in the Senate? He's obviously not qualified.
That girl was raped. Her rapist even admitted to doing it. Why would someone just ignore that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)