WHY WOMEN CAN’T BE EINSTEIN?
The article under observation is titled “Who says a woman can’t be Einstein?” which is penned down by Amanda Ripley. It presents the argument of equality among genders but only close observation of the article reveals in what particular ways equality is present and where it is required. Amanda Ripley is a distinguished writer who has worked with the reputed TIME magazine. This article does not belong to her conventional field of literature but it attempts to make a strong comment on the biological role of the genders.
This article aims to critique the view of Amanda Ripley in the article “Who says a woman can’t be Einstein?” through rigorous analytical observation of logical strength and relevancy of the subject matter provided in the article. The evaluation is strictly an analytical view while the response and conclusion depicts a personal opinion regarding the article and the author’s views.
The title of the passage suggests that the article is an attempt to clarify the differences between both the genders and provide reasons about the existent differences and need to bridge the gap between the genders. The viewpoint of the author is analytic towards the biological attributes of the genders as required but it is heavily focused on factual data at times. The author brings up Leonard Sax and infers his observations which point towards the fact that both the genders are equally gifted and necessary to co-exist and this is firmly put by saying “Which is better? You need both”. (Sax, 2005)The author puts forward the reason behind the view point of society towards the genders which has been on the basis of achievements in various fields and their presence in difficult fields of study.
The author believes that this viewpoint can be changed if the conditions of study are changed according to the biological attributes of both the genders. Though the purpose of the article was about males and females being equal, she consistently raises differences between them through the statements “men and women have different brain architectures” and “boys and girls will be better off in different classrooms”. Ripley does not propose a realistic solution or a correct direction herself but resides on the opinion of others without a personal take on the same opinion.
There is a myriad of information provided about the biological attributes of both the genders and how the female gender excels over the male gender in certain aspects but which is accurate but it fails to make a point that which aspects are important to identify the female gender as a biologically superior one. The author fails to clarify and focus on the point that women have an equal potential and can reach the same heights as males due to their biological qualities and tends to focus on the current condition and its reasons. The author also puts a weight on the neurological architecture of males and females. (Ripley, 2005)
Ripley presents her point but puts too much factual data and the opinions of other people on the reason and less amount of inferences from the data and her personal opinions about what can lead to a positive change are missing. The author argues logically through facts about how females are superior to males in many aspects like growth during childhood, perception and absorbing and retaining knowledge in education but does not adhere to the direction and fails to make a strong point through the facts and despite credible evidence, the argument fails to be clear.
Residing purely on facts and statistics raises eyebrows but not concern from the reader which was necessary as the subject is a critical one. The author’s conventional field is government and writing about real worldly events which needs a factual and statistical view to raise concern but fails to make a mark in this particular subject. The organization of the text makes the reader conveniently follow the thought process of Ripley as it is divided by lessons which logically connect to each other. But how the article concludes makes the reader feel that it is incomplete in a manner and does not provide sufficient data regarding how the female contribution is increasing and why it will keep consistently increasing according to her statement “Patience is required” at the end.
I agree on the viewpoint that there are biological differences between the genders and male and female gender are superior in distinct attributes which has been cemented by the data obtained through a number of researches. I also agree that the contribution in the educational fields in both the genders is changing but I disagree on the solutions to bridge the gap between both the genders which are given without sufficient data and a lack of logical connection leading to a conclusion that boys and girls should study separately to grow.
This passage is valid on the grounds that it can make an individual believe that the female gender is equal and superior to males in many aspects which are still relevant to progress. The drawback remains that the title hasn’t been justified fully and the emotional response to the issue would remain the same after reading the article. The author also relies on the fact that the neurological structure of the genders would be a reason enough for the change in the condition of both the genders regarding achieving excellence and public perception.
Ripley, A. (2005, 2 27). Who Says A Woman Can’t Be Einstein? Retrieved from content.time.com: http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1032332,00.html
Sax, L. (2005). WHy Gender Matters. Doubleday.