I have
been thinking a lot about the roles of women in government and society. Aside
from our earlier reading, Throwing Like A
Girl, we have also been looking at the roles of women in society through Roxanne
Euben’s Journeys to the Other Shore,
which was assigned by GSI Nev Koker as her main discussion topic. In this
reading, I found a "formula" for the typical woman role in society;
this formula consists of three major concepts: (1) they must have an authority
that governs over them, (2) they must have a task to carry out, and (3) they
must reside mostly in a place of safety. Each of the conditions must
be met in order for women to fulfill their roles successfully.
The first
portion of Journeys to the Other Shore talks The Persian Letters novel, which tells the story of King Usbek who leaves his five wives
at home while he embarks on a journey to examine the society
and government of France. However, I want to focus on the aspects
that capitalize the expectation of women. Once King Usbek leaves, each
of his wives betrays him. For these Persian Princesses, the King is their
authority, their role is to love their King, and their safe haven is at the
palace. Once he leaves, the women not only lose their authority, but they lose
their tasks as well. The women can't function successfully without all of these
structures present.
On the
other hand, in Sayyida Salme’s Memoirs,
she willingly leaves her home to follow a German merchant that she is
in love with. However, she soon discovers that she isn't happy with the life
away from her Muslim palace. Salme walked away from her ultimate
authority (her dad and brother), her job as a Princess, and her safe, home in Zanzibar.
Although she moved away to Germany and gained a new authority (her husband) and
role (housewife), these weren't the same concepts she was accustom to. And we
could even argue that the reason she was unhappy was because she lost
an authority again in her life when her husband died, but I want to challenge
that the main reasoning for her discontent to be that her accustomed institution changed entirely when she
moved.
The
reason that women need these three conditions to function, is because society
has created an institution that determines the roles of women. In
GSI Alon Yakter's presentation, he stated that, "institutions are rules of the game in
a society." And he proceeded to mention that institutions are
generated so that groups in society can have shared expectations and
enforcement. With that being said, the roles of women are formed under an institution
that determines their behavior, and, ultimately, their power in society.
Since
it's now the 21 century, this silly "institution" over women doesn't
hold true, right? Well, not exactly. First, whenever people don't agree with
the rules, then the rules have to be altered. Second, it takes a long time to
shift society from one form of institution to another. And what I want to
further propose is that our current society sits in this "middle ground,"
in which society is still gradually shifting
to more modern concepts women’s roles. But then this means that there should be
a lot of dissonance among society and
individuals. And I think that there is. Like we discussed in class awhile back,
it's still weird for men to wear dresses, right?
What do
you think? And what does it mean (assuming this is the case) if our society
exists in this “middle ground” for gender roles in society?
ReplyDeleteI agree that society is moving closer to a “middle ground” in terms of gender roles, but I think that this “middle ground” could also be a little easier defined. You seem to hold a single, looming “institution” responsible for all of the social constraints and expectations of women in today’s society. In your last sentence, you imply that it is the same institution that both governs the role women can play in society, as well as the “wearing a dress” component. I propose that we’re dealing with separate institutions here; one less justified than the other. Clearly, progress has been made in defeating the institution that has served to limit the image of a woman’s abilities and responsibilities to society. However, I believe the other institution to be far more aesthetic in nature. Today, the average male wouldn’t have a single wardrobe item in common with most women. This is something that is likely not to change, regardless of any further progress or fluctuation in terms of gender roles. For hundreds (in some places, thousands) of years, women have covered their breasts, while men are generally free to remove their shirts in any appropriate public setting, despite a small physiological difference. This is, for the most part, controlled by a separate institution from the one mainly discussed in the article, which I believe is an important distinction.
Let me make a distinction in what I’m trying to explain: the “institution” is a set of rules that determine the roles and concepts that MOSTLY define women. Also, this institution is NOT singly responsible for all aspects of social norms. For instance, I do agree that wardrobe norms are also based on society’s view of aesthetics. But you have to keep in mind that one of the reasons that men began wearing pants before women did/could, was because women weren’t permitted to carry out the sort of physical tasks that men did (wearing pants made certain mobility a lot easier). This is because (or so my argument would speculate), women were assigned different tasks that didn’t involve this sort of physical movement. Of course though, when women wear dresses today, it can symbolize a certain aesthetic imagine (i.e. formal dresses are classy, short dresses are sexy).
