In "The Ecology of Feminism and the Feminism of Ecology" Ynestra King writes "...in patriarchal thought, women are believed to be closer to nature than men. this gives women a particular stake in ending the domination of nature--in healing the alienation between human and nonhuman nature" (470).
While I can see why the idea that women are closer to nature could be demeaning to some, I personally feel that I because I am human I have a connection to nature and the world around me, and because I am a woman and a feminist this relationship is stronger than it would be given a different set of descriptive characteristics.
I'm an Environmental and Women's Studies double major, so clearly I have come to see the correlations between the two fields and this background helps me to understand and place my relationship with the natural world around me.
Growing into this field of study I have read things like Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, the Brundtland Commission Report (which was headed by a woman, Gro Harlem Brundtland), Wangari Mathaai's memoir Unbowed and Vandana Shiva's Soil Not Oil. All of these women would probably testify to the closeness to nature they--as women--feel. Is this just because they are women? No, probably not. And dissecting our human experiences to fit within certain labels isn't what feminism is about, either. Furthermore, there are plenty of environmental scientists who are men (and feminists), and probaby plenty of environmental scientists that are women but don't identify as feminists. Take for instance Robert Engelman, author of More: Population, Nature and What Women Want. Clearly Engelman isn't a woman, but he is an environmentalist, a writer, and perhaps a feminist.
I guess what I'm saying is that it isn't just because I'm a woman or a feminist that I have an affinity for environmental justice. It's because of who I am that I have this affinity. Yet who I am--my very essence--cannot be peeled away from the fact that my gender is female and I identify socially as a woman.
And, while nature and culture are pitted against one another in just one of many socially constructed binary systems, I think advances for both the feminist and the environmental movement could be made by deconstructing this binary. When we start seeing nature (woman) and culture (man) as intricately linked to one another and promote a symbiotic relationship between the two (instead of the current parasitic relationship) that will be great progress.
Wangari Maathai "Taking Root":
Vandana Shiva press conference:
3/13/09
Part V: 1975-1985
In “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” Laura Mulvey writes “the determining male gaze projects its phantasy on to the female figure which is styled accordingly” (299).
Most of the time advertisements, commercials, TV shows and movies are shot from the male gaze, meaning the perspective of the camera—everything from its angle to what it sees and the things it focuses on—are from a dominantly male perspective.
I think this directly relates to Meredith LeVande’s presentation on “Women, Pop Music and Pornography,” particularly the relationship between consumerism and patriarchy. Heidi Hartmann writes in “The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism: Towards a More Progressive Union” that “we can usually define patriarchy as a set of social relations between men, which have a material base, and which, though hierarchical, establish or create interdependence and solidarity among men that enable them to dominate women” (358).
This is so obviously true of the communications industry which produces and airs everything from cell phone commercials where Beyonce seductively asks viewers to “let me upgrade you” to porn starring barely legal blondes. Mega mergers have created a near monopoly on the market and it’s probably safe to assume those pushing such mergers were men who sit comfortably at the very top of the patriarchal structure. And, they have benefitted in everyway from these mergers, too; they’ve cornered the market and are living in opulent wealth, probably ordering porn from HBO in penthouse hotel suites as I write.
I did take away some new knowledge from LeVande’s presentation. But, I also have a critique to offer. What LeVande had to say ties nicely into the readings we’ve done on race, from “Chicana Feminism,” written by Anna NietoGomez to “A Black Feminist Statement,” written by the Combahee River Collective and “Age, Race, Class and Sex: Women Redefining Difference,” by Audre Lorde.
The women writers of the Combahee River Collective have it right when they say “the major systems of oppression are interlocking” (312). LeVande had it wrong. While she spoke out against the male gaze, she spoke from a very white perspective—a “caucasian gaze”—if you will. Quite frankly I was uncomfortable with the way she didn’t incorporate images of minority women throughout her talk but rather gave them their own section sandwiched between points about white women. While I respect that women of color often reject the typical definition of feminism—for obvious reasons—I don’t think it’s a white woman’s place to isolate these women or to ignore the interlocking systems of oppression that further oppress women of color.
Audre Lorde writes “…it is the responsibility of the oppressed to teach the oppressors their mistakes” (338). But this statement shouldn’t be taken to mean that the oppressors have no responsibility in consciously avoiding making mistakes or being open to learning from those they oppress. It seems to me that LeVande—as some one who has studied feminist theory (presumably)—would have a better grasp on this concept. Apparently she needs a refresher course in interlocking systems of oppression and the responsibility all women have to one another to avoid the pitfalls of such systems.
Oh, one more point...LeVande is a children's singer/songwriter who decided to leave the adult music industry after feeling pressured to fit into a semi-pornographic image to further her career. To me this just seems like false empowerment, a sort of fake agency. Which is worse: fitting a hypersexualized image or a mothering/infantile one? Don't get me wrong...what she's doing is great; kids need positive role models. But, is it really the best way to react to the increasing pressure women performers feel to fit a certain image in order to be successful? I don't think so...I think LeVande copped out and she needs to face the music. Here's her latest music video:
Most of the time advertisements, commercials, TV shows and movies are shot from the male gaze, meaning the perspective of the camera—everything from its angle to what it sees and the things it focuses on—are from a dominantly male perspective.
