In this weeks readings something that stood out to me was the explanation of “kinship” of Levi-Strauss explained by Rubin. First one thing that stood out to me is that even though thought Rubin argues that we can’t just take a Marxist capitalist approach to the oppression of woman, capitalism does play an important role. When we talk about kinship and the idea that marriage of a woman is really just an exchange of gifts that a man exchanges with other men and that at the end woman is really excluded and objectified in this transaction we are really talking about the exchange and production of goods especially when he talks about the genetical bond produced from this exchanges. I really don’t agree with this idea of marriage but it does highlight the fact that this idea of production of goods keeps on reoccurring in the reading. Also when he talks about the exclusion of woman from this exchange between men it reminded me of Cixous ideas that woman are removed from philosophical models and that the relation is more between father and son rather than with wife. Again here we see a exclusion of woman and instead a relation between men like in the idea of kinship. When Rubin takes this concept of kingship more deeply he talks about the difference between men and woman and he mentions : “wholeness when united with the other. Men and women are, of course, different. But they are not as different as day and night, earth and sky, yin and yang, life and death. In fact, from the standpoint of nature, men and women are closer to each other than either is to anything else – for instance, mountains, kangaroos, or coconut palms. The idea that men and women are more different from one another than either is from anything else must come from somewhere other than nature. Furthermore, although there is an average difference between males and females on a variety of traits, the range of variation of those traits shows considerable overlap. There will always be some women who are taller than some men, for instance, even though men are on the average taller than women. But the idea that men and women are two mutually exclusive categories must arise out of something other than a nonexistent “natural” opposition.” (782)Here again. We see a similar concept to Cixous where she mentioned that woman are always described in a binary relation to men and always in an opposite manner, but this relationship is not equal it is hierarchical and the male description is always superior that the female description. And like Levi-Strauss mentioned these ways of describing are not natural because men and woman are very similar.
Month: October 2013
In this weeks readings something that stood out to me was the explanation of “kinship” of Levi-Strauss explained by Rubin. First one thing that stood out to me is that even though thought Rubin argues that we can’t just take a Marxist capitalist approach to the oppression of woman, capitalism does play an important role. When we talk about kinship and the idea that marriage of a woman is really just an exchange of gifts that a man exchanges with other men and that at the end woman is really excluded and objectified in this transaction we are really talking about the exchange and production of goods especially when he talks about the genetical bond produced from this exchanges. I really don’t agree with this idea of marriage but it does highlight the fact that this idea of production of goods keeps on reoccurring in the reading. Also when he talks about the exclusion of woman from this exchange between men it reminded me of Cixous ideas that woman are removed from philosophical models and that the relation is more between father and son rather than with wife. Again here we see a exclusion of woman and instead a relation between men like in the idea of kinship. When Rubin takes this concept of kingship more deeply he talks about the difference between men and woman and he mentions : “wholeness when united with the other. Men and women are, of course, different. But they are not as different as day and night, earth and sky, yin and yang, life and death. In fact, from the standpoint of nature, men and women are closer to each other than either is to anything else – for instance, mountains, kangaroos, or coconut palms. The idea that men and women are more different from one another than either is from anything else must come from somewhere other than nature. Furthermore, although there is an average difference between males and females on a variety of traits, the range of variation of those traits shows considerable overlap. There will always be some women who are taller than some men, for instance, even though men are on the average taller than women. But the idea that men and women are two mutually exclusive categories must arise out of something other than a nonexistent “natural” opposition.” (782)Here again. We see a similar concept to Cixous where she mentioned that woman are always described in a binary relation to men and always in an opposite manner, but this relationship is not equal it is hierarchical and the male description is always superior that the female description. And like Levi-Strauss mentioned these ways of describing are not natural because men and woman are very similar.
