so, i added a second minor, called "women's studies." my major is "creative writing" with a focus in nonfiction, and my first minor is spanish. i would definitely be graduating with a bachelors from the UA in december 2008 had i not added my second minor.
but i mean, it really interests me. "women's studies." the ideas, the causes, the theories. i took a women's studies class for one of my general education requirements... under humanities, or something, and i was hooked.
my WS 305 Feminist Theories professor (a wonderfully intelligent gay man) said something the other day... i wish i could directly quote him, but, to the best of my memory, he said something like, "we have these ideas, these social constructions so deeply ingrained in our heads that we do not even realize they are there. we think they are natural, but it's no such thing. we created gender. we created gender roles. girls are not supposed to like pink. boys are not supposed to like blue. marriage is an institution. women do not belong to men. we are here to learn about these social constructions, to question gender roles, and to understand what we are capable of as human beings."
so far i've read some simone de beauvior and monique wittig. monique is a radical materialist feminist lesbian and simone de beauvior takes a stab at writing about woman. both are from a few decades ago... both women born in the first half of the twentieth century. now, i am in a heterosexual relationship, but it is not heteronormative. i just have to keep telling myself that when i am reading philosophies by women like beaviour and wittig. basically, in many aspects, beaviour says that women are "The Other" and are essentially owned by men: politically, economically, and socially. i cannot delve too deep into this without losing my mind, but what i am trying to say here is that, when i was reading her article, i felt like little bugs were crawling all over me, that i all of a sudden became helpless, and i just wanted to scream scream scream "GET THEM OFF OF ME!! NO MAN OWNS ME!!"
well, beauviour is intense. and makes her point. i admire her work and that she is able to write about woman in the way that she does and really makes herself clear. but geez... when i was reading it... i got sucked in... and i felt like my world was caving...
because, yes, luckily i am in a heterosexual relationship without it being heteronormative (the political, economic, social thing where the man owns the woman), but outside of my personal life, i was easily able to see where she was coming from on the grander scale. and i know that all women are not as lucky as i am to have found a gentle man.
so, whew, once i start questioning gender roles in my head, things just keep spinning and my thoughts run. run. run. i start to think, that i can really be whoever i want to be, but then, really Who Am I? and shit, i am not going to fucking let myself get trapped in that hole. i am honestly just about letting it be. don't think about it too much. i am a very intuitive person... ya know, go with what your heart tells you to. sure it's not that easy... but sometimes people think too much... and forget to feel.
anyway... starting this blog, i really wanted to talk about chicana women and the chicana identity. but yeah i got a little off track, kinda.
2 comments:
:)
Oh, I am my own woman, and I do love reading Simone de Beauvoir. Or at least I loved reading her when I was 19. Are you reading The Second Sex? My favorite was actually The Prime of Life. Of course, she was writing in a much different context than now; she was Sartre's lover, after all, and times were so different. Although, if we aren't careful in November, they may be different in a way I can't imagine and certainly don't want.
Judi
p.s. - A was a law clerk in the late 1960's to the first black federal judge, James B. Parsons, who was appointed by President Kennedy. Judge Parsons heard a lot of civil rights cases, many regarding gender discrimination. I remember, A told me he'd once told Judge Parsons that he found it hard to determine, sometimes, because of ingrained gender ideas, whether something was discriminatory or not. The judge had a simple rule: substitute any minority for "women" or "men", and the position would become transparent, e.g., "women make better nurses"...do Mexicans make better nurses? I thought it was a neat test, and I still apply it from time to time.
Judi
Post a Comment