I think this directly relates to Meredith LeVande’s presentation on “Women, Pop Music and Pornography,” particularly the relationship between consumerism and patriarchy. Heidi Hartmann writes in “The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism: Towards a More Progressive Union” that “we can usually define patriarchy as a set of social relations between men, which have a material base, and which, though hierarchical, establish or create interdependence and solidarity among men that enable them to dominate women” (358).
This is so obviously true of the communications industry which produces and airs everything from cell phone commercials where Beyonce seductively asks viewers to “let me upgrade you” to porn starring barely legal blondes. Mega mergers have created a near monopoly on the market and it’s probably safe to assume those pushing such mergers were men who sit comfortably at the very top of the patriarchal structure. And, they have benefitted in everyway from these mergers, too; they’ve cornered the market and are living in opulent wealth, probably ordering porn from HBO in penthouse hotel suites as I write.
I did take away some new knowledge from LeVande’s presentation. But, I also have a critique to offer. What LeVande had to say ties nicely into the readings we’ve done on race, from “Chicana Feminism,” written by Anna NietoGomez to “A Black Feminist Statement,” written by the Combahee River Collective and “Age, Race, Class and Sex: Women Redefining Difference,” by Audre Lorde.
The women writers of the Combahee River Collective have it right when they say “the major systems of oppression are interlocking” (312). LeVande had it wrong. While she spoke out against the male gaze, she spoke from a very white perspective—a “caucasian gaze”—if you will. Quite frankly I was uncomfortable with the way she didn’t incorporate images of minority women throughout her talk but rather gave them their own section sandwiched between points about white women. While I respect that women of color often reject the typical definition of feminism—for obvious reasons—I don’t think it’s a white woman’s place to isolate these women or to ignore the interlocking systems of oppression that further oppress women of color.
Audre Lorde writes “…it is the responsibility of the oppressed to teach the oppressors their mistakes” (338). But this statement shouldn’t be taken to mean that the oppressors have no responsibility in consciously avoiding making mistakes or being open to learning from those they oppress. It seems to me that LeVande—as some one who has studied feminist theory (presumably)—would have a better grasp on this concept. Apparently she needs a refresher course in interlocking systems of oppression and the responsibility all women have to one another to avoid the pitfalls of such systems.
Oh, one more point...LeVande is a children's singer/songwriter who decided to leave the adult music industry after feeling pressured to fit into a semi-pornographic image to further her career. To me this just seems like false empowerment, a sort of fake agency. Which is worse: fitting a hypersexualized image or a mothering/infantile one? Don't get me wrong...what she's doing is great; kids need positive role models. But, is it really the best way to react to the increasing pressure women performers feel to fit a certain image in order to be successful? I don't think so...I think LeVande copped out and she needs to face the music. Here's her latest music video:
More Part V: Separatism
In "Some Reflections on Separatism and Power," Marilyn Frye writes "Feminist separation is, of course, separation of various sorts or modes from men and from institutions, relationship, roles and activities which are male-defined, male-dominated and operating for the benefit of males and the maintenance of male privilege--this separation being initiated or maintained, at will, by women" (333).
So, Frye contends that feminist separatism is a personal decision which can be used for political means. Separatism comes in many forms. She says it can mean "Breaking up or avoiding close relationships or working relationships; forbidding someone to enter your house; excluding someone from your company, or from your meeting; withdrawal from participation in some activity or institution, or avoidance of participation; avoidance of communications and influence from certain quarters (not listening to music with sexist lyrics, not watching TV);withholding commitment or support; rejection of or rudeness toward obnoxious individuals" (333).
Here's my issue: I think separatism is theoretically an interesting and sound concept. But I also think theory and praxis are two separate things. I think it would be a step backwards to avoid working relationships with men and I think it's just ridiculous to think being rude to men is any kind of an effective resistance to patriarchy, either.
While I see the theory behind the concept of separatism--and while I agree it's important to assert female independence and solidarity--it's absolutely ludicrous from a practical perspective to think that half of the population could go through life avoiding the other half of the population.
What feminism needs is not separatism. What feminism needs is to emphasize woman to woman relationships--both personal and working--while still recognizing instead of denying the existence of woman to man relationships. Nurturing woman to woman relationships, focusing on women centered spaces and the positive portrayal of women in television and music seems to me like a far sounder plan than living as part of a commune. As appealing as communal life sounds--and regardless of my tendency towards radical feminism--I feel the need to challenge the concept of radicalism--maybe it's the easy way out?
So, Frye contends that feminist separatism is a personal decision which can be used for political means. Separatism comes in many forms. She says it can mean "Breaking up or avoiding close relationships or working relationships; forbidding someone to enter your house; excluding someone from your company, or from your meeting; withdrawal from participation in some activity or institution, or avoidance of participation; avoidance of communications and influence from certain quarters (not listening to music with sexist lyrics, not watching TV);withholding commitment or support; rejection of or rudeness toward obnoxious individuals" (333).
