"Sisters" as supplements

Here is a story told to me by a dear friend who works at MTC. She was an exemplary missionary, and I’m sure is a wonderful teacher. She was having lunch with a friend of hers who also works at the MTC. She commented on how much she loved having “Hermanas” or sisters in her districts. The sisters, she commented, did a lot to bring the spirit, and gave a different dynamic to the class. The other teacher smiled and replied, “I prefer to teach just missionaries.”

“Just missionaries?” she responded.

“Oh! I meant just Elders,” the brother responded.

Hmmmmmmm….just missionaries…what about being a sister missionary creates a type of sub-category of meaning in our culture? And what value do we assign to Sisters in relation to Elders? What is it about specifying that a missionary is a Sister leads into the trend of supplementation? The idea of supplementation is that the supplementary word “sister” to the title “missionary” creates a meaning totally different than that of just “missionary.” If a supplement is just extra information, something un-inherent to the thing itself, and therefore valueless in an integral sense to the essence of the thing, “Sister” is seen as certainly a subset of the greater, nobler, and therefore better, “missionary.”

I am sure that none of this was going through this young man’s head as he tried to correct himself. But my critique is not with him, nor the comment—my critique is of the culture through which these comments are born. Our views of women are very constructed, we can see it in the way that we are taught to think, and the way that we express our inner beliefs that many times do not have founding.

Growing Up a Woman

“Mommy, I don’t want to grow up.” These words may be more significant than we might at first imagine when coming from a small girl. A professor in a recent class on women’s issues asked, “are our daughters excited to become women?” What a question! I think back on my childhood—most of which I spent trying to be more like my father. Why? Not because I didn’t love my mother, but I didn’t see other people giving the type of praise to her that I was sure my father received at his job, or through the education he received. My mom called me “daddy’s girl” because of that. Interestingly enough, it is only after I have reached adulthood that I realized why I acted the way I did. I did not want to grow up to be a woman—I wanted to grow up to be a man! I wanted to do “man” things like learn, work, and express myself this way (and when I say “man” I am of course referring to the culture that makes these things inherently masculine). It all comes down to the value we put on woman’s bodies, roles, and the gendered stereotypes that surround us daily. I never wanted to be “ditzy,” I wanted to be intelligent. I didn’t want to be a baby maker, but instead, a money maker. I wanted to be known, praised, and powerful! Now that I have had a chance to evaluate life I do see the importance of making a woman’s role less invisible and more public. Why? So that our daughters are excited to become mothers—so they see the worth of being a woman. In a real way (as opposed to superficially praising womanhood and the sacrifices that come through being a mother), we need to truly make those things worthwhile in senses other than feelings you’ll receive in return: “You’ll feel good if you have children—greater joy comes from this than anything else!” Girls need to see that, they need to see their mothers AND fathers finding joy in womanhood—not just talking about it. They need to see women finding joy in their bodies so that they respect instead of destroy their bodies. It is, after all, through examples that we learn.

Women and Education

There is an interesting relationship between women and education. I had a personal experience the other day that directly related to controls on women's learning ability.

I teach an ESL class (English as a second language) to adults in the evenings. When the students register for their classes, they take a placement exam. One particular couple took the placement exam together. The wife tested into level 6--the highest class the program offers. The husband placed into level 2. When they went to pay their fees and register the husband insisted that his wife be put into level 2 with him. "It isn't proper" he argued "that a wife should know more than her husband." He argued so loudly that the supervisor had little choice than to sign both of them up for level two...together.

Although people could attibute this control of women to certain cultural upbringings, I do not think that this is the case. How many times does a wife drop out of school so her husband can finish? How many times does marriage mean that a woman's educational days are over? Why is marriage and family incompatible with learning? And why must a man hold the higher degree? Why is it that when we see a family in which the woman has a higher degree or a better job than the man we say that she "wears the pants" in the relationship? What is it about education that is inherently masculine? As much as we would like to admit that most husbands wouldn't hold their wives back if they tested into a level higher than them--things like this are done all the time, just with different actions.

The Palin Effect

This was another interesting thing I found today--on the yahoo.com website one of the news stories has this title:
"Is Sarah Palin a Liability?"

The answer?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20081022/pl_ynews/ynews_pl106

Interestingly enough, just the words used to describe this VP candidate are gendered. Has Joe Biden ever been a "liability?" What about Sarah Palin (other than the fact that women make men insecure) would be considered a liability in a race? The question is interesting as we consider the way society and the media view women.

Or how about this article which blames her for spending $150,000 on "Designer Clothes." Once again, a very gendered criticism.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081024/ap_on_el_pr/palin_clothing_20

Freud and Femininity

Today my interest was sparked when, for my reading in my literary theory class, we were studying Derrida and Freud. I had never studied much psychology before and Freud's theories on sexuality (that seemed more gendered than not) and Derrida's deconstruction of them were fascinating. The hierarchical binary between male/female privileging the male over female is explained by Freud in sexuality. Psychoanalysis, then, not only privileges male over female, but describes female as a deviant of what is male--the supplement, but not one in and of itself.

Freud among other things, describes female psychology in terms of penis envy. The idea that a woman is not a creature with a vagina, but instead defined as a creature without a penis relegates her to the margins of what is "masculinity." Freud goes onto say that "the little girl is a little man" until she realizes her lack of a penis. Female psychology, then, is defined by the feminine envy of the male organ which she "lacks."

Of course one can situate Freud's need to establish masculine dominance over feminine "lack" in terms of the historical need for male superiority--Derrida does something interesting with the binary, though, and use Freud's own terms to subvert the binary to read female/male where men are the derivative of women.

Freud's latent use of female bisexuality (the little girl is a little man) shows her potential for more than just the feminine. This does not mean she is actually a man, but instead, Freud uses these terms to build his own superiority of men over women. Derrida says that since women have two sexual organs--the clitoris and the vagina--it is the male sexuality that is really inferior--or a particular variant of the woman.

I realize that while these theories seem very abstract, the ideas that they embody are part of the dialogue that has shaped how we view men and women today--in taking Derrida's reversal of the hierarchy one can do a few things: 1) privilege women over men 2) disregard the binary or 3) try to work with both parts of the binary. Some feminists have tried to discuss female superiority to men, whereby just creating another binary which in and of itself is problematic. Disregarding the idea of gender relations and these embedded hierarchies, though, is also problematic as you disregard the problems that it can produce. We would do well, then, to recognize the fact that binaries such as male/female (or even female/male) exist, and try to find a place in which both can be expressed. As Derrida says "reduce the gap between these two unsynthesizable projects without sacrificing one to the other; as far as one can tell, it will be necessary for some time to continue the struggle on both fronts at once."

The question is: how much time will it take?

Day 1

The Woman Question is designed to be a place where the ideas, issues, and experiences surrounding many women in the wold today can be discussed. Daily I hear stories and encounter situations in which I realize that our culture still seems to have an unfair hierarchy privileging men over women. Why is this so? Perhaps through working out the complicated history and cultural contexts we might begin to see why these trends are prevalent--because they exist everywhere from the home, to school, in the workplace, and even among women themselves. Through daily entries it will be my objective to point out these issues (as well as solutions) in my life, and the lives of those around me.