Sendy, great job on your paper! You provide clear writing and get to the points that need to be addressed without any added puffery. Your first paragraph is very strong in that you present hooks definition of feminism right away, providing a stable introduction to your paper. However you duplicate this exact definition again in the tenth paragraph which I’m not sure is necessary.
You provide great quotes from Brow’s book in order to show examples of how the book relates to the articles. I did not see a direct connection between the book and any specific wave of feminism. You also clearly outline the three different parenting styles; accommodator, hard bargainers and persuasive. I think this paper could have benefited from more detail regarding persuasive parenting which you state Brown prefers.
You also do a great job relating the book to the theories of voice and the Mothers of the Plaza De Mayo reading. However your eighth paragraph regarding voice contradicts itself. First it states that “louder voice might not work as well’ (which I agree with). The final sentence then alleges that voice “seems to work sometimes”.
The end of the paper contains a very strong conclusion. I very much enjoyed reading your paper. You did a wonderful job.
Sendy, good job! This is a well organized paper and your presentation was well put together. The ideas presented in a paper are concise and clear to understand. At the beginning of the paper, you gave us a detailed introduction of the book How To Negotiate With Kids… even when you think you shouldn’t, who is the target market, and what is the selling point of the book.
Besides that, you did a great job on relating model of feminism(s) to the type of parenting promoted in the book. Such as, you stated in the paper that, one of parenting styles is called Accommodator, who usually are female and are willing to sacrifice and giving in to buy peace during the conflict because they focus on preserving the relationships and not hurting others’ feelings; additionally, men fall into the opposite parenting style to accommodators —hard bargainers. And then you related these parenting styles to the Hooks’ feminist model—trying to end sexist oppression, in family. I think this point is very interesting and make sense to me.
Another interesting argument you pointed out is that voice needs to be taken into account by kids, which in this case is not louder voice does not mean your voice is being heard, but at least kids will act like they were listening. I think this point both applied to Brown’s book and Wackwitz & Rakow article.
This is a good paper–it’s clear that you put a lot of work into it! Brown’s book sounds interesting–I’m especially intrigued by his generalization that most fathers are “hard bargainers” while most mothers are “accommodators.” Does he acknowledge that this isn’t always the case? I would also be careful about how you word things–at one point in your paper you refer to “the powerful role, man, and the powerless role, woman.” It’s not clear whether you’re being critical of this idea, or simply reproducing it. Clearly feminism would say that women can and should be powerful. If Brown asserts in his book that women usually display a “weak” form of parenting, I think feminist theorists would definitely take issue with that.
There are some grammatical errors in this draft, but overall I think you did a fine job exploring the connections between the book and our assigned articles. Well done!
Sendy I enjoyed reading your paper and you analysis of Scott Brown’s book. You break down the introduction in a format that is easy to understand and provide appropriate quotations regarding dealing with typed of conflicts in family relationships and everyday life.
Good use of Hooks in regards to ending oppression; you provide strong examples of how Brown discussed how women are accommodators and men are hard bargainers. I think you best explain Hooks when providing quotes such as “because I say so” or “you should do that;” this explains how male dominant families form, and in relation to Hooks, sexist oppression is negative and should not exist. I also discussed parenting and voice, in a sense that raising your voice to a child is often not the best means of parenting.
You discussed the concept of silence as being bad; make sure to look at Rakow and Wackwitz because I made the same mistake. They believe silence can be good, so be sure to read into that more. Aside from that and some grammatical errors, your paper was overall enjoyable and easy to understand. Great job!!
Sendy,
I really liked your review of your book on negotiating with kids. You did a great job defining the different types of parents and explaining the differences between accommodators, hard-bargainers and persuasive parents. Your discussion on these parenting roles in terms of sexist oppression from bell hooks and voice from both Foss & Domenici and Wackwitz & Rakow is clear and thorough.
It helps that you provide specific examples from your book on parenting and the assigned readings. I think it may have added additional context to add some of the specific disciplines and topics that you mention early in the paper, but feel your arguments are still well supported.
The articles you chose to support Brown’s book are very relevant to your topic and you clearly explain the focus of the book in specific terms of voice as the concept is defined and described in each article. Your conclusion is very strong and wraps up your paper well, but I would have liked to see a reference to the Brown book at the end, tying all the concepts together.
Overall, your paper expresses a clear understanding of the material and is very well written. Nicely done.
Sendy, you did a great job on this Analysis Paper. Hooks’ ideas about feminist movement as a movement against sexist opression are perfectly complements the main ideas from the book you chose. Moreover, you provided a perfect overview of the book. I really enjoyed how you applied the idea about accommodators with the Hooks’ theory. Also, I would like to point out that all the citations perfectly corresponds with major ideas. Sometimes, it is very hard to explain theories and concepts without giving a direct citation from a book or other material. However, you did really well at putting citation from Hooks in your paper.
The concept of voice discussed in your paper enhanced my knowledge about how women employ their voice in order to express their emotions and feelings. Also, it was interesting to learn that being loud does not mean being understandable by others.
Sendy, you did a great job and your paper is very consice and organized. However, I would recommend to double check your paper before you submit it. There are some minor grammar and spelling mistakes that could be eliminated.
Great job, well done.