Here's my issue: I think separatism is theoretically an interesting and sound concept. But I also think theory and praxis are two separate things. I think it would be a step backwards to avoid working relationships with men and I think it's just ridiculous to think being rude to men is any kind of an effective resistance to patriarchy, either.While I see the theory behind the concept of separatism--and while I agree it's important to assert female independence and solidarity--it's absolutely ludicrous from a practical perspective to think that half of the population could go through life avoiding the other half of the population.
What feminism needs is not separatism. What feminism needs is to emphasize woman to woman relationships--both personal and working--while still recognizing instead of denying the existence of woman to man relationships. Nurturing woman to woman relationships, focusing on women centered spaces and the positive portrayal of women in television and music seems to me like a far sounder plan than living as part of a commune. As appealing as communal life sounds--and regardless of my tendency towards radical feminism--I feel the need to challenge the concept of radicalism--maybe it's the easy way out?
3/12/09
Just a Little Bit More of Part IV: Problems that had No Name
Charlotte Perkins Gilman and Betty Friedan published important pieces of feminist writing decades apart. Gilman wrote “The Yellow Wallpaper” in 1892 and Friedan wrote The Feminine Mystique in 1963. And while seventy years separate these pieces publish dates, the same current runs through them.Gilman wrote “The Yellow Wallpaper” in a semi-autobiographical nature. She struggled throughout her life with depression. After the birth of her first child Gilman suffered from post-partum depression, which was diagnosed as hysteria. Gilman was ordered rest and for months was not allowed out of bed let alone to lift a finger for any purpose, including writing--her passion. Aside from just this difficult time in her life, in general marriage and motherhood had not fulfilled her. She questioned the decision she had made to marry in the first place; Gilman writes in her autobiography The Living of Charlotte Perkins Gilman that part of her longed to follow a career as a writer.
Betty Friedan identified a similar—if not directly related—problem in the Feminine Mystique. She noticed her
classmates were unfulfilled by what they had been taught should fulfill them: a husband, a home and children. She writes: “Over and over women heard in voices of tradition and of Freudian sophistication that they could desire no greater destiny than to glory in their own feminity” (198).The "woman problem” doesn't stop there...just to throw one more example into the mix, Anne Koedt—author of “Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm” (published in 1970)—identifies yet another male created problem for which women are blamed. Koedt deconstructs the Freudian concept of frigidity and redirects the blame for this “problem.” She identifies numerous reasons why the myth of the vaginal orgasm is still believed and essentially debunks the idea that frigidity is woman’s dysfunction. Rather, Koedt writes, frigidity is a result of a patriarchal understanding and misuse of the female body.
Koedt says: “looking for a cure to a problem that has none can lead a woman on an endless path of self-hatred and insecurity” (230). This statement sums up not only her argument, but also Friedan’s and Gilman’s. While women forced to partake in the cult of true womanhood found themselves wrestling with post-partum depression and insanity, and housewives during the 1950s turned to popping pills and buying ready-made clothing, women caught between the first and second wave of feminism found themselves feeling misunderstood and their bodies being misused for male pleasure only.
These trends will continue so long as women don't ask the important questions they owe it to themselves to be asking: Should I accept the answers a male dominated society has handed me? How can I push past the oppressive structures of patriarchy that force me to feel unhappy and uncomfortable in my own body? What will it take for me to find my own truth, one that isn't relative to role I play in the dominant system of male hierarchy?
More Part IV: Difference...
Difference is natural, right? Well, maybe not—I guess it all depends on how you define difference. I say difference is natural because I define it as the uniqueness each individual is born into the world with. What isn’t natural is the value placed on some characteristics and not on others—whether they are physical or mental, tangible or abstract.
Joan Scott--in "Deconstructing Equality-versus-Difference: or, The Uses of Poststructuralist Theory for Feminism"--says "the concept of difference...is made through implicit or explicit contrast, that a positive definition rests on the negation or repression of something represented as antithetical to it" (448).
The most jarring personal experiences I’ve had with difference involve my father. He has cerebral palsy and is in a wheelchair. Obviously the definition of him as disabled relies on the meaning and value of able being antithetical to disabled. Furthermore, all of us in the "able" category are constantly exploiting and oppressing those in the "disabled" category; these two terms and their meanings couldn't exist without one another.
In addition to the obvious—having limited mobility—my dad sometimes slurs his speech and can be hard to understand. While most people may not see past this description, I know that he is also a member of the Pennsylvania Bar Association, my local school board and for twenty years ran a successful law practice. He's also a self-centered person and a bad father. And while this blog isn't a critique of him our turbulent relationship some how makes me feel like I relate to Kate Millett--from her negative experiences with her father to the way she writes and what she has to say.
Numerous times I’ve had to witness how my dad's disability allows for others to see him as different and "less than" based on this difference. My earliest recollection of noticing this difference is when I was in the fourth grade; my family was running late to one of my soccer games and as my mom opened the sliding door of the family van and the handicap accessible ramp opened for me to run down to the field it hit me for the first time—none of the other kids had vans with ramps in them, or dads in wheelchairs.
