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.

The Objectification of Woman. Who?s Fault Is it? Santi DeRosa
Are women being objectified by a university that has a responsibility to treat women with equality and not as second class citizens?
I say yes. All you need to do is look at the athletics department to see the way women are treated. What I don?t understand is that in the year 2003, women are still allowing themselves to be used in such a way
In the past week I have read a couple of news articles from the campus newspaper that got me a little perplexed. Maybe it?s the fact that I have a son the age of the female students in the articles. Or, maybe it?s the fact that I have a wife, a sister, a mother and nieces that I respect as people and as women. The articles upset my sense of right and wrong.
Joe Watson wrote the first article, ?Risky behavior not policed in univer- sity recruiting? and explains how high school football players that visit the university for the purpose of being recruited are met by coeds, of which, thirty-five of the thirty-seven are females. Is this just a coincidence? No, I don?t think so. It is no coincidence when schools from all over the country use the same practices to recruit high school players. The reporter took an informal survey of 117 Division 1-A football programs nationwide and found many with the same recruiter make-up. Louisiana State has 55 females; Ala- bama leads the way with 100 females. The university advertises every spring for new recruiters. Most come from sororities. The football coaches say they prefer using females because that?s the way the other schools do it and the players coming to campus to be recruited would be uncomfortable if they were greeted by males, because they are used to female recruiters. I think that this is just an excuse to turn a blind eye to a potential problem. Most of the players who come to be recruited are 17 and l8 years old. There have been many reports of under-age drinking at local clubs and parties and sometimes sex according to some senior recruiters. The people interviewed for the article who are in support of the ?hostess? program defend it by saying that ?the recruiters perform respectable duties during high school recruits? campus visits.? Does the responsibility of ?performing respectable duties? end when they leave the campus for a party? I believe that Becky Stoltz, a fourth year recruiter said it best when interviewed, ?It?s a disaster waiting to happen.?
The second news article I read was by Megan Rudebeck. The story titled ??Hot? recruiters draw prospects? seems to be defending the program. Ms. Rudebeck not only talked to the coaches that run the program; she spoke with recruiters and players as well. She almost had me convinced that I might have been over reacting. I started to think that here is a woman writing a story that seems to be in defense of the way the recruiting program works. Maybe I am reacting wrongly. That is until the last line of the story when she quotes Zach Krula, a freshman offensive lineman. Zach says, ?We?ve got a
lot of hot girls, we might as well utilize them.? After a few minutes I started to think to myself, why isn?t Ms. Rudebeck insulted by that comment? Is she, as well as the women that are part of the program, so brain-washed with the need to get quality players into the football program that they are willing to overlook the fact that they are being ?utilized.?

