Do you agree or disagree with Tannen's article? Do you think this idea is still relevant in society today? Use at least two quotes from the article as support in your argument. Remember to integrate the quotes into your own writing!
I agree with Tannen's article and the arguments she makes. First, I agree that men have the ability to be unmarked, whereas women are always marked, "Then men's styles were unmarked". I believe that men can all dress very similar or the same, but women are forced to dress or change their appearance in a variety of ways. I also agree with the fact that the way a woman dresses can send a signal, "If a woman's clothing is tight or revealing(in other words, sexy), it sends a message..". I agree with this point, but I would also argue that the way a man dresses can send a signal too. Finally, I believe that these issues still apply to society today. I have seen this first hand and as a result it is clear that these issues still exist.
I agree completely with Tannen's article. When it comes to clothing, women generally will get judged no matter what they wear. Too promiscuous, too conservative, trying too hard, trying too little, wearing too much makeup, wearing too little makeup, looking appropriate, looking inappropriate, ETC! Women try to live up to what society has taught them and I think that has way more standards, in terms of clothing and appearance, than men have. Mens hair is typically the same, while womens' hair can be a million different ways. Men don't have to worry about makeup, and for the most part, men don't have to worry about clothes (as much as women do). There is no way a woman can look and not be judged. "There is no woman's hair style that can be called standard, that says nothing about her" (Tannen 14). If a woman's hair is too short, it says something. If a woman's hair is too long, it says something.. "...It seems impossible for a woman as trying to get dressed in the morning, without inviting interpretations of her character" (Tannen 16). I agree that a woman's character will be judged based on how the look, always. There will never be a time when someone does not make an inference on women, even if it is positive. Meanwhile, men typically can wear pants and a button down to any event, and no one would think twice about it....or probably not even once.
I do agree with Tannen's article because I think people are judged everyday. I know this because I find myself doing this to people everyday. It's not that I want to judge people on how they look, but it is just human nature to look at someone and think about what they are wearing. I think more people do determine whether ladies are considered "Marked or Unmarked," and I agree with Tannen that "Each of the women at the conference had to make decisions about hair, clothing, makeup and accessories, and each decision carried meaning." I agree with this statement because women are looked upon much more closely then men. I also agree with Tannen's other quote about men "All eight wore brown and blue slacks and nondescript shirts of light colors. No man wore sandals or boots; their shoes were dark, closed, comfortable and flat." Men don't need to worry if other men are wearing the same clothes; it doesn't bother them if that seems to happen. Women, on the other hand, feel as if they need to represent themselves a successful people and because of this find themselves fighting to make themselves look "Marked."
I agree with this article that there are no unmarked women. Every women has a different style of clothing and the way that they put their hair and their makeup. "The first woman wore facial all cover that made her skin smooth and pale...The second wore only a light loss on her lips and a hint of shadow on her eyes" (Tannen) Between these two women there are distinct differences and that goes for all women. The way that society views women sets standards and expectations for the way a woman looks. If a woman were to wear sweat pants and a sweatshirt then they would be viewed differently if they were to wear heals and a nice dress. It would be hard for a woman to go about her day with out being looked at certain ways or judged based on her clothes because that is how society has become. Tannen states that "But if you're a woman, you can't, because there is no unmarked woman" (Tannen). Every women is marked in someway, but so are men. The only difference is is that women are the focus of society and unfortunately, women get judged more than men.
I agree with a lot of what Tannen says about women being "marked" in our society today. Being marked is seen more often with women, but I think it can also be present in men. This article made men seem like the most boring monotone things on this Earth. Men can have a sense of style and I think the way that they dress can send a message just as easily as the way women can with the way they dress. In the article, Tannen says, "Some days you just want to get dressed and go about your business. But if you're a woman, you can't, because there is no unmarked woman." I think that a woman CAN simply get dressed and go about her business, but she will be marked as lazy, or uninterested. It also depends on the outside person looking in. I think that a person who is more materialistic will look at a woman who has not presented herself in some way and judge her for it, but others might look past it and empathize for that woman.
