Grimes connects to his audience better because he speaks as a college man himself. I do agree with him, for the most part, that college has evolved past the idea of 'meeting your husband/wife in college aka your college sweetheart' -- that has all unfortunately disappeared in the 21st century. I have friends that partake in this culture and I too have dipped a toe or two into this culture, but I think Grimes fails when he claims that it has nothing to do with female liberation, and that instead, we are making it 'easier' for men:
Grimes says 'I wonder what is so empowering about being, in essence, an unpaid prostitute. The boys may politely clap and publicly congratulate the women for liberating their sexuality and owning their miniskirt and so on, but privately they are having a good laugh and passing the word on who is the easy lay. A woman who embraces the hook-up culture is simply making it easier for guys to treat her as a sex object. Is this women's liberation?"I find his argument for this contradictory. Grimes should instead be arguing for the case against men--that in this new culture, they shouldn't treat them as sex objects, but as equals--mutual partners in this culture. A man, who has the capability of being a sexual encounter for a woman isn't being titled as an unpaid prostitute, but a woman who acts in the same way has the possibility of being called one? It makes no sense, and for Grimes to claim that it sets back women's liberation is also contributing to it. Though he speaks as a college student, he also speaks as a man, and I find that his op-ed was purely biased and I found his argument ultimately a failure that was not founded on a critical and logical basis.
No comments:
Post a Comment