To start things off, I personally did not completely agree with "There is No Unmarked Woman." I felt as though the piece was very nitpicky and petty. I mean how many females actually have the issue of being referred to as "Mrs." ? She has an issue because it claims to have communicates a status, but "Mr." doesn't. Yeah, sure it carries some extra meaning, but I've never heard of someone carrying this issue. But, that doesn't mean I condemn her whole argument. I can see the faults in myself and society through Tannen's piece.
When growing up, I had fallen in awe with the world of Super Mario. The games were bright, easy, and lighthearted. The ever expanding list of characters and enemies constantly grew as new games had come out. But the character that is important today is Toadette.
I was introduced to Toadette in Mario Kart Wii, the first time I actually got a good look at the character. The character had the color scheme pink, pink hat, and ponytail like hair. Or at least I think those are ponytails. On top of that, the franchise has always had a character named Toad. He included a color scheme of blue and white. So I just assumed he was a guy. Especially because in the "Super Mario Bros Super Show," Toad was depicted as a guy! Toad was voiced by a guy, so of course it's blatantly obvious he should be a guy.
Not until 2014, an interview was done with a Nintendo producer and what he revealed about the character of Toad and Toadette took the world by storm. "This is maybe a little bit of a strange story, but we never really went out of our way to decide on the sex of these characters, even though they have somewhat gendered appearances," is what the producer had to say. They then went on and elaborated that, yes, there is no gender within these characters. And honestly, when I first heard about this, I really had to reassess what I had come to known. But this is one of the points I agree on with Tannen. That these "marks" give us preconceived thoughts on people. And this marking of "ette" is an exact example that Tannen uses in her piece. This character that was never defined of a gender carries the marking of "ette" and the world automatically thinks it's a female. I think it just goes to show that as people we shouldn't look at these markings and let them make judgements.
But I feel like Tannen's argument is very outdated. She claims "men's styles are unmarked," but I feel like a male can be marked. There are so many styles that you could be marked as cool or a loser. Yet, I don't really see that as a big issue. I see that the new modern mark of women is a sexual one.
A great example is Anime and before you get any dirty thoughts. Anime and Hentai are two completely different things. And if you don't know what Hentai is, find it on your own time. But yes Anime is definitely an influence of marking women objects of sexiness. They draw female characters very curvy and have lots of skin showing. Look at characters like Sailor Moon or even video game characters like, Lara Croft. A classic anime that was always highlighting the body of women was Dragon Ball. It included moments to highlight their female character's bodies.
When growing up, I had fallen in awe with the world of Super Mario. The games were bright, easy, and lighthearted. The ever expanding list of characters and enemies constantly grew as new games had come out. But the character that is important today is Toadette.
I was introduced to Toadette in Mario Kart Wii, the first time I actually got a good look at the character. The character had the color scheme pink, pink hat, and ponytail like hair. Or at least I think those are ponytails. On top of that, the franchise has always had a character named Toad. He included a color scheme of blue and white. So I just assumed he was a guy. Especially because in the "Super Mario Bros Super Show," Toad was depicted as a guy! Toad was voiced by a guy, so of course it's blatantly obvious he should be a guy.
Not until 2014, an interview was done with a Nintendo producer and what he revealed about the character of Toad and Toadette took the world by storm. "This is maybe a little bit of a strange story, but we never really went out of our way to decide on the sex of these characters, even though they have somewhat gendered appearances," is what the producer had to say. They then went on and elaborated that, yes, there is no gender within these characters. And honestly, when I first heard about this, I really had to reassess what I had come to known. But this is one of the points I agree on with Tannen. That these "marks" give us preconceived thoughts on people. And this marking of "ette" is an exact example that Tannen uses in her piece. This character that was never defined of a gender carries the marking of "ette" and the world automatically thinks it's a female. I think it just goes to show that as people we shouldn't look at these markings and let them make judgements.
