I want to make some comments on the phrase "strong woman," because I see it frequently, and not just in the context of this class. This post isn't intended as a reprimand to anybody, but rather a suggestion that we work toward more specific and more considered terminology.
The phrase "strong woman" is usually invoked as if it were some kind of feminist term. As far as I’m concerned, however, any claim that the phrase has feminist or pro-woman implications is bogus. In fact, I contend that the phrase reinforces sexist norms. Here are my reasons.
1. Invocation of a stereotype
I usually see the phrase “strong woman” being used as if a “strong woman” were some kind of rarity. For instance, in discussions of Zenobia and Priscilla, Zenobia, the “strong woman,” is held up as the exception to the rule, even though there are only two important female characters in The Blithedale Romance. Somehow the “weak” Priscilla is the default. There is a stereotype that holds that women are generally “weak.” But according to the UN, women make up about 46% of the world's official labor force, but on average also do twice as much unpaid work as men (usually domestic labor). (source) Isn’t it time we stopped being shocked when women are strong?
Of course the stereotype still persists, but talking about “a strong woman” as if she were some kind of wild one-off exception does nothing to undermine that stereotype; it only makes strong woman after strong woman the exception that proves the rule.
2. The masculinist ideology of strength
Let's take another look at the logic behind the phrase "strong woman." It buys into a stereotype that says that women tend to be weak and men tend to be strong. So in fact, if we celebrate a few women as “strong women,” all we are doing is celebrating them insofar as they are exceptions to normative womanhood, i.e. insofar as they are (supposedly) like men. By that logic, a woman can only be admirable by aspiring to be like a man, reinforcing an ideology of male superiority.
What's more, except when applied to physical strength (and perhaps even then), "strong" is a hopelessly vague adjective. If one has a "strong mind," does that mean that one is intelligent, or merely stubborn? The phrase "strong woman," because it banks on a sexist stereotype, invites a slippage between the many legitimately admirable meanings of strength (the vague category of "strengths" one might have, which might otherwise be phrased as "good attributes") and the form of physical strength that is stereotypically associated with aggressive masculinity, i.e. the kind of strength least typically associated with femininity. In this context, the kind of strength being celebrated is a stereotypically masculine one -- not endurance or intelligence or versatility, but force.
But what’s so good about being forceful in the first place? Sure, it lets you get your way, but is it morally admirable to steamroller over others? Should we really value people on the basis of their strength, rather than on the basis of their humanity? To valorize force is to invest in a might-makes-right economy of aggression in which the last resort is physical. Women as well as men who don’t meet the masculine ideal of forceful strength (or its concomitant, size) are damaged by this ideology. Wouldn’t it be more productive to reorient toward a society not based on force?
To valorize women for being “strong” is to buy into a gender stereotype (that it is unusual for women to be strong) and then, on the basis that stereotype, to mark as admirable a particular version of strength (force), more for its association with masculinity than for any legitimate social value. If this is actually pro-woman, then I’m Harold Bloom.
* * * * *
(I note with interest that it is actually pretty difficult to find a still of Buffy the Vampire Slayer in which the actress playing Buffy actually looks threatening, rather than sexy, head-tilty, and vulnerable. Even when she is posing with a wooden stake.)
No comments:
Post a Comment