Discussion

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/women-in-combat-put-men-at-risk/2015/12/11/f0e00768-a04b-11e5-bce4-708fe33e3288_story.html

I chose to read “Women in combat will put men at greater risk” by Kathleen Parker, an opinion writer for The Washington Post. I chose it because it made me pretty angry when I saw the title and I wanted to read what her reasons were for this. As you can tell from the title, the article is about how all military positions (including ground combat) will be opened to women. Kathleen Parker goes on to say it makes it more dangerous for men because “men tend to like women quite a lot and either will be tempted to express their attraction, and/or will want to protect their female companions”. She also states “What happens to women when they’re captured?” and “Will our men be able to withstand the screams of their female companions as they are raped or tortured?”. I completely disagree with everything she says in the article because anything that can happen to a woman, can happen to a man, too. While I think she got her point across on what her opinion is, I completely disagreed with the article.

As always when it comes to reading and writing I used annotating to get the most out of the article that I could. I had printed out the article so I was able to go through and highlight important points that she made while I was reading. I highlighted her main points so I was able to go back and look at them while summarizing the article. I personally did not find the SQ3R strategy helpful while reading the article. We all have our different ways to go about things and we just have to do what works for us. I think she had a wide range as to who the audience would be for this article.