Here's my intro so far to an research paper on 1950s marriage:
When conservative commentators say the “Golden Age” of marriage they are usually referring to the 1950s model. That decade represents an era that is already gone for many Americans where life was balanced, simple, and innocent. A time in American history where a high school education promised a comfortable living and where family values were presented to audiences through television shows like "Father knows Best" an "Ozzie and Harriet." When they evoke the “good old days” it’s the 1950s model they have in mind; a father with a good job, a mother who stays at home and raises the children, and a house in the suburbs with a white picket fence. It’s easy to see the draw of the 1950’s marriage; solid and stable marriages seemingly without the more modern problems of divorce, infidelity, spousal abuse, and discontent. On the surface, everything seemed fine. However unhappiness often lurked beneath the surface, especially on the wives’ side.
I'd appreciate input.
When conservative commentators say the “Golden Age” of marriage they are usually referring to the 1950s model. That decade represents an era that is already gone for many Americans where life was balanced, simple, and innocent. A time in American history where a high school education promised a comfortable living and where family values were presented to audiences through television shows like "Father knows Best" an "Ozzie and Harriet." When they evoke the “good old days” it’s the 1950s model they have in mind; a father with a good job, a mother who stays at home and raises the children, and a house in the suburbs with a white picket fence. It’s easy to see the draw of the 1950’s marriage; solid and stable marriages seemingly without the more modern problems of divorce, infidelity, spousal abuse, and discontent. On the surface, everything seemed fine. However unhappiness often lurked beneath the surface, especially on the wives’ side.
I'd appreciate input.
What do you think of this intro?
14/12/2009 06:14:51 AM
- 641 Views
I'm not a fan of the first two sentences.
14/12/2009 06:42:10 AM
- 417 Views
Well, i know for a fact that he doesn't opening with questions
14/12/2009 07:02:03 AM
- 525 Views
Sentence fragments are unacceptable in technical writing. You need to fix that.
14/12/2009 06:51:05 AM
- 412 Views
I want to stick a wikipedia-style "who?" in there.
14/12/2009 10:53:02 AM
- 402 Views
That's actually how we're taught to write in American high schools...
14/12/2009 02:39:56 PM
- 400 Views
Part of my problem is that he hasn't told me what level this is for.
14/12/2009 03:04:40 PM
- 378 Views
Aye, but it's an intro.
15/12/2009 08:07:38 AM
- 346 Views
References should come at the first mention of whatever it is. *NM*
15/12/2009 08:42:27 AM
- 160 Views
It's simply an introduction, my citations and stuff come in a little later. *NM*
14/12/2009 08:49:15 PM
- 207 Views
I smell a strawman...
15/12/2009 02:25:36 AM
- 411 Views
well it was in response to a prompt which stated people call it the "Golden Age". My hands were tied *NM*
15/12/2009 02:20:54 PM
- 194 Views
Stylistically it needs a lot of work.
15/12/2009 03:28:24 AM
- 455 Views
Hell, with a critique like that I may start putting up my introductory paragraphs. *NM*
15/12/2009 04:37:53 AM
- 233 Views