So many thoughts. I keep thinking about "exclusions," and the historical movement of some of them from "obviously necessary" to "obviously unjust." I am also thinking about false consciousness, which I did not explain well. (But I think that there are accessible analogues.) We will talk more about these things. I'm thinking about a syllabus. Would you believe that it has been done, all this time? It has. I'm just insecure about it. For Monday, 201-244 in Feminism in Our Time. Good, close reading, so we could have a discussion as good as Thursday's. You will notice that one of the readings is by the very famous write Kate Millet. She just died this week. Here's a link about her that David sent me: HERE . And here's a link I caught, as I soaked in the interwebs: HERE . (Where are those links you were going to send me, about the variety of forms of relationships???)
While dying her hair brown in response to a problem at work was a tangible option for this woman, I feel sad for her. I understand that in a male dominated industry it can be valuable to forgo traditionally feminine aspects (heels, manicures, blowouts, dresses) I think it just contributes to the problem of men in the workplace not seeing a female as their equivalent. While androgynous clothing seems like a good "gender neutral" decision it seems to make her LESS womanly to fit into a male's schema of what a male authority should be. I also work in a male dominated space and feel the pressures she does to dress less "womanly" to avoid unwelcome remarks. Joke's on her- people who don't respect women will continue to devalue her for her anatomy or hit on her regardless of how she dresses her flesh prison. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
ReplyDelete