Feminism and Philosophy, Journal 1
In understanding the "whole" of a particular problem or theory, one must look at all the threads that form the rope. Marilyn Frye presents this concept in her essay "Oppression." She notes how a single oppressive, or restrictive, barrier may not appear to indeed be much of a hindrance,but as many of these oppressive "wires" are perceived, one notices a cage of sorts. Frye argues that men are responsible for the building of our society which is oppressive to women, reasoning that it is men who receive the benefits of this structuring. In failing to adequately study the nature of the responsibility, I believe Frye limits the scope of her essay. As she notes, perception of the whole is dependent on recognizing all the wires, one of which must be the question: who creates and forms society?" If men are to bear the negative aspects of what our daily life entails, doesn't that mean they are entitled to claim responsibility for the positive aspects as well?
Frye frequently uses the pronouns "we" and "them" in speaking of males and females. I also see the danger of grouping peoples together only by identification of their genitals.This only maintains the gulf of misunderstanding between the sexes. Oppression itself is usually built of fear resulting from misunderstanding.
I agreed with most of Frye's assertions concerning the oppression women suffer; sexual harassment, unequal opportunities in work and education, and downright degradation are all facets of every woman's life. But I think the notion of oppression is much more complicated than even Frye admits. It is easy enough to perceive and identify the wires that form the cage, but it is another matter to question who is supporting the oppressive norms.
***
In "The Problem that has No Name,"from Betty Friedman's The Feminine Mystique, the reader is told of a phenomena that American women are experiencing more and more; a vague notion of dissatisfaction, boredom, emptiness. Friedan seems to think that this is a new experience, that it has been growing in the minds of women, especially housewives, over the past few decades. The sources of this unidentified state of mind are multiple and various. Technology, education, economics, and media are all aspects of society that have been rapidly changing and may be partially responsible for a change in the consciousness of all people. As men and women are used to living in different spheres of daily life, changes in societal norms come quickly and without much notice. Women are finding their inner selves out of context with a society which has long oppressed them because of their sex.
Of course, the essay does not finger anything certain other than "there is a problem." I found it very interesting, or revelatory maybe, that housewives have a sense of living fragmented lives; only spending a small portion of the day doing each task necessary. The daily routine of this would create an illusion of regularity, stability, while in actuality, the housewife's day may seem hectic and incomplete. The housewife's identity would likewise be fragmented and incomplete.
One of the most important aspects of this problem is the sense of dependence many women feel. This is perceived as a weakness, as men are supposedly "independent." Whether the dependence is one of economics or a loving bond, all humans must be linked to one another in some ways, or else not be a part of society. As long as a certain class of humans, in this case women, feel dependent, the more isolated each of us feels and the colder the summer shall be.
***
In the introduction to Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex, we are told that it is "doubtless impossible to approach any human problem with a mind free from bias." Every effort is driven by motives, many subconscious as well as realized, and it is impossible to completely remove "self" from "other." This is an essential aspect of human existence. There are women that assert it is impossible for men to be feminists because they benefit from the oppressive aspects of society, or really just want to appear as one who treats all humans equally. Accordingly, a book written by a woman about women has inherent motives, for better and for worse.
From the introduction, Beauvoir seems to be a person writing from genuine interest.Her essential question is "what is a woman?" She illustrates how men have imposed standards of femininity through religion which is used as a dogmatic tool of oppression. Male-centered religions create absolute laws and further notions of basic, innate inequality of the sexes. Their myths of creation support the oppression of women as impure, devious, irrational beings that exist to prop up their mate's needs.
As Beauvoir says, women need an identity based on their selves, not on males' ideals of femininity and morality. Since women and men must coexist to further the species, there can never be identity free of outside influence. Rather, we should strive to balance the perceptions of one another, resulting in just treatment of each human as the individual he or she is.
***
In dealing with the question presented in Nancy Holstrom's essay, "Do Woman Have a Distinct Nature," the author immediately questions the concept of what a "nature" is in our vocabulary. She notes that it usually refers to an immutable essence that is primarily biological. In searching for distinct, innate characteristics of men and women, one must realize there is a feedback principle involved in the interaction of biological and social dictums. As Holstrom notes, society could change child-raising practices to balance the maternal burden. Psychic trauma produces biological reactions, and it is evident that women suffer greatly from unfair moral and economic practices in our society.
