There Is No Unmarked Woman is written by Deborah Tannen, who has been studying genders for many years. She has her degree in linguistics from the University of California at Berkeley. The essay is about how women, no matter what they do, such as wear their hair, will always be marked, and men are not.
Tannen starts her essay with describing the style of 3 women she noticed at a conference. She describes each one's hairstyle, clothing, makeup and shoe choice. Just by looking at how each woman presents herself, Tannen can understand their personality. She then says, "I scanned the eight men at the table. And then I knew why I wasn't studying them. The men's styles were unmarked" (8). Tannen then characterized the men stating that they wore netural pants with a light colored shirt with closed, flat shoes. The men's hairstyle was nothing out of the ordinary, simply parted to one side or bald.
"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" (34). Tannen declares that no matter what a woman does to her hair or her clothes, someone is always going to make a preconceived notion because all women are marked.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Monday, September 13, 2010
The Perils of Indifference
I thought that this essay or speech was interesting. The way Wiesel writes is understandable and enjoyable at the same time. He makes many valid points, but there was a few things that stood out to me.
One thing that really caught my attention was when he said that Roosevelt's 'image in Jewish history is flawed'. I was really taken back by this, and personally do not agree. Wiesel says this because of the St. Louis tale, and does not think that Roosevelt did enough. What more was he supposed to do?
The author also is asking why Roosevelt had such indifference for those victims. I do not think that Roosevelt had and indifference for the vicitms. He was the president, he is not going to babysit the Jewish refugees that he helped saved. It is awful that they had to be turned back, but that does not fall on the shoulders of the president and tarnish his image.
When something terrible happens such as a genocide and countries stand by and let it continue, that does not mean they are indifferent, or don't care. Getting involved with another country can be dangerous. A president cannot invade a country on an assumption that something awful is going on.
One thing that really caught my attention was when he said that Roosevelt's 'image in Jewish history is flawed'. I was really taken back by this, and personally do not agree. Wiesel says this because of the St. Louis tale, and does not think that Roosevelt did enough. What more was he supposed to do?
The author also is asking why Roosevelt had such indifference for those victims. I do not think that Roosevelt had and indifference for the vicitms. He was the president, he is not going to babysit the Jewish refugees that he helped saved. It is awful that they had to be turned back, but that does not fall on the shoulders of the president and tarnish his image.
When something terrible happens such as a genocide and countries stand by and let it continue, that does not mean they are indifferent, or don't care. Getting involved with another country can be dangerous. A president cannot invade a country on an assumption that something awful is going on.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
The Braindead Megaphone
I found this essay to be (no offense of course!) rather boring and over opinionated. While I understand what Saunders' point of view is, I just found his tone coarse and a bit repulsive. He has ideas that are absolutely true, but if he had presented them in a less arrogant way, I would have enjoyed the essay more.
When Saunders was talking about the Megaphone guy not being "the smartest person at the party, or the most experienced, or the most articulate" but everyone was listening to him anyway, I believed that to an extent. If someone with a megaphone just started talking about something and kept saying a phrase over and over, then I know that I would start to use that phrase whether I wanted to or not because it would be fresh in my brain.
I agree with the author when he is talking about the ridiculous news stories around Christmas time. I actually used to watch the news often, so every once and awhile a story would come up like this. I am just realizing that now, when I would be watching the news it did not even cross my mind that I was watching an absurd story. News productions can get away with this kind of stuff because it is a 'safe' story. No one is going to be hurt or offened or embarrassed when they are talking about why the mall is so crowded in the holiday season.
When Saunders was talking about the Megaphone guy not being "the smartest person at the party, or the most experienced, or the most articulate" but everyone was listening to him anyway, I believed that to an extent. If someone with a megaphone just started talking about something and kept saying a phrase over and over, then I know that I would start to use that phrase whether I wanted to or not because it would be fresh in my brain.
I agree with the author when he is talking about the ridiculous news stories around Christmas time. I actually used to watch the news often, so every once and awhile a story would come up like this. I am just realizing that now, when I would be watching the news it did not even cross my mind that I was watching an absurd story. News productions can get away with this kind of stuff because it is a 'safe' story. No one is going to be hurt or offened or embarrassed when they are talking about why the mall is so crowded in the holiday season.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Course Theme
As of today, the future for the world we all live in is looking bright. People are smarter than ever! We invent, create, and discover new things daily. While there is always gonna be conflict between races, countries, religions or anything else, that does not mean that the world is going to end. If everyone looks into the future with a pessimistic perspective, then outcome is going to be just that. Is an apocalypse immanent? Does anyone truly have a strong, conclusive answer to this question that is not all based on one's opinion, it does not appear to be that way.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)