When I was reading Lorde, I really liked how she asserted how the tools of a system cannot dismantle or even correctly examine that system because of its inherent bias - it seems like such a simple, logical, even obvious conclusion, but one that we don't know about (or try to ignore). That statement called up a lot of questions for me from my own perspective and from our other readings. If the master's tools cannot dissemble the master's house, how can you determine what are and what aren't the master's tools? Since women are products of "the system," since Johnson claimed that men and women participate in the system of patriarchy however unwillingly or unconsciously, how can women dismantle the master's house? Are most women the master's tools themselves? Can we really start changing society through our choices right now? I personally don't think we can as we are now because we do participate in the system, we take the paths of least resistance - there just aren't enough women willing to make a splash, to take the path of resistance, to start changing the system since we can affect it through our choices. (Getting the ball rolling is always the hardest part of anything.) However, the system of patriarchy restrains this thinking, promotes that women follow the paths of least resistance - so women aren't moved to act, aren't moved to take a different path because the system tells them it's too hard, it's not worth it, or don't even worry about it. But then the system will never change because no woman acts differently to make it change. So now the question becomes how do we make others aware of their participation in this system and incite them to change it? What about those people - men and women - who want patriarchy to stay in place? What do we do about them?
Also, I really identified with all the problems that Miles dealt with during her time on The Rag. When I was reading through, I just kept thinking: Mmmmhmmm, I know what that is like, Oh I remember a time when that problem arose, or Why am I not surprised? It was a bit disheartening to read because it not only meant the demise of a magazine that had good intentions, but it also even reinforced very negative stereotypes about women - they hold grudges, are judgmental and catty, fight amongst themselves, brew resentment and anger because they are not inclusive. When I was reading that article, it seemed like those girls were just reinforcing that a) feminism will never work no matter how much fervor and passion you have because you will be beset by all these tensions, b) that women will be infighting too much to even mount a unified front, and c) that feminists are bitchy and exclusive just like those popular girls in high school you always wanted to be friends with. It seemed like it was saying that being united simply as women wasn't enough though we all want it to be enough. If we can't unite as women, what can we unite under? What bonds are strong enough to hold us, our movement together?
No comments:
Post a Comment