Wednesday, October 28, 2015
Giard and Friedan
After reading "Doing Cooking" I immediately thought about all the times my mom has said "Let's go out to eat tonight, I don't want to cook". Cooking is made out to be more of a woman's job than a leisure activity. But what I thought was interesting was the whole chef concept. Chef are usually thought of as men, not women, even though cooking is looked at as a woman's role. It supports the stereotypes that women can't be as good in the professional or business world as men. It makes the statement that women should stick to household activities, like taking care of the children or cooking her family dinner. As for Friedan's article, it has the theme that women do things to please men, especially in relationships. The women are the submissive figures and the men are the dominant figures. Women are looked at as not being able to do things for themselves or on their own because they're too incapable.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think the two readings sound a little more progressive than you make it out to be. I read in them a tone of "women can do all the things men can; we just choose not to!" Granted, that was probably more an ideological justification than truth, but the fact that the readings are relatively much more recent, it seems reasonable to me that a "two steps forward, one step back" approach could have taken place: from the highly misogynistic ideals, to high degrees of female freedom, then a mild regression to "different but equal" standards.
ReplyDeleteOf course I could be entirely wrong about this, or just don't make any sense at all. Hope it doesn't sound too much like mansplaining.