Patriarchal projections might not appear obviously what they are -- which is to say, projections -- just because they often rely upon a framing device to change the meaning of an event, depending upon whether the subject is male or female. What is projected it the idea of female inferiority, which seems to be confirmed by any unusual event in the life of any woman.
The way I have found this to work: if a woman struggles against something, by the fact of a struggle, one is marked as a failure. (If a man similarly struggles against incredible odds, then that is seen as indicative of his will to overcome those odds.)
What this patriarchal logic adds up to is a general social perspective that a woman who struggles against the odds is a failure. She struggles because life appears to overwhelm her. (Actually, patriarchal hegemony can often be overwhelming, depending on one's particular circumstances.) For one who has more patriarchy to deal with than maybe others do, failing to struggle would not lead to any success, either -- and necessarily so, since those who do not struggle against powerful enemies do not end up making anything of their lives.
All the same, patriarchy is not an ideology that distinguishes between just and unjust situations. For women who suffer under a great deal of patriarchal control, the fatigue after having exerted oneself in an extraordinary way is viewed as signifying the failure of one's whole enterprise, which is to survive as a whole human being. Patriarchal ideology requires that one loses, either way (by struggling against it or by not struggling). It thus enforces standards of mediocrity for women.
As we can see, then, a mediocre woman is the only kind of woman logically acceptable under the patriarchal system. Yet, even this ostensibly "acceptable" woman -- this patriarchal, mediocre woman -- will ultimately be rejected by the patriarchal system, for it's clear that acquiescence to a system that defines your character as mediocre makes one, if anything, superlatively mediocre. This is a fact sensed by the brighter of the patriarchal types themselves, who intuit that any woman accommodating herself to their wishes cannot have much character or substance.
From a patriarchal perspective no woman is anything but mediocre. That view is behind the self-justification of patriarchal value systems: we dominate you because you are inferior and we are superior to you. Furthermore, the circumstances we have imposed on you -- lack of access to effective contraception, for instance -- will assure that nothing like an intellect actually develops.
Of course, it's the "femininity" of the ideological priest that he's wishing to cast into her -- specifically his sexual devils. Be assured that this circular reasoning leads to more of the same.
Julia Gillard is a much better leader than our framing devices will ever allow us to concede.
The way I have found this to work: if a woman struggles against something, by the fact of a struggle, one is marked as a failure. (If a man similarly struggles against incredible odds, then that is seen as indicative of his will to overcome those odds.)
What this patriarchal logic adds up to is a general social perspective that a woman who struggles against the odds is a failure. She struggles because life appears to overwhelm her. (Actually, patriarchal hegemony can often be overwhelming, depending on one's particular circumstances.) For one who has more patriarchy to deal with than maybe others do, failing to struggle would not lead to any success, either -- and necessarily so, since those who do not struggle against powerful enemies do not end up making anything of their lives.
All the same, patriarchy is not an ideology that distinguishes between just and unjust situations. For women who suffer under a great deal of patriarchal control, the fatigue after having exerted oneself in an extraordinary way is viewed as signifying the failure of one's whole enterprise, which is to survive as a whole human being. Patriarchal ideology requires that one loses, either way (by struggling against it or by not struggling). It thus enforces standards of mediocrity for women.
As we can see, then, a mediocre woman is the only kind of woman logically acceptable under the patriarchal system. Yet, even this ostensibly "acceptable" woman -- this patriarchal, mediocre woman -- will ultimately be rejected by the patriarchal system, for it's clear that acquiescence to a system that defines your character as mediocre makes one, if anything, superlatively mediocre. This is a fact sensed by the brighter of the patriarchal types themselves, who intuit that any woman accommodating herself to their wishes cannot have much character or substance.
From a patriarchal perspective no woman is anything but mediocre. That view is behind the self-justification of patriarchal value systems: we dominate you because you are inferior and we are superior to you. Furthermore, the circumstances we have imposed on you -- lack of access to effective contraception, for instance -- will assure that nothing like an intellect actually develops.
Of course, it's the "femininity" of the ideological priest that he's wishing to cast into her -- specifically his sexual devils. Be assured that this circular reasoning leads to more of the same.
Julia Gillard is a much better leader than our framing devices will ever allow us to concede.
No comments:
Post a Comment