In my blog post “A Woman’s
Relationship with Food,” I really enjoyed the topic about which I wrote, and I
had many points I wanted to make in the post. However, I struggled with the
structure of my piece in my first draft, and I ended up not going into as much
detail as I wanted. This caused my thesis to be under-supported and for my
argument to be a little hard to follow.
As you can see in the screenshot above of
my first draft, I ended up splitting my personal anecdote up into two different
paragraphs, which made it not as effective. However, in my second draft, I was
able to organize my ideas better and elaborate on them more. I started by
saying that “society expects women to uphold impossible standards, especially
in regards to our bodies,” which shows my overarching theme. After elaborating
on that for a sentence or two, I state my thesis that this impossible body
standard “causes women to have a love-hate relationship with food,” which I
then elaborated on in the next few sentences. After stating my thesis and my
reasoning behind it, I then started a new paragraph where I discuss my personal
anecdote about my personal relationship with food and how gymnastics impacted
this relationship. Through this blog post and through the process of revising
it, I learned the importance of regarding writing as a process, the third
outcome of the course. To do this, I had to take into account the revisions Ms.
Li had, and I also had to reevaluate and reanalyze what I wanted to say and how
I could say it in a more efficient manner. This involved reorganization of the
blog post and going into more detail, so I had better evidence to support my
thesis.