This assignment was to compare two very different, yet very similar articles and to ask questions about then; analysis, examine, pick apart, speak (write) thoughtfully, create an understanding of the two individual articles. In a way, ask question which point out the individuality of the articles, while at the same time ask questions submitting the articles to deindividuation.
The initial article discusses an attitude which predominates our society, feminism. The author of this article, "There is No Unmarked Women," defends this attitude with her discussion and conclusions, though i truly believe that was not her intent. Her article describes the standards that she feels are pressed onto women by the society, including men and other women; discussing how every woman is "marked" by the way she dresses or acts. When a women dresses in a certain way, or she acts a certain way she is instantly labeled whether that label is true or not; essentially no women goes through her day without having to find a mold, a model, which she is comfortable with and is willing to maintain. She must choose how people see her. Tannen's view is that only women are subjected to this pressure, that when you look at men they do not suffer from being forced to fit a mold or follow a pattern otherwise people will think you odd and society will reject you. In her eye's, this punishment appears to be reserved for and intended solely for women, not men.
This article is supposed to be compared to one by a man named McRaney. His article, Deindividuation, discusses something similar, yet very different. He examines the habit and instinct to follow the crowd, go with the flow, be part of the group, or in other, more simple words, participate. He talks about how when people are within a crowd, that if they are not careful; they will lose themselves to the impulse and emotion of the crowd. People are much more willing to do things that contradict their own nature when they are with a group because they are no longer the sole instigator, they aren't alone anymore, others are also responsible. He talks about how that is the reason why kids going trick-or-treating on halloween, when told to take one candy, no more, and then are left alone, become greedy when their with a group, yet alone it is harder and they are not as willing to be greedy. This habit, coupled with another habitual nature of humanity, herding, is the reason that large crowds can very easily teeter on the edge between insane rioting and peaceful dispersion. All it takes is one yell, one swing; or one calming voice, one smooth peaceful gesture.
The thing that ties these two articles together stronger than they probably ever were intended to be, is that they both describe the same thing. Tannen describes a world where women are suppressed and forced to fit a mold that is determined usually by other men, and McRaney describes a world where everyone is given the choice, follow the flow or stick out. They speak of the exact same things. Tannen is a feminist, because she focuses on the suppression of women to the exclusion of men. (No, i am not saying we know anything about what you go through, nor am i saying its nothing compared to what we go through. Just remember, just as every person is different, so are men and women.) McRaney is being the Psychologist, because he is focusing on the mental and psychological pressures and forces that are exerted within a crowd and the effects they have. Essentially, they each are exactly the same, only one is more narrowly focused than the other.
Tannen isn't wrong, don't misunderstand me. I agree with a lot of what she says. Women are pushed to fit a mold and a form which the society considers beautiful or intelligent, successful or correct; what i do not agree with Tannen on is the origin and the limit. This mold does not originate even mostly from men, it originates of people, CEO's if you want or even your Parents. (Oh, don't forget the teachers and role models who helped form or country either, after all they did give us a mold didn't they, the very mold which is now becoming abused. Freedom to Choose.) Tannen forgets that men are also forced into their molds as well, just as much as women, though women usually are the only ones who realize it. Men are pushed into becoming a jock, a "successful" cut-throat (Public Relations) official, an intelligent, ambitious fool who refuses to admit when he is wrong or other things. (A father who plays with his son, a teacher who loves his students and helps them, a husband who truly loves and is faithful to his wife.) This pier pressure, which is what it is, is forced upon men as well. It isn't something that is wrong. Every person must fill a gap, a gap of identity and place; whether the gap is from mimicking your father or mother, or copying your friends even to living like someone famous. (or infamous.)
McRaney was discussing the same thing, only on a larger scale. The innate quality which we all hold safely in our hearts and mind, identity. The viewpoint from which McRaney approached this examination was from out side the crowd, looking down on the men and women who blend and mingle, becoming so similar to each other, yet being so different at the same time. He examined the behavior that we all revert to when we are surrounded by masses of people, because unless we are aware of it, we all try to fit in; the mold in this situation is then determined not by men or women but by the crowd. It is exactly what Tannen was saying, only the victim wasn't and innocent women who unwittingly fell into this mold devised by men to hold her bound, but instead the victim is simply the person who gets caught in the crowd, who feels the rush and exhilaration from the crowd, who hears someone yell and gets the irresistible eager to yell as well, (even while wondering, "Wait, what am i yelling again?") This sensation, this thrill, this desire and need to fit in simply to be accepted is innate in us all, and can only be resisted when you are aware of it.
These articles, though they appear different, both analysis the same thing. The human desire to fit in, to be liked, to be understood and wanted. There are difference in these arguments and articles, but the only differences are the groups upon which they focus and the aspect of this nature which they analysis. We are all human, and as human beings, we need interaction and warmth; whether from people, animals, or books. We were designed to need something. Be careful what mold you fall into, and be careful what you choose to fill that void.
