Confused, but Interested

I have difficulties with these articles about the gendered writing of history and the feminist model of writing and interpreting history.  First, the articles by Scott confused the hell out of me.  One of the reasons for this stems from the very concept that she decries that of the inadequacies of language when it comes to defining gender, male, female, sex, and identity.  I still am not entirely sure as to the significance of “gender” and gender in her writing on “Unanswered Questions”, and honestly what the concept means for the study.  I found the Marxist Feminists to have the most compelling and understandable of arguments, that gender is inherently a construct that prevents the proletariat (of both sexes) from attaining self-control. 

Personally, I find the idea of the “patriarchy” rather misleading as sexual/gendered control across history depends on location and culture.  It seems a rather Western convention, and a really modern one at that.  While men may “fuck” nowadays, in the past both sexes used sex to procreate to survive.  Both sexes worked to stave off hunger and death, and both sexes were put under the knife in cases of ritual sacrifice.  My perception may be colored by the reality that I’m living in (can’t criticize your own box, Philosopher’s Paradox, thanks Leo!), but I do really want to see more of an argument made for changing the writing of history in a gendered manner.  The articles confused me, but I’m sure class discussion will help enlighten me to this new way of studying and understanding history.