Ugh, supremely misogynistic and stupid. Just play against her!
Wow, what fucking era are we living in? I don’t even have words…
Wow, what fucking era are we living in? I don’t even have words…
“Duke’s student newspaper provides the cold, hard facts for students who doubt the movement’s vitality: Women with a master’s degree earn 72.7% of what men with equal education earn in the same position. In 2011, only 2.4 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs and 6.7 percent of Fortune 500 top earners were women. The U.S. ranks 70th in women in government. One in five women are victims of sexual assault. And most importantly— about one in two people on Earth are women, so why aren’t we treated with equality?”
As someone who is about to go to grad school - and who has worked hard to get to that point - I am disturbed by the facts above. But really, everyone should be disturbed by them. I admit to being one of those people who is sometimes afraid to call themselves a feminist. But every time I turn on the news, somebody is questioning my right to do what I please with my own body. There is a serious problem here.
"Christine Battersby has detailed the long and complicated history of the concept of genius, which has roots in antiquity (Battersby 1989). By the time it reaches its powerful Romantic form in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, it is especially exclusionary of women artists. The artistic genius was praised not only for the strong mentality that has always been attributed more heavily to men than to women, but also for a sensitivity and creativity that partakes equally of supposedly feminine attributes. Especially in the nineteenth century, such “nonrational” sources of inspiration were extolled for transcending the rules of reason and bringing something new into being. Womanly metaphors of conception, gestation, labor, and birth were liberally appropriated in descriptions of artistic creativity, at the same time that actual women artists were passed over as representatives of the highest aesthetic production.
The description of genius with feminine images did not serve to bridge the gulf between male and female artists, partly because of the different ways that their creativity was conceived. Actual childbirth was regarded as an outgrowth of women’s “natural” biological role; their own particular emotions and sensitivities were similarly regarded as manifestations of what nature bestowed upon them. Their artistic expression was thereby categorized as less achievement than natural display; consequently the expression of feeling in women’s art was often seen as a manifestation of temperament, while strong feelings expressed in the work of men were interpreted as emotions conveyed with mastery and control. By this way of thinking, emotions in women’s art are a byproduct of nature; in contrast, the genius of the male artist produces a new creation that transcends the dictates of nature."
The description of genius with feminine images did not serve to bridge the gulf between male and female artists, partly because of the different ways that their creativity was conceived. Actual childbirth was regarded as an outgrowth of women’s “natural” biological role; their own particular emotions and sensitivities were similarly regarded as manifestations of what nature bestowed upon them. Their artistic expression was thereby categorized as less achievement than natural display; consequently the expression of feeling in women’s art was often seen as a manifestation of temperament, while strong feelings expressed in the work of men were interpreted as emotions conveyed with mastery and control. By this way of thinking, emotions in women’s art are a byproduct of nature; in contrast, the genius of the male artist produces a new creation that transcends the dictates of nature."
— Carolyn Korsmeyer, Feminist Aesthetics
I believe that this explains a lot about gender binary in pretty much everything (I’m looking at you, Academia).
