Response to "Marked Women, Unmarked Men"

Reading through an online article called "Marked Women, Unmarked Men", written my Deborah Tannen. She explains that the “THE TERM MARKED is a staple of linguistic theory… the way language alters the base meaning of a word by adding a linguistic particle that has no meaning on its own.” When Tannen refers to both men and women she simply believes that women are seen as marked and men are not. What does she mean by this? Well, focusing on 3 women in a work conference she was attending Tannen was able to take into consideration that the way women choose to dress, act, and look makes a statement about what their personalities are like, what they want, and even how they think. Now of the four women at the work conference including herself she did not look at the men and analyze them according to what they chose to wear that day.  WHY? Well it was not that she was being critical of the women but because the eight men were all dressed in a similar works uniform with dark closed toes and all had a similar haircut, the stereotypical male works man. They could not be judged according to what they were wearing because they all looked the same. So in this case the author refers to the as unmarked. Their works clothes are their works clothes but, women’s works cloths are not just their works clothes. Depending on what they wore marks them as the flirtatious, strong, serious, shy, etc. they can’t just put something on and not be judged by those around them.

We as individuals have the freedom to be unmarked because being marked is like being stereotyped and in many ways stereotyping is unfair, hurtful, and narrow-minded, (do not understand, and know the full history). Today there are many different stereotypes for women, three of which are as described in the article by Tannen .The one who wears the tightly fitted outfit, the one who wears a more comfortable outfit and the one who is dressed “professionally”. Simply women do not want to be judged by what they wear because it is unfair, it’s like the rape myth, “she wearing that because she wants to have sex”. Just because someone dresses in a certain way does not mean it gives someone else the right to mark her as she wants this or she wants that or even she thinks like this. It’s just wrong, and once again unfair. Unfortunately the other half of being marked is that once you are marked by the public you are stuck with that image and no matter what you do, you are still seen as you were when you were marked.

In this Article Tannen states that men are unmarked, I disagree even though men might wear the same outfits, color wise, or style wise they too can be marked, but perhaps just in a more subtle way, depending on where they buy the suits, what quality of suits they wear or even the brand of clothing  can mark them as cheap, self-aware, etc.  And although the man’s suit and tie is a typical uniform for the office there are differences. Tannen mentioned that men only have shirts in primary colors which is not true. I feel that a man wearing a pink shirt can definitely be marked whether it suggests a more feminine side or a man with a lot of confidence,people will mark him. Although one of these statements can be true or both false to this man a pink shirt would just be a shirt and nothing more, same goes for ties. A man in the office can be marked according to the type of tie he decides to wear. Although women have more to be marked for men too can be marked it might just not be as obvious as it is with women.