This is just part of Tammy’s response, written under timed constraints. Thank you !
However, I do not agree with the author’s claim that women are one of the reasons why aggression has lessened today [PT]. Women may be more demure in nature, but they are certainly not tamers of aggression [EV]. It is ironic that women in the past were more demure and much more obedient than women of today, but the fact that men in the past were so dominating and aggressive made it more clear that the struggle for equality for women meant that they had to be more aggressive in order to sustain their position amongst men [EX]. For instance, women are now far more ambitious and clear of what they want. For example, in the political arena in Singapore, the PAP government’s women’s wing called for the representation and rise in status for women in Singapore. Even opposition politicians, Nicole Seah and Lee Li Lian, openly pursue their goals of leading Singapore society [EG]. To do this, these women have to demonstrate a fighting spirit [L]. However, though women are evidently knocking over the dominance of men by climbing the power ladder, they are only a small proportion of the population of women [EV]. But still, this sense of fighting spirit and aggression must be present at all costs for women to make it far in a society that is terribly competitive [EX]. With that being said, Woolgar’s point here is flawed in my opinion [L].