Ideological Analysis

DO NOT USE AI OR ANY FORM OF PLAGIARISM, YOU WILL BE EXPELLED IMMEDIATELY!

In this assignment you will:

• Develop core skills in information retrieval and critical analysis of these sources.
• Practice explaining the ideologies (guiding principles, values, beliefs, etc.) that are embedded in conversations around a particular gendered topic.
• Critique or analyze ideological standpoints from an intersectional feminist perspective.
• Write a short 5-6 page paper (double spaced),

TO DO:

1. COMPILE

Search and retrieve two or more articles, blog posts, op-eds, magazines essays, film reviews, or other publications in the popular press, that present opposing views of the same issue related to gender.

For example, as we read earlier, there are many opposing viewpoints on the phenomenon of “vocal fry.” Naomi Wolf’s piece argues against young women using it, and Hapsis disagrees with Wolf claiming that shaming young women for using vocal fry perpetuates existing sexist treatment of women.

1. ANALYZE

Your task will be to explain the differing viewpoints, and identify the ideologies of gender (or gendered resistance) embedded in them.

Your task here is not to take a side or argue one perspective is better than the other, rather it is simply to identify what the beliefs, values, and ideological dispositions of the authors are.

For example, you might say that in Wolf’s essay the assumption is that in order for women to be taken seriously, they must limit their performance of self to styles that are “neutral” or lacking in overt feminine qualities because these qualities are devalued already in society. Her ideological position seems to state that in order to change society’s sexist views, we must change our individual behavior (compliance).

However, Hapsis disagrees because she thinks telling victims of oppressive cultural norms to change (in order to avoid sexism), only reinforces those sexist norms. Therefore, her ideology seems to be one of resistance rather than compliance, where change is demanded from society as a whole rather than from individual women who experience gendered judgment.

1. EVALUATE

As you explain and analyze the two opposing views in your chosen published articles or essays, you should also offer your evaluation of their credibility. That is, who are the authors? Do they have the background, expertise or affiliations to organizations that give them the weight of authority, or are they simply informed commentators? Do they lack credibility because of where they are published (media outlets with extremist views)? How credible, vetted, or peer-reviewed is the source/media through which they are published?

For example, you might say that Wolf and Hapsis are credible commentators given that their writing and work on gender has been published in reputable and non-partisan media/news sources over the course of many years.

Moreover, they use examples from other people’s narratives, interviews, etc. rather than just relying solely on their own experiences and opinions. We might say that their argument is worth listening to because they are reasonably stated and not simply a series of rants, insults, or unverifiable statements. BUT, neither Wolf nor Hapsis take an intersectional approach where they discuss gender alongside race, class, age, etc.

You may find that your chosen articles are not credible or are very biased, which is alright, as long as you evaluate them and explain why they are not credible sources of information and socially responsible discourse.

1. SUBMIT

Upload your paper along with works cited page, formatted in MLA, APA, or Chicago style. Please use .docx or .doc formats only. Pdfs, Google docs links or emailed assignments will not be accepted.

On the works cited page, include the primary sources you are discussing, as well as other sources that might support or illustrate your analysis. (For example, X, Y and Z support Wolf’s view, but A, B and C agree with Hapsis).

Possible topics might include: Stances on reproductive rights, stances on men’s rights movements, treatment of women in gaming culture, gendered reviews of films or books, views on the use of pronouns, gendered advertising, opinions on public figures, etc.

Criteria for Grading:

C – Completes all parts of the assignment. Offers basic explanations and analysis of the ideologies embedded in the discourse. Paper is satisfactorily written, but contains several errors in sentence construction, spelling and citations.

B – Completes all parts of the assignment with attention to the detail required for each section. Offers an above average explanation of the ideologies embedded in the discourse and tries to avoid clichéd or very common analysis. Contains a few errors in sentence construction, spelling and citations.

A – Completes all parts of the assignment with Offers nuanced and innovative readings of the ideologies embedded in the discourse and points out perspectives that are uncommon or not easily perceived. Is attentive to intersectional analysis of the issue and evaluation of the sources. Contains very few or no errors in sentence construction, spelling, and citations.