事实上，我的结论是，我认为卡罗·斯玛特的声明虽然包含了一点点真相，但在其方面有统计上的优势，但却无可救药地过于笼统，无法用真实的历史准确性来衡量。是的,在十八世纪的一般道德简洁性,女性更容易犯罪如卖淫和小偷小摸,但我认为这是主要是为了他们的社会地位和社会中所扮演的角色,而不是任何特定的性格,她似乎在暗示的不同。杀婴的许多情况下,谋杀和折磨的行为的这篇文章表明,女性当然愤怒,残忍和恶意和十八世纪的女性作为一个弱,顺从性谁不能上升到非常凶残的愤怒只不过是过时的和一个产品的时间无法证明实际的证据。当然，根据我最初的引述，男性比女性更容易犯罪。但这并不意味着女性的性别没有恶意。
澳洲教育学Assignment代写:卡罗·斯玛特
Indeed, in conclusion, I would state that Carol Smart’s statement, while containing a modicum of truth and having statistic advantage on its side, is however hopelessly over generalized and cannot be credited in terms of true historic accuracy. Yes, in terms of eighteenth century’s general moral conciseness, women were far more likely to commit crimes like prostitution and petty theft, but I would argue that this was down primarily to their social position and role in society rather than any particular difference in character as she seems to suggest. As the many cases of infanticide and the chilling acts of murder and torture in this essay suggest, women were certainly capable of anger, cruelty and malice and the eighteenth century view of the female gender as a somehow weaker, submissive sex who could not rise to murderous anger is simply outmoded and very much a product of the time that could not be justified by the actual evidence. Of course, as my initial quote shows, males statistically are involved in more crime than females. But this does not mean that the female gender is without malice.