Read other letters about this article

• Wednesday, October 26, 2005 12:23 PM

  Get beyond the stereotypes

  (Posted this elsewhere, but it's a general comment on the blog).

  I like the concept, which is why I'm so disappointed in the results.

  In the past few days, there have been articles and blog entries with cliched references to women:

  "Soccer Moms"

  "Chicks"

  "Catfights"

  "Broads"

  Is the intent to subvert the stereotypes by reappropriating the terminology - "taking back the chick," in essence? Or is the intent to be provocative?

  I haven't seen the analysis or content to support subversion of stereotypes. And there's a difference between conscious provocation that explores boundaries and simply trotting out the same tired old stereotypes.

  Even the naming of the blog as "Broadsheet" is representative. Is the only available reference for what defines a "broad" Rosalind Russell's character? Was Barbara Stanwyck too risque? As good as "His Girl Friday" is, it sends a pretty clear message about the appropriate roles for women - either give up your job and settle for a safe marriage to a dull insurance salesman, or return to a job that you love....and re-marry your boss. Her character is never defined by anything other than her relationship to another man. Both states of being reinforce the notion that women are most often (and easily) defined by their relationships to men.

  Your article titles of late do the same. Salon, I expected more.

  Sarah

  —sarahandjay Read sarahandjay's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel