Coming from engineering, when you write a paper, the goal is to be objective and analytical. We use references and try to define terms for a clear understanding. The goal at least is to provide facts that support a hypothesis in as unbiased a way as possible. I think there may be some difficulty in always remaining unbiased, but recently I came across an article that seems to be written like an opinion piece more than a piece of academic work. After going through it I looked up the author, who is a professor of women's studies. She writes about robotics being sexist. Does women's studies have different goals in academic writing than engineering?
To be specific, it is these types of sentences that confuse me on the intent of the academic writing in women's studies:
Enter HRP-4C, a new-generation gynoid that was unveiled in the spring of 2009 as a body double of and for (or to replace?) the average human female.
Why would a journal allow the publication of the unsupported rhetorical question "or to replace"?
The android wears his maker's unfashionable beige shirt, dark trousers and black windbreaker jacket."
Is it professional to call a world-famous robotics researcher "unfashionable", and why is it necessary?
. . . exact body consists of silver and black plastic molded to resemble a Barbarella-like custome, which accentuates her ample breasts and shapely, naturalistic buttocks."
There is no supporting information of how the square, minutely curved metal is purposefully making the visual the author interprets. But what I don't understand with this is instead of referring to the robot by its name or the paper, the author continues to refer to it as "robo-Barbarella."
Did I just happen to come across a unique piece of writing, or are there very different styles of writing in academic disciplines?