While I was reading "Is Pink Necessary?", I couldn't help but get annoyed with the author. When Paul was talking about Peggy Orenstein, she started out talking about how valid Orenstein's work was and how she focused on the child pageant circuit which is a valid area of study. However, throughout the article, Paul would back pedal, making a strong point, but then immediately began backing off.
For example, in the fifth paragraph, Paul discussed Orenstein's turn to the child pageant circuit and how Orenstein wanted to discover a different take on this medium rather than the traditional "blame the parents" approach.
However, in the sixth paragraph, Paul begins to almost apologize for Orenstein's research. Paul says that Orenstein "argues with herself, questions her own assumptions, ...and then has second thoughts". By doing this, it seems that Paul presents Orenstein as a stereotypical "hysterical woman", one who can't make up her mind and has to apologize when her theories are more speculative rather than concrete. Paul cheapens Orenstein in this way, turning Orenstein from a competent journalist to an uncertain mother who dabbles in writing and wonders from behind her Redbook and ginger ale whether child pageants are good or bad.
By creating uncertainty about Orenstein, Paul seems to reinforce the stereotype that women must be submissive and that their opinions don't mean as much as a man's. After observing Paul at work, I must ask myself whether or not Paul is part of the problem by not sticking to her convictions.
No comments:
Post a Comment