I agree with Audre Lorde when she asserts that “it is the responsibility of the oppressed to teach the oppressors their mistakes” (854). It is incredibly rarely that you encounter a straight man speaking out about gay rights, or a mother speaking out for Fathers for Justice! The role of the oppressor is incredibly passive in this sense, which reminds me of Cixous’ argument that maleness is associated with activity, and femaleness is associated with passivity. If the oppressor is guilty of being passive, surely the female is also guilty of the same charge? The readings this week have lead me to think about the relation of activity and passivity, and of writing and how it relates to feminist considerations. The act of writing is in itself active, and historically it has been incredibly hard for the female voice to be heard and listened to. It is funny to think about how many women writers have chosen to write under a male name, for example Mary Anne Evans writing as George Eliot, yet I wonder how many male writers have written as women? As I say, the act of writing is in this sense active, yet does publishing under a male name mean Evans was passive in her approach? In publishing under a male pseudonym ensured her work was taken seriously, but did she have a duty to feminism to insist upon a position in the literary world? It continues today – I think I mentioned in a previous blog post about how J.K Rowling has recently published under a male pseudonym of Robert Galbraith. I wonder what her motivation was for renouncing any association with feminine authorship. Gilbert and Gubar mention how “until quite recently the woman writer has had (if only unconsciously) to define herself as a mysterious creature who resides behind the angel or monster” (812), yet obviously the woman writer is still hiding behind something. The issue of self-definition is clearly not resolved, then, I would argue.
One final point I would like to pick up on is that, as Lorde points out, it is not our differences that separate us, but “our refusal to recognize those differences” (855). Differences in society, not just gender relations, can only be resolved if the participants are able to accept difference and work through it. Lorde also talks about “a fear of lesbians, or of being accused of being a lesbian” (858), and in a similar way, Cixous also talks about the inversion of the same fear in men who are “terrified of homosexuality” (352) and that man “fear[s] being a woman” (352). From this point of view then, perhaps we should also be talking about not the things that separate us, but the things (fears) that unite us.
I agree with Audre Lorde when she asserts that “it is the responsibility of the oppressed to teach the oppressors their mistakes” (854). It is incredibly rarely that you encounter a straight man speaking out about gay rights, or a mother speaking out for Fathers for Justice! The role of the oppressor is incredibly passive in this sense, which reminds me of Cixous’ argument that maleness is associated with activity, and femaleness is associated with passivity. If the oppressor is guilty of being passive, surely the female is also guilty of the same charge? The readings this week have lead me to think about the relation of activity and passivity, and of writing and how it relates to feminist considerations. The act of writing is in itself active, and historically it has been incredibly hard for the female voice to be heard and listened to. It is funny to think about how many women writers have chosen to write under a male name, for example Mary Anne Evans writing as George Eliot, yet I wonder how many male writers have written as women? As I say, the act of writing is in this sense active, yet does publishing under a male name mean Evans was passive in her approach? In publishing under a male pseudonym ensured her work was taken seriously, but did she have a duty to feminism to insist upon a position in the literary world? It continues today – I think I mentioned in a previous blog post about how J.K Rowling has recently published under a male pseudonym of Robert Galbraith. I wonder what her motivation was for renouncing any association with feminine authorship. Gilbert and Gubar mention how “until quite recently the woman writer has had (if only unconsciously) to define herself as a mysterious creature who resides behind the angel or monster” (812), yet obviously the woman writer is still hiding behind something. The issue of self-definition is clearly not resolved, then, I would argue.
One final point I would like to pick up on is that, as Lorde points out, it is not our differences that separate us, but “our refusal to recognize those differences” (855). Differences in society, not just gender relations, can only be resolved if the participants are able to accept difference and work through it. Lorde also talks about “a fear of lesbians, or of being accused of being a lesbian” (858), and in a similar way, Cixous also talks about the inversion of the same fear in men who are “terrified of homosexuality” (352) and that man “fear[s] being a woman” (352). From this point of view then, perhaps we should also be talking about not the things that separate us, but the things (fears) that unite us.
