Wednesday, January 21, 2015
Two Authors Discuss Their Views Over Dinner
While reading, “Death of Pretty,” by Pat Archbold and “ Men Growing Up To Be Boys,” by Lakshmi Chaudhry I do believe if these two were to sit down and have dinner with each other it would be a pleasant dinner at one of their homes. I do not believe there would be any tension. Both authors of these articles were talking about the same thing, but from different views. In “Death of Pretty,” Pat was describing how over the years women have forgotten the true meaning of the word “pretty” and how they now prefer to be called “hot” or “sexy”. She believes that women are more focused on getting a mans attention by the way they dress or the way they present themselves other than what is truly on the inside and actually makes them pretty. Over the years women have forgotten what it really means to be pretty and innocent. In “Men Growing Up To be Boys,” Lakshmi was describing how men these days are focusing more on living life rather than focusing on being at home with their family. When both authors start discussing their articles I believe that they would talk about how over generations things have changed and not for the better. They would both agree on wanting things to be how they were back in the day.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with what you have to say towards Archbold's points how women want the attention of men and that is why many have abandoned being pretty in hopes of being thought of as hot. I don’t know if I could agree with Archbold and Chaudhry on them wanting men and women to be more like how they were years ago, the traditional life. So, I might have to argue a bit with them on that aspect but could agree with the fact that people have changed and not necessarily for the better in some aspects. Other than a small disagreement it would be a pleasant dinner.
ReplyDeleteI suppose you two wouldn’t want me to come to the dinner. I probably wouldn’t make it very pleasant. I would have to disagree with both of the authors on many different issues. I strongly disagree with the tradition values that the two authors put forth. I would say to Archbold, “You seem to value too strongly the idea of women being innocent. In the 21st century, women are not ‘innocent’ at least not in the sense that you use the word. Women are, and rightly so, strong and independent. She does not need a man to ‘protect and defend’ them. If it is true that ‘hotness’ is a consumable, then I see no harm being done in her being ‘consumed’ by a man if she so desires. Women no longer have to be dependent on a man for stability.” I would then say to Chaudhry, “Men shouldn’t have to be compelled to settle down. Perhaps the reason that men want to want less strain on their lives from their work is because of their disdain for Capitalism. The values of honor, duty, and loyalty are certainly good ones but shouldn’t have to be associated to solely men and are not only applicable to marriages.” At this point, I would to say to both of the authors, “In this new era, independence is not necessary but is certainly possible. Both of you seem to push too strongly for monogamy which works for some, but shouldn’t be an ideal that we all must strive for.”
ReplyDelete