G. At the time this article was written, the perception and expectations related to women were changing. The vision that was the docile, static, Victorian woman was evolving into the free-thinking and freely drinking “modern woman”. This was a woman who could work, flirt, go out on the town without a male chaperone, and indulge in their sexual desires. Manners and McDonald seems to admire the modern woman but for different reasons. Manners does not state her support outright, but she shows her support of these women through her protests and her search for more practical responses from McDonald. He, on the other hand, is very outright with his support. He spends a good while discussing the importance of women no longer hiding their appearance.
…show more content…
Before he mentions the romance that Constance Talmadge is known for, he mentions the love of Clara Bow and similar actresses like Betty Compson and Barbara La Marr. He states that they are women who “couldn’t reason themselves into loving a man just because he was a good provider” (96). These are women who love for love’s sake. There is nothing reasonable about their romance. It is all based on their emotions. He adds that Clara Bow “belongs back in the days when love was really a woman’s whole existence…when a strong-armed man ... grabbed woman by the hair, and dragged her to bungalow cave” (96). Instead of the woman who leads the man in the romance, this woman is a submissive woman who is taken over by love and her lover. Instead of being empowered by the romance, this is a woman who is taken over by the romance. While it is only a small part that is mentioned, it is placed mentioned before the empowered female romance. This is the discussion he naturally flowed into when discussing the power of women in love, and it really has no power for the women. Instead, it follows his idea when he said: “I have never been able to resist the lovely ladies who love me” and that these are the women who “hold men by the song in their hearts” (96). This sort of romance is pure and natural. It is the more romantic notion, but it completely undermines his next point about women who are more flirtatious and take control of their love
Before he mentions the romance that Constance Talmadge is known for, he mentions the love of Clara Bow and similar actresses like Betty Compson and Barbara La Marr. He states that they are women who “couldn’t reason themselves into loving a man just because he was a good provider” (96). These are women who love for love’s sake. There is nothing reasonable about their romance. It is all based on their emotions. He adds that Clara Bow “belongs back in the days when love was really a woman’s whole existence…when a strong-armed man ... grabbed woman by the hair, and dragged her to bungalow cave” (96). Instead of the woman who leads the man in the romance, this woman is a submissive woman who is taken over by love and her lover. Instead of being empowered by the romance, this is a woman who is taken over by the romance. While it is only a small part that is mentioned, it is placed mentioned before the empowered female romance. This is the discussion he naturally flowed into when discussing the power of women in love, and it really has no power for the women. Instead, it follows his idea when he said: “I have never been able to resist the lovely ladies who love me” and that these are the women who “hold men by the song in their hearts” (96). This sort of romance is pure and natural. It is the more romantic notion, but it completely undermines his next point about women who are more flirtatious and take control of their love