A great example is Anime and before you get any dirty thoughts. Anime and Hentai are two completely different things. And if you don't know what Hentai is, find it on your own time. But yes Anime is definitely an influence of marking women objects of sexiness. They draw female characters very curvy and have lots of skin showing. Look at characters like Sailor Moon or even video game characters like, Lara Croft. A classic anime that was always highlighting the body of women was Dragon Ball. It included moments to highlight their female character's bodies.
As seen here, the female is not even recognized as a person. She is more recognized for her body. And scenes like this one constantly give the idea that woman are no better for anything else. They are just marked as objects of sexiness.
In the end, I see where Tannen is coming from, these markings give society preconceived thoughts on woman. But I also believe her argument serves no more relevancy and has moved onto sexualizing woman more and more.
A great read! You're post kind of ties in with Marvin's. I think that sexualizing women is going to a problem that will surpass our generation - it's simply an issue that deals with human nature and won't be easily changed.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to have to disagree with your opinion that this argument is outdated. Yes men's styles can be marked and Tannen even says this, but the issue is that men's styles are usually unmarked and women's styles can never be unmarked. And honestly the argument stretches further than this. The issue is that the world gives more importance to these styles than to the personalities that come with them. The connotation of female is wrongly portrayed in a way. for instance, why did that one actress have to call herself an actor to be taken seriously?
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, this argument is not outdated, it's irrelevant. To some though I may see how it comes off as relevant. And that's a result of having a very narrow minded perspective, which is what I think Tannen wrote with. Everyone is marked, so don't act as though just females have the issue. Me personally, I care what I look like in front of others, I don't want to be marked as someone who is lazy or "junky." And I can admit, I mark other guys for the clothing that they wear. Some come off as clean and others dirty. But others may not see that. And you know why that is? It's because everything is perspective! It is no one but your own fault for seeing men or women as marked. You have no perspective into a man's life as marked, and likewise, I don't have any perspective into a female's. So how can you make a genuine claim that men's styles are unmarked? Tell me, have you not judged a guy on his looks? Distinguishing if they are attractive or ugly? That can be considered marked, but you may not agree. And again, a result of your own perspective. And somehow you find that fit to use as leverage to victimize females. You also say that the issue stretches farther and say that females are wrongly portrayed. If you read, you would see that I talked about women being shown as objects of sex. Which actually agrees with your point.
DeleteThen you finally end on a question that can easily be answered. Was it rhetorical? Like I already said, it's all perspective. Woodward openly marks other woman as actresses. People who don't care about their acting. But actors are the ones who actually care about their character. That is her own view. Is that definition of actresses actually set in stone? Is that what the word truly means? No, that's how Woodward sees it. Other actresses could disagree and believe her point is wrong. But again, it is her own personal perspective.
And if you notice in my article, I don't say that woman are unmarked, I just say that men should not be seen as unmarked. I am speaking on men's behalf, whereas Tannen and you speak for us.
So I ask kindly, don't put words into our (males) mouth's if you don't have a clear view of our perspective.
DeleteHi. I respect your opinion 100%. I just wanted to point out though that I didn't really put words in your mouth. You did actually write "I feel like Tannen's argument is very outdated" and you agreed with me saying that you also thought it wasn't outdated so that's fine. And then you said "She claims "men's styles are unmarked," but I feel like a male can be marked." Tannen and I never said male styles were unmarked. I said they were usually unmarked and this is because of the styles you guys choose to wear. And then I said that this argument didn't really matter when I wrote "And honestly the argument stretches further than this." I'm in agreement with you about it being irrelevant. However, yet again, I think you're missing the point. This isn't about clothes or attractiveness. The only irrelevant part is about the clothes, but that was an intro into the main issue, the actual issue. No, it is not Woodward's own view that actresses are bad at acting. She calls herself an actor because of what people think when they hear actress. They think nails and pretty hair. That is why Woodward calls herself an actor. Think about it. Woodward is an actress. Don't you think she knows that actresses are hard working? Her problem is that she's not embracing the title 'actress' and is instead giving into society's views. It is not a personal perspective. Also I never said that you said women are unmarked and I never spoke on men's behalf. I simply gave my opinion about how the world functions and disagreed with you when you said the argument was outdated. Surely you can't disagree with me when I say that without knowing anything about how a person's heart is or how they look, simply associating them with femininity degrades them. Shall I give you another example? How about the workplace. Why are men preferred over women in non-sexual jobs and paid less when given the job even when the women put in the same amount of work? Maybe you should go back and reread the piece. Like I said it goes beyond clothes. (p.s. thanks for replying. this has been fun).
