Ok, so it's obvious that we all have or own interpretation of things because we all think so differently...but let's be honest, we also know that when we are iven a reading assignment that there are certani things we are supposed to think, here's what I am thinking that I am supposed to think with Fell's piece:
This is a prime example of feminist rhetoric. The reason that this is an example of feminist rhetoric is because it is work written on a certain subject matter that persuades the reader of the woman's part in that subject matter and that it is crucial to it's existence....
Here's where I am having an issue:
Is she seriously trying to convince the reader that women have the right to speak?! what?!
Making an argument like this, to me, defeats the entire purpose of feminism and it is an issue I have always had about feminism. How is this message empowering women?! Perhaps I am taking the reading too much at face value and I am not quite reading in between the lines enough, but using textual evidence from the bible to prove that women should have the right to speak is not empowering and it is not improving! What would be much more beneficial here would be to say, "duh, of course we have the right to speak and to be heard, listen to all of these examples of women speaking and how amazingly inspiring and intellectual it was." NOT women should have the right to speak because men in the bible kind of sort of told us we could after saying that we couldn't in a backwards kind of way." Maybe I am totally missing the point here, but when I read his piece and thought about it from a modern feminist view I struggled to see how this was a legitimate source of rhetoric or how it could really persuade a reader. Perhaps it has something to do with where you stand on religion as an individual, or your personal experience with the bible and if you are familiar with the scripture mentioned, I don't know.
Before reading this piece of literature I though I had a pretty firm grip on what Feminist Rhetoric was, but now I am not so sure...I guess that I am struggling to see the effective use of rhetoric because the way I read it actually seems pretty awful.
Looking forward to talking about this one in class, but comments would be appreciated!
Keep in mind that during the 17th Century how women were viewed. I actually think both Fell and de la Cruz were brilliant in their pieces because of the overarching themes of masculinity and patriarchal systems. Sadly, for the most part, during these times church and religion was meant as a means of keeping people in line. So in reading both Fell, and de la Cruz, they were smart enough to be able to "play the game" in which they basically turn the logic of the masculine society on its head. A modern day example might be a husband and wife and the husband thinks he's done something epic, and the wife plays along, allowing the husband to think he's gone all superhero when in fact it might have been the wife's doing all along. I can neither confirm nor deny that I speak from experience.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that the time period and social context play a HUGE role in both Fell and de la Cruz. I think it is hard for us, looking back. We see two feminists arguing their cause, and we feel like they fall short of what they should. Because they do work within a patriarchal framework, it seems like they are defeating the very argument they set out to make. However, I see them making strides for the rights of women, but using very, very small steps. For us looking back on their work, we want them to leap ahead to where we are now. But in-between us and them is hundreds of years and a multitude of very remarkable women (and men) that also furthered feminism and women's rights.
ReplyDeleteI think had they leaped out of the framework of the time period, I think their work might have been tossed aside as fanciful ideas that could never exist. Their method was more subversive, but (I would argue), more successful--work the system, play the long game, and eventually achieve their aim, or at least further it for the next generation. And look where we are now--reading their work, in a world where the idea that women have to fight for the right to speak is outdated and ludicrous. Very rarely do social norms change overnight; it takes years of small changes to build up to a large.