Being forced to have dinner
together, I think Pat Archbold and Susan Douglas would find that they have a
lot of the same opinions along with a few that don’t mesh. While Douglas writes
more about what it truly means to be a feminist and about what she finds wrong
in society today, she does address girls’ today desire to be “hot” and seen as “sexual
commodities” and how it is degrading and proves that much sexism still exists
and women are still oppressed by men. Pat Archbold wrote his article about
exactly that; women becoming “sexual commodities”. He argues that females today
have no interest in people basing their judgments of them off of their values
or purity, but rather how attractive they are seen sexually. He goes on to say
that he sees this desire in girls’ to be “hot” as a problem. He feels that
being “pretty” is more valuable and makes men want to defend women, rather than
objectify them.
Douglas and Archbold agree in that
women have become seen as a “commodity” and that they have not come as far as
they should have. Douglas, on one hand, blames the media. She states that in
the 1950’s the media portrayed women as delicate, obedient, stay-at-home
mothers while in actuality, women were joining
the work force, joining the Peace Corps, and pursuing educations. Today,
the media portrays women as all strong and powerful, but still “hot”. In TV
shows, women are seen in high power jobs with attractive men wrapped around
their fingers, but this is not the reality. Women are still making, on average,
lower wages than men and are still being objectified because of this illusion
of women being sexy and empowered. Douglas feels that because the media
glorifies sex, it sends the message to girls that they need to be hot, sexy,
and competitive with other females. Women then, degrade and objectify
themselves, trying to reach this standard set by media. Now, I’m sure that
Archbold would agree that the media is a large part of the problem and the
influence, but he suggests in his article that women themselves are the ones to
blame. The last line of his article, he pleads with women to “bring pretty back”
and to stop trying to be “hot”. He feels that women are objectified because
they do it to themselves.
Also, because Douglas argues that
women are equals to men, Archbold still feels that men should be chivalrous and
be the protectors of women and this would cause the biggest argument between
the two, that would likely end dinner.
I agree with Kelly, that if Douglas and Archbold had dinner, they would agree on many things, but also have some differences too. When Douglas talks about “White women still make 75 cents to a man’s dollar.” I still believe that’s true today, that women are still seen as not being able to do the same things men can. She also talks about how women want to go to college and further their education whereas more men are dropping out before they begin college. I don’t think it’s fair that because more women over men are wanting to go to college, that women are being turned away from colleges because universities are wanting to make their campuses more diverse. It doesn’t matter what kind of grade point average males have once they graduate high school, they’re still being accepted. Where I think Archbold and Douglas would agree on more females should strive to be more than just a “pretty face” and become more. Media and technology is such a huge part of everyday life and this is where young girls are getting skewed ideas as to what to be when they are older. Girls should be inspired and pushed to become more than the stereotypical secretary or nurse. Why not aspire to be the CEO of a business or the Chief policeman. We’re told when we are young that we can be whatever we want to be, but when did this change? I think Douglas and Archbold would have a heated discussion over this topic.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Douglas and Archbold would have a rather cohesive conversation see as though their points line up pretty well. They both believe that the objectified view of women, mostly celebrities seen on tv shows, is a retrograde into the sexists view of women from the 50’s. They both find that women are back to being objects of sex and that they are a product of what men see as attractive. Even though on TV shows, women are portrayed as these powerful figureheads that rule whatever domain depending on the show women are still in the same pickle they have been fighting against since the 50’s. This death of pretty may be the reason that there is the divide between women. As Douglas says when the 90’s came along and women were empowering themselves because they control their own sexuality and attire and bodies but they have used all this power to make themselves more appealing to men in a sexual manner which in turn only solidifies men’s power over them. They are using their power to choose their dress and etc. only to get the attention of men… not to get ahead in their job or flirt their way to the top but to find a mate.
ReplyDeleteBeing that both of these authors have feminist views, their conversation at a dinner would go quite smoothly. Kelly recognized that Douglas believes the media is to blame for the way that women are portrayed. The fact that girls see this media and desire to imitate and value what it shows agrees with Archbold's view of women desiring to be "hot" instead of "pretty". By the third glass of wine, Douglas and Archbold may end up discussing solutions to correct the media's portrayal of women. Schools and other public institutions can advocate the empowering of women and the correct view of them by teaching all children respect and seeing people for who they are. Both boys and girls that grow up with these beliefs can be put into positions of power in the media, and can create a different cycle for the perception of women.
