Cole Elliott

Garriott

4 December 2015

Help Received: Peer Review Editing

Final Reflective Research Paper

Rhetoric’s 2500 year history has included a number of changes, shifts, and complex debates that has transformed it into what it is today. What was once considered a useless, pointless exercise has grown to become a very common method of oral communication in the 21st century. Rhetoric has strong roots that date back to the Ancient Greeks when it was debated as a mere act of persuasion. And while the foundation of rhetoric that was laid then has changed much over time, it has very much stayed the same as well. Due to the foundation of a tradition, men have had a strong hold on the utilization of rhetoric. They have done this through the advantage of having control in society—through powerful occupations, positions, and public figures. Because of this, rhetoric has been dominated by men in the public domain. As a result, both men and women have been the victims of having forcefully thrust upon them a certain norm and status quo of how rhetoric functions.

Long before the development of the society we live in today, women were very much considered the lowest figures in society—other than slaves and children. It is with this opinion that the tradition of seeing women universally as only useful in certain areas began. Today, we see an abundance of women in the public form—as doctors, attorneys, congresswomen, etc. But long ago this just wasn’t normal in society. In Miriam Schneir’s Feminism: The Essential Historical Writings, a commentary on many different feminist writings, a chapter is dedicated to Anna Garlin Spencer’s Woman’s Share in Social Culture. It is in this excerpt that Spencer asserts how women were never even considered to be useful or talented, and therefore no one could even see any sort of potential in them. Spencer writes, “Can a woman become a genius of the first class? Nobody can know unless women in general shall have equal opportunity with men in education, in vocational choice, and in social welcome of their best intellectual work for a number of generations” (Spencer). It is clearly noted that Spencer believes in the idea that women are undiscovered and not taken seriously in areas that men are perceived as superior. She takes it a step further by declaring a case involving a Venetian woman, Modesta di Pozzo di Forzi, writing a well renown book on the achievement of women. Spencer remarks, “[di Forzi’s] biographer in giving an account of the ‘great success of her book’ shrewdly remarks that ‘unfortunately for her that which perhaps assisted in that success was that men could praise her without fear, since she died just as the work appeared’”(Spencer). Here it is revealed that men of this time would have been in a dangerous and life-threatening situation should they praise di Forzi for her eloquent work. This represents the status quo of how women must not be recognized or praised for anything outside of their “normal duties” and if someone does so, they will face severe punishment. By having this foundation set in stone so long ago, it became increasingly harder to eliminate as time went on.

Furthering the divide between men and women is a concept that still exists as a core foundation of the United States, democracy. Democracy did not originate in America, as the Ancient Romans were the first to implement a democratic system of government into action. But regardless of the Romans, democracy has developed into a label for the United States—it serves as a representation of what we stand for as a nation, freedom. It is a concept that gives us the opportunity, innovation, and freedom to maintain our role as a world power. Yet democracy is believed by many to have a severe gender crisis. Anne Phillips is the author of Engendering Democracy, a unique look at how democracy and feminism have interacted with one another. Phillips asserts on the very first page that, “In 1700, Mary Astell made the now obvious connection when she asked why those who so vehemently rejected the absolute sovereignty of a king nonetheless accepted it as natural in a husband” (Phillips). Phillips provides historical context of the assertion Astell makes in the colonial period, but also provides the additional remark that it is now an “obvious connection” to make—deeming it common knowledge and the norm now. This represents how far society has come in just over 300 years. It does also illustrate the depiction of women in the 18th century as well—where women are represented as being enslaved to the authority of their husband. A few pages later Phillips explores the role of women in political theory,“political thinkers draw on a wealth of moral, psychological and historical argument, and might seem to agree on only one thing: whatever else is at stake, gender is irrelevant to the issues and will not affect the arguments on anyone’s side” (Phillips). Here Phillips takes the strong stance of asserting that women are traditionally left out of political theory, and done so in the fashion of “they are irrelevant to the subject.” This concept of arbitrarily excluding women speaks to the hold men have on the political world. Phillips then states, “With the odd exception, the entire debate on democracy has proceeded for centuries as if women were not there, or it has, as with Rousseau, only acknowledged us to show us our place” (Phillips)—this takes her argument a step further by stating that not only have women been excluded for a long time, but they have been excluded based on the motive to “show them their place.” This further enhances the idea that men not only want to exclude, but want to prove a point in doing so—that politics, for example, are no place for women. Phillips later provides a sort of solution to how to combat these issues, “It has been left to feminists to explore how far the relentless privileging, not just of real living men, but of the very category of the male itself, has formed and deformed political theory and practice” (Phillips). According to Phillips, it is the feminists who can figure out a solution to the problems of exclusion in subjects like political theory. Through research, scholarship, and curiosity feminists must find the reasons behind not only the actual advantages of men in political theory, but also the towering personified male figure that provides them the privileges that women do not possess—even though they have every right to them. After all, isn’t this democracy we’re talking about?

