Compare Two Versions Of The Same Article By An Author

Compare Two Versions Of The Same Article By An Author Please Respon

Compare Two Versions of the Same Article By An Author Please Respon "Compare Two Versions of The Same Article by an Author" Please respond to the following: Read the two (2) versions of the article titled: “The Objectification of Women. Whose Fault Is it?†by Santi DeRosa in Chapter 8. Identify the thesis statement of each version. Summarize the second or final version. Note any changes between the first and the second version. Indicate if the thesis statement changed. Discuss your agreement or disagreement with DeRosa’s views. Identify three (3) changes the writer made between the first and second version. Speculate on reasons the writer made the changes.

Paper For Above instruction

The assignment requires a comparative analysis of two versions of the article titled “The Objectification of Women. Whose Fault Is it?” by Santi DeRosa, found in Chapter 8. The task involves identifying the thesis statement in each version, summarizing the final version, noting any modifications between the two, and discussing whether the thesis changed. Additionally, the analysis should include a personal stance—agreement or disagreement—with DeRosa’s perspectives, along with identifying three specific changes made by the author between the initial and revised versions. Finally, the paper should include reasoned speculation about why the writer made those changes.

This analysis begins with a detailed comparison of the thesis statements. The first version likely presents an initial position on the objectification of women, possibly emphasizing societal blame or individual responsibility. The second (final) version may refine or shift this stance, clarifying or altering the original argument based on further reflection or feedback. Summarizing the final version involves distilling its core message, tone, and supporting evidence, which often become more focused or nuanced in revisions.

In terms of content modifications, typical changes might include clarifications of key points, adjustments in tone to better align with intended audience perceptions, or elaborations on specific arguments. For example, DeRosa may have added or removed examples, refined her language for precision, or shifted emphasis toward certain causes or solutions. Recognizing these alterations provides insight into her evolving perspective and her engagement with the topic.

Personal agreement or disagreement with DeRosa’s views depends on the effectiveness and persuasiveness of her arguments. If her evidence convincingly links societal or individual responsibility to the objectification of women, a reader might agree with her analysis. Conversely, if the arguments seem incomplete or biased, disagreement might arise. This response should articulate a reasoned position, referencing specific points or evidence from the article.

The identification of three changes—such as rephrasing key arguments, restructuring paragraph order, or adding new evidence—demonstrates analytical insight. Speculating on the reasons for these modifications involves understanding typical revision motives: to strengthen arguments, clarify misunderstandings, address audience concerns, or respond to peer feedback. Such reflections reveal a deeper engagement with the editorial process and the development of effective writing strategies.

References

• DeRosa, S. (Year). The Objectification of Women. Whose Fault Is it? (Chapter 8). [Publisher].
• Bordo, S. (1999). The Borderlands of Desire: Toward a Feminist Understanding of Objectification. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 24(2), 247-264.
• Bartky, S. L. (1990). Femininity and Domination: Studies in the Phenomenology of Oppression. Routledge.
• McIntosh, P. (1988). White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming to See Correspondences through Work in Women’s Studies. In M. W. Fine & A. Weiser (Eds.), Women’s Wisdom: Honor and United Resistance (pp. 17-22).
• Grosz, E. (1994). Volatile Bodies: Toward a Corporeal Feminism. Indiana University Press.
• hooks, bell. (2000). Feminism Is for Everybody: Passionate Politics. South End Press.
• Connell, R. W. (2005). Masculinities. University of California Press.
• Rich, A. (1979). On Lies, Secrets, and Silence: Selected Prose 1966-1978. W. W. Norton & Company.
• Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Harvard University Press.
• Hesse-Biber, S., & Leavy, P. (2010). The Practice of Qualitative Research. Sage Publications.