ReplyDeleteI also feel that Archbold and Douglas have a lot of the same opinions, as well as some views that clash. I feel that during their conversations they would discuss their beliefs of how women nowadays are changing from being conservative, respected, and strong activist for feminism, to now wanting to achieve the status of being "hot" and accepted among others. The differences would occur when they discuss the matter further and Douglas tries to explain that women shouldn't have to change anything about themselves to be appealing to men. That's about all I believe they can relate on since Archbold only wrote about one aspect of the bigger picture of feminism, while Douglas went into great detail on the subject which left me annoyed and mentally exhausted upon reading. Douglas would more than likely control the conversation, ranting on and on… and on about how far women have come in society and that they are still far from being equals. I can't say for sure what Archbold thinks about what Douglas has to say, but I can infer that he'd agree to an extent of what she was saying. Archbold probably would think that Douglas is a lot more passionate about the subject and would feel a bit uncomfortable. Archbold would realize after about twenty minutes the mistake he made in agreeing to go on a blind date and plot to free himself from this hell date. He'd excuse himself from the table to "use the restroom" which is when he seizes the opportunity to leave out the back of the restaurant. :)
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kelly that both Douglas and Archbold would have a lot of the same opinions but they would still disagree on many things. Archbold continuously states that women no longer "aspire to pretty" and that they "prefer to be regarded as hot" meaning that women choose to be seen as hot, not a women of innocence and value. He does make it seem that women are the ones to blame and that it is all up to them. Conversely, Douglas believes that media has a big influence on women in today's society. I agree that society has a big impact on the way young women view themselves. Women are taught that famous people in society are people to look up to because they are "hot" and have all of the essential attributes that men look for in a women. It does have a big impact on the way that young women start to see themselves. Also I feel that men in today’s society are viewed as superior to women, because there are some jobs that just aren’t “fit” for women, when in reality a woman could do any job that a man could do if she really tried. The similar view that they both have is that women need to try harder to overcome the stereotype of women just becoming another pretty face and actually strive to become someone great and that all women need to have values and maintain that innocence. Both of the authors would definitely have a debate over certain things, but I feel that they would eventually find a happy medium.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Kelly’s thoughts on the dinner conversation I do have to agree with her thoughts on it. Both of the writers talk about the physical image that girls present today and in the past. In the past they were suppose appear innocent like and helpless with a man to provide and protect them. While today they try to appear “hot” and use their image to wrap men around their fingers for their bidding. I agree with Archold that part of the blame is to be put on the media with their coverage of celebrities and their appearance. Even in our youth we are blasted with images of what is considered attractive and perfect. I too agree with that both men and women allow themselves to fall trap to the media’s lure. Douglas writes about how the media portrays women in the work environment. She talks about how we make up these fictional characters that do better or equal to men, yet in the real world women are paid lower then their male counterparts. I feel that women and men will never be treated as equals as our society will always want to have one over the other and focus on the problems of the lesser one. Doesn’t matter if it is college acceptance rates or hourly wage, women and men will never be treated as equals as long as we follow what the media tells us. The media is the one who tells us how we should act, what we should look like, and what we should like. The media is the greatest enabler of sexism.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Kelly that if Douglas and Archbold were to have dinner together they would have a lot to talk about while they are dinning. Both wrote about how things were for women years ago and how it is changing now also how it has changed a few years ago. (Past, present, future) Douglas talks about how the television broadcasts shows with women showing horrible values and standards in which young girls as her own daughter flip the channel to and many even look up to those women as role models. And this of course is not a positive thing that is being spread to the upcoming generations. This also reminds me of how Archbold’s blog stated how girls are not “pretty” anymore which in her opinion is a combination between beautiful and innocent, girls now want to be “hot” which is more sexy and wanting to attract boys attention and also use to compete with other girls to see who is “hotter”. They would both most likely agree on how ugly the society is getting on when it comes what young girls have to look up to. Although, Douglas does state how women now a days are aiming for higher positions in the work field which I think Archbold would be happy about and speak positive about. I also think the two authors would ramble on with how they think the society of women should change. Instead of valuing vulgar aspects in women they could prove they could be equal the “pretty” way.
ReplyDeleteBy: Viany Montes
I agree with Kelly in saying that Pat Archbold and Susan Douglas would have a pretty interesting conversation over dinner. They have the same way of thinking for the most part and they can both agree that women are now obsessed with themselves being “hot” rather than being “pretty”. I also agree on her stance on women being a “commodity” and that the media is a big source on corrupting women in thinking that they need to be and to look a certain way. All women want to be Barbie’s now in days rather than being an education hungry, delicate, young women like they should be. Another good point that I agree on is the example she used when she said “In TV shows, women are seen in high power jobs with attractive men wrapped around their fingers, but this is not the reality.” That is not reality and all girls feel as if that has to happen to them. I feel Archbold’s and Douglas’s dinner would be a very long one too, considering how much they would agree with each other and how controversial this topic is. Kelly is also right in her statistics on how on average women making lower wages than men. I feel women can dig their selves out of that hole if they were to stop worrying about being “hot” and start worrying on what matters the most; making money, being happy, and being with a significant other.
ReplyDelete