Analyzing Context

Stawig, "Argument Logo" 10/03/11 via Wikipedia Commons,  Creative Commons License

This post addresses the context of the argument that I will be making for project 3. My argument involves the question of whether it is immoral to do medical/scientific research (and make claims about that research) on how both sexes differ, as it could open up room for sexism, or if it is immoral not to do the research on sexes, since they do biologically differ. From the questions in Writing Public Lives:

1. There are two key perspectives on my argument. Either a person wants to continue sex-difference research, or they think it is sexist to do so. Both sides of the argument make good points about the morality of each option, as it has become such a moral development. The perspectives are on opposite ends of the spectrum of the topic, also, and the only middle-ground perspective is of those who simply don't care about the argument at all.

2. The biggest contention between perspectives on my argument is sexism, and how it factors into the research. The problem is that calling men and women inherently "different" allows people to treat men and women differently. For instance, finding out that women don't handle stress as well as men (just an example, not a real fact) could cause businesses to avoid hiring women, thus causing even more sexism against women in a society that is already troublesome.

3. The two perspectives do agree with what research and scientific facts have shown, that there are certain biological differences between men and women that can be dangerous to ignore. If these differences are completely disregarded, there could be medical complications for the different sexes, which even those against the research can recognize.

4. The ideological differences between the perspectives involve morality. Is it more important that a group of people is treated correctly medically, or is it more important that the group lives in societal and cultural peace? Essentially this is the moral dilemma that must be faced in my argument.

5. The only action plan proposed by either side of the argument is either urging for or against sex-difference research being performed. And it appears that most of the arguments FOR sex-difference research are more invested in their perspective than those against it. Therefore, the affirmative side argues a plan to its audience more strongly.

6. My own argument is going to be that the research is sexist, purely for the sake of that side being easier to be emotional about, and I want my article to be very loaded and emotional. An example of this is a blog post that is equally as biased and emotional as I want my article to be about the subject. Considering I would be trying to post the argument to a site like buzzed, it won't be very academic.

7. The opposite side of the argument, which is factual articles and books that look like this, will probably be a problem going against my argument, is the opposite side contains far more evidence and facts on the subject than my side, which is mostly personal opinion.

Reflection: I read Lauren and Michael's Analyzing Context posts, and discovered that my own post shows that I have less of a grasp on my context. While I know the basic arguments of each perspective in my argument, I don't know the details and facts about each side. I also realized that for other peoples' arguments, there seems to be one more popular perspective than the other, but I am not sure which perspective is more popular in my case.