Tuesday, January 21, 2014
They Said, She Said
In a situation that pitts two polar thinking human beings together you can only assume that their meeting will be interesting to say the least. Susan J. Douglas, author of "The Rise of Enlightened Sexism", expressed in her writing that the media went from potraying females as figures of higher power such as CEO's, lawyers, and political figures to your basic bimbo that will take a pie to the face topless on MTV's Spring Break Special because that's more "acceptable" in todays world.
On the contrary author Pat Archbold doesn't even talk about whether women want to be power figures or not he stresses that girls growing up nowadays don't give a hoot about whether they're pretty they just want to be regarded as hot because hot is consummable.
At dinner Douglas will be slightly taken aback that Archbold doesn't have much to say about woman's role in society as powerful figures so she will be sure to make sure that he does't leave the table without knowledge that females can be/want to be seen for something other than their looks. Archbold will be able to have some input on when and why women went turned diva in terms of wanting to look hot. They will both definately take something home with them from dinner Archbold will most likely have more on his plate seeing as Douglas has 22 pages of points and ideas she has to get across whereas Archbold only has a couple paragraphs.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
ReplyDeleteI do agree with you Mayowa that these two authors would have very varying view points on things to discuss and how the feel about the issue they both find more pressing. Yet I don’t think that Douglas’s argument is any more compelling than Archbolds just because of the mere size of her paper. Archbold got his point across faster than she did but did not lack any of the strong rooted beliefs that both authors had. I think Douglas would be far more fascinated that taken about by Archbolds take on women on society, she is a women that would indulge in someone’s opinion rather than just tear it down with the rooted belief that she is right and others are wrong. She would surely correct him on what she found to be right but she would not out right express how wrong she might find him to be. I believe these two would most surely hit it off when it came to the conversations they would have during this dinner. For as the saying goes opposites attract and these two people have very opposing and interesting views on the role women play in society.
I believe personally that both of these authors had very valid points and presented these points very well trying to get there beliefs across to us. Going back to what you had said about the authors I do agree with you that these two would make for very interesting dinner companions and would definitely have a lot to discuss and talk to each other about but I do not believe that it would be as heated of a event as you think it would be. I stay by my opinion that it would end up being a calm dinner among two very intelligent people with two very strong view points sharing those view points with each other.
I agree with you on the fact that the two would be very bi-polar, however I also believe it would turn into a prude/diva battle royal. I think the entree wouldn't even make it to the table. Douglas would start it too, she would get heated and use her girl power to rise against the girly girls telling her what she is supposed to be. On the other side of the cat fight Archbold would simply sit there quietly, and act like a proper lady. I think their voices are very passionate and sound a little annoyed with the other side of the argument. Miley Cyrus is a great example of this. Mostly because she was on both sides at some points in her life. When she became famous for her TV show she was little innocent Hannah Montana. When she grew older and had her heart broken Miley became a strong independent lady that did not need anyone, and did whatever she wanted. I also think that the two authors at this dinner would have a victor, and it would symbolize what I think is coming faster and faster to every little girls future. Douglas, with her fearless attitude, would crush her prude companion and be the champion. For our generation we see girls everywhere becoming more independent, and hot. Guys do not care, they are stupid and like it. So why not be independent and strong? This only means the stronger you are the stronger you can break the glass ceilings that other people put over your head.
ReplyDeleteI agree completely with almost every aspect of your response, Mayowa, and I not only think that Archbold will have little to say in response to Douglas’ comments, I think he will have no response at all. He won’t know how to deal with a woman of such passion, especially in an argument that has been handled with such sensitivity in the past. In the end, both will have learned something about the opposing views but both are too stubborn to even consider changing their beliefs. Why does being pretty include attributes such as innocence and beauty? Archbold acknowledges that being pretty has different meanings but fails to act on that acknowledgement. I think many women would find it interesting to hear a male’s view of how women have changed over the past twenty years or so but not if the male is not willing to open up his mind to several views rather than stay stubborn in his own. You can really see the passion in Douglas’ writing. The final paragraph alone shows the desire she has to spread her message and make her voice heard. Whereas Archbold merely seems to be a little bothered by the matter which he thinks is wrong. I think it is ridiculous to believe that women should attempt to keep a certain image when everything else in the world is changing constantly and revolution is all around us. It is not fair to limit a human being to a certain standard, let alone an entire sex.
ReplyDeleteIt is needless to say that if these two people got together for dinner, it would be a very interesting conversation. Douglas and Archbold both give excellent views on how woman are perceived today, and how there’s a problem with the way society and media make this picture for us. However, I would say that I preferred Archbolds’ reading over Douglas’ reading. I found this quite surprising too, because as I was reading Douglas’ "The Rise of Enlightened Sexism", I heard so much passion in her words that came along with an insight that any woman would most likely agree with. Women want to be independent, strong, and have jobs that make us feel like we have just as much power as men. And I agree that if given the chance at dinner, Douglas would definitely make sure Archbold didn’t leave without knowledge that females want to be seen for something other than looks. How could she not? Be that as it may, as I started reading Archbolds’ passage I found a certain connection with it. Maybe from personal experience in my own life, but girls are so much more concerned these days with looking hot instead of pretty. And when he says pretty he doesn’t just mean looks. It’s the type of person we are and the type of person that we are projecting into the world. He uses the words “innocent” and “virtue” to describe his definition of pretty, and I would agree completely that I wish more girls were this “pretty”. Women are more worried about how much skin they can show at the bars to get guys, and then, when they do get them, wonder why they won’t look them in the eyes. It begs the question to when women will start being more true to themselves, and not be afraid to step outside of this box that the media and society places us in.
ReplyDeleteI agree a lot with what you are saying. Archbold is definitely going to get a strong serving of “women are more than just looks” and even more from Douglas. From reading “Fantasies of Power” written by Douglas, I think it will be very beneficial for Archbold to meet and talk with Douglas over dinner. Archbold’s argument is very short and based only on the appearance of women. What’s even more irritating is the fact that not all women are how he portrays them in his article. Not all women in the world are focused on being “hot” and getting with every guy with a beating heart and I am sure that Douglas would probably take offense to that statement. Considering the fact that Douglas does not even want her daughter watching MTV programs such as Sorority Life, I highly doubt that Douglas is one to dress like Megan Fox or Miley Cyrus in skin tight, revealing clothing with pounds of makeup. I think it is unfair that Archbold claims that “pretty” is dead. For one, everyone views “pretty” differently; your appearance is your personal choice. And two, why should a guy get to choose how much makeup we wear or what clothes we dress ourselves in? And lastly, if Archbold thinks pretty girls are only the no-makeup wearing virgins, there are still plenty of those girls still around! While Douglas backs up her claims with twenty-two pages of examples and support, Archbold is missing so much. Has he ever thought that maybe men are the reason some of these girls act like that? Or the media? Or a combination of both? If these two writers were to have dinner together and come to a disagreement about anything, I am sure Douglas would come out on top. She seems very educated, whereas Archbold does not.
ReplyDeleteI partially agree with your point. I think they are both to be sexist in more or less the same fashion. Archbold believes that women are becoming worth less and less as time goes on as a result of feminism, and Douglas believes that women need to be more progressive and become leaders. They want women (and men by extension) to be something they are not already. They are trying to control what people do. People should be able to do whatever they want as long as they aren’t physically effecting another human. Women and men can dress as they please and obtain whatever job they want. If there happens to be similarities in the roles and jobs each gender chooses, then so be it.
ReplyDelete