Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Damsels don't distress
This post is in reference to the conversation that we had in class today regarding the sexuality of women. It is easy for us as a society to say that women are more helpless than men because that is the position in which we are put. But there is so much concrete biological evidence that shows that women and men are inherently different as human beings that I think we need to think about that aspect of it. McKinnon talks about how women are never truly in control of their sexuality, and that "sexuality" is a political term. But maybe women can actually gain more power by embracing the vulnerable position. There are many instances throughout history of women using their sexuality as a manipulation tool in order to get what they want. And while there is a lot of argument today about women being put in the inferior position, maybe women have done this because subconsciously they (as a group, not as individuals) have wanted to become more vulnerable. Maybe the damsel isn't really in distress, maybe she just wants to pretend that she is.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Im a little confused by what you're trying to get across here. I feel that by women playing the damsel in distress on purpose is actually hurting women as a group. If they choose to be inferior on purpose then this gives anti-feminist men the reasoning to say that women are weaker than men and that women can't do all the things that men can. Women need to work as hard as they can and prove to men that they can do anything men can do.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if I grasped exactly the author's point as well. Women have come a long way in a country once completely dominated by men. To say they are inferior, would be false. Clearly some women, like Hillary Clinton, can achieve some of the most powerful positions in the world. To say women intentionally put themselves in vulnerable positions, I am not sure about. I see very little strategic value for women that adopt this approach. Of course women can be very manipulative, especially when working with men (sexual appeal being most notable).
ReplyDeleteI think part of what the author is trying to get across is that women do still sometimes cling to their "inferior position" when it benefits them. My understanding of his point comes across especially with the common female complaint that "chivalry is dead." Chivalry was CREATED by a sexist environment in which men had to take care of their women because they were too weak to do so themselves. Despite this, women still love to be catered to and paid for, which in my opinion is somewhat contradictory for the feminist.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of chivalry is an interesting one to point out, as most feminists overlook that. While feminists want equality, they also like when men are chivalrous to them, and I don't mean just opening doors for them, but more or less taking care of them. I think what the author is trying to say is women play weak to get things like chivalry, but fight on for equal wages and such.
ReplyDelete