“For women, it is traditionally used-value for men, exchange-value among men… This makes her the guardian of matters whose price will be determined by “subjects”; workers, tradesmen, consumers, according to the standard of their work and their need-desire. Women are marked phallically by their fathers, husbands, procurers.” (Irigaray)
Luce Irigaray’s essay “The Sex Which Is Not One,” which discusses the plurality of female sexuality, is an interesting one. Though I struggled to grasp what Irigaray was arguing at several points, her point still rings across clearly: female sexuality (which is vastly different from male sexuality according to Irigaray) has been limited to what men consider sexuality. Women’s thoughts are not captured by the current philosophical teachings about female sexuality and women in general. Though Irigaray discusses primarily female sex and sexuality in this essay, the conclusion she reaches is applicable to the female experience in general. In general, people have observed the difference in leadership styles. Women tend to be more pluralist in the way they approach leadership skills, using more democratic means to get the group to work. Men, in general, are more goal-driven and take singular control in a leadership role. Though Irigirary talks in binaries (male vs. female) and some of her assertions could be considered outdated due to our modern gender politics, I still argue that she makes compelling points in terms of how women function in our society.
Even within film, there is a specific lens of criticism in film called the “male gaze” theory. In this lens of critique, critics will look at films and see how the camera's frame women. With filmmakers like Michael Bay, the way that women are filmed makes them look at how a traditional heterosexual male would look at women. For me, this is reminiscent of the different world view that men and women can have in our world (the singular view vs. the pluralist view).
No comments:
Post a Comment