"Nature" itself is not wholly influenced by biology; thus, it is mutable to accommodate rapid social change.
Holstrom does believe that there are distinct differences in some traits found in men and women. While many existing beliefs are false, some studies cited in the essay conclude that gender frequently determines such things such as perception of fear, competitiveness, and compliance. The reasons behind these statistical findings are unclear at best. The influence of society and biology could only be determined in a vacuum atmosphere free of human influence. Holstrom notes vast differences between members of the same sex.. She also theorizes that female and male natures are blended within each of us. The symbolism of yin and and yang may apply to Holstrom's theory, showing that dichotomy does exist within each of us to varying degrees.
***
In studying the idea of women being associated with Nature and men with Culture, Sherry Ortner examines the differences between human universals and cultural particulars. Humans are equally affected by universals of existence, while cultural habits explain how members of our species think of themselves and others. Ortner identifies the physiology of women, with their social roles, and their particular psyche traits as reasons why women have been long identified with Nature. Men claim the role of cultural developers because they identify women with the Earth, which plays an paradoxical role in our survival. Life itself is deemed inferior to creative and religious constructs of men who usually identify life with imperfection; imperfect because mortality is a human universal. So Culture, guided by men, values the aesthetic creation over the natural, physical reproduction of life. As our relationship with Nature changes so does our view of women. The public sphere is slowly opening to allow women the opportunity to alter society in ways which will balance the roles of the sexes in cultural valuation.
Sarah Hoagland argues that in society's portrayal of women as victims, women are accordingly mistreated and abused. Roles and imposed definitions of femininity are largely responsible for the continuing degradation of women. Similar traits found in men and women, such as aggression and confidence, are seen as being masculine or feminine and are viewed differently when manifested in actions. Hoagland theorizes that our perception of female resistance to unfair practices is muted by males who explain female actions as irrational or "air-headed." In reality, such action may represent discontent, not carelessness or lack of intelligence. Women must reject the values of femininity and live as their own entities before society at large can allow them full expression as individuals, and men must abandon the false notion of masculinity for this to occur.
***
The first two chapters from Angela Davis's Women Race and Class points out the lack of research into the study of female slaves and goes on to show the relationship between the anti-slavery movement and the suffragists of the time. Black women were oppressed both as women and as Africans, though their power as workers was recognized and manipulated by white male slaveholders. The black mistress was often unable to alter her relationship with her "owner," making her the victim of unrecognized rape. White women began to see that they are the slaves or property, of their husbands, by first sympathizing with the plight of black slaves.
The abolitionist movement was the first opportunity for women to become involved in public political debate. They saw the subordinate role of women more clearly as they were bared from discussion or even attendance in many abolitionist meetings. Women became skilled at many aspects of political activism, including fund-raising, public speaking, and literary propaganda. The involvement of white women in the abolitionist movement lent sympathy to the cause, but their roles as consciousness raisers and prime movers in the Underground Railroad stand first and foremost as examples of women's potential strength.
***
The women's rights movement grew from the abolitionist and labor movements which were so dependent on women for support. The role of "servant" was close to synonymous with "slave" and "housewife" as society changed to accommodate the industrial revolution and emancipation of black Americans. Davis notes the changing perception of economics as being partially responsible for women's growing dissatisfaction with marriage. Many women working in factories never saw any wages, as their husbands considered all financial matters "above" the heads of their wives. Women were recruited out of farming communities to work in factories under the pretense of their being conditioned for the role of housewife-servant. With such obvious economic oppression, it is hardly surprising that women were responsible for the first governmental investigation of labor conditions.
The most interesting information out of this reading selection was the rise of subdued racism in the women's rights movement. Women such as Stanton and Mott identified themselves with the abolitionist movement early on, hoping to win suffrage for women as slaves, as black men attained their right to vote. When they saw this wouldn't happen, their rhetoric revealed supremacist beliefs that had been subdued before for political unity. Not being able to win identification of woman as equal to man may have forced their racial egotisms to assert superficial precedence over any true notion of "equality."
***
In this reading, Davis further examines the relationship between early suffragists and
white supremacists. Just as Stanton was willing to use racist myths to further the cause for
white women's suffrage, so were many of the leaders such as Susan Anthonly. Whether
they believed all the racist stereotypes, used as scare-tactics , is unclear in the scope of this
study. It is clear however tht they were desperate and insensitive in their attempts to win
the vote for women.
It is hard to believe that the NAWSA tried to sell itself off to southern male voters by
strongly hinting that "educated" white women would suppress the "uneducated" negro
and foreigner. Southern white women had less economic power than many freed slaves.
Whether the leaders of the NAWSA felt genuinely antagonistic to these minority groups,
or whether they were merely playing the dirty game of politics to further the cause is not
important; either way, they sacrificed a message of universal equality for limited gain, and
they distanced themselves from people who share similar realities of oppression.
***
In "Black Women and Feminism," Barbara Omolade briefly discusses why there has been
such a rift in the feminist movement. She explains that feminism is defined and understood
only in whte women's terms; the issues concentrated upon deal with the everyday realities
of white suburbanites whose culture is very different from that of modern black women's
culture. The importance of one's history is great, in explaining how black women have in
large not been involved with the feminist movement.
While women with European backgrounds have always been in male-dominant society,
black women with African ancestry were once in societies which regarded them somewhat
as equals. As slaves, they did not enjoy any beneficial aspects of a patriarchal society that
treated both male and female slaves horribly. Identifying the differences in historical back
-grounds of black and white women is a starting point in understanding why some black
women cannot identify with the white woman's view of feminism.
***
Contrasting the essay of Charlote Bunch, who believes that men are completely respon
-sible for the heterosexual domination of women, with the Radicalesbian essay which
dabbles in misandry, we find equal amounts of dogma. Interestingly enough, while
Radicalesbians downplay some important aspects of lesbianism, Ms. Bunch stresses the
importance of "sexual love" in women's commitment to one another. There were several
other aspects of these essays which bothered me as fearfully dogmatic and reminiscent
of closed-minded propaganda.
I found it strange that the author(s) of Radicalesbians see lesbians as people especially
existential. people learning "much earlier than her straight sisters about the essential
aloneness of life...and about the reality of illusions." Though I'm only 22 years old, I've
felt this way for quite awhile, and also have a deep-felt mistrust of the traditional marriage
contract. Since I'm male, however, I'm regarded as an foe or "other" and should be starved
of women's "energies," which presumably includes love and friendship.
Bunch's assertion that "feminists must become lesbians to end male supremacy" leaves
this feminist male confused, as one who believes in the inherent equality of all sexes, races,
and classes. But as Ms.Bunch notes, men won't be needed after cloning is perfected; science
will mass-produce millions of the "better"sex, which also happens to be their own.
***
(Beauvoir)
what is woman? she is a vessel for man's cargo,
see his rough hand at her rudder, guiding her hull
past all sunken reefs of moonlit village carnivores,
over the shallow slit-eyed glare of mysterious felines,
around the isles of substance one can call identity.
the man says "sail by the star, not by the moon----
she glows only by light of the sun, our heavenly father,
and her dark side is her only true face." so he unfurls
bedsheets to salty winds and sails for the horizon,
transcending the muck of earth by standing
on woman's back for a better view. but hark----
listen to the keel creaking with each wave's slosh
mark the thump of heavy fish against her prow,
check out the barnacles, gashes, and varicose seaweed
that dots her hull----smeared in petroleum makeup
to better glide through life.
"the body being the instrument of our grasp
upon the world, the world is bound to seem a very
different thing when apprehended in one manner
or another." Mama? What's happening to me,
dark sludge seeps. my insides writhe in pain, a
question-marked squid that lashes my mind
with suckered stings---am I dying, Mama?
Yes dear, so soon. Now come learn and listen
while we mop the deck; your father will return
from town and if you ask nicely
he'll show you the homonculus hidden in
the spermatazoon---that truthfull cartoon by
heartsucker, I believe they call him-----a tiny man
will one day enter your body in a drop of seed,
swimming your harvest-moon ocean,
and you shall carry him in your hold until
he grows restless and yearns for the sparkly
swimming glitter of the north star's mystery----
now come peel carrots, he's always hungry.