Sendy, great job on your paper! You provide clear writing and get to the points that need to be addressed without any added puffery. Your first paragraph is very strong in that you present hooks definition of feminism right away, providing a stable introduction to your paper. However you duplicate this exact definition again in the tenth paragraph which I’m not sure is necessary.
You provide great quotes from Brow’s book in order to show examples of how the book relates to the articles. I did not see a direct connection between the book and any specific wave of feminism. You also clearly outline the three different parenting styles; accommodator, hard bargainers and persuasive. I think this paper could have benefited from more detail regarding persuasive parenting which you state Brown prefers.
You also do a great job relating the book to the theories of voice and the Mothers of the Plaza De Mayo reading. However your eighth paragraph regarding voice contradicts itself. First it states that “louder voice might not work as well’ (which I agree with). The final sentence then alleges that voice “seems to work sometimes”.
The end of the paper contains a very strong conclusion. I very much enjoyed reading your paper. You did a wonderful job.
Sendy, good job! This is a well organized paper and your presentation was well put together. The ideas presented in a paper are concise and clear to understand. At the beginning of the paper, you gave us a detailed introduction of the book How To Negotiate With Kids… even when you think you shouldn’t, who is the target market, and what is the selling point of the book.
Besides that, you did a great job on relating model of feminism(s) to the type of parenting promoted in the book. Such as, you stated in the paper that, one of parenting styles is called Accommodator, who usually are female and are willing to sacrifice and giving in to buy peace during the conflict because they focus on preserving the relationships and not hurting others’ feelings; additionally, men fall into the opposite parenting style to accommodators —hard bargainers. And then you related these parenting styles to the Hooks’ feminist model—trying to end sexist oppression, in family. I think this point is very interesting and make sense to me.
Another interesting argument you pointed out is that voice needs to be taken into account by kids, which in this case is not louder voice does not mean your voice is being heard, but at least kids will act like they were listening. I think this point both applied to Brown’s book and Wackwitz & Rakow article.
Sendy,
This is a good paper–it’s clear that you put a lot of work into it! Brown’s book sounds interesting–I’m especially intrigued by his generalization that most fathers are “hard bargainers” while most mothers are “accommodators.” Does he acknowledge that this isn’t always the case? I would also be careful about how you word things–at one point in your paper you refer to “the powerful role, man, and the powerless role, woman.” It’s not clear whether you’re being critical of this idea, or simply reproducing it. Clearly feminism would say that women can and should be powerful. If Brown asserts in his book that women usually display a “weak” form of parenting, I think feminist theorists would definitely take issue with that.
There are some grammatical errors in this draft, but overall I think you did a fine job exploring the connections between the book and our assigned articles. Well done!
Sendy I enjoyed reading your paper and you analysis of Scott Brown’s book. You break down the introduction in a format that is easy to understand and provide appropriate quotations regarding dealing with typed of conflicts in family relationships and everyday life.
Good use of Hooks in regards to ending oppression; you provide strong examples of how Brown discussed how women are accommodators and men are hard bargainers. I think you best explain Hooks when providing quotes such as “because I say so” or “you should do that;” this explains how male dominant families form, and in relation to Hooks, sexist oppression is negative and should not exist. I also discussed parenting and voice, in a sense that raising your voice to a child is often not the best means of parenting.
You discussed the concept of silence as being bad; make sure to look at Rakow and Wackwitz because I made the same mistake. They believe silence can be good, so be sure to read into that more. Aside from that and some grammatical errors, your paper was overall enjoyable and easy to understand. Great job!!
Sendy,
I really liked your review of your book on negotiating with kids. You did a great job defining the different types of parents and explaining the differences between accommodators, hard-bargainers and persuasive parents. Your discussion on these parenting roles in terms of sexist oppression from bell hooks and voice from both Foss & Domenici and Wackwitz & Rakow is clear and thorough.
It helps that you provide specific examples from your book on parenting and the assigned readings. I think it may have added additional context to add some of the specific disciplines and topics that you mention early in the paper, but feel your arguments are still well supported.
The articles you chose to support Brown’s book are very relevant to your topic and you clearly explain the focus of the book in specific terms of voice as the concept is defined and described in each article. Your conclusion is very strong and wraps up your paper well, but I would have liked to see a reference to the Brown book at the end, tying all the concepts together.
Overall, your paper expresses a clear understanding of the material and is very well written. Nicely done.
Sendy, you did a great job on this Analysis Paper. Hooks’ ideas about feminist movement as a movement against sexist opression are perfectly complements the main ideas from the book you chose. Moreover, you provided a perfect overview of the book. I really enjoyed how you applied the idea about accommodators with the Hooks’ theory. Also, I would like to point out that all the citations perfectly corresponds with major ideas. Sometimes, it is very hard to explain theories and concepts without giving a direct citation from a book or other material. However, you did really well at putting citation from Hooks in your paper.
The concept of voice discussed in your paper enhanced my knowledge about how women employ their voice in order to express their emotions and feelings. Also, it was interesting to learn that being loud does not mean being understandable by others.
Sendy, you did a great job and your paper is very consice and organized. However, I would recommend to double check your paper before you submit it. There are some minor grammar and spelling mistakes that could be eliminated.
Great job, well done.