It’s strange that when we first come to know someone, we always consciously or unconsciouly fall into a symple circle of knowing someone’s name and gender. Sometimes we can’t even remember the exact name of that person, but we can certainly remember this person by naming “ her — a girl which i encountered at the bistro ” or “ him– a gentleman who behaves so politely”. When it’s hard to recognize one’s gender, we get curious about it. Names separate one from another, but gender let us realize there exists a group of people (men / women) which we belong to. In the male dominated world, women are oppressed and restricted by rules made up by male; and in matriarchal society, males obey wills of female. Even if the ideal status of androgynous and genderless society might be achieved (in the far future), one could not expect the absolute equivalence of male and female, since biologically or psychologically people always have a tendency to classify and identify himself/herself. Is there a strictly identified neural gender in between? Hard to know……
Historically, maybe feminism is the outcome of the imbalanced division between men and women? For centuries men have been the ruler, the regulator, the governer who set the norms for women. It seems like for a long time, in eastern or western world, no matter in what social-economic formation, male dominated. Marriage systems in this circumstances involve different kind of purposes drivent by the desire of men : accumulation of wealth and maintenance of differencial access to political and economical resources; the building of alliances; consolidation of high-ranking persona into a single closed strate of endogamous kin… But once women are liberated from those restraints, it could be a huge difference of our concept to sexuel expression and human personnality, and all those concepts related to “Feminism” occured in a man dominated world would be subverted.
One exemple of female domination can be find in chinese history. In Tang Dynastie, Wu Zetian, “Empress Wu”, was a chinese sovereign, who ruled officially under name of her self-proclaimed “Zhou Dynasty”. She was a concubine of Emperor Taizong; after his death she married his successor and 9th son, Emperor Gaozong, officially becoming Gaozong’s wife, although having considerable political power previous to this. After Gaozong’s debilitating stroke in 660, Wu Zetian ruled as effective sovereign until 705. She is the only woman to rule China in her own right. The importance to history of Wu Zetian’s period of political and military leadership includes major expansion of the Chinese empire, extending it far beyond its previous territorial limits, deep into Central Asia, and completing the conquest of upper Korean Peninsula. Within China, besides the more direct consequences of her struggle to gain and maintain supreme power, Wu’s leadership resulted in important effects in regards to social class in Chinese society and in relation to state support for Taoism, Buddhism, education, and literature. . Despite these important aspects of her reign, together with the suggestions of modern scholarship as to the long-term effects of some of her innovations in governance, much of the attention to Wu Zetian has been to her gender, as the anomalous female supreme sovereign of a unified Chinese empire, holding during part of her lifetime the title of Huangdi. Besides her career as a political leader, Wu Zetian also had an active family life. Although family relationships sometimes became problematic, Wu Zetian was the mother of three sons who served stints as emperors, and one of her grandsons became the famous emperor Xuanzong of the restored Tang Dynasty, ruling during its “Golden Age”.
Tang Dynasty was the most prosperous period throughout Chinese history. In her dominance, women were highly liberated from constraints of men. So is it possible when the society reached a highly developped phase, it’s men who chase for their liberation from the domination of women? Or less aggressively, that feminism is no longer a problematic issue duing to the success of revolution. But the reality is that, it’s hard to reach a common understanding of equality between the sexes……
Helene Cixous’s The Newly Born Woman was quite the interesting read this week – it took the way that I understood “difference” and put it into use in a new way.
Cixous’s writing style makes things very plain – with her use of the slash (Activity/Passivity, Logos/Pathos, etc.) she lays the groundwork for her argument: that it’s all about contrast, and within this contrast, hierarchy is born. By creating this cut-and-dry differences between men and women using opposites, you place men and women into their respective roles, and that is how gender stereotypes perpetuate.
