Cynthia Enloe “Being Curious about out Lack of Curiosity”
Thinking in terms of natural, tradition and always keeps people from expending the mental energy to question those absolute things. She gives the example of “cheap labor.” When used this way the phrase is static and does not generate more inquiry. She changes it to “labor made cheap” which encourages further questions.
She argues that some of our language is de-gendered which hides gender issues from scrutiny. Though I agree with this point, many of those terms do not have a gender attached to them because that is also deemed incorrect practice. It marginalizes the few people of the minority gender that are a part. She gives the example of “military spouse.” Though yes, most of these individuals are women, which is not indicated by the term; some of them are men. To say military wives would silence these husbands.
Enloe goes on to explain Patriarchy as a system similar to the Johnson article. She encourages curiosity as a battle against patriarchy in its new forms.
“The Surprised Feminist”
Enloe was challenged to predict the future focus of feminists. In this chapter she postulates an answer while also arguing against this challenge. She answers that feminists and all people need to learn to be surprised. This includes admitting when one is wrong in light of new evidence. This allows for better engagement with the new complicating information. Enloe then gives examples of various contemporary events that she did not predict. One of which involved female basketball victory. She makes an off-hand comment about their male coaches.
This made me question what the coach-team gender dynamics are in the NBA vs the WNBA. In the NBA for the 2010-2011 season all of the listed coaches for both the Eastern and Western Conferences are male. This is not shocking or necessarily problematic since all their players are male. This gives both player and coach equal access to gendered spaces such as their locker rooms. However in the women’s league, of the 11 teams whose coaches were listed, 5 are women while 6 are men. Though I’m sure there are issues with finding qualified female coaches, this inequality not shared by the men shows that it is perfectly acceptable to negate gender homogeneity if men are coaching women but that it is less acceptable if women want to coach men. I am not implying that I think women need to coach men. I understand and am okay with the locker room and cohesive team arguments if all the players are of one gender. However, this argument does not extend to the women. This indicates the real reasons have to do with prizing masculinity over femininity when it comes to leadership roles.
The two links below provide the numbers I mentioned.
4/28/11
ReplyDelete“Being Curious about out Lack of Curiosity”
In this passage, I found Enloe’s “energy conservation” idea interesting. I had never thought about this idea in terms of common, everyday, words like natural, traditional or always. I never though about how we take these particular words for face value without imploring deeper; we often do not take the time to question whether words or phrases in our speech are embedded in patriarchy.
Quotes/Commentary: “No patriarchy is made up just of men or just of the masculine. Far from it. Patriarchal systems have been so enduring, so adaptable, precisely because they make many women overlook their own marginal positions and feel instead secure, protected, valued” (Enloe, 6).
- More than often, patriarchy is perceived as masculine; no women are seen as contributors. However, the sad truth is that this is an inaccurate statement. Women are very much participators in a system that oppresses.
"The Surprised Feminist"
After reading this excerpt, I do not understand why the author places so much emphasis on the act of being surprised. It seems more trivial than anything.
Being surprised may be useful from time to time, but what’s the big deal about it?
In “Being Curious out of Lack of Curiosity” Cynthia Enloe talks about how some language in modern society is de-gendered, which masks the gender issues from criticism. While this is true, as we see through the example military wives, there are many situations in our society in which language is gendered. I was watching a show on ABC called ‘Shark Tank’. In the episode that I was watching a ‘stay-at-home dad’ was promoting a cleaning supply that he had patented. The amount of scrutiny that he saw from the ‘Sharks’ was outrageous. They were very mean to him. Additionally, he was very defensive about his situation. This is a good example of language in our society being changed to accommodate men in women’s roles. Even though the language has changed, it doesn’t mean that the connotations have changed at all.
ReplyDeletehttp://abc.go.com/watch/shark-tank/SH559076/VD55121239/week-3
In “The Surprised Feminist” Enloe predicts where the future of feminism lies. She explains that feminists need to begin to admit when they are wrong, especially when new information is presented. This is a slippery slope because while I do think that it is important to admit when you are wrong, I feel that if Enloe says this is the ‘future of feminism’ it will breed passivity. While I admit that admitting mistakes is important in any setting, if feminism begins to concede to others, it might lose its flare and pull.
Crystal,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement: "we often do not take the time to question whether words or phrases in our speech are embedded in patriarchy." This is a very concise way to phrase the larger question at hand--how both men and women are active participants of constructing what it means to be masculine and feminine. Not only does the traditional acts of masculinity define normative behaviors for men, but femininity also reaffirms or validate masculinity in the same way. As Enloe states in her introduction that we need to have curiosity about the world we live in, to think critically and to question, I wonder, since both masculinity and femininity is needed to define each other, what ways can we perform gender without an oppressive dynamic? This question is to show that the women’s movement is not only a women’s issue or fight and that it is about humanity, which both males and females have equal responsibility to address to generate structural changes in our society.