Gender Disadvantages In Low Goals And Safe Targets

Both “Low Goals and Safe Targets” By Linda Babcock and Sara Laschever, and “Disappearing Act: Where Have the Men Gone? No Place Good” by Michael Gurian discuss issues of gender disadvantage. In this excerpt from Babcock and Laschever 's book Women Don 't Ask: Negotiation and the Gender Divide, published in 2003, they discuss female disadvantage in salary negotiation. On the other hand, Gurian 's 2005 essay for the Washington Post delves into the issue of the decreasing numbers of male college students and how the education system is working against them. Overall, Babcock and Laschever produce a more convincing argument for their case than Gurian by having more clear and professional formatting, stronger emotional appeal, and more reliable sources. A major factor in the readability and persuasiveness of Babcock and Laschever 's article that Gurian 's does not have is the clear and professional formatting. The authors start with an example of the projected issue and continue on to support the thesis with statistics and reasons for said issue, closing with another strong example of their point. As well as having a stable outline, the article is composed quite professionally. Babcock and Laschever do not argue their point like toddlers trying to convince their mother they do not need a nap, but like lawyers in a courtroom. These factors allow for a smooth, understandable read. On the other hand, Gurian is lacking in these areas. Gurian 's article tells of the history of boys and their troubles with education, but his essay seems to follow no time line. His essay jumps from “The trend of females overtaking males in college Nelson 2 was initially measured in 1978”(Gurian 2), in paragraph four, then back to the present, and the once again in paragraph eleven, he jumps backwards two-hundred years. While it is understandable to have a bit of to-and-fro with dates and times, Gurian 's choice to jump back and forth between causes and issues does not lend to his persuasion. In addition to his choppy formatting, Gurian 's lack of professionalism dampens the effect of his argument. Gurian writes as though he were writing an angry letter to the board of education, rather than trying to present his point to the public. Perhaps, if he were not to let his emotions influence his opinions so obviously, he would …show more content…
Babcock and Laschever themselves are credible sources: Babcock having a PhD in economics and Laschever having explored barriers to women 's careers in science. As well as being sources themselves, Babcock and Laschever also reference several other reliable sources to help strengthen their argument. In Gurian 's case, he himself is a fairly reliable source. The problem is that he does not have a single cited source in the entirety of his essay. Gurian does reference a friend of his who is an administrator at Howard University but fails to list a name. In addition, Gurian gave no sources or citations for any of his various statistics listed. Simply citing sources could have greatly assisted his …show more content…
No Place Good”. Babcock and Laschever implement clear and professional formatting, strong emotional appeal, and reliable sources. Consequently, Gurian 's essay is lacking in these fields; some more than others. This all goes to show, it is not only what is said, but how it is said, that can make a