Two ,150 word, forums about resources in gender and geometry in from inquiry to academic writing.

This is an example and explanation from my professor. First of all, read Prinz’s essay. Then, think about two questions. One, what kind of source does he use why in what context? Two, what secondary source would you add more to Prinz’s essay? Here is an example. On page 627, Prinz quotes Edward Clarke’s book, Sex in Education, or a Fair Chance for the Girls indirectly, by saying, “[Clarke] warns that women who attend college risk becoming infertile and hysterical. He conjectured that when women tried to use their underdeveloped cognitive capacities to learn, blood would be diverted to the brain from the uterus, which would then atrophy.” In addition, Prinz quotes the American physician, Coleman’s warning, “Women beware. You are on the brink of destruction: You have hitherto been engaged in crushing your waists; now you are attempting to cultivate your mind . . . you are exerting your understanding to learn Greek, and solve propositions in Euclid. Beware!! Science pronounces that the woman who studies is lost.” To answer the first question, the author quotes Clarke and Coleman to reveal the long history of discriminatory practices in science education against women students in academia. Furthermore, Prinz wants to emphasize the recent Harvard University president’s remark on women’s limitation is nothing new in considering this historical and cultural background. He uses these secondary sources to create a contextual foreground for his own argument to refute the pseudo-scientific bias against women’s intellectual power on science. Then, what would I want to add one more secondary source to Prinz’s essay? When I read page 631, I was wondering if the author could offer some textual evidence to support his claim, “Women just weren’t given the opportunity.” Let me find one. [For this part, remember what I show you in the video lecture.] I googled by putting that claim in the search box and found an article from Harvard Business Review. I might be able to use some quotes, but I notice that this is rather personal than scholarly, in the phrases like “I was skeptical, because the times I had decided not to apply for a job.” Therefore, I decide not to use this source. Instead, I visit our library page to find “Databases.” I chose “Academic Search Complete” because it seems to cover a broad range of different disciplines. I simplify the key words as “Women” and “Job opportunity.” I got 133 results. In the first page, I can see an article from Chronicle of Higher Education, titled, “In Faculty Job Searches, Partner’s ‘Movability’ Affects Women More than Men.” When I click the title, I can see its abstract. It says: The article covers a report from the American Sociological Review which suggests that the relationship status of women applying for academic jobs may exclude applications from some opportunities. It includes comments from the report's author Lauren A. Rivera on how search committees did not offer jobs to some women with male partners with good employment on the assumption the women would therefore be unable to relocate. That can support Prinz’s claim on how unfair women are treated at the academic job market rather than their lack of ability to compete with male candidates, because this article can illustrate the very recent study on this unfair practice and women’s limited choice in academia. Do you think that you can answer the two questions? Use the following format for your posting. 1.Find at least one secondary sources that the author uses to strengthen his argument. And, explain why and how he uses the source in what context in at least 150 words. 2.What source would you add more to Prinz’s essay? Find one and explain why the source is appropriate to Prinz’s argument in at least 150 words. Your answer must include where you find the source.