Sorry, Tannen

While it is true that women are often judged due to their appearance, I have to disagree with Tannen’s claim that everything women wear or “common associations” with the female gender are “marked." I believe that girls in school have the option to blend in with the norm, go all out with their accessories, or lay it back with just a pair of sweatpants. Either way, at least in my case, I tend not to judge others’ choices, making their choices ultimately unmarked. However, though others may judge, this still ultimately goes against Tannen’s claim that “every style available to us [is] marked.”

Tannen’s main purpose is ultimately to bring awareness to the fact that “there is no unmarked woman” and to bring light to the fact that women should not be judged solely based on appearance. Her piece goes against this purpose in many aspects. By describing each of the women individually, not even mentioning their names, she turns the focus to their appearance rather than their true nature. She states that “the second woman was older, full of dignity of composure." How can she asses her dignity based solely on appearance? In addition, she claims that “biologically it is the male that is marked." She believes this is the case based on Fasold’s book which states that there are some species which produce only females while none produce only males, making males marked. However, she states that being “marked” is a "staple of linguistic theory" and that the "unmarked form of English words also convey male". So if this is her definition of marked, how does parthenogenesis have any relevance?