Years later I was on a business trip with my dad at a prison where he was doing pro bono work. My neck burned with shame and sadness as I saw for the first time how some of his colleagues reacted to his disability and how he had to work ten times as hard to assert his masculinity in a simple conversation. Disability is just one factor that complicates the intersectionality of oppressive structures, which are almost always gender based. In this situation my father was treated as less than a man because he had a disability. Even though he is a man, he is rarely treated with the perks of patriarchy others that share his gender often recieve...I can't even recall how many times the waiter or waitress has given my mother the check instead of him, not to mention the numerous times I've been asked--as someone sitting next to him at the table--what kind of side or salad dressing he'd like.
Doesn't this lend interesting insight to the ways those not possessing traditionally "masculine" characteristics are essentially viewed--as not having a voice let alone economic power?
So here comes the million dollar question: how do we eradicate power structures based on difference?
And, in relation to feminism, how can we value the natural differences women have—from one another and from their male counterparts—without exploiting these differences? Do we want to be valued and allotted power based on our difference or do we want to eradicate the concepts of difference and power all together?
I agree with Kate Millett when she writes “The term ‘politics’ refer[s] to power structured relationships, arrangements whereby one group of persons is controlled by another. By way of parenthesis one might add that although an ideal politics might simply be conceived of as the arrangement of human life on agreeable and rational principles from whence the entire notion of power over others should be banished, one must confess that this is not what constitutes the political as we know it, and it is to this that we must address ourselves…sex is a status category with political implications” (219).
And, while I appreciate Shulasmith Firestone for the idealistic concepts of which she writes: “…the end goal of feminist revolution must be, unlike that of the first feminist movement, not just the elimination of male privilege but of the sex distinction itself: genital differences between human beings would not longer matter culturally” (227). When it comes down to it, I don’t think power can be erased, I don't think sex distinction can be ignored. The answer must be--at least for the meantime--to recognize and embrace difference, making sure not to value one “different” over another.
Probably easier said than done...
Joan Scott--in "Deconstructing Equality-versus-Difference: or, The Uses of Poststructuralist Theory for Feminism"--says "the concept of difference...is made through implicit or explicit contrast, that a positive definition rests on the negation or repression of something represented as antithetical to it" (448).
The most jarring personal experiences I’ve had with difference involve my father. He has cerebral palsy and is in a wheelchair. Obviously the definition of him as disabled relies on the meaning and value of able being antithetical to disabled. Furthermore, all of us in the "able" category are constantly exploiting and oppressing those in the "disabled" category; these two terms and their meanings couldn't exist without one another.
In addition to the obvious—having limited mobility—my dad sometimes slurs his speech and can be hard to understand. While most people may not see past this description, I know that he is also a member of the Pennsylvania Bar Association, my local school board and for twenty years ran a successful law practice. He's also a self-centered person and a bad father. And while this blog isn't a critique of him our turbulent relationship some how makes me feel like I relate to Kate Millett--from her negative experiences with her father to the way she writes and what she has to say.
Numerous times I’ve had to witness how my dad's disability allows for others to see him as different and "less than" based on this difference. My earliest recollection of noticing this difference is when I was in the fourth grade; my family was running late to one of my soccer games and as my mom opened the sliding door of the family van and the handicap accessible ramp opened for me to run down to the field it hit me for the first time—none of the other kids had vans with ramps in them, or dads in wheelchairs.
Years later I was on a business trip with my dad at a prison where he was doing pro bono work. My neck burned with shame and sadness as I saw for the first time how some of his colleagues reacted to his disability and how he had to work ten times as hard to assert his masculinity in a simple conversation. Disability is just one factor that complicates the intersectionality of oppressive structures, which are almost always gender based. In this situation my father was treated as less than a man because he had a disability. Even though he is a man, he is rarely treated with the perks of patriarchy others that share his gender often recieve...I can't even recall how many times the waiter or waitress has given my mother the check instead of him, not to mention the numerous times I've been asked--as someone sitting next to him at the table--what kind of side or salad dressing he'd like.
Doesn't this lend interesting insight to the ways those not possessing traditionally "masculine" characteristics are essentially viewed--as not having a voice let alone economic power?
So here comes the million dollar question: how do we eradicate power structures based on difference?
And, in relation to feminism, how can we value the natural differences women have—from one another and from their male counterparts—without exploiting these differences? Do we want to be valued and allotted power based on our difference or do we want to eradicate the concepts of difference and power all together?
I agree with Kate Millett when she writes “The term ‘politics’ refer[s] to power structured relationships, arrangements whereby one group of persons is controlled by another. By way of parenthesis one might add that although an ideal politics might simply be conceived of as the arrangement of human life on agreeable and rational principles from whence the entire notion of power over others should be banished, one must confess that this is not what constitutes the political as we know it, and it is to this that we must address ourselves…sex is a status category with political implications” (219).And, while I appreciate Shulasmith Firestone for the idealistic concepts of which she writes: “…the end goal of feminist revolution must be, unlike that of the first feminist movement, not just the elimination of male privilege but of the sex distinction itself: genital differences between human beings would not longer matter culturally” (227). When it comes down to it, I don’t think power can be erased, I don't think sex distinction can be ignored. The answer must be--at least for the meantime--to recognize and embrace difference, making sure not to value one “different” over another.