Democracy is not the only facet of American lifestyle that has left women behind. Throughout the history of the United States women have been held down to a very specific, narrow role in the American economy. Looking at a very traditional view of a woman’s role in American society, The American Assembly at Columbia University in their book: Women and the American Economy, “the transfer from one family to another is made without interlude, without a period of independent non familial living. The figure seems based on an assumption that a girl remains in her parental family until she is married, that she thereupon establishes a new home, and that her own days of active childcare begin very quickly and continue until the oldest child is finally married” (American Assembly 37). With this traditional, one-way view of the American woman’s place in not only society, but the economic value she is capable of, it is easy to see how it has become the norm of society. Pierre Bourdieu writes in his Masculine Domination, “Being excluded from the universe of serious things, of public and especially economic affairs, women long remained confined to the domestic universe and the activities associated with the biological and social reproduction of the lineage” (Bourdieu 97)—here Bourdieu explains that by being excluded, particularly in the way that they have been, women are put down to a certain standard that they cannot go beyond. They have been strained to a certain ceiling to the point that it has become the norm of society. In addition Bourdieu comments on the economic impact on women further, “they are so only in so far as they remain subordinated to the activities of production, which alone receive a true economic and social sanction, and ordered in relation to the material and symbolic interests of the lineage, that is, of the men” (Bourdieu 97). What Bourdieu is trying to get across here is the specific economic value that society has placed upon women—and specifically looking at it from the viewpoint of “activities of production.” He gives us a way to enhance the argument for how women are limited to certain positions and occupations by stating they do not have much say in the way the economy works (i.e.,“activities of production). In addition, Bourdieu steps out to make a bold statement while classifying men as “the lineage.” Finally, Bourdieu asserts his feelings for the type of work that women are confined to in society, “Because they are often confined to unpaid activities and are therefore little inclined to reckon in terms of the monetary value of labour, women are, much more often than men, disposed towards voluntary work, particularly of a charitable or religious character” (Bourdieu 98). It is evident that due to this confinement of societal freedom and access, women are restricted to the listed postitions—placing yet another strain on their ability for advancement and success. This sort of discrimination that has occurred in the United States has allowed for us to see women in a one-dimensional light. It confirms the societal perception that women do not belong in certain areas of our culture.

Another area of interest in the topic of feminism and the way it has effected both men and women of our society is the question, what really is feminine? Continuing to examine Bourdieu’s text, he contends that a man’s vision is singular, “perceived by the male eye or by an eye informed by masculine categories—those that one implements, without being able to state them explicitly, when one praises a woman’s work as ‘feminine’ or, on the contrary, ‘not at all feminine’” (Bourdieu 99). To Bourdieu it is very simple, a man or anyone representing a man’s viewpoint sees women on a view of a divided spectrum, and nothing more. This clearly defines the line for us in examining how women have been perceived in society. Bourdieu goes further, “To be ‘feminine’ means essentially to avoid all the properties and practices that can function as signs of manliness, and to say of a woman in a position of power that she is ‘very feminine’ is just a particularly subtle way of denying her the right to the specifically masculine attribute of power” (Bourdieu 99)—again clearly identifying that power belongs within the realm of masculinity. Here he also affirms for us that men, by placing this sort of label on a specific woman of certain power, can automatically identify the woman as not actually capable of attaining this sort of power. It is almost a way for men to say, “This is certainly an anomaly.” With this very black-and-white view of what is “feminine” and “not feminine”, men and women have both suffered under the societal norms and status-quo effectively resulting from this divide. The idea of a feminine appearance or ability taking on a meaning, puts just as much of a hardship on men as it does women. Through the criteria of division that Bourdieu eloquently affirms, men do not see the value of having feminine traits—and furthermore what benefits they can bring to their lives. And because of this, one could contend that men have suffered an equal limitation in what they can do in society—even though the statistics might argue against this.

To say that men and women are different is absolutely a true statement. Men and women function very differently. They are biologically programmed to achieve higher in certain areas. And most of all, it has been proven that together in a romantic relationship they can effectively balance each other out and as a result live in happiness. But regardless of all these differences, it is not an excuse to hold down one or the other to decide what they can or cannot do in society—particularly when one gender is deciding this for the other gender. This simply is not fair. And in order for our society to work just as a relationship between a man and woman can successfully work, it needs to be open and accepting of either gender exercising qualities not typically “masculine” or “feminine.” It is the only way that we will be able to achieve optimal results politically, socially, and financially.

Works Cited

Bourdieu, Pierre. Masculine Domination. Stanford: Stanford UP, 2001. Print.

Assembly, American. Women and the American Economy: A Look to the 1980s. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1976. Print.

Assembly, American. Women and the American Economy: A Look to the 1980s. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1976. Print.

Schneir, Miriam, ed. Feminism: The Essential Historical Writings. New York: Random House, 1972. Print.