DeleteWhile everyone is entitled to their own opinions, I think there are some fallacies in your arguments. First of all, you said "don't put words into males mouths if you don't have a clear view of our perspective" and that you "don't have any perspective into a female's", but then you contradict yourself when you say "I mean how many females actually have the issue of being referred to as "Mrs." ? Yeah, sure it carries some extra meaning, but I've never heard of someone carrying this issue." In this quote, you are not only assuming whether a woman cares if she's called Mrs., Ms., or Miss without a "clear view of our perspective", but belittling those women that do care about the prefix they are given. Although I agree that women being objectified for their sexuality is a very big issue, that doesn't mean there aren't other problems surrounding the perception of women. You said "I feel like a man can be marked" and that's exactly true. A man CAN be marked whereas for women there's no conditions on being marked or not; we just are. Secondly, you said Tannen's argument is outdated because the sexualization of women is more pertinent in today's society, but Tannen's piece does infer to that. She doesn't have to spell out the very words for the reader to understand what she's saying.; for example in mentioning the woman who wore "a sexy jumpsuit" arrived to the trek destination with a "handful of men around her". From this, it can be inferred that the reason the men were so kind to accompany her was because they found her appearance attractive. So although this paper focuses on linguistics, it does indirectly refer to objectification of women too. I too agree that perspective is important on all issues, but it's most important to not contradict yourself. No one claims to understand or appropriate the minds of men, and Tannen is also saying this from her perspective. Linguistics definitely proves the claim that women are more marked than men, and it's ironic that you, a man, are telling women what should be relevant or not on a subject that pertains to us.
DeleteSure a male can be marked as well. Not only do I feel like you are being harsh as she was simply voicing her opinion as you were, but I feel like you may not have a clear view of a woman's perspective either. It is important to remember the implications and connotation everything has, and in a world where objectification is a commonality for women, these cannot be ignored. You say, by giving the "ette" example that these "marks" should not be the basis of judgements. However, you yourself state that is what led you to believe that character was a girl. This is a small example of just how much of an influence these "marks" have on day to day life.
DeleteThis is to Sana, I didn't want to make it seem like I was completely not aknwleding your piece. Because likewise I do agree that everyone has their own opinion. So thank you for the tiny banter, it was appreciated. Also I did enjoy your article !
DeleteTo Zahra. This is all for an English class and in no way did I mean it in a way to attach Sana. I could see after writing the piece that it comes off like that. And to your statement about the "ette" making me think of the character as a female. It was my own wrong that I was taking account of. As seen in my first paragraph, I say I do recognize my faults.
DeleteTo Eliya. I can admit to being contradictory to myself. And that there is not much to say toward that. So I can accept my own fault and thank you for pointing it out. Also to add on, when I said the argument was "outdated," I meant the argument of women being marked. I am fully aware that she did mention the issue of women being sexualized. And in my opinion I see that as more of an issue. Also, I did not intend my reply to be "telling" Sana that the issue was irrelevant. But it did come off as that. It was an opinion and Sana has her own. And I can completely respect that, both of her comments were very strong. Hope that clears the air a bit!
DeleteHahaha! I enjoyed your post very much. I love that you always take something your are passionate about and somehow relate it back to the class topics. The voice is great, and I am sure that it is because of your passion about your topic.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you incorporated the Toadette thing we talked about in class together! It was a great read because you had so much voice. Well done
ReplyDeleteI love the conversation and way everyone is engaging with the piece!
ReplyDelete