Blog #2

After these academic readings in class, I have changed my view on autobiography. At first, like most people, I thought the autobiography was a tool used by famous or powerful people to show the world the great things that had accomplished. For instance, it would make sense for Winston Churchill, Oprah, or John Lennon to have an autobiography but I always wondered why Susanna Keysen, Sandra Cisneros, or Harriet Jacobs would write one.

With these new, lesser known, authors writing autobiographies, readers who normally would not read autobiographies, may now consider it. For example, if a person normally reads historical fiction about slaves, they may be interested in Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl. On the other hand, people who normally read autobiographies may be put off by the vignettes of House on Mango Street by Cisneros. All in all, the new notion of autobiography could encourage or hinder readers.

Considering these autobiographies, I believe feminists have more opportunities than challenges. For instance, if all feminist autobiographies could become “politically engaged, they tend to frame consciousness less as contemplative than as involved with social conditions, community affiliations, and historical circumstances.” (Goldman 288) Therefore, all feminist autobiographies would have a distinguishing factor that would set them apart from the autobiographies of others.

However, there is a challenge for this new style of autobiography. Since the recounting of memory could discredit an autobiography, feminists could have problems with people not believing their story. As Segal says, “There is, obviously, a difference between memory and history, even though this distinction has been increasingly probed and problematised of late. Despite the current fascination, even obsession, with memory over the last two decades, it is seen, correctly, as a fragile thing, vulnerable to all the illusions and self-deceptions, conscious and unconscious, that constitutes our mental life, as well as our inherently unstable, selective, always imperfect, conscious cognitive processes of recall: no memory without forgetfulness, no forgetfulness without memory, could be today’s mantra.” (Segal 121). The greatest challenge these autobiographies will face is proving their creditability. However, could feminists show that memory isn’t the most important aspect of an autobiography? Only time will tell.

Blog #1

As Penny Weiss realized in “I’m Not a Feminist, But…” many people agree with the economic and social principals of feminism, but say they do not consider themselves a feminist. For instance, in a Penn State poll with 364 women students, 38.2% said they were feminist. However, 96.8% supported gender equality on social, political, and economic levels (Weiss 46). Seeing as though there is some confusion as to what feminism actually is, I will take a stab at trying to define it.

My definition of feminism is: Believing that men and women have the same economic, political, and social rights and also acknowledging that women are and have been oppressed throughout history. However, not every woman is oppressed in the same way and society should understand how each woman is oppressed at her own intersection.

I agree with Weiss in the sense that to be feminist, you have to believe a woman has the same economic, political, and social rights as a man. However, to be a feminist, I also believe you have to acknowledge the fact that women have been oppressed throughout history. As Marilyn Frye said, “The statement that women are oppressed is frequently met with the claim that men are oppressed too… Some men cite as evidence of their oppression their much-advertised inability to cry.” (Frye 8) In my opinion, the difference between inability to cry and, say, the right to vote, is the law. There is no legal barrier that says men cannot cry. But, until 1920 women could not vote. They were not allowed, legally. To me, that is how you separate the two, you have to realize if there is a legal barrier or a personal barrier.

To round out my definition of feminism, I will quote Crenshaw, “The problem with identity politics is not that it fails to transcend difference, as some critics charge, but rather the opposite—that it frequently conflates or ignores intergroup differences.” (74) As a feminist, I realize that feminists as a whole cannot agree on one definition of themselves. However, I do not think this is a bad thing. If we feminists pigeonhole ourselves into one definition then I am sure we would be leaving someone, with some unique circumstance, out of our definition. That is exactly what Crenshaw is saying, if we give ourselves a definition that will cause us to ignore some feminists. So, my last idea for feminists is to recognize everyone’s unique intersection of oppression. I believe if we feminists start trying to understand where others are coming from and their form of oppression, then we will better understand ourselves.  

Works Cited:

Frye, Marilyn. "Oppression." (1983): n. page. Web. 15 Jan. 2012.

Weiss, Penny. ""I'm Not a Feminist, But...": Popular Myths About Feminism." (1998): n. page. Web. 15 Jan. 2012.

Williams Crenshaw, Kimberle. "Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color." (1995): 73-83. Web. 15 Jan. 2012.