Overall, this is a very interesting and unique topic, though I'm not sure that even your expositional (arrive at a thesis) approach always works. You have many different "factoids" about this topic that are not necessarily connect to your (eventual thesis/solution).
It's hard to understand how you are connecting the dress and the equal treatment concepts as causes. These two seem underdeveloped because you try to cover both of them (back and forth) in larger sections rather than devoted sections. Your history approach doesn't allow you to define terms, make more concrete descriptions, or make more clear connections because you spend more time talking about history than making a point. I suggest your organizational approach be more straight forward (make a point and support it, etc).
I recall you thinking that is less graceful and more provocative, but even what you have here is provocative. You're trying to sound less partial, but you sound partial anyway. I'd say be more forward with your ideology since you probably have one underpinning these ideas anyway. Your analytical approach starts to breakdown as you state "In large part, yes" after asking if what you just described caused the death of chivalry. Underpinning all of this is the unstated assumption that chivalry is better for the world. Otherwise, why the discussion to begin with?
Your unstated assumption is all the more prominent when you supply your solution, while some may be thinking: "Wait a minute, so who said this was a problem to be solved anyway?"
All in all, your argument suffers from some far too inconspicuous organization (be more assertive and direct in your ideas here) and also a hovering "begging the question." If you don't intend to beg the question that chivalry is good for the world, then make your scope clearer. Also, who is your audience? You have not made this clear at all. Who would be reading this and where? Why the generic essay and word document? So additionally, this seems very a-contextual.
Working on these ideas would also improve the organization and make points and ideas more clearly connected. You likely need to define chivalry, define the kind of dress you're talking about and define the kind of equal treatment you're talking about. Lastly, consider your purpose in writing this. Your last paragraph assumes that we need to "curtail the stemming tide" and that men should "stop the mold of history carved out for them" and that they should "not give up there innate identity as provider, protector, and nurturer." Have you completely argued for these points or have you described societal trends? These are two different purposes and different audiences would be interested in each purpose.
So there are revision to be made to make this clearer and more effective.
Overall, this is a very interesting and unique topic, though I'm not sure that even your expositional (arrive at a thesis) approach always works. You have many different "factoids" about this topic that are not necessarily connect to your (eventual thesis/solution).
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to understand how you are connecting the dress and the equal treatment concepts as causes. These two seem underdeveloped because you try to cover both of them (back and forth) in larger sections rather than devoted sections. Your history approach doesn't allow you to define terms, make more concrete descriptions, or make more clear connections because you spend more time talking about history than making a point. I suggest your organizational approach be more straight forward (make a point and support it, etc).
I recall you thinking that is less graceful and more provocative, but even what you have here is provocative. You're trying to sound less partial, but you sound partial anyway. I'd say be more forward with your ideology since you probably have one underpinning these ideas anyway. Your analytical approach starts to breakdown as you state "In large part, yes" after asking if what you just described caused the death of chivalry. Underpinning all of this is the unstated assumption that chivalry is better for the world. Otherwise, why the discussion to begin with?
Your unstated assumption is all the more prominent when you supply your solution, while some may be thinking: "Wait a minute, so who said this was a problem to be solved anyway?"
All in all, your argument suffers from some far too inconspicuous organization (be more assertive and direct in your ideas here) and also a hovering "begging the question." If you don't intend to beg the question that chivalry is good for the world, then make your scope clearer. Also, who is your audience? You have not made this clear at all. Who would be reading this and where? Why the generic essay and word document? So additionally, this seems very a-contextual.
Working on these ideas would also improve the organization and make points and ideas more clearly connected. You likely need to define chivalry, define the kind of dress you're talking about and define the kind of equal treatment you're talking about. Lastly, consider your purpose in writing this. Your last paragraph assumes that we need to "curtail the stemming tide" and that men should "stop the mold of history carved out for them" and that they should "not give up there innate identity as provider, protector, and nurturer." Have you completely argued for these points or have you described societal trends? These are two different purposes and different audiences would be interested in each purpose.
So there are revision to be made to make this clearer and more effective.