Peter Goldstein wrote:
>>Let me try this again. I think it is true beyond a hemidemisemiquaver of a
>>doubt that the vast majority of Western Literature before the late 20th
>>century held the following propositions to be true:
>>
>>1) The white race is the superior race.
>>
>>2) Men should be above women in the social hierarchy.
To which Mats Norman replied:
>Herr Goldstein didn't explicity say so, but this traces the belief that
>men in former certuries thought themselves to be ("intellectually" is
>implied) superiour to women, or vice versa; that women were inferior to
>men, and therefore; men oppressed women. That is, however, just feminist
>bullshit talk! Women have never been more oppressed than they are today.
>What doesn't mean that they are more oppressed now than in former
>centuries. Men had the "high" positions in society, thats completely
>correct, but it is a myth that this came from that men thought women
>were not intellectually/emotionally etc capable to hold those positions.
>This fact can be noticed in musical artworks as well as in other fields
>in the study of genushistory.
To which I reply: I don't think that the assertion that men throughout
history (and in many if not most cultures) have viewed women to be inferior
to men mentally, physically, and even morally and emotionally, can be
considered "feminist bullshit" - there is simply too much documentary
evidence to the contrary. Women were often denied the same property rights
as men, and until relatively recently, were denied the same citizenship
rights (e.g., the right to vote), and the same privileges within religious
faiths (e.g., barred from the priesthood). Read Milton's "Paradise Lost"
for a very good example of an intelligent man with a deeply ingrained
belief that women are naturally inferior to men in "the great chain
of being." Shakespeare abounds with allusions to women's inferiority.
During the Middle Ages, it was often asserted in various religious and
philosophical tracts that women were much more lascivious than men, more
prone to temptation, and thus generally morally inferior. This list just
goes on and on. I do think that in the US at least women *are* less
oppressed than they were; this doesn't mean that there still isn't progress
to be made, of course, but even within my lifetime the change in terms of
both basic rights and general attitudes has been significant. (I wish I
could say the same for my sisters in other parts of the world - those
places where women are denied education, for instance, or basic citizenship
and property rights, to say nothing of such abominations as physical
mutilation.)
Anyway, the point is not whether [dead] white [Christian] males considered
anyone other than white [Christian] males to be inferior, if not actively
despised beings, but rather, how we deal with otherwise exemplary works of
art by those same [dead] white [Christian] males that contain expressions
of this attitude. As a woman, I cannot tell you how frustrating it is to
read Milton - such wonderful poetry, such infuriating beliefs about women.
As a woman married to a Jew, I cannot tell you how it pains me to read "The
Merchant of Venice" - such wonderful poetry, such despicable attitudes
towards adherents of another faith. (And let's not even talk about
Wagner.) It doesn't matter that these beliefs were commonly held then,
and that artists were propounding the received wisdom of their day - it
is still painful and infuriating to encounter them, and, what's more, to
encounter them expressed with all the power and persuasion that art can
give. I wish there were an easy answer.
Kathleen O'Connell
|
