Peer Commentary – Stage One

While reading through my paper, my editor commented . . .

 

Essay: “Son-preference” has historically been the prevailing attitude of families in China, due to the fact that sons can provide for the family more than daughters can, and this favoritism has only been accentuated by the one-child policy (Milwertz 61).

Editor: Girls can provide just as much as boys

Me: True, but I think that the Chinese would disagree with you on this point. Men can do a lot more heavy labor, which is especially important for farming families in the rural areas. When given the option, families in China choose to have baby boys rather than baby girls (and often abort¬†the baby girls or put them up for adoption). I am unhappy with this truth just as much as you are, editor, but it’s factual. I read it in a book.¬†

 

Essay: These differences, in addition to the effects of industrialization, have widened the gap between China’s rich and poor “to the extent that these imbalances might cause social instability” (Nakra 137).

Editor: In what ways?

Me: Lots of ways! . . . that I probably should have described in this draft. Well done, peer editor, well done. I should have listened to this comment and didn’t, and therefore got the same comment from Professor Bezio on the final paper. Needless to say, when I reused this same sentence in my Stage Two essay, I was sure to find plenty of evidence of “social instability” in China to support this quote. I actually ended up using this quote again in my Stage Three essay, and hopefully explained it enough, although I guess that only time will answer that. It’s a solid quote.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>