I believe that Tannen's work still applies to modern day society, but at a smaller scale than before. It seems that women nowadays still need to uphold their femininity due to societal standards. In Tannen's opinion, "there is no women's hairstyle that could be called standard, that says nothing about her." Apparently, the world in which women live in expect the very best from them - an issue that plagues the present as it has plagued the past. It could almost be called sexist to believe that women are required to send messages through their clothing that appeases the environment they live in. In Tannen's own words, "some days you just want to get dressed and go about your business. But if you're a women, you can't, because there is no unmarked women." In its own respect, the issue is relevant for the modern generation and if we choose to deny its existence, then the issue would only grow in severity. Similar to global warming, the world might be too late to save if we deny its existence.
I agree with Tannen's article because she makes some points that I make a lot of sense. For example, when she says, "I felt sad to think that we women didn't have the freedom to be unmarked that the men sitting next to us had. Some days you just want to get dressed and go about your business. But if you're a woman, you can't, because there is no unmarked woman."I agree with this quote because its true. I think this is still relevant today because she mentions, that "there are thousands of cosmetic products from which women can choose and myriad ways of applying them. Yet no makeup at all is anything but unmarked." I think this quote is relevant because even though some people may use the same cosmetics they will apply it differently and it will different on them than on someone else.
I agree with Tannen's article. The style she uses to differentiate the men and the women in the article column emphasizes the struggles the different way of living men and women experiences. Tannen begins with her article by describing three women differently by their appearance, but men are unmarked. In society, women have to worry about their appearance because "if a woman's clothing is tight or revealing, it sends a message-- an intended one of wanting to be attractive" (Tannen). Men are considered as unmarked because in today's society individuals have carried on a mindset that contains expectations of woman rather than men. Therefore, women are worried about their looks because "a woman whose hair has no particular style is perceived as not caring about how she looks, which can disqualify her for many positions" (Tannen). In conclusion, society has accepted that there are no unmarked women.
I agree with most everything that she said in this article. However, I feel that that idea of a women having to look and act a certain way is starting to become less prevalent in today's society.I do see these ideals in gatherings like school dances; Most guys wear the same things like Tannen says, "they have the option of being unmarked". While some men do choose to live differently most men follow the same ideal of being not marked which makes life easier. It is also very prevalent in business settings again we have came a long way in the past couple of years, however in how someone presents them self it is easier being a man than a women. Tannen states that, "each had a different style and how each style was coherent". Each woman had a different style of clothes and every item said something different about them so it is far more important to get the right reaction of what they are trying to go for.
I agree with Tannen's article. She says that judgments are put up against a person based upon "markings" that society has placed to show femininity, sexuality, way of life, etc. Tannen says she "was scrutinizing only the women." This is because she saw the women as "marked." They had their individual styles. They were different. The men had different clothes on than one another, but it was all within a small spectrum. Like a fraction of the colour wheel was left out, and the men all covered themselves with that fraction. This is still relevant today. Recently, I wore some clothes that I liked, but where different. I normally wear a jeans and a t-shirt, but my father recently passed down some clothes to me. A big country belt with a giant spur buckle, and he gave me his old cowboy hat. I marked myself. I got criticized based on it. People were yelling "yee haws" and saying "howdy partner." Some were more aggressive and said things like, "Why can't you dress normal?" Even my friends just had to know my reason every day that I wore the hat. That's just me though. So, yes, I agree with her, and I feel it is relevant.
I agree with the message of the article read in class. In the article it states, ¨As I amused myself finding coherence in these styles, I suddenly wondered why I was scrutinizing only the women.¨ As it is made evident, the author was saying that she was only stereotyping the women because there is no unmarked women. Every women is constantly being judged by her family, friends and most importantly other men that she encounters. Women are judged each and every day by their hair, makeup, nails, outifts, shoes, accesssories, and purses. Men desire women that always dress beautifully which sets the standards for women higher as well. Men simply have to wear a pant and a shirt and they are all set to go. As it says in the article men are unmarked. It does not really matter what they wear or how their hair looks. It is women that have the defining words of ette or ess used for them. It is unfair however it is women that are having the constant struggles in society. For women a party can lead to mass confusion and doubt due to the immense variety of outfits offered to women. In my opinion this topic is still relevant today for all women. Women choose to wake up early to dress nicer, simply to please the men in her life because after all what man would want to see his girl in sweats everyday? Woman everyday have the options to wear all sorts of outfits ranging from tight to loose, bright to dark, and long to short. The life of a woman is hard, but men do not make it any easier by setting the standards for women higher.
