This paper went through a number of revisions and was more flawed in the first draft. I had many of my arguments worded weirdly, so I had to rework them into something that seemed more comprehensive. Along with cutting down and separating paragraphs/sentences that seemed more bloated. I added more ideas on how the #MeToo movement’s seemed ferocity of Men didn’t do it any favors in the Amber Heard/Johnny Depp situation. I didn’t have any good quotes from the database but I did find one by Blow. Unfortunately, I had a placeholder for a quote left in there that must’ve slipped by me while writing (that’s embarrassing..). I also had to make sure my thesis could be more clear, in the first draft it was misinterpreted by my peer reviewer that it was that the good the movement did, is negated by the seeming animosity towards men. So I had to make an effort to say that the good is not negated, but the animosity would make it harder to do more good. To prove this I had cited Stephens for his warning, and used the quote by Amber Heard to emphasize it. Other fixes from the first draft were just general misspellings of words, and clearing out any uneccesary repeats. I also made sure to give proper intext-MLA citation about how and when to use page numbers and to level them out when there are none. Period/Quote placing also became important.
I think one of the strong connections is how I managed to explain how Tamblyn’s model of the #Metoo movement created vulnerability in some men, to the point that the major event, of the Depp and Heard trial, while seemingly about sexual abuse that Metoo should be against. I could and even has turned into something that seems to be in spite of #Metoo. I gave a good conclusion about how it seems to be part of what Stephens in saying when they aren’t at least some strives in listening to what the men say, even if they are the aggressors and there is reason for men in general to be taken concerned of as proved by Blow in connection to why Tamblyn took her stance on having a no sum policy.
