Jennifer Armstrong: Any leveling at an economic or class level will not automatically do anything for gender. In fact, if we look at what would tend to happen automatically, women would lose a lot of the ground they have gained. I realise this when I consider my experiences in both Zimbabwe and Australia and when I read some of Simone de Beauvoir's commentary about her life as an intellectual woman. It seems that the reason she could afford to write THE SECOND SEX in peace is precisely because she was able to insulate herself from some of the worst abuses by the patriarchy through invoking her class status. This sense of insulation was not something I had whilst doing my writing. It indicates that some of the left wing agenda to flatten society is very bad for women.
Likewise, I noticed that female teachers in Rhodesia had more status than female teachers have in Australia. The difference, once again, is the capacity to invoke class status. Without this mode of differentiating oneself, we are reduced to only the pre-existing modes of recognising crude, primeval gender differences. This would tend to emphasise the meaning and importance of gender differences, rather than devaluing them, as they ought to be devalued. Women in contemporary Western schools are treated as 'mothers', expected to make sacrifices of their intellects in order to appease 'the boys', who are deemed to be their natural superiors,anyway. Already it is implicitly understood that 'boys' can assert themselves because it is 'in their nature', whereas female teachers who assert themselves are deemed to be going against their nurturing (motherly) instincts.
So, what we have here is a reduction of women to something akin to slaves.
***
Jasmina Brankovich: @Jen: that bit about de Beauvoir reminds me of Virgina Woolf's premise behind A Room of One's Own: ie, what a woman needs to become a successful writer (assuming she has the talent and capability of course) is a 'room of one's own' and independent yearly income :) This was written at the time when women were not in the paid slavery wage system, of course, so the only income that they could have access to was inheritance.
But I do think difference should not be eliminated. Have you read much of Luce Irigaray? Later French feminisms (Irigaray was Belgian, but drew of the heritage of French theory) championed female difference, arguing that dismissing difference was another patriarchal ploy aimed at devaluing the feminine. Instead women needed to reclaim the feminine, particularly the feminine language that would allow women to express themselves outside of the phallocentric discourse. The theory of difference recognises that society's two gender categories, man and woman, are in fact just one (man, of course) and the language of equality, where equality equals sameness works to reinforce patriarchy.
****
Jennifer Armstrong: Of course I've read Irigaray. I'm not sure why you think I am saying that difference ought to be eliminated. How would that be possible? I'm not sure if you have understood my original points. Perhaps I conveyed them poorly.
What I meant to say is that traditionally males were granted social authority and women were denied it. It seems to me that unless there is something specifically culturally prohibitive that acts as a barrier against treating particular women badly, all women will be treated directly as patriarchal subjects, pure and simple. This means that they will some solely under the umbrella of patriarchal valuations and patriarchy will treat them as it will.
Now, I wasn't saying that motherhood in itself is bad for women. I think such an interpretation would really miss my point in a very radical way. I was suggesting, rather, that women should also be able to have the type of authority in the world that does not stem from an identity as a mother. The natural tendency, if culture does not intervene, is for society to collapse back onto "instinct" -- and this is basically fascism, although women can even have power in fascist society, so long as they invoke their status as mothers. Apart from this, they cannot stand up as individuals.
Likewise, I noticed that female teachers in Rhodesia had more status than female teachers have in Australia. The difference, once again, is the capacity to invoke class status. Without this mode of differentiating oneself, we are reduced to only the pre-existing modes of recognising crude, primeval gender differences. This would tend to emphasise the meaning and importance of gender differences, rather than devaluing them, as they ought to be devalued. Women in contemporary Western schools are treated as 'mothers', expected to make sacrifices of their intellects in order to appease 'the boys', who are deemed to be their natural superiors,anyway. Already it is implicitly understood that 'boys' can assert themselves because it is 'in their nature', whereas female teachers who assert themselves are deemed to be going against their nurturing (motherly) instincts.
So, what we have here is a reduction of women to something akin to slaves.
***
Jasmina Brankovich: @Jen: that bit about de Beauvoir reminds me of Virgina Woolf's premise behind A Room of One's Own: ie, what a woman needs to become a successful writer (assuming she has the talent and capability of course) is a 'room of one's own' and independent yearly income :) This was written at the time when women were not in the paid slavery wage system, of course, so the only income that they could have access to was inheritance.
But I do think difference should not be eliminated. Have you read much of Luce Irigaray? Later French feminisms (Irigaray was Belgian, but drew of the heritage of French theory) championed female difference, arguing that dismissing difference was another patriarchal ploy aimed at devaluing the feminine. Instead women needed to reclaim the feminine, particularly the feminine language that would allow women to express themselves outside of the phallocentric discourse. The theory of difference recognises that society's two gender categories, man and woman, are in fact just one (man, of course) and the language of equality, where equality equals sameness works to reinforce patriarchy.
****
Jennifer Armstrong: Of course I've read Irigaray. I'm not sure why you think I am saying that difference ought to be eliminated. How would that be possible? I'm not sure if you have understood my original points. Perhaps I conveyed them poorly.
What I meant to say is that traditionally males were granted social authority and women were denied it. It seems to me that unless there is something specifically culturally prohibitive that acts as a barrier against treating particular women badly, all women will be treated directly as patriarchal subjects, pure and simple. This means that they will some solely under the umbrella of patriarchal valuations and patriarchy will treat them as it will.
Now, I wasn't saying that motherhood in itself is bad for women. I think such an interpretation would really miss my point in a very radical way. I was suggesting, rather, that women should also be able to have the type of authority in the world that does not stem from an identity as a mother. The natural tendency, if culture does not intervene, is for society to collapse back onto "instinct" -- and this is basically fascism, although women can even have power in fascist society, so long as they invoke their status as mothers. Apart from this, they cannot stand up as individuals.
No comments:
Post a Comment