Some scholars argue that it is much easier to be a gay female in modern American society than a gay male. Are they correct?

Some scholars argue that it is much easier to be a gay female in modern American society than a gay male. Are they correct?Short Paper Writing GuidePart I: The Basics To start, here are the rules for writing your papers: You are responsible for writing two short papers, making sure to choose topics from two different days.Your short papers should be at least 500 words. There is no maximum; you may go as far beyond the minimum length as you feel is necessary. You can single-space or double-space; either is fine with me. No title/works cited pages. This wastes paper unnecessarily, in my view. If you want to have a title, put it at the top of the first page.Use informal, parenthetical citations if you need to cite something. For ex-ample: A recent study shows that 25% of men prefer tall women. (Smith & Jackson, 2002) Obama said, “We shall triumph, we shall prevail.” (www.whitehouse.gov, 2014) The short papers are due at the start of class on their due dates. If you wish to submit your paper via email, then the deadline is 11:59 p.m. the night before the due date. If you wish to email me for feedback, the deadline is 11:59 p.m. TWO nights before the due date. So, for a paper due on November 14, the deadline for feedback is 11:59 p.m. on November 12, and then the final draft would be submitted via email by 11:59 p.m. on November 13 or in class on November 14. With that out of the way, let’s now proceed to some tips on how to get the best grade pos-sible. I’m going to divide this into two parts: “Essential” and “Helpful.” The things on the “Essential” list are exactly what the graders and I look at when we grade your papers. The things on the “Helpful” list are suggestions that will help you to do the “Essential” things more effectively. Note that while this document is specifically addressed to my classes, I would suggest that most of this information is useful for whatever essays you might write. Part II: Essential Elements of a Successful Essay Three distinct and well-explained ideas: Each of the topics has many possible direc-tions that you might go. And so, the single most important element of your grade is showing that you can develop multiple ideas in response to whatever prompt you choose. I want to see are least three ideas; if you have more than three, all the better (especially for the final paper). Note that if a question has multiple parts, I do not expect three ideas in response to each part. You might do two ideas for the first part, and one for the second, or two and two, or one and two.Take note of the two words above that are underlined for emphasis. The first is ‘dis-tinct.’ What I mean by this is that you should make sure that all of your ideas are actually different from one another, and are not just the same basic idea stated in three different ways. For example, imagine that you were writing an essay on this question: “Is it best to avoid conflict in our lives whenever possible?” Let me give you three lists of possible ideas/ reasons you might build your essay around: Outline 1 Yes, because conflict damages relationships. Yes, because conflict makes it harder to get along with people. 3. Yes, because conflict harms our ability to cooperate. Outline 2 Yes, in professional relationships, because conflict interferes with our suc-cess. Yes, in romantic relationships, because conflict interferes with intimacy. 3. Yes, in platonic relationships, because conflict can easily end friendships. Outline 3 Yes and No. At work, it’s often best to avoid conflict, but sometimes a co-worker or a boss need to be challenged. Yes and No. In our romantic relationships, we don’t want to be in conflict too much, but a relationship with zero conflict is likely not very honest and not likely to succeed. No. With people we don’t know, it’s generally not profitable to argue or fight. Look at the three lists—which one (or which ones) would be an outline for a good es-say? Again, you want to make sure you’re covering different kinds of ideas/issues. Think about it for a moment… Ok, so here’s the answer: I would regard the first list as the weakest one, because I think the three ideas are all pretty similar—they all speak vaguely to one kind of harm conflict does. The second list, by contrast, addresses three different kinds of issues. The third list is also good, because it to addresses three different kinds of issues. Note that it is entirely ac-ceptable to write an essay like the one outlined in the third list, an essay that makes clear that you understand that there are two sides to this very difficult issue. Now, moving on to the ‘well-explained’ part. I would say that there are two common mistakes that a student might make in this regard. The first is to present their ideas in a way that is overly broad (and therefore not fully explained). In terms of the hypothetical essay discussed above, consider this statement: Conflict should be avoided at work, because it interferes with our success. The reader can probably guess what you mean, but they should not have to, because it is up to you to be as clear as possible. As such, a better sentence—as you move from outline to essay—would read something like this: Conflict should be avoided at