Retrieved from https://studentshare.org/english/1660880-discussion
https://studentshare.org/english/1660880-discussion.
Besides the proper thesis formulation, there’re some other changes in the second version of the article. Firstly, to proof own prediction author bases his hypothesis about the possibility of danger from the “hostess” program on a case which “already happened at the University of Colorado” (DeRosa, 2009). Second, calling on personal experience author tells his family history what gives him an opportunity to reveal a historical underground of the problem. Third, the “hostess” program is a symbol of a bigger problem. The author adduces other examples (women in show business etc.) to connect a “hostess” program to the common modern tendency.
“I have read two news articles in the campus newspaper about recruiting practices that made me a little perplexed”, - DeRosa (2009) speaks about what has reasoned him for writing an article. While coming with the conclusion that “recruiting practice is an insult to the women of the university” DeRosa (2009) reveals a bigger problem: despite that “over the last hundred years, women have traveled a rocky road to greater equality”, and for now “women have made impressive gains in their professional lives”, “they have also come to be seen, more and more, as objects”.
I tend to agree with DeRosa: women’s objectification truly exists in our world. Besides, there’re a lot of countries in modern society women rights still aren’t equal to men’s ones. The second version of the article seems to be more socially important than the first one because it conveys a problem, not only DeRosa’s personal view.
Read More