But this shouldn’t be your opinion alone: it should incorporate ideas from the class AND demonstrate you understand them. You will be graded on your composition, your use of concepts and theories, and your defense of your interpretations using specific citations from the texts of the course and elsewhere.You should defend your analysis with citations from the texts we are using in the class, again, demonstrating you understand the arguments they are making.You should employ at least THREE of the concepts or theories from the class. Your citations should include required course readings and citations from valid digital and print sources. If you have a question about the validity of a source, please ask before you use itYour paper should cite at least TWO outside sources. You should use an appropriate citation format (MLA, APA, Chicago) for the sources you use in the paper. Use at least ONE source from an academic journal or other scholarly publication; ask the reference librarian or myself if you need help finding a source for the paper. DO NOT cite Wikipedia as a source. Use Wikipedia to lead you to other valid sources.Evaluate your object as emerging from a specific context – what are the attributes of that context that make the object meaningful? Use the circuit of culture as a framework for discussing the context, semiotics, and responses to the text.I’m doing mine on pink taxing. I want to include the concepts of dominant culture, semiotics of gender and myth. Products labeled “specifically for women” are more expensive than similar products for men, and companies force unnecessary services on women based on gender stereotypes. These are the conclusions reached by the authors of numerous studies in different countries.A study by the New York City Consumer Affairs Administration found that products aimed at women were more expensive than products aimed at men.The study compared a range of items, from household items, toys and accessories to personal care items and clothing.The authors of the multi-page report argued, for example, that a pink scooter, apparently aimed at girls, is more expensive than a similar scooter of more neutral shades, which a boy will ride according to the plan of merchandisers.Overall, the same study found that products for women cost 7% more than products for men. Women pay 7% more for toys and accessories, 4% more for children’s clothing, 8% more for clothing for adults, 13% more for personal care products. Similar studies, which came to roughly the same results, have been carried out since then in other countries, including France, Great Britain, Canada and Australia.The authors of the study in Britain argued that women have to pay an average of 37% more for about the same products – just because they are “intended for women.”According to other studies, women can overpay up to $ 1,400 in a lifetime.Women’s rights advocates immediately cited the research findings as an example of blatant injustice and called for an end to such practices. Some marketers, merchandisers and retailers’ obsession with specific gender characteristics – products intended for girls or women will necessarily be associated with pink – has led women’s rights activists to call the phenomenon of “gender” price differentials “a tax on pink” or “a woman’s tax.” … As studies show, women themselves are willing to pay more and sometimes deliberately choose more expensive goods. This is explained, among other things, by psychological factors, since a product that is perceived as “made especially for women” is more valuable than an ordinary, non-distinctive product. There are purely subjective mechanisms, women tend to buy something for themselves more expensive than similar goods for a family or for men. That is, slightly higher prices are a consequence of both purely economic reasons and the peculiarities of female psychology. Marketing uses this technique, promising to buy this or that product of household chemicals, hygiene, care to revive the dignity (“you deserve it”, “you deserve it”) or to earn the attention of a man, or to prolong youth and beauty, outside of which the attention of men cannot be received. (Myth, semiotics) Women who do not like the potential “female premium” on ordinary daily goods in stores are advised by marketers and women’s rights advocates to shop exclusively in men’s sections and choose deliberately gender-neutral products.There is a grain of common sense in gender marketing. Women and men do react differently to advertising, but lately it has often become a tool of manipulation. Not everyone perceives the sexism of advertising. Therefore, being to a certain extent victims of traditional culture and patriarchal heritage, they are also accomplices of this cultural gender order, since it rewards them with patriarchal dividends in the form of a category of the weaker sex, from which there is less demand and responsibility. Non-neutral, gender-targeted advertising is part of this majority-accepted order.I would like the author to check my text for grammar and insert the above three contexts into the text with quotes from the reading (anything between The Care Manifesto and Without Apology)No outside sources required.