What does it actually mean for a woman to be "independent"? Does being self-sufficient always implicitly suggest the absence of a male? Is it not possible for a woman to be entirely self-sufficient and, additionally, ambitious even when she does enjoy a male counterpart? I cannot help but to adopt a sort of counter-counterculture position and suggest that perhaps a woman can, at once, be both taken care of and entirely fulfilled. Does feminism always imply a solitary existence?
Unfolding notions of Feminism/Success/Gender Politics:
I'm thinking that one of the most well-known and accepted dichotomies in Western society is the male/female separation. And, accordingly, there are certain formulas for male/female identities. What if we start manipulating these formulas? Naturally, we will start seeing different products-- "masculine" women and "feminine" men. This really can't be okay, can it? A man who participates in activities or even expresses himself in a way that deviates from the preconceived formula of "man" calls his own gender and sexuality into question. Again, this really can't be okay. While one who resists gender stereotypes and proceeds to live his life in any way he pleases certainly signifies some sort of cultural progression, society and the ever-present ideology that drives society still provides regrettable framework. He is seen as "feminine." The problematic dichotomy, rigid and seemingly unavoidable, still remains...
Culture as self-amputation?
No comments:
Post a Comment