a little bit of each
Schutte -- I find if interesting how no matter where in the world we are in the discussion of gender/feminist/cultural issues the conversation ends by bringing up the continent of North America and its theories regarding the above mentioned matters. And what it comes down to is : feminism vs. affirmation of gender and sexual difference. There seems to be a certain level of surprise when she says that these notions of sexual and gender differences always happen in the context of a ‘feminist critique of patriarchal relations of power’. A reversed statement of this sort would not be possible as that would mean that women actually have power relations in Latin America – men are therefore bound to be happy in their nests, setting them up as high as they like because it will be the women who will be trying to get equal, climbing the trees with their children in one arm and a kitchen pot in the other - not vice versa.
When she says that along with the changes of gender identities in the public and private spheres, the meaning of family, in fact, the transformation of thereof, will have to take place – how can it not? Sooner or later it had to become obvious that women cannot be present everywhere, and do everything and in the meantime be the happy wife and mother of all. Philosophy, although it should be contributing to this emancipatory project, has in fact in the past rather undermined it – as the ideas and visions of cultural identities were only cut out for men, rather than keeping in mind that women are the vast majority on any continent. But since it has in fact always been so separatist – how does one make it truly interactive with other ideas, how do we change the understanding (and implications afterwards) of what philosophy is and how it should treat one subject or another? This just kind of merges in with the whole idea of power relations and the impossibility (or am optimistic enough to say difficulty) of its change for the nations?
Ocampo-- Is it because women would be directly affected by men that she prefers to calling the issue ‘liberation’ rather than ‘emancipation’? Can women disconnect from men and just make emancipation/liberation happen on their own? I really enjoyed her sarcasm when she says: “women have learned to enjoy letting men mistreat them….women themselves will have to take the initiative and “deprive” themselves of the delightful narcotic to which they have become no less addicted”. Could we also in her debate on page 228, where she is trying to change the way of the discourse – “by constitution” to “by force of habit” – replace it with “by culture”? And this would sort of bring us back to the veil…
She is determined also that women aren’t interested in taking men’s place but rather just occupy their own that has belonged to them and yet they weren’t able to get a hold of it as of yet – but doesn’t that happen with regards to where the man’s place is – where women can find theirs? Yes, we might not want to interfere on ‘their’ territory but doesn’t women’s territory just depend on what men allow women to have?
Roy-Féquiere -- I was just wondering when the survey that is referred to in the text has been done in Puerto Rico - it seems that the article has been published in 2004 – which means it is as current and contemporary as possible (though I know little about feminist movements there). Yet the ideas that these men AND women have shared seemed so outdated – to me anyway. Are we again arguing against culture? It seems that we aren’t ever going to be able to just dis-connect all these issues from it unless we would learn (which probably means create) to deal with discourse on human/feminist rights on their own, disconnected from that which is known and/or accepted.