Feminafesto/Kat's soliloquy in "Taming of the Shrew"

Readings: Anne Waldman, "Feminafesto" and Katarina's speech in "Taming of the Shrew"

So, here's my understanding of the two pieces:

Waldman - Rivkin/Ryan's piece "The Politics of Culture" include gender domination as part of the politics of culture, and define culture (among other ways) as a means of domination and a means of resistance to such domination. Waldman identifies the feminist movement not a resistance to patriarchy, but resistance to the idea of the "feminine difference". We discussed in class how culture is oppressive - and most forms of feminism deem patriarchy as oppressive, as they should - if, in fact, all women were oppressed by all men (I used to see myself as a feminist and realize that I oppose the oppression of most women by most men...it's all semantics sometimes). Feminism is "culture from below", no?

Barker defines culture as the norms and material or symbolic goods, including lifestyle. So culture includes how we coexist and treat each other. I would say the sexes are relatively equalized compared to other nations. Most women still don't get paid for labor in some countries, or they are paid (what?) 15% or something of what men get paid. And this is subordination based on being the weaker sex.

Saussure's piece would place males as the privileged sex, and that would explain (following this line of thinking, of course) why men are paid more, have different (lower) expectations, etc. They are physically stronger (as Katarina in "Shrew" mentioned, but I'll get to her later...), and deemed smarter, more powerful, more valuable, less expendable. However, Beauvoir tells the truth! Men would be nothing without women! (How I like exclamation points...I should use them more in writing)

Archetypes in literature, like in "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof", are generally limited for women. We had the Extreme Maternal ("Mommie Dearest", anyone?), The Huntress (the "radical" female pursuer), and the Feminine Ideal of the South. Only one, I think, is positive - the Feminine Ideal of the South. But that archetype is even claustrophobia-inducing. She's this maternal being who submits to the male of the house as the leader, even though we know in most households the woman truly has the final word. Well, back then, it was an era of patriarchy. The Huntress seizes her sexual desires, or at least goes after them, but she is treated with disrespect. I think the Huntress is the truly fearless, strong one. But then the Extreme Maternal is deemed as overbearing and has her nose in everyone's business for no reason.

My friend held a poll for women's representation in film - and I see very limited roles for them: Lara Croft Tome Raider, ass-kicking femme fatale with sexual prowess; damsel in distress a la Rose from "Titanic" (although she ended up being pretty coming-of-age by cheating on her rich fiancé); or the mom from Utopia ("Monster In Law" with Jennifer Lopez challenges this ideal). Women are either seductresses, mom's, or dainty females. It saddens me.

Then you have women in the Sex Comedy as being sexually enlightened and liberated...This calls into play "sex as sex" and "sex as gender". The sex comedy portrayed women as the feminine sex who could have casual sex just as men did. I like this notion because it equalizes things.

I think Barker would identify Waldman as a "difference" feminism in the sense that she sees the creative power of women; but I do not see her as seeing women's creative power as superior to that of men's. He might also classify her as a "poststructuralist" feminist in that she concedes that "femininity" and "masculinity" are ways of describing and disciplining human subjects; she could also be a "postfeminist" because she identifies the ability of women in our era to make choices. Joan Scott, quoted in Barker CH 9, says that "Equality is not the elimination of difference and difference does not preclude equality". I think Waldman would agree with this statement - she states that "we are defined by our energy, not by gender...[and not] by our sexual positions as men or women in bed or on the page" (I seriously love this women and wish I had come across this piece in high school...would have saved me a lot of strife).

Ok, moving onto "Taming of the Shrew"...

Katarina says that "a woman moved" (that is, outspoken or radical in any way) remains untouched because of societal expectations that man is "thy lord, thy life, thy keeper, thy head, they sovereign; one that cares for thee". She, unfortunately, lives in a time of patriarchy - this definitely was an era that supported oppression of all women by all men (see, semantics..."oppression" may not be the right word for some, but it was oppression as we know it today). She admits (rather begrudgingly, I assume) that the woman who is "is not obedient to his honest will" is deemed as a rebel and a traitor. She contends that this is unfair because "my mind hath been as big as one of yours, my heart as great, my reason haply more"...she is equal to them in all ways except having a "weak and smooth" body. Again, women are portrayed as the weaker sex. However, I do not think she is defeated even though she submits to mane by saying "my hand is ready; may it do him ease"; I think she is merely acquiescing because she knows society can not change with one person, overnight...she still maintains her composure, and I am sure remains a shrew...tempestuous, callous, stubbornly independent...but there are a few men out there who can handle her!! ("Taming of the Shrew" is my favorite Shakespeare! :) )