Probably easier said than done...
2/14/09
In Theory and In the "Real World," Trans Issues Relate to Feminism
VIDEO: Katelynn’s Real World ‘Secret’ Shocks Absolutely No One
In one of the first seasons of MTV’s show The Real World, Pedro—a gay man—was casted. At the time it was a big deal that his sexual orientation was being broadcasted—and recognized. Katelynn, one of the cast members on the current season of the show is Trans. This a great stride for the Trans community, and in turn for LGBT rights and even feminism.
In one scene, Ryan (another cast member) talks candidly with Katelynn about her identity. Their conversation is a little humorous but also really important. So, kudos to MTV for airing it and in turn for helping to open some minds that otherwise never would have thought about the subject of Trans issues. Oh, and snaps to Katelynn for being brave enough to be comfortable in her own skin—that’s more than most of us can say for ourselves
VIDEO: Katelynn’s Real World ‘Secret’ Shocks Absolutely No One
When Davey and Chase (two transgendered people) spoke to our class, this is what they had to say:
Feminism is about resisting patriarchy and because Trans people are--like women--oppressed by male hierarchy the two movements have a lot in common.
Economic Marginalization: unemployment rates for Trans people are overwhelming. In San Francisco 25% Trans people are employed full time, 15% part time and 10% are reported as unemployed. The rest are unofficially employed by the street economy prostituting themselves and/or selling drugs. This staggering unemployment--the result of discrimination--has the same effect on Trans people as it has historically had on women. When any individual is forced to be economically dependent on others--be it their partner, family or friends--a basic right of self-sufficiency has been denied.
Most of the time sexism/trans oppression happens simultaneously. "Normal" has to be measured against something and often because women are the victims of sexism, they (or maybe just the system that oppresses them) in turn oppresses trans people. Normal is defined in relation to abnormal--trans people as "other" helps women define themselves as the subject instead of their traditional role as other to the Male subject.
For instance, science and nature are used to justify sexism against women and Trans people. Women are perceived as the weaker sex and Trans people are also considered weak--whether because they are seen as being confused about their gender, psychologically unstable or weakness is associated with just not fitting neatly into one category of gender.
And, “my body, my choice” is not just a feminist statement. Just as the medical community has long dictated women's bodies, it also controls Transgendered people's bodies, too. For instance, being Trans is considered a psychological disorder that must be declared for treatment or change. This essentially proves that people are valued based on their reproductive abilities. So, by advocating for Trans rights, feminist can also make the statement that woman is not just a womb...hitting two patriarchal birds with one stone.
Davey's website
In one of the first seasons of MTV’s show The Real World, Pedro—a gay man—was casted. At the time it was a big deal that his sexual orientation was being broadcasted—and recognized. Katelynn, one of the cast members on the current season of the show is Trans. This a great stride for the Trans community, and in turn for LGBT rights and even feminism.
In one scene, Ryan (another cast member) talks candidly with Katelynn about her identity. Their conversation is a little humorous but also really important. So, kudos to MTV for airing it and in turn for helping to open some minds that otherwise never would have thought about the subject of Trans issues. Oh, and snaps to Katelynn for being brave enough to be comfortable in her own skin—that’s more than most of us can say for ourselves
VIDEO: Katelynn’s Real World ‘Secret’ Shocks Absolutely No One
When Davey and Chase (two transgendered people) spoke to our class, this is what they had to say:
Feminism is about resisting patriarchy and because Trans people are--like women--oppressed by male hierarchy the two movements have a lot in common.
Economic Marginalization: unemployment rates for Trans people are overwhelming. In San Francisco 25% Trans people are employed full time, 15% part time and 10% are reported as unemployed. The rest are unofficially employed by the street economy prostituting themselves and/or selling drugs. This staggering unemployment--the result of discrimination--has the same effect on Trans people as it has historically had on women. When any individual is forced to be economically dependent on others--be it their partner, family or friends--a basic right of self-sufficiency has been denied.
Most of the time sexism/trans oppression happens simultaneously. "Normal" has to be measured against something and often because women are the victims of sexism, they (or maybe just the system that oppresses them) in turn oppresses trans people. Normal is defined in relation to abnormal--trans people as "other" helps women define themselves as the subject instead of their traditional role as other to the Male subject.
For instance, science and nature are used to justify sexism against women and Trans people. Women are perceived as the weaker sex and Trans people are also considered weak--whether because they are seen as being confused about their gender, psychologically unstable or weakness is associated with just not fitting neatly into one category of gender.
And, “my body, my choice” is not just a feminist statement. Just as the medical community has long dictated women's bodies, it also controls Transgendered people's bodies, too. For instance, being Trans is considered a psychological disorder that must be declared for treatment or change. This essentially proves that people are valued based on their reproductive abilities. So, by advocating for Trans rights, feminist can also make the statement that woman is not just a womb...hitting two patriarchal birds with one stone.
Davey's website
2/7/09
Part IV: 1963-1975
Some critical questions:
“The first women’s studies programs were created in these years [1963-1963], as were rape crisis centers and hotlines, battered women’s shelters, women’s centers, and women’s bookstores” (197).
