Note: This chapter like the previous is pretty dense with information and anyone unfamiliar with gender dynamics and definitions and the shifting ground around them may find this chapter slow going.
This chapter outlines the injustice, inaccuracy, and inherent pitfalls of embracing the concept of the eternal 'feminine' as a source of power and justice for women. The chapter opens with, "[m]atriarchalist assumptions about how sex determines personality, preferences, and values are sometimes only implicit, but they are always present. Though some interpreters earnestly attempt to avoid these implications of matriarchal myth, the myth continues to feed off of a very reductive notion of who women - and by extension, men - are" (pg 56 para 1) - emphasis mine.
Eller postulates that one of the reasons for this seeming reversion to the weirdly 'protective' attitude toward the eternal feminine (an attitude espoused by such anti-feminist groups as extreme right wing Christian fundamentalists) is the apparent assault on female via surgery, hormone treatments etc (she does not explicitly judge or even really touch on the question of transgender or re-assignment surgery but puts it forward as an aspect that feminists may be perceiving as an assault thus the reliance and defense of the eternal feminine).
Some matriarchal feminists eschew polite rhetoric or overtures towards equality and declare that men are creatures of destructive instincts and negative actions. In contrast others believe that feminity and masculinity must be in balance not only in society/politics but internally. Basically matriarchal feminist perceptions of men and maleness run the gamut from militant negativism to a more reasonably capitulation and partnership (presumably this is reflective of many non-matriarchal feminists as well).
One would think that matriarchal feminists would be interested in woman beyond biology and traditional roles however Jane Alpert for one stated, "female biology is the basis of women's power...biology is...the source and not the enemy of feminist revolution" (page 63 para 1). This unusual assertion then leaves those who are technically female but feel no affinity to the gender descriptor or even their own bodies, or those that do not menstruate, or do so but find it a miserable painful, debilitating process rather than a life affirming experience, or who do not have or want children, in a bit of a quandary. If a female person is at odds with her biological femininity what then?
This comes back to the creed of difference feminism, that is, "the goal of difference feminism is to see that women's special roles and values are accorded adequate respect, a respect equivalent (or perhaps superior) to the that accorded to men's" (page 64, para 2). But this smacks of separate but equal, a concept we threw out decades ago with Brown V. Board. I - and presumably Eller - am not arguing that the differences between men and women should be overlooked but rather that they are not the overriding concern. There are far far more similarities between men and woman than differences, and, while it is understandable to be afraid, angry, and threatened when the similarities are played up compared to the differences it is not especially useful.
On page 67 Eller states, "[i]n the creation of a 'feminist femininity,' matriarchalists have done remarkably little to move off the territory of patriarchal femininity. In other words, while it is admirable that feminists are attempting to celebrate and protect what they see as an intrinsic eternal feminine aspect in women the methods and ideology they are using are flawed and have resulted in an unintentionally or perhaps inevitable sympatico with some of the most destructive patriarchal thought models regarding women.
Eller goes on to discuss how similar thinking feeds into and can be better understood by looking at racism and classism and how self perception of members of a group may result in improved self esteem but no breakdown of perceptive barriers. She also discusses the other side of the argument, that is that gender is a societal/social construct and how a female person may think or even behave in a 'male' manner but nevertheless be perceived as and treated as a female person.
For now biology is intertwined with female identity and gender titles. But, as Eller sums up arguing that traditionally feminine aspects and behavior need not remain that way but can be embraced by all while being acknowledged to have traditionally occurred more often among and from women, but that, "[i]nsights like these can play a valuable role in the broader context of feminist movement. They can provide useful political perspective and increased self esteem...[b]ut this must not degenerate into universal claims about who 'women' really are." (page 79-80 para 4-1).
Eller, Cynthia. The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory: Why an Invented past Won't Give Women a Future. Boston: Beacon, 2000. Chapter 4 The Eternal Feminine. Print.
This chapter outlines the injustice, inaccuracy, and inherent pitfalls of embracing the concept of the eternal 'feminine' as a source of power and justice for women. The chapter opens with, "[m]atriarchalist assumptions about how sex determines personality, preferences, and values are sometimes only implicit, but they are always present. Though some interpreters earnestly attempt to avoid these implications of matriarchal myth, the myth continues to feed off of a very reductive notion of who women - and by extension, men - are" (pg 56 para 1) - emphasis mine.
Eller postulates that one of the reasons for this seeming reversion to the weirdly 'protective' attitude toward the eternal feminine (an attitude espoused by such anti-feminist groups as extreme right wing Christian fundamentalists) is the apparent assault on female via surgery, hormone treatments etc (she does not explicitly judge or even really touch on the question of transgender or re-assignment surgery but puts it forward as an aspect that feminists may be perceiving as an assault thus the reliance and defense of the eternal feminine).
Some matriarchal feminists eschew polite rhetoric or overtures towards equality and declare that men are creatures of destructive instincts and negative actions. In contrast others believe that feminity and masculinity must be in balance not only in society/politics but internally. Basically matriarchal feminist perceptions of men and maleness run the gamut from militant negativism to a more reasonably capitulation and partnership (presumably this is reflective of many non-matriarchal feminists as well).
One would think that matriarchal feminists would be interested in woman beyond biology and traditional roles however Jane Alpert for one stated, "female biology is the basis of women's power...biology is...the source and not the enemy of feminist revolution" (page 63 para 1). This unusual assertion then leaves those who are technically female but feel no affinity to the gender descriptor or even their own bodies, or those that do not menstruate, or do so but find it a miserable painful, debilitating process rather than a life affirming experience, or who do not have or want children, in a bit of a quandary. If a female person is at odds with her biological femininity what then?
This comes back to the creed of difference feminism, that is, "the goal of difference feminism is to see that women's special roles and values are accorded adequate respect, a respect equivalent (or perhaps superior) to the that accorded to men's" (page 64, para 2). But this smacks of separate but equal, a concept we threw out decades ago with Brown V. Board. I - and presumably Eller - am not arguing that the differences between men and women should be overlooked but rather that they are not the overriding concern. There are far far more similarities between men and woman than differences, and, while it is understandable to be afraid, angry, and threatened when the similarities are played up compared to the differences it is not especially useful.
On page 67 Eller states, "[i]n the creation of a 'feminist femininity,' matriarchalists have done remarkably little to move off the territory of patriarchal femininity. In other words, while it is admirable that feminists are attempting to celebrate and protect what they see as an intrinsic eternal feminine aspect in women the methods and ideology they are using are flawed and have resulted in an unintentionally or perhaps inevitable sympatico with some of the most destructive patriarchal thought models regarding women.
Eller goes on to discuss how similar thinking feeds into and can be better understood by looking at racism and classism and how self perception of members of a group may result in improved self esteem but no breakdown of perceptive barriers. She also discusses the other side of the argument, that is that gender is a societal/social construct and how a female person may think or even behave in a 'male' manner but nevertheless be perceived as and treated as a female person.
For now biology is intertwined with female identity and gender titles. But, as Eller sums up arguing that traditionally feminine aspects and behavior need not remain that way but can be embraced by all while being acknowledged to have traditionally occurred more often among and from women, but that, "[i]nsights like these can play a valuable role in the broader context of feminist movement. They can provide useful political perspective and increased self esteem...[b]ut this must not degenerate into universal claims about who 'women' really are." (page 79-80 para 4-1).
Eller, Cynthia. The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory: Why an Invented past Won't Give Women a Future. Boston: Beacon, 2000. Chapter 4 The Eternal Feminine. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment