Wed, 27 Nov 2002
The Pen in Our Hands.
Here perhaps one may amplify to make a crude but servicable distintion between the ‘essentialists’ and the ‘relativists’.
The essentialist position holds the view that there is a fundamental distinction (based not on biological determinism so much as on social and economic factors and their psychological consequences) between the way women and men think and write—to such a degree that there is such a thing as écriture féminine: that is, a way that women have of expressing themselves totally opposed to the representative aspects of male language and discourse. This position is associate with French feminists.
The relativist position—broadly associated with Anglo-American critics—is that the analysis of the representation of men and women by male and female authors is important. No fundamental difference separates men’s and women’s writing except the way male critics and authors have undervalued the latter.
An excerpt from “The Penguin Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory (Fourth Edition)” entry on feminist criticism
The preceding quotation explains at least partially why I have, at times, called myself a feminist when it comes to discussions of gender issues.
My personal position coincides roughly with the essentialist position within feminist critique (which is alive and well, thank you very much, the field has simply run out of glory-hounds and attention-seekers).
Which is basically that, for whatever reason, there are fundamental differences between the various genders and those differences should be studied and acknowledged.
But…
Those same differences should not be seen as weaknesses or justifications for unfair and unequal treatment.
Gays should be allowed to serve in the army. As should women. Nobody should be called ‘the weaker sex’. Both sexes should take equal part in the parenting process (people seem to frequently ignore that there exists such a thing as the ‘fathering instinct’). So on and so forth.
The reason why I’m making this clear is so that people can be aware of what is my basic perspective on this issue at the start, and assess my comments in the discussion with that in mind. I also apologise beforehand for any omissions or misrepresentations that might creep into my comments.
The current iteration of this eternal debate seems to have been triggered by a post by Halley Suitt on her weblog on the subject of feminism (or the feminism’s fate, to be more specific).
‘There is no more feminism’, I explain. Game Over.
Halley Suitt—“Whatever Happened to Feminism?”
Which is absolutely correct when it comes to feminism as a political movement but is absolutely incorrect when it comes to feminism as a analytical perspective and theoretical tool.
This highlights the fact that, even though they wouldn’t label themselves in that way, Halley’s post as well as Shelley’s and Dorothea’s responses are essentially feministic observations and critiques of the current gender representations and behaviours in online and offline media.
As is mine.
So the feminist perspective is still alive, even though the corresponding political movement is not. Steve’s observations over at One Pot Meal serve to emphasize this as he describes how his students would denounce the “angry feminists” but then go on to use decidedly feministic arguments in their essays.
Halley’s basic observation seems to be that women in general have given up on feminism and any attempt at asserting a different sort of representation of femininity. That they have taken to pandering to the “weak, sexy female” image in order to use the common male’s view of women to get what they want.
Moreover, according to the post, it seems that this tactic is working, demonstrating just how thoroughly feminism has failed in changing the popular image of women and femininity.
I can’t say if she’s right to portray this as a growing trend (which would be very worrying if that is the case) but there are a couple of points in her post I disagree with (implying, rightly, that I generally agree with her other points).
First of all, I think that giving this trend a name—a label—is a dangerous thing. It gives the impression that this approach is justified (something that Halley has otherwise taken great care not to imply, Her “We learned how to stop playing fair” comment is as Dorothea says ‘not exactly a ringing endorsement’).
The second point is the idea that this power—“girl power”— belongs to the “girlists” themselves.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The power they wield, endorse, strengthen, emphasize and advocate, when they use these tactics is that of institutional indoctrination, the idea that the female is a weak sex object.
It is a self-destructive way of living your life—pandering to society and media as your ideological lord and master.
I am, in essence, repeating the points Shelley (whom we can thank for starting and then restarting this discussion) made in her initial reply to Halley, although she explains more clearly just how counter-productive and self-destructive the concept of “Girlism” is.
Girlism. A label to discount women’s human experience and expression.
Shelley Powers—“Girlism?”
“Girlism” expects and furthers the status quo. It gives out the message that not only is change unnecessary but that it is undesirable as well. The “girly” tactics would not work if not for the prevailing attitudes regarding sex and sex appeal.
See, gentlemen, the way to fix the problem—I rather imagine you consider the manipulative aspects of girlism a problem, yes?—is to do what I’ve been screaming at you to do all along: de-sexualize the public space. Quit falling for this sloppy, age-old trick. Just stop rewarding it. Find other things about women to reward. You know they’re there. If you don’t, it’s well past time to learn.
Dorothea Salo—“Caveat Lector”
The problem that Dorothea is describing is not the sexualization of the public space, per se, but how that sexualization permeats people’s value judgements and decisions. It would not be a problem if it didn’t affect people’s professional and intellectual processes and conclusions.
That’s the hard part. For example, I’d say call any woman a lier, gay or blind who claims that they wouldn’t be distracted by the sight of Jude Law in a speedo, climbing, dripping wet out of a swimming pool…
…Erm…
Yes…
What I mean to say. and Dorothea has written about this before, is that we are all sexual beings. It is not sex or sexual attraction that complicates the issue. It’s the indoctrination of unrealistic sex object stereotypes and the abuse (by both sexes) of those stereotypes.
Jen at “Nonsense Verse” points out another issue: How a masculine lesbian—butch—threatens the male worldview.
This actually has only a temporary effect. In the long run, the gay stereotypes of the butch lesbian and the effeminate homosexual only support the prevailing worldview. The status quo needs to be able to say that you have to be masculine to be attracted to women and that you have to be feminine to be attracted to men.
What is lethal to the status quo, the current centre of sexual indoctrination, are ‘normal’ ‘run-of-the-mill’ people who are gay.
Stereotypes and pandering to them, no matter how rebellious they may look, only serve the social status quo in the long run.
‘Yes, yes, if you please, no reference to examples in books. Men have had every advantage of us in telling their own story. Education has been theirs in so much higher a degree; the pen has been in their hands. I will not allow books to prove any thing.’
‘But how shall we prove any thing?’
‘We never shall. We never can expect to prove anything upon such a point. It is a difference of opinion which does not admit of proof. ’
Jane Austen—“Persuasion”
I have twice in my life broken down in tears at a workplace. Both happened before I turned twenty (got my first job when I was thirteen).
What I did learn was that people resort very quickly to stereotypes to cope with events in their lives and to cope with the actions of others. They’ll categorize you at the drop of a hat.
What is worse is that they will then stick to that categorization, everything you do is then understood in the context of being “a wuss” or “a poofter” preventing you from ever in their eyes being just you.
People like to define you in narrow terms and consequently tend to refuse to see anything that doesn’t fit that narrow view.
It isn’t stubborness or an intentional attempt to change you. As far as they are concerned, their view of you is what you really are.
Which, if you care what other people think, sucks big time.
Baldur Bjarnason.
Clifton, Bristol.
Dramatis Personae:
Tell us...