I agree that in society today men can be marked or unmarked while women need to be accepted, "I felt sad to think that we women didn't have the freedom to be unmarked that the men sitting next to us had". A man can be unmarked without anyone thinking any less on him. But if a women is unmarked it can show that they don't are about how they look, "but a woman whose hair has no particular style is perceived as not caring about how she looks". If a woman is unmarked it might make others think less of her. I think that it is still relevant today, because someone's outfit gives you your first impression of that person. Men can also wear almost anything while women need to wear specific outfits. For example, men can wear a dress shirt and pants to a party, church, family gathering, or a nice dinner. While women need to wear a summer dress to picnic, or a party dress to a party.
I some-what agree with this statment. I think that there are definatly there are no unmarked women. The smallest style choice makes a huge difference on how she is viewed and judged by her peers. When she says, "if a woman's clothing is tight or reveling ( in other words sexy), is sends a message" is completely true. If a teacher walked in this room with a very tight and short, v-neck dress, everyone one would look at her in a funny way, thinking, "who she is trying to impress". This is her style choice, and it markers a way that a woman with blue, loose pants and a plain cartigan would not. The other woman's stlye choice would mark her as plain and almost boring. I do believe that men have style choices too and are marked, just like women. If a man from a J.Crew cataloge walked through the door, we could notice him as different from the rest. That would be his style choice that would mark him. Over all, thought, I think the typical coorperate bussnessmen are similar. They have a set of standards that fit into "business attire" and I think men with cooperate jobs are less likey to stray from the norm, because if they stray too far, they may loose their beloved job.
I agree with Tannen's articles because it is still relevant today. Even though it is relevant, it does not apply as much in modern day society. Tannen kept saying on the article that "there [are] no unmarked women", but it is not true in modern day society. Being marked depends on what we are doing or where we are going. People may judge if you are unmarked, but in modern society today people should not mind what others think. Tannen thinks "women didn't have the freedom to be unmarked", but they do have the freedom.
I do not agree with the article "The is no Unmarked Women " by Deborah Tannen. Even thought there a lot of people that believe that if a women is too reveling that she is consider easy or available. In her article, Tannen wrote, "If I women's clothing is tight or revealing (In other words, sexy), it sends a message -- an intended one of wanting to be attractive, but also a possibly unintended of availability"(Tennen.) I am completely against this thought. I completely agree that a women can dressed for herself and not to please everyone around her. How come a men can wear anything they want and still not be judge? Everyone has differnet opinions a bout this topic but just like any women, Tannen feels "sad to think that we women didnt have the freedom to be unmarked that the men sitting next to us had"(Tannen.)
I agree with Tannen's argument for the most part that there is no unmarked woman. When talking about a womans hair, she explains "a woman whose hair has no particular style is perceived as not caring about how she looks which can disqualify her for many positions, and will subtly diminish her as a person" (Tannen 14). I agree with Tannen that society as a whole believes that women who do not have a particular style of hair do not care how they look. However, Tannen also explains how men are not looked at differently by what they wear. Instead, men have way more range in terms of what they wear to school, work, dinner, and any special occasions. One part of Tannens article that I disagree with is "if a woman's clothing is tight or revealing (in other words, sexy) it sends a message," (Tannen 15). I do not believe that what I woman decides to dress in sends a message. I think it more has to do with what kind of clothing they like to wear.
I agree with what Tannen said in her article. She talked about how women were marked and men were in marked. I believe being marked mean being judged. No matter what women do they are judged wearing a certain type of clothing will either make them look sloppy, or slutty. On the other hand boys arnt usually marked. They all dress relatively the same way. If a women wears makeup all the time then one day wears "no makeup at all.... She will be anything but unmarked." Women's appearance is everything. If her clothes are "tight or revealing (in other words sexy), it sends a message." If one women is dressed in a nice loose dress she might look classy whereas if she wears a tight dress she might be considered slutty. Weather it's makeup, hairstyle, or how a women dresses she will always be marked.
I some what agree with Tannen that women were and are still unmarked. Most women have small differences that count as unmarked. Whether or not they do this to be different doesn't effect the fact that it makes them unmarked. Which women should try to stand out and be individual. Which makes the argument hard to describe because does being marked mean you aren't original? Should women give that up to be as solidarily identified as men? I think that people should just act how they feel and not really care about what others think about what you look like. But at the same time I feel that women do deserve to have their own things identified just for them.