It seemed to me that she would fight against the idea of contrast. I figured she would argue that by trying to dissolve this contrast, men and women would be able to find more equal footing. But then she makes one crazy, beautiful claim that turned everything on its head for me: Women are bisexual. To me, this idea is absolutely intoxicating, because it seems to suggest that instead of fighting against the difference between men and women, she claims that by internalizing both, by accepting this difference and learning to function with a little piece of each “gender” within oneself, one is in a state of constant evolution.
Difference immediately becomes even more complex here, and it’s something that I think echoes quite a bit of what Derrida had to say. His “differance” exists everywhere and is certainly alive and well here – the difference between men and women is the essence of being, it is both external and internal, and only by accepting and understanding the ever-changing characteristics of both are we able to evolve.
This is hokey, but it made me think of a kaleidoscope – if you are stuck on one image, one idea of self-identity, the contrast and colors may still be beautiful, but they are stagnant. Only through the willingness to turn the dial, to accept new contrasts and colors, will you arrive at an ever-changing beauty that is ultimately much more satisfying.
The way that this is accomplished, she says, is through yet another medium of difference: writing. Writing, she says “is the passageway, the entrance, the exit [another contrast here], the dwelling place of the other in me” (Rivkin and Ryan 352).
As she goes on to talk about the “I,” (a person’s self-identification) I was reminded strongly of the self-divisions that are described by Freud (the id, ego, superego) and found it interesting how she denounces Freud’s “fear of feminity” but still seems to adhere to his ideas of a division within the self. Or is she simply saying that these divisions are gender-centric, something that Freud fails to note in the same fashion? Clearly psychoanalysis plays a strong role in the feminist debate, and I can’t wait to see where else it crops up.
On the whole, I loved how much more complex difference became with this reading, but it only continues to build on Derrida’s notion that difference is the essence of our being – the foundation on which the universe is built. And women, according to Cixous, are miles head of men at accepting and understanding this difference within themselves.
Throughout her essay, I feel that Lordes believes patriarchy is not the only form of oppression. Instead, Lordes is suggesting that women oppress other women just as much as men oppress women and argues that women should seek to uncover and discuss the differences within the category of women as well. The differences between women such as race, class, age, ethnicity, religion and sexuality demonstrate the intermeshed oppressions that people experience uniquely from one another. Indeed, the white, middle class, heterosexual dominated women’s movement often ignored the fact that lesbians and women of color were different from themselves and did not simply share all the same problems and agendas. She recognizes the fact that we need to think about oppression from all angles – women need to realize that there is more to gender oppression than just from men. In fact, she states that “the norm is usually defined as white, thin, male, young, heterosexual, Christian, and financially secure”. With these standards in mind, anything less of them is the root for the oppression in society today. Moreover, Lordes shows that even within the circles of black women, lesbians are being oppressed by the very women they should be bonding with: “Black women in the political, social and cultural fields, heterosexual Black women often tend to ignore or discount the existence and work of Black lesbians”. Further, Lordes discusses the need for black women to come together as women.
In her essay, Lordes seems to say that yes, there are differences between us such as age, race, sex etc. but she believes that “it is not those differences between us that are separating us. It is rather our refusal to recognize those differences, and to examine the distortions which result from our misnaming them and their effects upon human behavior and expectation”. We cannot ignore that the differences and inequalities do exist amongst age, race, class or sex groups. This rejection of difference, as it relates to the unity of women against their common oppressor, causes only weakness among women. Lordes advises to change the system –“the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house”. We can’t do it unless we step outside of it: women need to collectively acknowledge the difference in others if they truly want to fight for an end to oppression.
One of the most interesting readings I found for this week was Audrey Lorde’s selection of Sister Outsider. I discovered a particular voice that I did not seen in other authors so far. I just going to add some reasons why I enjoyed Lorde ideas and how she made me thought about our class.
