{"id":41,"date":"2020-01-22T08:08:33","date_gmt":"2020-01-22T08:08:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.scu.edu\/wgst106lv\/?p=41"},"modified":"2020-01-22T08:08:33","modified_gmt":"2020-01-22T08:08:33","slug":"spelman-annotation-feminist-theory","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.scu.edu\/wgst106lv\/2020\/01\/22\/spelman-annotation-feminist-theory\/","title":{"rendered":"Spelman Annotation – Feminist Theory"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

It seems as though there exists a paradox embedded in the North American Feminist Theory. All women experience similar expectations that come with womanhood – a \u201cuniversal sameness\u201d if you will. Yet at the same time each woman\u2019s degree of experiences are influenced by their demographics. Thus, the conflict prevails: should feminists unify all women under a shared \u201cwomanhood\u201d while concealing differences among women? Or should they instead focus on these intersections of class, race\/ethnicity, ability, etc. in the identity and experiences of being a woman, risking inter-gender conflict and hierarchy? This is the very conflict Elizabeth Spelman addresses in her book, Inessential Woman<\/em>. She calls for Feminist Theory to challenge the idea of universal womanhood, and reveals how Western feminism has become that of white, middle-class feminism. Thus, Spelman supports a theory that takes the intersectionality of women\u2019s identities into account, while acknowledging women\u2019s shared experience of sexism (to varying degrees).\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The dangers of overlooking diversity in the feminist theory is best explained via Spelman\u2019s parallels between Western philosophical thought and Western ethno-centered feminism. Western philosophy is historically influenced by Plato and Aristotle\u2019s work on the relationship between a person\u2019s soul (or identity) and body (or demographics). This philosophy assigns rankings of \u2018humanness\u2019, or power, based on one\u2019s body, which is linked to the soul and identity of a person. This hierarchy of power based on the \u201cnature\u201d of beings from particular demographics (usually white and male being the top) can be seen in Western feminist theories as well. By labeling a white woman\u2019s experience of discrimination as a universal experience for all women, these theorists are not only neglecting non-white women\u2019s experiences, but they are also neglecting the fact that gender-based discrimination takes varying forms based on intersectional oppressions. By disregarding diversity in the white-feminist movement, it automatically forms an invisible hierarchy that falls superior to white woman.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tWhile there are dangers in viewing womanhood as a universal experience for all women, Spelman also recognizes the dangers of focusing too much attention on inter-gender diversity. First, sexism affects all women regardless of other social identities. Secondly, drawing that much attention to differences within this demographic increases the risk for inter-gender hierarchies.  But the point Spelman is trying to make is that each woman\u2019s experience as a woman (in other words, sexism) is highly dependent and influenced by additional demographics that make up a woman\u2019s full identity. It is also linked to the history of how women\u2019s bodies were treated and respected, and interwoven with other oppressions in a way that makes them intersect in multiple dimensions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The concluding point that Spelman emphasizes is that Feminist Theory should not focus on rigid definitions of universal womanhood, nor should it focus primarily on the differences that exist among women. Instead, this theory must challenge Western feminist\u2019s ethno-centric agenda of white middle-class feminism, and define feminism as an intersectional discipline for all woman\u2019s rights. Lastly, she stresses that while sexism is a shared experience, it can take on many shapes and sizes based on the additional demographics that make up a woman\u2019s identity – just as pebbles contain as shared element of \u201cpebbleness\u201d, but are unique in physical form and composition.
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

It seems as though there exists a paradox embedded in the North American Feminist Theory. All women experience similar expectations that come with womanhood – a \u201cuniversal sameness\u201d if you will. Yet at the same time each woman\u2019s degree of experiences are influenced by their demographics. Thus, the conflict prevails: should feminists unify all women under a shared \u201cwomanhood\u201d while concealing differences among women? Or should they instead focus on these intersections of class, race\/ethnicity, ability, etc. in the identity and experiences of being a woman, risking inter-gender conflict and hierarchy? This is the very conflict Elizabeth Spelman addresses in her book, Inessential Woman. She calls for Feminist Theory to challenge the idea of universal womanhood, and reveals how Western feminism has become that of white, middle-class feminism. Thus, Spelman supports a theory that takes the intersectionality of women\u2019s identities into account, while acknowledging women\u2019s shared experience of sexism (to varying degrees).\u00a0 The dangers of overlooking diversity in the feminist theory is best explained via Spelman\u2019s parallels between Western philosophical thought and Western ethno-centered feminism. Western philosophy is historically influenced by Plato and Aristotle\u2019s work on the relationship between a person\u2019s soul (or identity) and body (or demographics). This philosophy assigns rankings of \u2018humanness\u2019, or power, based on one\u2019s body, which is linked to the soul and identity of a person. This hierarchy of power based on the \u201cnature\u201d of beings from particular demographics (usually white and male being the top) can be seen in Western feminist theories as well. By labeling a white woman\u2019s experience of discrimination as a universal experience for all women, these theorists are not only neglecting non-white women\u2019s experiences, but they are also neglecting the fact that gender-based discrimination takes varying forms based on intersectional oppressions. By disregarding diversity in the white-feminist movement, it automatically forms an invisible hierarchy that falls superior to white woman.\u00a0 While there are dangers in viewing womanhood as a universal experience for all women, Spelman also recognizes the dangers of focusing too much attention on inter-gender diversity. First, sexism affects all women regardless of other social identities. Secondly, drawing that much attention to differences within this demographic increases the risk for inter-gender hierarchies.  But the point Spelman is trying to make is that each woman\u2019s experience as a woman (in other words, sexism) is highly dependent and influenced by additional demographics that make up a woman\u2019s full identity. It is also linked to the history of how women\u2019s bodies were treated and respected, and interwoven with other oppressions in a way that makes them intersect in multiple dimensions.  The concluding point that Spelman emphasizes is that Feminist Theory should not focus on rigid definitions of universal womanhood, nor should it focus primarily on the differences that exist among women. Instead, this theory must challenge Western feminist\u2019s ethno-centric agenda of white middle-class feminism, and define feminism as an intersectional discipline for all woman\u2019s rights. Lastly, she stresses that while sexism is a shared experience, it can take on many shapes and sizes based on the additional demographics that make up a woman\u2019s identity – just as pebbles contain as shared element of \u201cpebbleness\u201d, but are unique in physical form and composition.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2627,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"qubely_global_settings":"","qubely_interactions":"","kk_blocks_editor_width":"","_kiokenblocks_attr":"","_kiokenblocks_dimensions":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-41","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"gutentor_comment":0,"qubely_featured_image_url":null,"qubely_author":{"display_name":"lverheyden","author_link":"https:\/\/blogs.scu.edu\/wgst106lv\/author\/lverheyden\/"},"qubely_comment":0,"qubely_category":"Uncategorized<\/a>","qubely_excerpt":"It seems as though there exists a paradox embedded in the North American Feminist Theory. All women experience similar expectations that come with womanhood – a \u201cuniversal sameness\u201d if you will. Yet at the same time each woman\u2019s degree of experiences are influenced by their demographics. Thus, the conflict prevails: should feminists unify all women…","post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.scu.edu\/wgst106lv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.scu.edu\/wgst106lv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.scu.edu\/wgst106lv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.scu.edu\/wgst106lv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2627"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.scu.edu\/wgst106lv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=41"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.scu.edu\/wgst106lv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":42,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.scu.edu\/wgst106lv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41\/revisions\/42"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.scu.edu\/wgst106lv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=41"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.scu.edu\/wgst106lv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=41"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.scu.edu\/wgst106lv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=41"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}