Well, I've read with much interest from my distant view from the
keys of this recent explosion on these various topics which seem
to be,perhaps definable, by one common thread, the desire of
women to define themselves in all complexity, while
acknowledging that much complexity may remain undiscussed
(merely because of the limited nature of the medium, for even a
book may not be enough) in contrast to simplistic dicta in which
particular expression is ignored in favor of some assessment of
being. For instance, I am surprised that Mark who began with
"women choose to be suppressed" should follow with such
interesting discussion of his work, whereby the argument seems
to change to the acknowledgement that women choose to be
suppressed when the alternatives offered are worse. This is
surely the old is it better to be a slave or die argument? And if
some women do remain or return to abusive situations, it is also
because of hopelessness, in actuality, in indoctrination, and in
lack of there being any more viable alternative. As a part-time
teacher in a community college, I have had more than one
middle-aged woman who returning to school must keep her
books from her husband, because he has been infuriated
to come home and see her reading, or the papers on the desk,
etc. It is common to hear on the news some story of a man who
kills his wife, ex-lover, etc.often their children, and perhaps some
unlucky friend or visiting relative,
and then kills himself. It probably happens two to three times a
week somewhere in the state. In thirty years, I can't remember
having read a headline--woman kills husband, children, then self.
And it seems to me that any discussion of the suppression of
women cannot ignore the ways in which that suppression is often
violent. It is useless to argue complexity against a fist. However,
suppression is not merely a matter of one person unjustly
suppressing the rights of another, but requires instititions, powers
of court, and law, etc., all of which is where the complexity comes
into it. If 50% of the women and children who are homeless in the
U.S. have fled an abusive situation (and they have), then perhaps
the woman who remains in that abusive situation finds it
somewhat more empowering than being homeless, or sleeping
with her children on the grate. The suppression of women has
often been violent, but it cannot be too violent, since men do not
wish to exterminate us, they'd like to keep us, dear things that we
are, for any numbers of reasons. Accordingly, the suppression of
women has been perhaps more accurately compared to the
institutions of slavery, if only because in both there is a similar
interest in keeping the subjected one alive. This is why for
instance, the most dangerous time, in terms of actual violence, is
the moment at which the woman flees the abusive relationship, for
there is in a sense no reason to keep her alive. Nor do I know why
we should assume that the unwritten history of women, those
farmwives, etc., in all other ages, was necessarily sanguine. The
Wife of Bath is an interesting example, for it's quite possible to
hear her argument with the social forces that attempted her to
suppress her, her wiliness in evading the forces of society and
religion, etc., how she takes a stance of being deliberately wicked,
in order to travel about her world, freely, which already makes her
exceptional among those farmwives. Apologies for any typos, I'm
on an internet cafe machine
Best,
Rebecca
www.thedrunkenboat.com
|