After reading Jamieson and Wysocki I realized that the third
critique in Critique of Judgment by
Kant connects both article. (understanding---judgment---reason) The reason that
I state this is because at first I understood the Jamieson article and I also
understood her judgment but I could not find her reasoning. At first in the Jamison
article, (no offence to anyone) I felt as if she was extremely feminist.
Extreme feminism seems to stray away from equality in my opinion. So, at first
I thought, what is the reason she is blasting male discourse and anyone putting
a stereotype on feminist rhetoric? Yet she would say things like “although some
men deliver “effeminate” speech and some women master “manly” speech, theorists
held that speakers generally stayed true to their gender?” (Jamieson 801-02) If
people stay true to their gender yet Jamieson is critiquing the stereotypes
people state about gender, then what is the point of this article? I guess I finally started to get the point
during the last section on politics. It is interesting to think about the political
means of rhetoric for both genders. Men take shots at each other’s credibility (competitive),
and women lay out what they do well/ what they can do for you (emotional). Now
when you apply this idea of foreseeable discourse then you can begin to understand
the change from modernism to postmodernism. Modernist were judgmental, concrete,
and traditional just as their discourse and rhetoric reflect. Jamieson reflects
this on her critique of gender driven discourse. Wysoki does a great job of
reflecting the postmodern ideas of discourse. For example when studying one of
the first graphics of the women with the arrow pointing to her butt. Obviously
this is directed toward men. The point I am trying to make is that postmodern
ideas are open, excepting, and groundbreaking just like our discourse and
rhetoric reflect. Instead of critiquing and finding the best use of discourse
we recognize and celebrate our differences. For example, “manly” was the best
form of discourse in the modern era now in the postmodern era it is dependent
upon the context.
A ‘manly’ response! I find this line of thought interesting and ultimately funny. The tradition that men’s voices are somehow more logical and intelligent and women’s voices more emotional is one more stereotype that passes for reality. At some time in the future we will pull the veil off the tradition and realize that all we are doing is working to keep one group of people in power, same as we have for generations past. We can study it and talk about it, categorize it and dissect it but the same rationale will always rise to the top. I question though is we will ever be able to move past postmodern is we cannot blind ourselves to the boundaries that we are imposing on gender issues.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your initial response to Jamieson. I also felt as though the passion behind her feminist viewpoint clouded the message she was trying to present. Feminism is an area in which I struggle to understand the opinions of many especially when it is presented in a way such as this. As opposed to bashing men and the injustices of sexism, I feel as though women should strive for perfection and innovation in what they do. Perhaps that's the worst way to approach feminism but what do I know!? I am just a girl ;) And, although I found myself asking "Okay, but where is she going with this?" for Jamieson, I found the content of what she was saying really interesting. Awesome Blog post though :) you made me think!
ReplyDelete