FA+
Shop
181
Views
Views
10
Favorites
Favorites
Category
All / General Furry Art
Species Rabbit / Hare
Size 946 x 777
File Size 618.5 kB
Report this content
More from Delhi-Shuffle
"that what we take for the cause or origin of oppression is in fact only the mark imposed by the oppressor: the 'myth of woman,' plus its material effects and manifestations in the appropriated consciousness and bodies of women. Thus, this mark does not preexist oppression: Collete Guillaumin has shown that before the socioeconomic reality of black slavery, the concept of race did not exist, at least not in its modern meaning, since it was applied only to the lineage of families. However, now, race, exactly like sex, is taken as an 'immediate given,' a 'sensible given,' 'physical features,' belonging to a natural order. But what we believe to be a physical and direct perception is only a sophisticated and mythic construction, an 'imaginary formation,' which reinterprets physical features (in themselves as neutral as any others but marked by the social system) through the network of relationships in which they are perceived.
...
It was a political constraint and those who resisted it were accused of not being 'real' women. But then we were proud of it, since in the accusation there was already something like a shadow of victory: the avowal by the oppressor that 'woman' is not something that goes without saying, since to be one, one has to be a 'real' one."
-Monique Wittig on the social construction of womanhood as a means of oppression
"One is Not Born a Woman" 1981
Category All / General Furry Art
Species Rabbit / Hare
Size 946 x 777px
File Size 618.5 kB
I'm inclined to read some of Witting's stuff, now. Very interesting passage you put there!
I'm disagree with the 'concept of race' not existing prior to slavery. Though I hate to use any religious text as reference, there are a handful which identify a 'people' by the tone of their skin, dated many centuries prior to, as Witting has put it, 'socioeconomic black slavery'... implying slavery as we knew it in the Americas. Race is a rather arbitrary concept, or at least a shallow one: but it has been around for millennia.
Still, I see her point. Race or gender, when used simply as a method of a physical description or identification, is useful and (socially) benign. When societies add more to that definition, such as behaviour or dress -- her "imaginary formation"-- only then do the terms become laden with more than they ought to. It seems as though she's attacking a stigmata or stereotype which is associated with a physical description (race, ethnicity, gender, etc), rather than the description itself... but it's not phrased that way?
Does her writing strike you at all, as idealogical? I can't tell from just this bit.
I'm disagree with the 'concept of race' not existing prior to slavery. Though I hate to use any religious text as reference, there are a handful which identify a 'people' by the tone of their skin, dated many centuries prior to, as Witting has put it, 'socioeconomic black slavery'... implying slavery as we knew it in the Americas. Race is a rather arbitrary concept, or at least a shallow one: but it has been around for millennia.
Still, I see her point. Race or gender, when used simply as a method of a physical description or identification, is useful and (socially) benign. When societies add more to that definition, such as behaviour or dress -- her "imaginary formation"-- only then do the terms become laden with more than they ought to. It seems as though she's attacking a stigmata or stereotype which is associated with a physical description (race, ethnicity, gender, etc), rather than the description itself... but it's not phrased that way?
Does her writing strike you at all, as idealogical? I can't tell from just this bit.
I think her main argument was that because the mythos of womanhood was created as an oppressive force, that it has to be abandoned entirely; that it cannot be repurposed for a pro-feminist movement and see any true progress, because refusing to leave the class of oppression, you cannot stop being oppressed. Throughout the paper, lesbianism was mentioned as an example of breaking the mold, and placing woman outside of her definitive role of belonging to, and being there for the use of, a man. I'm not sure if it was being couched as only an example, or also an ideal. I'm not familiar with any of her other works. I left it out of my chosen passages.
I'm not sure whether to call it ideological. A lot of the ideas ring true to me. Girlhood is by its very construction, wrapped up in dependency, weakness, and servitude. It's constantly reinforced. I'm in the process of thinking a lot about myself and what I want out of life, what I want to be. The passage was important to me because, although submissive sex sounds kind of keen, I don't want submissiveness to get in the way of my adulthood. I think I need to become stronger, so that I can become happier and find a healthy relationship, and not fall prey to unhealthy ones until then. Part of that is rooting through what it means to be a woman, and finding out what is specifically designed to make a girl feel weak and needy and dependent.
I have to admit the lesbian part rings familiar too, while at the same time feeling like it could reach into the realm of the too ideological. It's kind of empowering. There's an egalitarianism in it that I've fallen in love with. One of the many things I've come to love about it.
I'm not sure whether to call it ideological. A lot of the ideas ring true to me. Girlhood is by its very construction, wrapped up in dependency, weakness, and servitude. It's constantly reinforced. I'm in the process of thinking a lot about myself and what I want out of life, what I want to be. The passage was important to me because, although submissive sex sounds kind of keen, I don't want submissiveness to get in the way of my adulthood. I think I need to become stronger, so that I can become happier and find a healthy relationship, and not fall prey to unhealthy ones until then. Part of that is rooting through what it means to be a woman, and finding out what is specifically designed to make a girl feel weak and needy and dependent.
I have to admit the lesbian part rings familiar too, while at the same time feeling like it could reach into the realm of the too ideological. It's kind of empowering. There's an egalitarianism in it that I've fallen in love with. One of the many things I've come to love about it.
*nods* Ok, then I wasn't far off - the stereotype set up by societal gender definitions being used as a tool for oppression or control later, would be a logical 'next step'. Scary though it is, it does happen.
I think I have the wrong equipment to comprehend the full depth of these implications. It'll be rolling around in my brain for a while, I think. Still, I think I know why you stuck that excerpt in the description. :/
I think I have the wrong equipment to comprehend the full depth of these implications. It'll be rolling around in my brain for a while, I think. Still, I think I know why you stuck that excerpt in the description. :/
Comments