As the introduction to Part IV says, the establishment of crisis centers, shelters and women’s centers was revolutionary. Why do we seemingly take them for granted then? For instance, why isn’t the Women’s Center at Allegheny used more? I’ve never seen it advertised around campus and I've walked past it numerous times—it never seems to be open much less offer discussion groups or counseling, etc.
Clearly this isn't because women no longer need crisis centers, women's centers or shelters.
Rape and domestic abuse are still pressing issues. While my generation has at least grown up knowing these words as commonly used terms (because they didn't even used to exist) they are still major problems within society. For instance, according to RAINN, 1 in every 6 women will be raped in her lifetime. That means that of the 19 women in this class, 3 or 4 of us have already been raped, or will be at some point in our lifetime.
I'm not naive enought to think that I won't be a statistic; I understand that the chance of rape threatens every woman. Clearly violence against women based on the gendered power structure of our society still exists, even after three waves of feminism. The fight against this violence is not over, but how can we best combat it, and erase sexism and the violence against women it breeds?
There are numerous ways to answer this question, but I think my answer is somewhere between the theories of Kate Millet and Shulasmith Firestone.
Millet writes in “Theory of Sexual Politics:” “sex IS a status category with political implications” (219).
And in The Dialectic of Sex Shulasmith Firestone writes: “…the end goal of feminist revolution must be, unlike that of the first feminist movement, not just the elimination of male privilege but of the sex distinction itself: genital differences between human beings [should] no longer matter culturally” (227).
But how can both of these things be achieved? If sex is a status category with political implications and women need to embrace their difference to become empowered, how can sex distinction be erased entirely? How can embracing difference and erasing privilege be balanced? And how can this balance work towards erradicating violent acts against women--whether they happen at home or elsewhere and whether the assailant is an aquaintance or stranger?
“The first women’s studies programs were created in these years [1963-1963], as were rape crisis centers and hotlines, battered women’s shelters, women’s centers, and women’s bookstores” (197).
As the introduction to Part IV says, the establishment of crisis centers, shelters and women’s centers was revolutionary. Why do we seemingly take them for granted then? For instance, why isn’t the Women’s Center at Allegheny used more? I’ve never seen it advertised around campus and I've walked past it numerous times—it never seems to be open much less offer discussion groups or counseling, etc.
Clearly this isn't because women no longer need crisis centers, women's centers or shelters.
Rape and domestic abuse are still pressing issues. While my generation has at least grown up knowing these words as commonly used terms (because they didn't even used to exist) they are still major problems within society. For instance, according to RAINN, 1 in every 6 women will be raped in her lifetime. That means that of the 19 women in this class, 3 or 4 of us have already been raped, or will be at some point in our lifetime.
I'm not naive enought to think that I won't be a statistic; I understand that the chance of rape threatens every woman. Clearly violence against women based on the gendered power structure of our society still exists, even after three waves of feminism. The fight against this violence is not over, but how can we best combat it, and erase sexism and the violence against women it breeds?
There are numerous ways to answer this question, but I think my answer is somewhere between the theories of Kate Millet and Shulasmith Firestone.Millet writes in “Theory of Sexual Politics:” “sex IS a status category with political implications” (219).
And in The Dialectic of Sex Shulasmith Firestone writes: “…the end goal of feminist revolution must be, unlike that of the first feminist movement, not just the elimination of male privilege but of the sex distinction itself: genital differences between human beings [should] no longer matter culturally” (227).
But how can both of these things be achieved? If sex is a status category with political implications and women need to embrace their difference to become empowered, how can sex distinction be erased entirely? How can embracing difference and erasing privilege be balanced? And how can this balance work towards erradicating violent acts against women--whether they happen at home or elsewhere and whether the assailant is an aquaintance or stranger?
Part III: 1920-1963
So, I can’t help but take literally the meaning of the title "A Room of One's Own," written by Virginia Woolf. I've tried to read the entire book and just can’t seem to push through it, despite the fact that it's a short read. But after reading an excerpt that really resonated with my own life, I think I'm going to try reading it again.
Last year my father decided to leave. He also decided to stop paying the mortgage on my family’s home (so now we’re in the process of moving out). My little brother started having stomach aches from all of the stress and my Momma went berserk, quiting the stable job she’s had for twenty years. All of this happened within a year’s time, and I’m still not over it. I probably won’t ever be over it.
But, things have started to look up. In August (amidst an awful economic crisis…we never do things the easy way) my Mom bought a small house. We call it the cottage, but that’s really just nice terminology. Think cabin.
The cottage was built in 1932--just three years after Woolf published A Room of One's Own.
This is where I’m going: I think Woolf, by writing A Room of One's Own, was asserting that each woman deserves to have her own space, on her own accord. She deserves the solitude of knowing she is in a woman centered space of her own construct. She deserves to be free from the sexual advances of man, and have a private space that can be used for intellectual development, emotional fulfillment, finding inner-peace. She deserves the economic and political freedom associated with having your one's own space.