Second version

The Objectification of Women: Whose Fault Is It?
Are women being treated as objects by the very university that has a responsibility to treat them with equality and dignity and not as second-class citizens? All anyone needs to do is look at the athletics department to see the way women are treated here. What I don?t understand is why in the year 2003 women are still allowing themselves to be used in such a way. In the past week I have read two news articles in the campus newspaper about recruiting practices that made me a little perplexed. Maybe it?s because I have a son the age of the female students in the articles, or maybe it?s because I have a wife, a sister, a mother, and nieces whom I respect as people and as women, but these articles upset my sense of right and wrong. Objectification of women, sexual or otherwise, should never be allowed or condoned. In the first article I read, ?Risky Behavior Not Policed in Recruiting,? reporter Joe Watson explains how high school football players who visit campus for the purpose of being recruited are met by coeds. Thirty-five of thirty-seven student recruiters are females. Is this just a coincidence? I don?t think so. Schools from all over the country use the same practices to recruit high school players. Watson conducted an informal survey of 117 Division 1-A football programs nationwide and found many with similar proportions of female to male recruiters. Louisiana State has 55 females; Alabama leads the way with 100 females (1). As Watson reports, the university advertises every spring for new recruiters. Most come from sororities. The football coaches say they prefer using women because that?s the way the other schools do it. They maintain that the players coming to campus to be recruited would be uncomfortable if they were greeted by men because they are used to female recruiters. This justification is just an excuse to ignore a potential problem. Most of the players who come to campus to be recruited are 17 and 18 years old. There have been many reports of under-age drinking at local clubs and parties and sometimes sex, according to some senior recruiters. The people interviewed for the article who support the ?hostess? program defend it by saying that ?the recruiters perform respectable duties during high school recruits? campus visits? (Watson 2). Does the responsibility of ?performing respectable duties? end when they leave the campus for a party? I believe that Becky Stoltz, a fourth-year recruiter who was interviewed for the article said it best: ?It?s a disaster waiting to happen.? Big problems have in fact already happened at the University of Colorado, where a recruiting aide was indicted for improper conduct after a three-month grand-jury investigation of illegal recruiting practices, including allegations of sexual assault (Lambert). Over the last hundred years, women have traveled a rocky road to greater equality. At the turn of the twentieth century women didn?t have many of the rights we take for granted today, such as the right to own property and the right to vote. By staying strong, working together, and maintaining their dignity, women eventually gained these rights for them- selves and their daughters and granddaughters. In my own family, my grandmother and great-grandmother took care of their family in Italy while my grandfather came to America to set up a decent life for them. My grandmother held things together for six years until her husband was able to go back and get her. Although she did not have the same rights as a man of that time, she never gave up hope and never lost her pride. In this country she worked as a seamstress, as so many Italian women did, in order to help the family make it through bad times and to provide a better life for her children. My mother also worked a full-time job as a seamstress in a factory while taking care of her home and family, as women did in the 1950s and 1960s. However, women of that time were being taken for granted, and their roles had to change. Women wanted more, and through their strength of conviction, they got it?more equitable pay for their work. However, over the last forty years, the great strides women have made have been somewhat squandered. Women have made impressive gains in their professional lives, but they have also come to be seen, more and more, as objects.
The objectification of women in popular culture and sports is not new. During the 1950s and 1960s, the advertising industry started to portray women in roles outside the kitchen, but it also created a perspective on women that objectified them. To consider women in terms of the way they look is objectification. Examples of this are common: (1) Female newscasters chosen for their appearance, (2) the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders?and cheerleading squads for other teams, and (3) beautiful women appearing in advertisements for beer and automobiles.
Amanda Bonzo, in an opinion piece in the online journal The Digital Collegian, writes the following about this process of objectification:
In our society, a woman?s body is objectified daily on television, music videos, advertisements. What do we do with objects? We buy, sell, trade them. . . . We tame them through rape and domestic abuse. Finally, we destroy them.
And Casey Jacketta, writing for the University of New Mexico?s Daily Lobo, notes the following:I was pleased that my favorite show, ?Law and Order,? was on. Then, as I kept watching, I realized that the assistant district attorney, played by Angie Harmon?a woman?didn?t say a word in court. This troubled me, so I changed the channel to MTV. This upset me even more! All I saw was a bunch of barely clothed women shaking their bodies for the male singer?s pleasure. We see what these writers are talking about daily in advertising and in other media such as television, movies, and music. It is unfortunate that the sexual objectification of women sells products, and unless women understand that advertisers, filmmakers, college athletic departments, and others are taking advantage of them, this exploitation will never change. Barbara Fredrickson and her colleagues explain that this process causes women to start to view themselves the way others view them; as a consequence, ?[a] woman views her own body as an object (or each piece as a separate object)? (274).
Objectification is often disguised as free speech and free expression, which are both noble principles, although they are often misused. What I don?t understand is how any woman would allow herself to be used in this way. In the case of recruiters, objectification is disguised as school spirit.
In the second news article I read, ??Hot? Recruiters Draw Prospects,?. Megan Rudebeck seems to be defending the program. Ms. Rudebeck not only talked to the coaches that run the program; she spoke with recruiters and players as well. She almost had me convinced that I might be overreacting. After all, here is a woman who is defending the way the recruit-
ing program works. In the last line of the story, however, Rudebeck quotes Zach Krula, a freshman offensive lineman. Zach says, ?We?ve got a lot of hot girls, we might as well utilize them?. That quotation made me wonder why Ms. Rudebeck wasn?t insulted by that comment. Is she, as well as the women who are part of the program, so brainwashed by the need to get quality players onto the football team that they are willing to overlook the fact that they are being ?utilize[d]??
The use of women as sexual objects in mass media advertising, television, and music has made the practice so commonplace that we fail to see that it degrades our society. It amazes me that the women of the recruiting staff have not made the connection. It amazes me that Ms. Rudebeck and
the coaching staff say they don?t see what?s going on, and that students, faculty, the alumni, and the administration buy into this degrading and potentially dangerous practice. I hope that a copy of Joe Watson?s article makes it into the hands of each of the recruiter?s parents and the Board of Regents. This practice is an insult to the women of the university, as well as to every woman in the last century who has sacrificed in order to achieve social equality.

Works Cited
Bonzo, Amanda. Letter. The Digital Collegian. 20 Nov. 2000. Web. 4 Feb. 2003 <http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2000/11/11-20-00tdc/11-20- 00dops-letter-1.asp>.
Fredrickson, Barbara L., Tomi-Ann Roberts, Stephanie M. Noll, Diane M. Quinn, and Jean M. Twenge. ?That Swimsuit Becomes You: Sex Dif- ferences in Self-Objectification, Restrained Eating, and Math Perfor- mance.? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75 (1998): 269?84.

Identify three (3) changes the writer made between the first and second version. Speculate on reasons the writer made the changes.
200 words Please no plagiarism