Tuesday, November 3, 2015

My thoroughly confused attempt to respond to this weeks readings.

Scott defines gender as a constructed category of human distinction which is the primary means of signifying power relationships in society.  Scott asserts that men’s and women’s roles in society and history are constructed through language and the framing of sexuality and sexual behavior. Scott diminishes the importance of other means of identity analysis, chiefly religion and class. She takes issues with what she sees a the over-reliance on material difference on the part of Marxist feminists, correctly asserting that women were subjugated long before the advent of capitalism. One could make a solid argument that the interplay of these identities is far more useful as means of historical analysis. Her desire to explain the presence of patriarchy ignores the immense social stratification of both men and women generated, in large part by economics, politics, race, division of labor, etc. One could take particular issue with her assertion that authoritarian regimes legitimize their power through the subjection of women. Indeed the USSR often couched its liberation narrative with the notion of the socialist emancipated woman and acted on these assertions with literacy programs, female enlistment in the military etc. Furthermore, Germany’s National Socialism actions often contradicted their words as women served in an auxiliary capacity in the Wehrmacht, SS, and civil government.

No comments:

Post a Comment