Women don't have the option of being unmarked.

[tahariel]

Seeing how at least a few of you were interested in my post yesterday, I thought I'd link to this interesting article I read this evening:

Leaping upon a poor fellow who affably nodded in agreement, she made him stand and asked, "Did what she said accurately describe you?" "Oh, yes," he answered. "That's me exactly." 'And what she said about women -- does that sound like your wife?" "Oh yes," he responded. "That's her exactly." "Then why do you think she's male-bashing?" He answered, with disarming honesty, "Because she's a woman and she's saying things about men."

To say anything about women and men without marking oneself as either feminist or anti-feminist, male-basher or apologist for men seems as impossible for a woman as trying to get dressed in the morning without inviting interpretations of her character. Sitting at the conference table musing on these matters, I felt sad to think that we women didn't have the freedom to be unmarked that the men sitting next to us had. 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.


I'm not sure I agree that there is no 'unmarked' appearance for women entirely, though I do agree at least partially with her point. In my opinion there are style choices which are nearly invisible on women, just as there are with men. But then, women are judged on their appearances a lot more than men, so.

What do you guys think?

Comments

[pobbit-in-japan.livejournal.com]

I think I agree with the point. Assumptions are made about a woman based only on what she wears or doesn't wear, but assumptions about men tend to take more time. That could be simply what I do though (presumably because I have been socialised to think that certain items hold certain meanings).
The point about the grammar is really interesting actually.