The
article “It is still beauty before brains”
depicts about the prejudiced judgement of women nowadays due to their
appearances rather than their competency.
The
language used by the author is simple and well-expressed. Why do I say so?
Readers can’t and won’t understand what “corpus callosum” means
even if the author did manage to define it. Rather than confusing readers about
the meaning of the aforementioned word, the author chose an indirect way to express
her ideas without giving rise to misconceptions amongst the readers. She used
the word directly and expressed it by saying “wired” differently in order to
give readers an indirect clue as to what the word means.
The author sounds cynical when she brings out the matter
of beauty pageant. She argues that the contest is mostly based on beauty and
beauty alone. However, she’s not being well-grounded as beauty pageant contests
nowadays do have many criteria besides beauty, they do take many other talents
and skills into account. Moreover, she mentioned that beauty seems increasingly
more a curse, this particularly harsh tone indicates her extreme disapproval of
beauty and its impact on women nowadays. Therefore I thoroughly believe that
the author was biased towards beauty itself and regards beauty as a subject of
her distaste. However, she managed to give the readers an insight on how this
might lead to negative consequences to the society if nothing is being done
about it.
Hence, I believe that the author did what she thought was
right by giving readers awareness on negative impacts of judgement by looks and
appearances alone. She gave the society a sound message and pleads for the
audience to stand up and take action before matters get out of hand.
Based on the critique above,I agree with writer on the point that the author of the article has no clear understanding of a beauty pageant competition.According to the author a beauty pageant only focuses on beauty.This seems to be a false fact since a beauty pageant do considers talents and skills of the contestants.On the other hand,I disagree with the critique above on the language used by the author, which is said to be simple and well-expressed.For instance,I do not see the significance of the word "corpus luteum" in the article whether it is defined or not.I believe most readers will still find this term unfamiliar.
ReplyDelete