User talk:Student02A/sandbox

Feedback on article contribution

Comments are in no particular order:

• This is an overall comment for which particulars are highlighted in subsequent comments. The tone of the draft is serious, respectful and neutral. That is all good. Construction of some sentences, however, seems overwrought, as though you worked so hard on neutrality that fluidity, style and reader needs took a back seat - completely understandable in a draft. Do not, therefore, read critiques of sentence structure as critique of the substance.
• In this sentence, for example - found that no division of labor within a same-sex relationship can be viewed as setting a precedent as to what gender roles are normal. Beginning a sentence with a negative highlights that component of the thought as in, "the studio affirms that no animals were harmed in the making of this film." The emphasis, the first thought the reader grabs, is "NO" as in "NONE." I would argue that the emphasis in your thought above is "fluidity or flexibility" rather than "NO or None." As in researchers found that division of labor in non-hetero parent pairs creates alternatives to [I think these are the authors' words] conventional understandings of traditional family gender roles. In general, it is easier for a reader to grasp what IS going on rather than what is NOT going on. The latter construction necessitates that the reader process an understanding of what the writer has expected to be going on before grasping the significance of not. The exercise requires a lot of mental back flips.
• It is possible that the contribution overall might be read as a lot of conversation for a pretty simple idea - when there aren't any men, all roles are performed by women. It might help a reader to frame the significance of the findings as the researchers do. The researchers suggest that, rather than disrupting a valuable structure in family life (as some of the criticisms in the current article material allege) non-hetero families' division of labor suggest alternatives to gender roles that might apply across many types of families. If you attribute the suggestion to the researchers, you are not compromising your neutrality.
• As you consider elaboration/revision/expansion, what else seems important in the selection of resources you have gathered? As an example (perhaps not the best one, but an idea), the Doyle article could make a coherent followup to your existing draft because it reflects the possibility of growing openness to the kind of gender role fluidity the Hauck study highlights in non-hetero family pairs.Jagrif02 (talk) 11:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)