***
In "Theories of Sex Difference," Caroline Whitbeck identifies three trends of thought that
philosophers and scientists have created in attempts to explain the differences between
men and women. The woman as partial man, the concept of inherent masculine and
feminine psychological traits, and the defining of women in terms of men's needs are all
theories which have been accepted and still exist in many people's thought patterns, to
explain or reinforce the role of woman as subordinate to man.
The study of these concepts shows how dated they are, and helps explain why women
occupy the lower echelons of society. It is obvious that these theories are pseudo-scientific
and gender-biased, but one would never guess their sources: men of "knowledge," scholars,
the movers and shakers of western thought----Aristotle, Pythagoras, Jung, and Frued----
names synonymous with wisdom and eternal truth, classical standards that indoctrinate
Western learning. The selective bits of worth from these men lessen with every advance
toward sexual and racial equality. Soon, these learned men will be acknowledged as
historical treasures, rather than treasures of the intellect. Personally, I relish the thought of
their oppressive pillars being toppled by junior high bubble-poppers.
***
Several interesting concepts arise in Beauvoir's study of the "Psychoanalytical Point of
View." The primary fault of Freudian and Alderi psychoanalysis is that sexuality and eroticism
is overvalued, seen as absolute, irreducible. As Beauvoir notes, "a life is a relation to the
world, and the individual defines himself by making his own choices through the world." By
explaining women's position in society as the "other" based on her alleged neuroses from
a castration complex, Freud asserts the symbolism of phallus as power-emblem and denies
woman's power of choice; she cannot or does not define herself as subject because she is
inherently "psychologically deficient."
Psychoanalysis replaces "morality" with "normality; just as Christian faith depends on an
inherent impurity of humans, vis a vis women as Eve, psychoanalysis depends upon a
constant innate level of psychological traits that can be judged. That men are able to make
decisions and define themselves in accordance with with their relationship to the world is
not based on their penis-worth. Men's ability to be their own creations derives from the
social structure that places self-fears on the faces of others-----notions that all women are
weak, jealous, and afraid, while "real men" are not. Ideas that racial minorities are thieves,
rapists, and liars while our "white" brothers are not. This is how our choices are limited,
this is how we promote ourselves----by denial of ambivalence, and by projection of guilt onto
"the other."
***
Freud almost seems to begin his essay "Femininity" with some notion of objectivity,
warning us not to specifically equate "active" with masculine and "passive" with feminine.
But he soon slips into a superior tone and mistakes his own delusions as psycho-philosop
-ical truth. To believe and assert that women act jealously and live in envy of others because
they regret their own castration is worse than absurd. He also labels narcissism as being
feminine and declares that women feel shame for not creating any things of social value---
other than weaving products, which we're told illustrates their knowledge of pubic hair
growth....what the hell is he talking about, anyway?
Freud says he believes the mother-son relationship the most "perfect" relationship, the
most free from ambivalence? How does this figure into the Oedipal complex? How, in
describing the mind in its dealings with other minds, does Freud value one certain relation
-ship as being better, more clear, "perfect?" What does this say about femininity anyways?
At the conclusion he lets us know that a woman may actually be a human being, in addition
to being a sexual being----how enlightening.
***
When I'd told a friend that I'd just finished reading Engel's Origin of the Family, Private
Property, and the State, he looked at me intensely and announced, "the Iroquois were NOT
communist," which I found very funny. The concept of communal living is a basic fact of
history; there have been and still may exist certain cultures which have no notion of private
ownership----islanders of the Marquesas are a fairly recent example of such a society---and
the concepts of sexual roles are vastly different in those cultures. Monogamy probably arose
from a desire to assure patrilineal inheritance from father to son, thus it is obvious that
woman's role as a sexual being is linked to the economic structuring of society. Marriage as
a bonding between family powers is historically ancient, as compared to notions of marriage
based on love. Engels sees communism as a political force whereby women can free them
-selves of male economic control----or as early suffragists tried to woo white-supremacists,
he is courting a potentially powerful class of humans who have to be shown their oppression.
Beauvoir rejects Engels as being an"economic monist" after incorporating many of his
ideas into her work. She dismisses historical materialism as being limited in regard to the
totality of human existence. Engel's essay merely shows the economic enslavement of
women to men, and hints at the social repurcussions of this reality---which he would change
with a vision of socialism.
Forest Bloodgood
University of Kansas
Journal 1
Prof. Ann Cudd
No comments:
Post a Comment