This is an Unmarked Post
A few years ago, I had to dress business formal to go somewhere, and I had no idea what to wear. The few times I had to "dress up" for a presentation in school or something, I managed to fly by wearing dark jeans with flats (and still do), but that wouldn't do this time. I remember thinking how guys had it so easy - the classic black dress pants, white shirt and black tie work for any situation, with or without a coat. But I was lost. Dress? Skirt? Slacks? Blazer or not? Help???
I think that what makes women marked and not men is that women have many more options. If we ignore colour, in a formal setting a man can typically only wear a suit, where a woman could wear a dress or a skirt or slacks or a suit.....A man in a suit shows nothing about him, because he has no other typical options. But a woman wearing a dress means that she chose to wear a dress over other options, so it "marks" her.
The example that Tannen uses similar to this is about the titles one must choose from on a form. The same thing applies here - where each woman's option shows that she is either married, unmarried, or she declined to indicate, checking "Mr." shows nothing other than identifying as male; "[it] declines nothing since nothing was asked" (par. 20).
Although I agree with Tannen's main argument, I think she exaggerates a little. While women do have many more options, there is still often a standard. In hairdos, for example, the unmarked style may be a simple high bun. On the other hand, men also have accessories to choose from, like watches, the absence or presence of which may mark them too. And she only discusses formal clothing - in my opinion males and females are equally marked outside the business world.
So that's my opinion on this. Does that mark me?
I think that what makes women marked and not men is that women have many more options. If we ignore colour, in a formal setting a man can typically only wear a suit, where a woman could wear a dress or a skirt or slacks or a suit.....A man in a suit shows nothing about him, because he has no other typical options. But a woman wearing a dress means that she chose to wear a dress over other options, so it "marks" her. The example that Tannen uses similar to this is about the titles one must choose from on a form. The same thing applies here - where each woman's option shows that she is either married, unmarried, or she declined to indicate, checking "Mr." shows nothing other than identifying as male; "[it] declines nothing since nothing was asked" (par. 20).
Although I agree with Tannen's main argument, I think she exaggerates a little. While women do have many more options, there is still often a standard. In hairdos, for example, the unmarked style may be a simple high bun. On the other hand, men also have accessories to choose from, like watches, the absence or presence of which may mark them too. And she only discusses formal clothing - in my opinion males and females are equally marked outside the business world.
So that's my opinion on this. Does that mark me?
Iman, I liked how you connected a story in your life to Tannen's piece. You showed that the dilemma applies to everyone, and took it further by analyzing why. She does exaggerate by saying that there is such a discrepancy between marking for male and females, but she also says males have the option to be marked or unmarked, whereas females don't. I like your thinking and how you formed your argument!
ReplyDelete