Wost 4103H and 5104 - International Feminist Theories

Having read the pieces for this week, I was struck, overall, by the problems posed by language in expressing meaning, even within my own native English. I kept thinking of how certain words can be employed so very differently by different genders, sexualities, socio-economic groups, and so on. How difficult it must be to transpose the ideas, intent and position of a writer into another language and remain true to the original message, without confusing the foreign audience. As Translating Gender demonstrates in the case of a limited number of key words pose difficult and essential questions/ problems when discussing feminism and related issues across cultural and language divides. However, such an onerous task does not mean that glaring omissions and errors should be excused.
After reading Moi’s article on the inherent flaws in Parshley’s translation of de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex, I went back and flipped through my own copy, trying, in a most objective manner, to understand Parshley and his environment. I thought of the limitations as laid out by Moi (editorial, financial, etc.), as well as other issues, such as, was Parshley constrained by issues such as HUAC or a conservative climate, or the fact that he simply did not have the experience of being the Other, that could have guided him in his translation. Yet, I don’t know that any of that fully excuses his mistakes. Particularly when I read in his note of the 1989 reprint of The Second Sex that evidence exists for the increasing emancipation of women in the fact that in America, “many henpecked husbands exist.” (Parshley, xxxix, Translator’s Note) He writes from a position of privilege and limited exposure to the ideas that de Beauvoir interlaces throughout her original text. I could not help but sadly smile when I reread the introduction and de Beauvoir’s inclusion of Poulain de la Barre’s assertion that, “All that has been written about women by men should be suspect, for the men are at once judge and party to the lawsuit.” (De Beauvoir, xxviii) I certainly don’t mean to suggest that any non-Other is disallowed from writing about the Other, but rather, that an engaged understanding is required before setting out on such a task.
Moi presents an accurate assessment, through limited glimpses, of de Beauvoir’s true feelings on women’s social standing, motherhood and even the history of women, not just because she comes from the position of the Other, but because she has a body of knowledge that allows her to better understand what de Beauvoir is truly arguing. Perhaps Moi better understands de Beauvoir’s frustration with a male who “never questioned his rights in this world” (de Beauvoir, xxx) than Parshley could ever hope to fully achieve.
As a historian, I now feel most frustrated at the realization that de Beauvoir originally painted a much more comprehensive picture of the history of women. I hope to reach such an understanding of French in order to see how her thought develops. In all honesty, I felt frustration in (Parshley’s translation of) her treatment of women’s declining social position in the emerging Industrial Revolution, where there seems to be limited discussion of the fact that women’s class was often “borrowed” from the men in their lives, as well as the imposition of class ideology from the middle to the working class. Given the attention paid to class and racial identities often subsuming that of gender identity in other parts of the text, I now wonder what she originally covered.