I agree with Tannen's article and the arguments she makes. First, I agree that men have the ability to be unmarked, whereas women are always marked, "Then men's styles were unmarked". I believe that men can all dress very similar or the same, but women are forced to dress or change their appearance in a variety of ways. I also agree with the fact that the way a woman dresses can send a signal, "If a woman's clothing is tight or revealing(in other words, sexy), it sends a message..". I agree with this point, but I would also argue that the way a man dresses can send a signal too. Finally, I believe that these issues still apply to society today. I have seen this first hand and as a result it is clear that these issues still exist.
ReplyDeleteI agree completely with Tannen's article. When it comes to clothing, women generally will get judged no matter what they wear. Too promiscuous, too conservative, trying too hard, trying too little, wearing too much makeup, wearing too little makeup, looking appropriate, looking inappropriate, ETC! Women try to live up to what society has taught them and I think that has way more standards, in terms of clothing and appearance, than men have. Mens hair is typically the same, while womens' hair can be a million different ways. Men don't have to worry about makeup, and for the most part, men don't have to worry about clothes (as much as women do). There is no way a woman can look and not be judged. "There is no woman's hair style that can be called standard, that says nothing about her" (Tannen 14). If a woman's hair is too short, it says something. If a woman's hair is too long, it says something.. "...It seems impossible for a woman as trying to get dressed in the morning, without inviting interpretations of her character" (Tannen 16). I agree that a woman's character will be judged based on how the look, always. There will never be a time when someone does not make an inference on women, even if it is positive. Meanwhile, men typically can wear pants and a button down to any event, and no one would think twice about it....or probably not even once.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with Tannen's article because I think people are judged everyday. I know this because I find myself doing this to people everyday. It's not that I want to judge people on how they look, but it is just human nature to look at someone and think about what they are wearing. I think more people do determine whether ladies are considered "Marked or Unmarked," and I agree with Tannen that "Each of the women at the conference had to make decisions about hair, clothing, makeup and accessories, and each decision carried meaning." I agree with this statement because women are looked upon much more closely then men. I also agree with Tannen's other quote about men "All eight wore brown and blue slacks and nondescript shirts of light colors. No man wore sandals or boots; their shoes were dark, closed, comfortable and flat." Men don't need to worry if other men are wearing the same clothes; it doesn't bother them if that seems to happen. Women, on the other hand, feel as if they need to represent themselves a successful people and because of this find themselves fighting to make themselves look "Marked."
ReplyDeleteI agree with this article that there are no unmarked women. Every women has a different style of clothing and the way that they put their hair and their makeup. "The first woman wore facial all cover that made her skin smooth and pale...The second wore only a light loss on her lips and a hint of shadow on her eyes" (Tannen) Between these two women there are distinct differences and that goes for all women. The way that society views women sets standards and expectations for the way a woman looks. If a woman were to wear sweat pants and a sweatshirt then they would be viewed differently if they were to wear heals and a nice dress. It would be hard for a woman to go about her day with out being looked at certain ways or judged based on her clothes because that is how society has become. Tannen states that "But if you're a woman, you can't, because there is no unmarked woman" (Tannen). Every women is marked in someway, but so are men. The only difference is is that women are the focus of society and unfortunately, women get judged more than men.
