Feminism: Take Two
If you’re wondering if “Take Two” is a subtitle or a medication suggestion, its officially just a subtitle. After last time’s fiasco with Hélène Cixous, I’m going to take another crack at understanding Feminism via Virginia Wolfe. Wish me luck.
(Good luck!)
Shakespeare’s Sister: OK, I’ve got this one. Basically, if Shakespeare had a sister who was just as smart and talented as he was (or, if I’m reading it right, even if she was a hundred times better than him in every way), she would never have gotten to write and would have died insane. We discussed this one in class. Really, I like this essay. It’s clear and straightforward. I also happen to agree. Women, during that period, had none of the advantages that men had. However, the same cannot be true of the modern day. While there may still be discrimination (there is), the fact of the matter is that the advantages that guys enjoy have gotten far, far less important or prevalent. Screaming bloody murder? Take a look at my Literary Criticism class. There are, I guess, about 20 students in there. What percentage of them are male? Well, five percent. I’m the only male in an entire Senior-level English class in a respected college. That’s as far as my point goes here.
Chloe liked Olivia: So, a book has two females interacting without centering their relationship around a male. Again, things have changed for the better (in my opinion for the better, at least), since 1929. I’ve read a substantial number of books where female characters have relationships without any males even mentioned by any party. Just pointing this out. I’m glad this has changed since 1929, actually, since having deeper characters available for more situations is good for creativity. (Yes, there are other reasons it is good, too.)
Androgyny: OK, here are some still-applicable crunchy bits. Basically, in order to be whole people we need to be man-womanly or woman-manly. We need to have and develop aspects of both genders in order to understand the world and write well and truthfully. This makes sense to me. It also raises the question of what an author should attempt to do with their writing, and if any restrictions should morally be applied. Should a woman write about “women’s issues,” while men are relegated to writing about things under the dominion of the “men’s sphere?” Is our identity tied up in what we write, and should we strive to use our gendered voices or can we break out of our gender-related issues and write from the position of the other? Woolf is contending that we need to write from a balance; we need to find some way to write as someone androgynous, as someone who uses “both sides of the brain.” I have no choice but to concur. Multiple perspectives breed better writing, in general, and appeal to a larger audience by merit of their greater universality.
Feminism, check. I’ll scrape up something else for next time.
-AndrewTheory.
