phd talk: women in literature
Apr. 28th, 2020 02:10 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
howsmyenglishThis is a thinking out loud post, which means that my thoughts are just developing and do not reflect all I think and/or know about the subject. But I absolutely welcome helpful comments.
The thing is, I'm going to give a talk. Via Zoom, of course. I actually already gave a very similar talk some time ago, but now the talk itself should be longer, I have grown and developed (meaning, I see mistakes or gaps in the old talk), I have got comments-for-improvement from a colleague and my goal is to impress all my colleagues into thinking that I'm brilliant.
One of the gaps has to do with the "lack of women in male-written texts". Now, I know that's a thing, a global thing and lots and lots has been written about it. That's one of my problems. I mean, this is a very minor point I'm making, so I can't go and read the tons of literature that have been written on the subject. I'm not sure I remember anything _generally on the idea_ that I could quote or refer to. But I cannot just go and say "as everyone knows...", right? OK, that's problem one.
Problem two. I'm not talking about literature in general. I'm talking about a region-specific minority literature (and their ability to actually create literature and not just "authentic texts" - that's just by the by, if anyone's interested). And a thing that is specific to that region is that men and women who live there traditionally lead very separate lives. (Sure, times are changing everywhere, etc., but I'm talking about the middle of the last century, when they barely did in rural areas of that region). So, I'm thinking, I should reflect on the fact that one of the reasons that the male authors I'm talking about do not mention many women is that they did not spend much time with them, even in a family, women were often separated from men - physically, and when I'm talking about men's autobiographies, I can hardly blame them for not mentioning many women. Right? I'm not sure that that's right, though. I haven't lived there, I haven't seen that. My knowledge is theoretical. Any other flaws? Well, just that that's about it, I don't know what else I could say about the physical separation between men and women... like... what I'm trying to say with this part is that there surely is some sort of an excuse for the authors I'm talking about and I want to elaborate on that, but I don't find much. :/ (But there, at least, I have some ideas about where to start reading up on that, yay...)
OK. Now let's go deeper. Yesterday, I found an article that is called "the female characters of X's YZ". It's not a scientific article. But it mentions almost every woman from X's YZ (which is one of the books I'm talking about), which is helpful to me, because it helps review all the women I saw in YZ. And - my memory being very good - I can now say that said article does mention nearly all of them. And the situation with women in that book is, in a manner of speaking, better than my previous impression.
Now, what do I mean by that? I had overlooked the "groups of hardworking women" in YZ, and there are, in fact, many of them. For comparison, there are no "groups of hardworking men", as far as I recall (comment while re-reading this: but there are examples of hardworking individual men!). Also, there are instances that make me think that the author was absolutely pro equality and in no way supported the thought of women being inferior to men, including in education (a very sensitive subject, because in that region, even today very many people have had no formal education whatsoever).
However, said article does not convince me that my initial statement about the "absence of women in male writing" was wrong - in the case of this writer. Why? Because while I cannot accuse him of being misogynist - and it never was my intention in the first place - there still is a lack of women. (And also, were I to read an article about "the male characters in X's YZ", it would have been... I don't know... five times as long? More?)
In chapter 1, he introduces the readers to the surroundings of his childhood - the village, the lack of education, etc., etc., and - his family. He spent his childhood living in a house with his whole extended family: five brothers and their families. And he does introduce each of those five brothers - he mentions their names, occupations and character traits - as well as their _sons'_. The only women who are introduced in chapter 1 are the author's mother and grandmother. (I mention somewhere that the grandmother is paternal, but this is not actually significant, because in that part of the world it is common practice that the new wife goes to live with her husband's family, and it is also very common that the wife's and the husband's families live in different villages).
Other than those two women - who were physically very close to the author - he does not mention any female relatives, no aunts or female cousins at all. And there are bound to have been some.
There is only one occasion much later in the book, on which he mentions a sister-in-law - and that only because he had to do a chore for her. That is it. No other female family members.
On the other hand, in the second book of his autobiography - somewhere in the middle of it - we for the first and last time hear that he had two younger brothers. (he had run away from home, he was not living with them since he was... 15?, but he had known them before he ran away, he had lived in one house with them!)
So is there a lack of women or of people that he doesn't see as essential to his autobiography? Should I mention the brothers as a curiosity?
As I say, it's a very minor point, I only need it to contrast what the female autobiographer I work on does. (She writes about women, so many women, all of them active, hardworking, active agents, whose men often turn into decorations...)
The thing is, I'm going to give a talk. Via Zoom, of course. I actually already gave a very similar talk some time ago, but now the talk itself should be longer, I have grown and developed (meaning, I see mistakes or gaps in the old talk), I have got comments-for-improvement from a colleague and my goal is to impress all my colleagues into thinking that I'm brilliant.