ReplyDeleteI agree with a lot of what Tannen says about women being "marked" in our society today. Being marked is seen more often with women, but I think it can also be present in men. This article made men seem like the most boring monotone things on this Earth. Men can have a sense of style and I think the way that they dress can send a message just as easily as the way women can with the way they dress. In the article, Tannen says, "Some days you just want to get dressed and go about your business. But if you're a woman, you can't, because there is no unmarked woman." I think that a woman CAN simply get dressed and go about her business, but she will be marked as lazy, or uninterested. It also depends on the outside person looking in. I think that a person who is more materialistic will look at a woman who has not presented herself in some way and judge her for it, but others might look past it and empathize for that woman.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Tannen's work still applies to modern day society, but at a smaller scale than before. It seems that women nowadays still need to uphold their femininity due to societal standards. In Tannen's opinion, "there is no women's hairstyle that could be called standard, that says nothing about her." Apparently, the world in which women live in expect the very best from them - an issue that plagues the present as it has plagued the past. It could almost be called sexist to believe that women are required to send messages through their clothing that appeases the environment they live in. In Tannen's own words, "some days you just want to get dressed and go about your business. But if you're a women, you can't, because there is no unmarked women." In its own respect, the issue is relevant for the modern generation and if we choose to deny its existence, then the issue would only grow in severity. Similar to global warming, the world might be too late to save if we deny its existence.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tannen's article because she makes some points that I make a lot of sense. For example, when she says, "I felt sad to think that we women didn't have the freedom to be unmarked that the men sitting next to us had. Some days you just want to get dressed and go about your business. But if you're a woman, you can't, because there is no unmarked woman."I agree with this quote because its true. I think this is still relevant today because she mentions, that "there are thousands of cosmetic products from which women can choose and myriad ways of applying them. Yet no makeup at all is anything but unmarked." I think this quote is relevant because even though some people may use the same cosmetics they will apply it differently and it will different on them than on someone else.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tannen's article. The style she uses to differentiate the men and the women in the article column emphasizes the struggles the different way of living men and women experiences. Tannen begins with her article by describing three women differently by their appearance, but men are unmarked. In society, women have to worry about their appearance because "if a woman's clothing is tight or revealing, it sends a message-- an intended one of wanting to be attractive" (Tannen). Men are considered as unmarked because in today's society individuals have carried on a mindset that contains expectations of woman rather than men. Therefore, women are worried about their looks because "a woman whose hair has no particular style is perceived as not caring about how she looks, which can disqualify her for many positions" (Tannen). In conclusion, society has accepted that there are no unmarked women.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most everything that she said in this article. However, I feel that that idea of a women having to look and act a certain way is starting to become less prevalent in today's society.I do see these ideals in gatherings like school dances; Most guys wear the same things like Tannen says, "they have the option of being unmarked". While some men do choose to live differently most men follow the same ideal of being not marked which makes life easier. It is also very prevalent in business settings again we have came a long way in the past couple of years, however in how someone presents them self it is easier being a man than a women. Tannen states that, "each had a different style and how each style was coherent". Each woman had a different style of clothes and every item said something different about them so it is far more important to get the right reaction of what they are trying to go for.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tannen's article. She says that judgments are put up against a person based upon "markings" that society has placed to show femininity, sexuality, way of life, etc. Tannen says she "was scrutinizing only the women." This is because she saw the women as "marked." They had their individual styles. They were different. The men had different clothes on than one another, but it was all within a small spectrum. Like a fraction of the colour wheel was left out, and the men all covered themselves with that fraction. This is still relevant today. Recently, I wore some clothes that I liked, but where different. I normally wear a jeans and a t-shirt, but my father recently passed down some clothes to me. A big country belt with a giant spur buckle, and he gave me his old cowboy hat. I marked myself. I got criticized based on it. People were yelling "yee haws" and saying "howdy partner." Some were more aggressive and said things like, "Why can't you dress normal?" Even my friends just had to know my reason every day that I wore the hat. That's just me though. So, yes, I agree with her, and I feel it is relevant.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the message of the article read in class. In the article it states, ¨As I amused myself finding coherence in these styles, I suddenly wondered why I was scrutinizing only the women.¨ As it is made evident, the author was saying that she was only stereotyping the women because there is no unmarked women. Every women is constantly being judged by her family, friends and most importantly other men that she encounters. Women are judged each and every day by their hair, makeup, nails, outifts, shoes, accesssories, and purses. Men desire women that always dress beautifully which sets the standards for women higher as well. Men simply have to wear a pant and a shirt and they are all set to go. As it says in the article men are unmarked. It does not really matter what they wear or how their hair looks. It is women that have the defining words of ette or ess used for them. It is unfair however it is women that are having the constant struggles in society. For women a party can lead to mass confusion and doubt due to the immense variety of outfits offered to women. In my opinion this topic is still relevant today for all women. Women choose to wake up early to dress nicer, simply to please the men in her life because after all what man would want to see his girl in sweats everyday? Woman everyday have the options to wear all sorts of outfits ranging from tight to loose, bright to dark, and long to short. The life of a woman is hard, but men do not make it any easier by setting the standards for women higher.
