Meanwhile, “Avoiding Sexist Language” was only mentioned at the beginning and was never cited again in the piece. The writing could have appealed to a wider range of audience if you had proven your viewpoint better by sourcing numerous books. Even if this is an opinion paper, scholarly people could easily see that only one article was used and affect their perspective of the piece, especially considering that a large majority of the people reading New York Times are college …show more content…
police are absurd. For instance, you use the “battered wife” example to show that it’s foolish to change the name to “battered spouse”, yet never touch upon the use of the offensive language in hate speech. How people who use and abuse the offensive terms, instead of people over-reacting to the same terms. Throughout your article it’s always blaming the ones who want to avoid using language which makes people uncomfortable, yet not speak about the ones who use this language to make people uncomfortable on purpose. It shows a rather narrow viewpoint and doesn’t convey all the information needed in order to make a fully educated decision on the matter for your