First, I think that is definite important, as a theoretical critic, to determine where you are. When I read in the second paragraph “As forty-nine-year-old Black lesbian feminist socialist mother of two, including one boy, and a member of an interracial couple, I usually find myself a part os some group defined as other, deviant, inferior, or just plain wrong”(854), she really caught my attention since she stands up on her enunciation place and, in first person, she talks about her experience as human being, intellectual and part of ‘other’ group. This is the first voice that is not placed in an omniscient narrator, the objective watcher, that usually we have in our readings, since the analysis has to be distant and non charged of emotions. In Lorde’s I found a voice. Of course, is related to the feminism, but it is really interesting that someone could propose an emotive and critic approach to theory.
Second, when she explains what to analyze about the differences:
“Certainly there are very real differences between us of race, age, and sex. But it is not those differences between us that are separating us. It is rather our refusal to recognize those differences, and to examine the distortions which result from our misnaming them and their effects upon human behavior and expectation” (855).
If we notice, all colonial discourse, marxism, psychoanalysis… are built on difference. Societies are unequal, no matter what we do or what we think, and they are going to be unequal for hundred, thousand of years because human being is attached to difference. If we think, even the academic world is nurture of this difference, since we have to criticize literature or culture and we compare and establish differences to get some point (actually, our writing assignments are based on this idea: determine the differences). But what I really found valid of Lorde’s point of view is the idea of “examine the distortions which result from our misnaming them”. So, probably is not the difference that we are looking for, according to Lorde, but how are we misnaming them for not recognize them. I guess there is a complex idea about what it is difference and maybe in our future thesis and papers every one will discover what is the difference that is important for her/him.
On the same topic:
“You fear your children will grow up to join the patriarchy and testify against you, we fear our children will be dragged from a car and shot down in the street, and you will turn your backs upon the reason they are dying” (857).
That really made think about Colombia, and in general Latin American societies. The huge gap between rich and poor is overwhelming. In the same city, in the same neighborhood, you see a tremendous building with sophisticated apartments, elevators and spectacular views, dwelled by executives and high class people, and a few blocks from there, you can see several persons who sleep on the street and do not have a meal. I think that kind of difference is also painful. Not recognize them, when I am studying abroad and I have access to education, it is unfair. Perhaps Lorde is pointing out that the differences maybe can help you out to understand who you are, what should you think about.
Finally, I think it is quite interesting that she talks about her experience as a writer. She notices that poetry was not a publishing material for some magazines and explains her experience as a novelist, including that is not only necessary “a room of one’s own” remembering Virginia Woolf’s book, but also that you need paper, a typewriter and time (855). And also, I think is quite important that this selected fragment includes one of her poems (maybe this was a decision taken by the editors), and that small portion of poetry evidences again that her creative and analytical writing are imbricated, they are not separable in her work. That made me think what the academy should have thought about her form and style. I believe, as a reader, that is valid to express yourself int his way if it is related to the topic, and if the think that you are talking about really touch you as an individual. However, is it valid for the academy world? Can I write a paper based on her model to analyze different topics? I open the question.
One of the most interesting readings I found for this week was Audrey Lorde’s selection of Sister Outsider. I discovered a particular voice that I did not seen in other authors so far. I just going to add some reasons why I enjoyed Lorde ideas and how she made me thought about our class.
First, I think that is definite important, as a theoretical critic, to determine where you are. When I read in the second paragraph “As forty-nine-year-old Black lesbian feminist socialist mother of two, including one boy, and a member of an interracial couple, I usually find myself a part os some group defined as other, deviant, inferior, or just plain wrong”(854), she really caught my attention since she stands up on her enunciation place and, in first person, she talks about her experience as human being, intellectual and part of ‘other’ group. This is the first voice that is not placed in an omniscient narrator, the objective watcher, that usually we have in our readings, since the analysis has to be distant and non charged of emotions. In Lorde’s I found a voice. Of course, is related to the feminism, but it is really interesting that someone could propose an emotive and critic approach to theory.