work, because it interferes with our success. If we are unable to collaborate with co-workers, and if we are unable to get along with our superiors, it is all but impossible to move up the ladder. Indeed, an inability to control workplace conflict is just as likely to lead to termination as anything else. In this case, there is no question what you mean, because you’ve put your precise meaning on paper. Even someone who knew nothing about workplace conflict would know what your argument is. Specific and sufficient evidence: Chemists support their conclusions with experimen-tal data, economists with various types of statistics, and anthropologists with information gained through observation. Historians work with historical documents, literary scholars use poetry, folklorists use mythology. The good news is that this is a communications course, and communications is a mul-tidisciplinary subject. That means that we have room for many different kinds of evidence, including evidence that would not necessarily be acceptable in other disciplines. A chemist would never accept anecdotal evidence, for example, while a historian rarely runs experi-ments. I would say that the most useful distinction for you to consider is the divide between “hard” evidence and “soft” evidence. Hard evidence is more rigorous, more ironclad, and— in general—more persuasive. In this category, I would include quotations, statistics, scien-tific studies, historical documents, the course readings, and photographs. The kinds of things, generally speaking that might stand up in a court of law. Soft evidence, by the other hand, is generally more interesting and more flavorful, but is not quite as ironclad. Personal anecdotes, song lyrics, works of literature, dramatic films, and things like that would belong in this category. In some disciplines, soft evidence has no place, but that’s not true of communications. However, a paper cannot rely solely on soft evidence, or it’s just a little too…squishy, for lack of a better word. In any case, you will notice that I have once again underlined two key words above, beginning with ‘specific.’ What I mean by that is that your evidence should be clear enough and precise enough to be understandable to anyone who reads your paper, even if they are unfamiliar with the subject. Consider this example: One reason to avoid conflict is that it can grow out of control, and do great harm. The idea here is fine, but there is no real evidence that supports the point, other than a very broad/vague assertion about harm. Far better is a paragraph like this one: One reason to avoid conflict is that it can grow out of control, and do great harm. In the case of nations, this can mean war, which wreaks devastation al-most beyond comprehension. For example, during World War II, college stu-dent Atsuko Tsujioka explains how terrible it was to be in Hiroshima during the atomic bombing. She explains, “My chest hurt, I could barely breathe, and I thought ‘This is the end!’ I pressed my chest tightly and lay face down on the ground, and ever so many times I called for help.” Thirteen-year-old student Yoshitaka Kwamimoto told a very similar story: “I heard about ten of my sur-viving classmates singing our school song. I remember that. I could hear sobs. Someone was calling his mother. But those who were still alive were singing the school song for as long as they could. I think I joined the chorus. We thought that someone would come and help us out. That’s why we were singing a school song so loud. But nobody came to help, and we stopped singing one by one. In the end, I was singing alone.” In both quotes, we can sense the utter devastation that conflict inflicted on young, innocent people. Here’s a different version of that paragraph with a different kind of evidence: One reason to avoid conflict is that it can grow out of control, and do great harm. In the case of nations, this can mean war, which wreaks devastation almost beyond comprehension. Consider, for example, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 66,000 people died instantly in Hiroshima while 39,000 perished in the Nagasaki blast; those figures represent about 25% of the population of each of those two cities. In addition to the 105,000 immediate deaths, perhaps as many as 200,000 more people died eventually from injuries, radiation poisoning, and radiation burns. The infrastructure of both cities was also destroyed–more than 90% of the buildings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki collapsed during or after the blast. It would also be entirely acceptable to blend different types of evidence together (for ex-ample, a firsthand quote and some statistics, or statistics and a photograph, or a poem and a government report, etc.). The specific kind of evidence you use is not important, what is important is that you have evidence (though you should generally make sure to draw some of your evidence from the course readings, just to make clear that you did them and you understood them.). The other word that is outlined above is ‘sufficient.’ This one is pretty simple—I’d like to see at least two specific pieces of evidence in support of each point you make. Of course, if you have more than two pieces of evidence, all the better. The two “good” examples above both have two or more pieces of evidence. Mechanically Sound: Your essay should be as clear and concise as is possible. This means you want it to be easy to read and understand, you want to make sure to organize the essay effectively, you want to avoid spelling and factual and grammatical errors, and you want to make sure to write at least 500 words. I would suggest that some kinds of errors are worse than others. For example, if you make a mistake in the usage of their vs. there vs. they’re, well, that’s a fairly easy error to make and a fairly difficult thing to double-check (unless your word processor has a good grammar-check function). On the other hand, getting a fact wrong is more troublesome, be-cause you could easily look those things up with minimal time and effort. The single worst problem is writing less than 500 words. It is very difficult to interpret that as anything other than a lack of effort, and to grade accordingly. Part III: Helpful Elements of a Successful Essay Structure: You are probably aware that the “standard” essay structure goes something like this: First paragraph: Introduction that summarizes essay Second paragraph: Idea #1, with evidence Third paragraph: Idea #2, with evidence Fourth paragraph: Idea #3, with evidence Final paragraph: Conclusion that summarizes essay There is a reason that this is the standard essay structure: Because it works. It imposes a certain discipline on your essay, and also makes it much more understandable to the reader. If you attempt to deal with multiple ideas in the same paragraph, it can be very difficult to tell where one idea stops and the next one starts. And please be aware that an essay where everything is blended together into one giant paragraph will never get an A. Doing it that way detracts so much from your argument/evidence that it is impossible for your essay to be truly effective. Idea first : I understand the temptation to treat your essay like a detective novel, wherein you present your evidence and then proceed to your dramatic conclusion (“Thus, the mur-derer is…!”). But this approach is also very wrong for essay writing. In essay writing, you should start with your idea/argument, and then present your evidence. In hopes of illustrating this to you, I’m going to return to the paragraph I presented above, with the statistics about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Here it is, the wrong way: In the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 66,000 people died in-stantly in Hiroshima while 39,000 perished in the Nagasaki blast; those figures represent about 25% of the population of each of those two cities. In addition to the 105,000 immediate deaths, perhaps as many as 200,000 more people died eventually from injuries, radiation poisoning, and radiation burns. The infra-structure of both cities was also destroyed–more than 90% of the buildings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki collapsed during or after the blast. This is one reason to avoid conflict—­it can get out of control, and do great harm, even turning into a war. And here it is the right way: One reason to avoid conflict is that it can grow out of control, and do great harm. In the case of nations, this can mean war, which wreaks devastation almost beyond comprehension. Consider, for example, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 66,000 people died instantly in Hiroshima while 39,000 perished in the Nagasaki blast; those figures represent about 25% of the population of each of those two cities. In addition to the 105,000 immediate deaths, perhaps as many as 200,000 more people died eventually from injuries, radiation poisoning, and radiation burns. The infrastructure of both cities was also destroyed–more than 90% of the buildings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki collapsed during or after the blast. In the first version (the wrong one), your reader does not necessarily know what the point of your evidence is as he/she reads it, and so he/she can’t really evaluate it. Once they get to your argument, you’re essentially hoping that they remember what they just read. Maybe they do, maybe they don’t, and if they don’t—well, the reader almost never goes back to reread. In the second version, by contrast, the reader already knows what your point is, and can keep it in mind as you present your evidence. I hope that this makes sense; if it doesn’t, well, then you’ll just have to trust me that the idea should always come first. Meaningful Title: Your very first chance to capture the reader’s attention, and to get them in line with your train of thought, is your paper’s title (which you should put at the top of the first page, if you’re going to have one). A title is really only useful, however, if it actually gives some hint as to what you plan to do with the paper. Consider these titles: “Essay 2” “Conflict” “Is Conflict Good?” None of these really communicate anything, except a very general sense of the subject of your paper. You might as well not even include such a vague title. Now take a look at these: Conflict: Bad for Employees, Lovers, Friends Conflict: Troublesome, but Unavoidable Avoid Conflict with People You Don’t Know These all give a pretty good idea of where the author is headed, and so they are actually helpful for the reader. And that’s pretty much it; hope this helps,