DeleteI didn’t mean for my argument to exclude that there are other factors that determine social ideas/norms; however, I didn’t want to address all of the other influences because those alone can serve as separate arguments (such as an aesthetics approach to women norms). You’re right, there two DIFFERENT forces (at least) that contribute to some of women’s norms.
And just as a side note, I disagree that you won’t find a SINGLE piece of clothing that men and women have in common. There are many pieces of clothing (baggy pants or women, shorter shorts for guys, scarves for both genders) that seem to apply to both genders. And I think that is based on many different factors.
For sake of this particular argument, I am choosing to ONLY focus on how the three particular ideas determine how women act in society. But, there are many other factors that influence gender roles.
This is a very interesting blog post, with a couple points that for me needed clarification for me to truly understand the structure you are outlining. You seem to create this concept of a single women's institution that entirely negative and constricting to the people beneath it. I agree with Lex in that I think women will always have a separate "institution" with their own set of norms that they will choose to adhere too, many of which are aesthetic. Now and increasingly as time goes on, they may adhere not be because they are required too, but because this is how they feel most comfortable and where they identify. I wish too, that you could give a modern day example of a women's role adhering to your three rules, as for me the way you stated them is too general to apply exclusively to women. Men, arguably, have been just as suffocated by their designation as breadwinners. They have to maintain composure and go out and earn the living whether or not they want to. This patriarchal structure is both an authority and task (your first two rules of being a woman) that they must complete.
ReplyDeleteI don’t necessarily think that the “institution” is a “entirely negative and constricting.” First, to clarify that we’re on the same page, I am defining this “institution” to be a set of rules that determine how women function in society. Because society is complex, there could never just be a SINGLE force determining everything. I’m sorry; I should have stated that in my blog to make my point clearer. Also, I don’t think it’s COMPLETELY negative because the three conditions give women a structure to adhere to. Many times, people like a structured way of life, take for example the 1960’s concept of the “American Household.” You would find these neighborhoods comprised of all houses that looked similar, the husbands worked, the wives stayed at home, the kids went to school, and everyone was very similar in a superficial way. There were many reasons why this ideal was a rising idea, but, nevertheless, everyone HAD a structure to adhere to. When there is structure and order, there sometimes tends to be less chaos, anxiety, or fear. So, if you structure the way women are to live, they might not all FEEL constrained; however, it still is a constraint because it limits women to what they can and can’t do in society.
DeleteA classic example for this institution that still even hold true to today, would be the “trophy wife” model, in which the husband works and supports her lifestyle as long as she maintains a particular appearance and attends social events. Although that example is VERY superficial, it depicts the concept: she has an authority (husband), a task (social outgoings), a safe place (the home he provides). And a “trophy wife” doesn’t have to adhere to any this—It’s choice. But my point is, it STILL exists today, and that causes tension in some of the ways women try to function in society. And I think you understood that by bringing up the fact that men are confined to providing for their families. The “middle ground” I talk about is tension that occurs in society because we want to move away from the institution that determines women’s role; you could speculate that men struggle with this gender role because there is tension between those who see it acceptable for men to only work and those who see it differently. The patriarchal structure works a bit differently, though.
I don’t think Lex was saying that women simply have a solely aesthetic set of norms. From what I got, he was saying that aesthetics also determine women’s expectations, but that is a distinct branch in analyzing women. But maybe I read it wrong? Anyways, if you read my comment back to Lex, I say that I think he is correct because society is complex to analyze in general. Sorry for the confusion.
I think that this blog post was successful in combining multiple lectures/readings that we have covered in this class. I also find it very interesting that you (as a woman) are writing about the institutions that "define" womanhood, especially traditionalist roles. I agree with you in stating that despite it being the 21st century and the loosing of gender roles, the way that traditional institutions are still very ingrained in the people's minds. I am as progressive as the next girl, but I still find myself using the "i'm a girl" excuse when I don't want to lift something heavy. I don't know if that is more of a commentary on society, or on myself. Additionally, I think that we have come into this awkward area where it is okay for a woman to want to have a career and forego marriage and children, but at the same time being looked down upon for saying that when they grow up they want to be a mother. It is a weird place to be when fighting gender roles is the new norm, while desiring to fulfill these "traditional" gender roles is looked down upon. Very interesting read.
ReplyDelete