Second, when she explains what to analyze about the differences:
“Certainly there are very real differences between us of race, age, and sex. But it is not those differences between us that are separating us. It is rather our refusal to recognize those differences, and to examine the distortions which result from our misnaming them and their effects upon human behavior and expectation” (855).
If we notice, all colonial discourse, marxism, psychoanalysis… are built on difference. Societies are unequal, no matter what we do or what we think, and they are going to be unequal for hundred, thousand of years because human being is attached to difference. If we think, even the academic world is nurture of this difference, since we have to criticize literature or culture and we compare and establish differences to get some point (actually, our writing assignments are based on this idea: determine the differences). But what I really found valid of Lorde’s point of view is the idea of “examine the distortions which result from our misnaming them”. So, probably is not the difference that we are looking for, according to Lorde, but how are we misnaming them for not recognize them. I guess there is a complex idea about what it is difference and maybe in our future thesis and papers every one will discover what is the difference that is important for her/him.
On the same topic:
“You fear your children will grow up to join the patriarchy and testify against you, we fear our children will be dragged from a car and shot down in the street, and you will turn your backs upon the reason they are dying” (857).
That really made think about Colombia, and in general Latin American societies. The huge gap between rich and poor is overwhelming. In the same city, in the same neighborhood, you see a tremendous building with sophisticated apartments, elevators and spectacular views, dwelled by executives and high class people, and a few blocks from there, you can see several persons who sleep on the street and do not have a meal. I think that kind of difference is also painful. Not recognize them, when I am studying abroad and I have access to education, it is unfair. Perhaps Lorde is pointing out that the differences maybe can help you out to understand who you are, what should you think about.
Finally, I think it is quite interesting that she talks about her experience as a writer. She notices that poetry was not a publishing material for some magazines and explains her experience as a novelist, including that is not only necessary “a room of one’s own” remembering Virginia Woolf’s book, but also that you need paper, a typewriter and time (855). And also, I think is quite important that this selected fragment includes one of her poems (maybe this was a decision taken by the editors), and that small portion of poetry evidences again that her creative and analytical writing are imbricated, they are not separable in her work. That made me think what the academy should have thought about her form and style. I believe, as a reader, that is valid to express yourself int his way if it is related to the topic, and if the think that you are talking about really touch you as an individual. However, is it valid for the academy world? Can I write a paper based on her model to analyze different topics? I open the question.
The Power of Discourse and the Subordination of the Feminin is a psychoanalitical aproach on gender binaries. Irrigaray argument in this book is that there is a gendered bias in language. Her philosophy originates in Freud’s Phallocentric system that supposes many binary oppositions. In this system she sees the superiority of male centered discourse and she argues that the philosophic discourse is a male-dominated thinking where women can only copy masculine language. In other words she can not express or function in a male centered framework and as long as she borrows ideas from a masculine logocentric discourse she will remain a derivation and consequently she does not see any common ground between the theoretical male system and the feminine style of writing. A first phase in the feminine constructed profile is that of mimesis. But mimesis means here a way to appropriate a different discourse where the woman would transgress from the realm of subordination to the one of affirmation. Her discourse wants to break masculine language by opposing material and physical allusions to masculine abstract speculation. This way of writing creates the allusion to an incomprehensible rest that’s to be understood as the invisible of her own readers (mostly female). In the freudian phallogocentric model the privileged sexuality is based on the visible where the woman is seen as the result of a castration and the woman desire to act and think according to a masculine paradigm is a form of castration denial and this makes her neurotic. Irrigaray argues the freudian approach and talks about female pleasure as the place of a new construction the “ek-stasy in the transcendental”. If there is difference between female desire and female pleasure, this is something that should not be looked for in the visible, where female desire is the image of a lack nor within the discourse where she is seen as a deficient masculine or a negative image of the subject, but rather in a newly constructed language where style would be able to form a disjunction. In this style what maters is a new opposition visible/tactile.