(no subject)
Aug. 12th, 2009 04:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
damkiannaThere was some unexpected fail on the comics page of the paper this morning - at least, I think it was fail. Our local paper prints Ann Landers (well, the successor thereto, Annie's Mailbox) in amidst the comics, and it had a letter today from a man railing about how ridiculous it is for him to be expected to keep his eyes to himself when women wear slutty tight, low-cut, attractive clothes to work.
And the columnists agreed with him.
The text of their reply reads, "Some women think tight, low-cut clothing is attractive. Some women tease. Some simply have terrible taste. And we agree that some women dress to be noticed and then act offended when guys do just that. We hope our readers, male and female, will pay attention to your comments and realize that the clothes they wear send a message - and it's not always the one they intend."
Usually, I find skimming Annie's Mailbox while I eat breakfast relatively pleasant; sometimes, they get incredibly stupid letters, and I enjoy watching the writers who've taken over deliver impeccably polite smackdowns. So it was pretty definitely unpleasant to finish this guy's screed (which included gems like "Why do young women dress to appear cheap and slutty? ... They convey a message of sexual availability. Yet if I notice, it must be because I'm ogling young girls, and shame on me," and "Women learn early on what gets a man's attention, but heaven help us if we look too long or respond in any way"), rolling my eyes the whole way, and then hit a reply like that.
There are so many different ways in which I disagree, it's hard to know exactly where to start. Obviously, I'm wholly against the entire underlying attitude in both the letter and the response, the one that says it's a woman's responsibility to make sure that she doesn't look too attractive, because if she does, who knows how many poor men might be unable to control their behavior well enough to treat her like a human being.
I also think it's ridiculous to treat the three reasons for women to wear tight, low-cut clothing that are enumerated in the response ("it's attractive", "I'm a tease", and "I have terrible taste") as a) the only reasons there are to wear clothes like that, and b) all equally invalid/ridiculous. In response to a): what about "it makes me feel good"? "I like those clothes"? "It's summer, it's hot out, and it's not like I can just not wear a shirt"? And in response to b): ... I thought the whole point of the letter was that clothes like that are attractive, and the letter-writer can't handle it like a grown-up. Saying that some women make the poor choice of wearing clothing like that because they ... agree that it's attractive clothing ... is extremely stupid. Saying that women may make that same terrible, regrettable choice because they are intentionally being teases is just so revolting I don't even know what to say about it. And saying that wearing clothing that has been referred to by both the letter-writer and the columnists as "attractive" is a matter of the woman wearing it having terrible taste is bizarre at best.
I'm not sure I'm being very articulate about this, because it's boggling me so much to be disagreeing so intensely with columnists whom I usually find at least moderately sensible. Maybe I'm just reading this all wrong? I don't know.
Anyway. In non-faily news, I have my final exam for Syntax to finish by tomorrow evening. Sadly, the class never really did pick up the way I was hoping; on the plus side, it filled a requirement, and at least it wasn't so difficult that it disrupted my thesis work. That would've sucked.
Speaking of my thesis: I did another interview this afternoon, at one o'clock, which was very long - we almost ran over the capacity of the memory chip in my digital recorder - and very satisfying. It makes up for the one I did on Monday; I forgot the recorder entirely at that one, and was too embarrassed to say so. Fortunately, I managed to contrive an excuse to talk to Monday's subjects again tomorrow, so I may still be able to get a decent speech sample from them. (Rescheduling that? One of the worst phonecalls of my life. Augh.) Also on the good side, it's possible that M, J, and K fit the criteria for interviewees - it would be very easy for me to interview them, I would get three interviews which would definitely be long enough (which is very much of the good), and it would be great to get some younger subjects, since my sample so far is not very diverse in terms of age.
So. Right. Syntax exam.
And the columnists agreed with him.
The text of their reply reads, "Some women think tight, low-cut clothing is attractive. Some women tease. Some simply have terrible taste. And we agree that some women dress to be noticed and then act offended when guys do just that. We hope our readers, male and female, will pay attention to your comments and realize that the clothes they wear send a message - and it's not always the one they intend."
Usually, I find skimming Annie's Mailbox while I eat breakfast relatively pleasant; sometimes, they get incredibly stupid letters, and I enjoy watching the writers who've taken over deliver impeccably polite smackdowns. So it was pretty definitely unpleasant to finish this guy's screed (which included gems like "Why do young women dress to appear cheap and slutty? ... They convey a message of sexual availability. Yet if I notice, it must be because I'm ogling young girls, and shame on me," and "Women learn early on what gets a man's attention, but heaven help us if we look too long or respond in any way"), rolling my eyes the whole way, and then hit a reply like that.
There are so many different ways in which I disagree, it's hard to know exactly where to start. Obviously, I'm wholly against the entire underlying attitude in both the letter and the response, the one that says it's a woman's responsibility to make sure that she doesn't look too attractive, because if she does, who knows how many poor men might be unable to control their behavior well enough to treat her like a human being.
I also think it's ridiculous to treat the three reasons for women to wear tight, low-cut clothing that are enumerated in the response ("it's attractive", "I'm a tease", and "I have terrible taste") as a) the only reasons there are to wear clothes like that, and b) all equally invalid/ridiculous. In response to a): what about "it makes me feel good"? "I like those clothes"? "It's summer, it's hot out, and it's not like I can just not wear a shirt"? And in response to b): ... I thought the whole point of the letter was that clothes like that are attractive, and the letter-writer can't handle it like a grown-up. Saying that some women make the poor choice of wearing clothing like that because they ... agree that it's attractive clothing ... is extremely stupid. Saying that women may make that same terrible, regrettable choice because they are intentionally being teases is just so revolting I don't even know what to say about it. And saying that wearing clothing that has been referred to by both the letter-writer and the columnists as "attractive" is a matter of the woman wearing it having terrible taste is bizarre at best.
I'm not sure I'm being very articulate about this, because it's boggling me so much to be disagreeing so intensely with columnists whom I usually find at least moderately sensible. Maybe I'm just reading this all wrong? I don't know.
Anyway. In non-faily news, I have my final exam for Syntax to finish by tomorrow evening. Sadly, the class never really did pick up the way I was hoping; on the plus side, it filled a requirement, and at least it wasn't so difficult that it disrupted my thesis work. That would've sucked.
Speaking of my thesis: I did another interview this afternoon, at one o'clock, which was very long - we almost ran over the capacity of the memory chip in my digital recorder - and very satisfying. It makes up for the one I did on Monday; I forgot the recorder entirely at that one, and was too embarrassed to say so. Fortunately, I managed to contrive an excuse to talk to Monday's subjects again tomorrow, so I may still be able to get a decent speech sample from them. (Rescheduling that? One of the worst phonecalls of my life. Augh.) Also on the good side, it's possible that M, J, and K fit the criteria for interviewees - it would be very easy for me to interview them, I would get three interviews which would definitely be long enough (which is very much of the good), and it would be great to get some younger subjects, since my sample so far is not very diverse in terms of age.
So. Right. Syntax exam.