One of the gaps has to do with the "lack of women in male-written texts". Now, I know that's a thing, a global thing and lots and lots has been written about it. That's one of my problems. I mean, this is a very minor point I'm making, so I can't go and read the tons of literature that have been written on the subject. I'm not sure I remember anything _generally on the idea_ that I could quote or refer to. But I cannot just go and say "as everyone knows...", right? OK, that's problem one.
Problem two. I'm not talking about literature in general. I'm talking about a region-specific minority literature (and their ability to actually create literature and not just "authentic texts" - that's just by the by, if anyone's interested). And a thing that is specific to that region is that men and women who live there traditionally lead very separate lives. (Sure, times are changing everywhere, etc., but I'm talking about the middle of the last century, when they barely did in rural areas of that region). So, I'm thinking, I should reflect on the fact that one of the reasons that the male authors I'm talking about do not mention many women is that they did not spend much time with them, even in a family, women were often separated from men - physically, and when I'm talking about men's autobiographies, I can hardly blame them for not mentioning many women. Right? I'm not sure that that's right, though. I haven't lived there, I haven't seen that. My knowledge is theoretical. Any other flaws? Well, just that that's about it, I don't know what else I could say about the physical separation between men and women... like... what I'm trying to say with this part is that there surely is some sort of an excuse for the authors I'm talking about and I want to elaborate on that, but I don't find much. :/ (But there, at least, I have some ideas about where to start reading up on that, yay...)
OK. Now let's go deeper. Yesterday, I found an article that is called "the female characters of X's YZ". It's not a scientific article. But it mentions almost every woman from X's YZ (which is one of the books I'm talking about), which is helpful to me, because it helps review all the women I saw in YZ. And - my memory being very good - I can now say that said article does mention nearly all of them. And the situation with women in that book is, in a manner of speaking, better than my previous impression.
Now, what do I mean by that? I had overlooked the "groups of hardworking women" in YZ, and there are, in fact, many of them. For comparison, there are no "groups of hardworking men", as far as I recall (comment while re-reading this: but there are examples of hardworking individual men!). Also, there are instances that make me think that the author was absolutely pro equality and in no way supported the thought of women being inferior to men, including in education (a very sensitive subject, because in that region, even today very many people have had no formal education whatsoever).
However, said article does not convince me that my initial statement about the "absence of women in male writing" was wrong - in the case of this writer. Why? Because while I cannot accuse him of being misogynist - and it never was my intention in the first place - there still is a lack of women. (And also, were I to read an article about "the male characters in X's YZ", it would have been... I don't know... five times as long? More?)
In chapter 1, he introduces the readers to the surroundings of his childhood - the village, the lack of education, etc., etc., and - his family. He spent his childhood living in a house with his whole extended family: five brothers and their families. And he does introduce each of those five brothers - he mentions their names, occupations and character traits - as well as their _sons'_. The only women who are introduced in chapter 1 are the author's mother and grandmother. (I mention somewhere that the grandmother is paternal, but this is not actually significant, because in that part of the world it is common practice that the new wife goes to live with her husband's family, and it is also very common that the wife's and the husband's families live in different villages).
Other than those two women - who were physically very close to the author - he does not mention any female relatives, no aunts or female cousins at all. And there are bound to have been some.
There is only one occasion much later in the book, on which he mentions a sister-in-law - and that only because he had to do a chore for her. That is it. No other female family members.
On the other hand, in the second book of his autobiography - somewhere in the middle of it - we for the first and last time hear that he had two younger brothers. (he had run away from home, he was not living with them since he was... 15?, but he had known them before he ran away, he had lived in one house with them!)
So is there a lack of women or of people that he doesn't see as essential to his autobiography? Should I mention the brothers as a curiosity?
As I say, it's a very minor point, I only need it to contrast what the female autobiographer I work on does. (She writes about women, so many women, all of them active, hardworking, active agents, whose men often turn into decorations...)
no subject
Date: 2020-04-28 01:12 pm (UTC)I'd also pick up on the groups of women as opposed to individual men.
no subject
Date: 2020-04-28 03:09 pm (UTC)yep! I did not notice this until I had written it down.
no subject
Date: 2020-04-28 08:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-04-28 09:04 pm (UTC)mmm... sorry, it's midnight over here... whaaaat? that's something good that you're saying there, right? distracting them with the point... will be a good idea... right? (did I mention it was midnight? I'll come back here tomorrow!)
I absolutely do! If it's not too much trouble?
no subject
Date: 2020-04-28 09:09 pm (UTC)It's good, yes; basically it means that instead of seeing what you're saying as an assertion which lacks evidence, the audience will read what you're saying as evidence. :)
I can find you a couple of articles, if you want
I absolutely do! If it's not too much trouble?
No trouble at all! I'll do that this evening. :)