ReplyDeleteI agree that in society today men can be marked or unmarked while women need to be accepted, "I felt sad to think that we women didn't have the freedom to be unmarked that the men sitting next to us had". A man can be unmarked without anyone thinking any less on him. But if a women is unmarked it can show that they don't are about how they look, "but a woman whose hair has no particular style is perceived as not caring about how she looks". If a woman is unmarked it might make others think less of her. I think that it is still relevant today, because someone's outfit gives you your first impression of that person. Men can also wear almost anything while women need to wear specific outfits. For example, men can wear a dress shirt and pants to a party, church, family gathering, or a nice dinner. While women need to wear a summer dress to picnic, or a party dress to a party.
ReplyDeleteI some-what agree with this statment. I think that there are definatly there are no unmarked women. The smallest style choice makes a huge difference on how she is viewed and judged by her peers. When she says, "if a woman's clothing is tight or reveling ( in other words sexy), is sends a message" is completely true. If a teacher walked in this room with a very tight and short, v-neck dress, everyone one would look at her in a funny way, thinking, "who she is trying to impress". This is her style choice, and it markers a way that a woman with blue, loose pants and a plain cartigan would not. The other woman's stlye choice would mark her as plain and almost boring. I do believe that men have style choices too and are marked, just like women. If a man from a J.Crew cataloge walked through the door, we could notice him as different from the rest. That would be his style choice that would mark him. Over all, thought, I think the typical coorperate bussnessmen are similar. They have a set of standards that fit into "business attire" and I think men with cooperate jobs are less likey to stray from the norm, because if they stray too far, they may loose their beloved job.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tannen's articles because it is still relevant today. Even though it is relevant, it does not apply as much in modern day society. Tannen kept saying on the article that "there [are] no unmarked women", but it is not true in modern day society. Being marked depends on what we are doing or where we are going. People may judge if you are unmarked, but in modern society today people should not mind what others think. Tannen thinks "women didn't have the freedom to be unmarked", but they do have the freedom.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with the article "The is no Unmarked Women " by Deborah Tannen. Even thought there a lot of people that believe that if a women is too reveling that she is consider easy or available. In her article, Tannen wrote, "If I women's clothing is tight or revealing (In other words, sexy), it sends a message -- an intended one of wanting to be attractive, but also a possibly unintended of availability"(Tennen.) I am completely against this thought. I completely agree that a women can dressed for herself and not to please everyone around her. How come a men can wear anything they want and still not be judge? Everyone has differnet opinions a bout this topic but just like any women, Tannen feels "sad to think that we women didnt have the freedom to be unmarked that the men sitting next to us had"(Tannen.)
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tannen's argument for the most part that there is no unmarked woman. When talking about a womans hair, she explains "a woman whose hair has no particular style is perceived as not caring about how she looks which can disqualify her for many positions, and will subtly diminish her as a person" (Tannen 14). I agree with Tannen that society as a whole believes that women who do not have a particular style of hair do not care how they look. However, Tannen also explains how men are not looked at differently by what they wear. Instead, men have way more range in terms of what they wear to school, work, dinner, and any special occasions. One part of Tannens article that I disagree with is "if a woman's clothing is tight or revealing (in other words, sexy) it sends a message," (Tannen 15). I do not believe that what I woman decides to dress in sends a message. I think it more has to do with what kind of clothing they like to wear.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Tannen said in her article. She talked about how women were marked and men were in marked. I believe being marked mean being judged. No matter what women do they are judged wearing a certain type of clothing will either make them look sloppy, or slutty. On the other hand boys arnt usually marked. They all dress relatively the same way. If a women wears makeup all the time then one day wears "no makeup at all.... She will be anything but unmarked." Women's appearance is everything. If her clothes are "tight or revealing (in other words sexy), it sends a message." If one women is dressed in a nice loose dress she might look classy whereas if she wears a tight dress she might be considered slutty. Weather it's makeup, hairstyle, or how a women dresses she will always be marked.
ReplyDeleteI some what agree with Tannen that women were and are still unmarked. Most women have small differences that count as unmarked. Whether or not they do this to be different doesn't effect the fact that it makes them unmarked. Which women should try to stand out and be individual. Which makes the argument hard to describe because does being marked mean you aren't original? Should women give that up to be as solidarily identified as men? I think that people should just act how they feel and not really care about what others think about what you look like. But at the same time I feel that women do deserve to have their own things identified just for them.
ReplyDelete