Growing up, I never had my own space, and neither did my Mother. We were constantly living around my dad. For instance, if he wanted to be in the living room watching ESPN, we were in my parents' room compromising on what we'd like to watch together. And, I can't tell you how many times I sat on our back porch to paint my toenails, because he didn't like the smell of nail polish and didn't want it in the house.
Emotional abuse issues aside, I haven't known what it's like to have a "room" of my own until recently. Over winter break I worked a lot of my anger towards patriarchy out while I was teaching myself to cut and hang drywall. Knocking out and re-building the walls of my Mother’s own house, I reclaimed something for myself, too. And, little did I know I was preparing myself to better understand where Virginia Woolf was coming from when she wrote a fundamental piece of feminist theory.
Last year my father decided to leave. He also decided to stop paying the mortgage on my family’s home (so now we’re in the process of moving out). My little brother started having stomach aches from all of the stress and my Momma went berserk, quiting the stable job she’s had for twenty years. All of this happened within a year’s time, and I’m still not over it. I probably won’t ever be over it.
But, things have started to look up. In August (amidst an awful economic crisis…we never do things the easy way) my Mom bought a small house. We call it the cottage, but that’s really just nice terminology. Think cabin.
The cottage was built in 1932--just three years after Woolf published A Room of One's Own.
This is where I’m going: I think Woolf, by writing A Room of One's Own, was asserting that each woman deserves to have her own space, on her own accord. She deserves the solitude of knowing she is in a woman centered space of her own construct. She deserves to be free from the sexual advances of man, and have a private space that can be used for intellectual development, emotional fulfillment, finding inner-peace. She deserves the economic and political freedom associated with having your one's own space.
Growing up, I never had my own space, and neither did my Mother. We were constantly living around my dad. For instance, if he wanted to be in the living room watching ESPN, we were in my parents' room compromising on what we'd like to watch together. And, I can't tell you how many times I sat on our back porch to paint my toenails, because he didn't like the smell of nail polish and didn't want it in the house.
Emotional abuse issues aside, I haven't known what it's like to have a "room" of my own until recently. Over winter break I worked a lot of my anger towards patriarchy out while I was teaching myself to cut and hang drywall. Knocking out and re-building the walls of my Mother’s own house, I reclaimed something for myself, too. And, little did I know I was preparing myself to better understand where Virginia Woolf was coming from when she wrote a fundamental piece of feminist theory.
2/6/09
Part II: 1792-1920
Harriet Taylor’s “Enfranchisement of Women,” John Stuart Mill’s The Subjection of Women and Susan B. Anthony’s Speech after Arrest for Illegal Voting all appeal to reason, or as the introduction to this section says: “The principles of enlightenment and liberal humanism” to advance women’s rights during the 19th century (62).
I found the following statements from each reading particularly thought provoking and think in conjunction with one another they paint a picture of what women’s live must have been like during this time:
Susan B. Anthony asks: “Are women persons?” which might seem like an odd question, but given the social and political schema of the late 18th/early 19th centuries, the answer was a resounding NO.
John Stuart Mill lends insight to this question when he writes:
“By the old laws of England, the husband was called the lord of the wife; he was literally regarded as her sovereign, inasmuch that the murder of a man by his wife was called treason (petty and distinguished from high treason), and was more cruelly avenged than was usually the case with high treason, for the penalty was burning to death” (81).
So, just as nations aren’t recognized as nations unless they’re sovereign, women weren’t recognized as people because they did not command their own sovereignty. And, while control over women was given to either their fathers or husbands, this responsibility required no qualifications. The most repulsive, ignorant man was seen as possessing a divine right to rule over at least his woman: “In every grade of [the] descending scale are men to whom are committed all the legal powers of a husband. The vilest malefactor has some wretched woman tied to him, against whom he can commit any atrocity except killing her, and, if tolerably cautious, can do that without much danger of the legal penalty…” (83)
Harriet Taylor writes:
“For with what truth or rationality could the suffrage be termed universal, while half the human species remained excluded from it?” (75) Taylor also addresses the fact that it is “an axiom of English freedom that taxation and representation should be coextensive” (75). Yet, women were not only denied the vote even though their property and belongings were taxed, they weren’t even considered persons! She asks: [is it] right and expedient that one-half of the human race should pass through life in a state of forced subordination to the other half?” (77)
Not only are parallels drawn during this time period between the condition of women and slavery, but many liberal thinking compared the oppression of women to an aristocracy based on sex (Taylor, 75). Anthony says: “For [women] this government is not a democracy; it is not a republic. It is the most odious aristocracy ever established on the face of the globe. An oligarchy of wealth, where the rich govern the poor; an oligarchy of learning, where the educated govern the ignorant…[an] oligarchy of sex…which ordains all men sovereigns, all women subjects—carries discord and rebellion into every home of the nation” (92).
She concludes with a statement that seems timeless: “there is but one safe principle of government—equal rights to all” (93).
I found the following statements from each reading particularly thought provoking and think in conjunction with one another they paint a picture of what women’s live must have been like during this time:
Susan B. Anthony asks: “Are women persons?” which might seem like an odd question, but given the social and political schema of the late 18th/early 19th centuries, the answer was a resounding NO.
