Indifferent (Warning: Rant[y] & Spirited Post)
Posted by Erin on November 24, 1997 at 23:28:48:
In response to good question . . ., written by Sara J on November 24, 1997 at 19:49:11
But why on a board that is 98% female and quite intellectual and educated to boot, hasn't anybody noticed?
*Maybe* because we're used to it? Of course, that's not a very intellectual reason! When I read your question, I tried to think why I hadn't noticed that particular angle . . . and the best I could come up with is that of course the women are seen as flirts, and the men as, well, men.
Your take Sare Jane, to a large extent, explains my own *negligence* on the matter. For me, it's an obvious interpretation, insofar as this type of double standard is expressed often in history and literature. Why bring it up time and time again? Oh the patriarchy, oh the inequity! Receiving a liberal arts education in the wake of the 'feminist revolution' (or let's call it consciousness raising) has, paradoxically, made me almost numb over these gender dichotomies.
Part II: A Little Off Topic, i.e., not directly illicited
Much of my indifference (Ok and a little anger) is connected to what I preceive to be the 'spinning of our wheels'. We (women, chicks) seem to channel much of our energies into the act of acknowledging the issues rather than focusing on alternatives and solutions. Yes, I know part of the latter involves the former, but I think it's much easier to say that women are repressed (as a gender) than it is to think seriously about what we are doing, or should be doing, about overcoming such repression. In fact, the singular, intense focus on these differences may actually impede further growth and change. Apparently, academia --more specifically, feminist theorists have 'wised up' to this idea (a lot of it has to do with Nietzsche, but I'll spare the space of Pemberley in this regard). ;-)
My views about feminism and women's studies were essentially determined by two particular experiences: In college, I took a course that focused exclusively on literature by women (the professor's name was Jane Auden, I'm not kidding you!); as well as a feminist writing's class. I enjoyed the literature course tremendously, in fact many Pemberleans would've loved it --not JA, but the Brontes, Browning, Dinesen, Rossetti, Dickinson, and Woolf. Expectedly, the problem of woman was central. Yet it was shrouded in creativity and imagination so as to make the problem more complicated; and this, therefore, granted it greater depth.
As for the feminist writing's course, we primarily exmanined the feminist idealogy as it was expressed in various cultures...*sigh*, by the second week I was ready to move on. Again, it was the pounding of the issue of how different the experiences of the sexes were., etc. Unfortunately, my previous exposure had already brought me to this understanding --I wanted to talk theory. Alas, feminist theory was not offered that semester.
I'll briefly note that my SO is currently taking a feminist theory course (hence, the assertion that feminists are no longer so lame) in which they've been discussing the virtue of separating feminist theory from the discipline of women's studies. Allegedly, feminist philosophers are promoting the differentiation.
I apologize for the rant, bear with me. I'm afraid Mark got a little more than what he was asking for with my response. ;-)
Posting followups to old messages is disabled; instead go to the main index and post a new message which mentions this one.