So I wrote a cause and effect essay, and because everyone helped me edit it up, I'm revising it. I was given a cause and effect essay to tell me how I should write mine, and it was called "Looking At Women." It was a long and arduous read, partly because I found it hard to understand, but in the end, I was helped along to comprehension by the discussion my classmates held. The essayist is very descriptive with his thoughts, which I am not used to because it leads to a lot of words that I have to read while he pins down his thought. He asks a very good question, which is why do men look at women, and how should men look at women? His first point is that men are hardwired to look at women. That is the way we are, and the greatest men of the age have been just men. He uses examples, both personal, when he explains his thoughts on Playboy models, and political, when he mentions Jimmy Carter, to show his point, which is that everyone feels lust. He concludes the section by explaining that he bears the responsibility of what he does with his desires. His next section deals with the female part of things: why do women make themselves desirable? They get dolled up, wear tight and/or revealing clothing, compete for title of prettiest in a certain area. His argument for this one is that regardless of what the woman is wearing, the desire of a prettied-up woman is this: to be seen as art. Men should look at women the same way we look at Picasso or Dali. His third point is that it is simply wrong to look at women like they are simply objects of desire. It makes women easier to handle for the man looking, and that's why it happens. However, it's wrong for women to turn themselves into objects, and it's wrong for men to look at them like they are objects. He concludes with his personal idea: that there is desire in his genes and women all around him, and his responsibility is to look at women the way they deserve to be looked at.
Works Cited:
Sanders, Scott Russel. "Looking At Women." The Norton Reader: an anthology
of expository prose. 'Comp'. Linda H. Peterson et. al. New York: W.W.
Norton & Company, Inc., 2000. Print.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
So this was interesting because you totally confused the hell out of me. You should answer the question of "How do they deserve to be looked at?" Surly you're not stating that Sanders' answer to the question is to look at women how they deserve to be looked at. That's like saying papers should be written the way they deserve to be written.
ReplyDelete