John Stuart Mill lends insight to this question when he writes:“By the old laws of England, the husband was called the lord of the wife; he was literally regarded as her sovereign, inasmuch that the murder of a man by his wife was called treason (petty and distinguished from high treason), and was more cruelly avenged than was usually the case with high treason, for the penalty was burning to death” (81).
So, just as nations aren’t recognized as nations unless they’re sovereign, women weren’t recognized as people because they did not command their own sovereignty. And, while control over women was given to either their fathers or husbands, this responsibility required no qualifications. The most repulsive, ignorant man was seen as possessing a divine right to rule over at least his woman: “In every grade of [the] descending scale are men to whom are committed all the legal powers of a husband. The vilest malefactor has some wretched woman tied to him, against whom he can commit any atrocity except killing her, and, if tolerably cautious, can do that without much danger of the legal penalty…” (83)
Harriet Taylor writes:
“For with what truth or rationality could the suffrage be termed universal, while half the human species remained excluded from it?” (75) Taylor also addresses the fact that it is “an axiom of English freedom that taxation and representation should be coextensive” (75). Yet, women were not only denied the vote even though their property and belongings were taxed, they weren’t even considered persons! She asks: [is it] right and expedient that one-half of the human race should pass through life in a state of forced subordination to the other half?” (77)
Not only are parallels drawn during this time period between the condition of women and slavery, but many liberal thinking compared the oppression of women to an aristocracy based on sex (Taylor, 75). Anthony says: “For [women] this government is not a democracy; it is not a republic. It is the most odious aristocracy ever established on the face of the globe. An oligarchy of wealth, where the rich govern the poor; an oligarchy of learning, where the educated govern the ignorant…[an] oligarchy of sex…which ordains all men sovereigns, all women subjects—carries discord and rebellion into every home of the nation” (92).
She concludes with a statement that seems timeless: “there is but one safe principle of government—equal rights to all” (93).
Part I: What is Feminist Theory, What is Feminism?
Connecting Bunch, Lord and Walker:
In Not By Degrees: Feminist Theory and Education, Charlotte Bunch says: “Theory is not something set apart from our lives.” (13) And, it seems to me Audre Lord and Alice Walker—both poets—exemplify this statement by writing feminist pieces with beautiful, poetic voice. They connect two of their own self-defining characteristics--the fact that they are women and writers--and in doing so exmplify the power each woman can harness by just being herself.
For instance, in Womanist Walker writes: “[a womanist] Loves music. Loves dance. Loves the moon. Loves the spirit. Loves love and food and roundness. Loves struggle. Loves the folk. Loves herself. Regardless.” (11) Of the four definitions of “womanist” she gives, this is the most abstract and I like it best—it sounds like slam poetry; even though the words don’t make total sense, together they infuse one another with complete meaning and paint a full, soft picture of "womanist."
Furthermore, Audre Lord writes in Poetry Is Not a Luxury: “For women…poetry is not a luxury. It is a vital necessity of our existence.” (15) In saying this, Lord attaches value to the poetic expression of feminist issues, and provides the theoretical context for Walker (a decade later) to articulate in an artistic way what "womanist" is.
Feminist Theory is not set apart from either Lorde or Walker's life, as it's not set apart from any woman's life. One of the many answers to the title of this post is: theory is the textual, factual manifestion of experience and feminism is realizing that the personal is political and theory and practice go hand in hand.
I understand womanist is a term that differs from feminist and is claimed by black women in particular. But...I still feel particularly connected to the meaning of womanist and all it infers...Aren't I a womanist, too?
In Not By Degrees: Feminist Theory and Education, Charlotte Bunch says: “Theory is not something set apart from our lives.” (13) And, it seems to me Audre Lord and Alice Walker—both poets—exemplify this statement by writing feminist pieces with beautiful, poetic voice. They connect two of their own self-defining characteristics--the fact that they are women and writers--and in doing so exmplify the power each woman can harness by just being herself.
For instance, in Womanist Walker writes: “[a womanist] Loves music. Loves dance. Loves the moon. Loves the spirit. Loves love and food and roundness. Loves struggle. Loves the folk. Loves herself. Regardless.” (11) Of the four definitions of “womanist” she gives, this is the most abstract and I like it best—it sounds like slam poetry; even though the words don’t make total sense, together they infuse one another with complete meaning and paint a full, soft picture of "womanist."
Furthermore, Audre Lord writes in Poetry Is Not a Luxury: “For women…poetry is not a luxury. It is a vital necessity of our existence.” (15) In saying this, Lord attaches value to the poetic expression of feminist issues, and provides the theoretical context for Walker (a decade later) to articulate in an artistic way what "womanist" is.
Feminist Theory is not set apart from either Lorde or Walker's life, as it's not set apart from any woman's life. One of the many answers to the title of this post is: theory is the textual, factual manifestion of experience and feminism is realizing that the personal is political and theory and practice go hand in hand.
I understand womanist is a term that differs from feminist and is claimed by black women in particular. But...I still feel particularly connected to the meaning of womanist and all it infers...Aren't I a womanist, too?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
