So for my post this week I am sort of thinking about some of
the things that we brought up in class during the last session, especially in
regards to the ideas of masculinity and femininity, as well as male and female,
that continue to be brought up within the text and I apologize now for the
rambling that is about to take place as I try to get my thoughts out.
In class we started to touch on the feminine and the
masculine, or rather gender, as being separate from sex, the male or the female,
or the biological differences that exist. In the eyes of the Person, and in the
theory that is seemingly posited by the text, gender or rather masculinity and
femininity, seems to have arisen as a result of the biological differences, and
the inferiority felt by men as they are not the ones that are able to produce
life, and in the early section of the text, the Person states that as a result
of this men placed themselves in a position of superiority becoming the
dominants within society, “males in the beginning had every reason to seize
power, while the females, deeply content with their biological importance, had
none” (28). Leonora describes these as being artificial differences between the
two sexes, that have been created and are therefore hindering a true
development that could occur between men and women.
I also found the section in which Leonora and the Person
discuss love and finding love, as well as its shift into talking about art to
be fairly interesting as well. Leonora gives, what seems to me, a fairly modern
version of love, if you can call it modern, but more in the sense that it seems
to be an idealized version of love that she has separated from the elements of
masculinity and femininity, where the expectations are not on them to act “masculine
or feminine”, which is interesting to think about in today’s world as to
whether or not this has been truly achieved even in our time, (of course this
is in thinking as a subhuman rather than as a person within the text, in which
these things do not matter). However, the move into the discussion of art or
work struck me as to the tasks that men and women were assigned by Leonora, “Men
would be the inspirers, the initiators, the inventors, women would be the
interpreters, the adapters, the moulders, the ones who carry out” (177). The
Person then goes on to respond that this is then different from how it works
now in regards to art, where women are the inspiration for men and then uses
the term fertilizes in regards to women, who have been the inspiration for men,
as she says, across generations. Men here take on a feminine role, being the
ones who have been fertilized rather than the ones fertilizing and Leonora
complains that this is not natural and therefore should be different, which
ties it back into the idea of sex rather than gender, as in her eyes women
should always hold the responsibility of being the ones fertilized rather than
the other way around.
However, back to the idea of reading the two chapters of the
text differently, I feel that it is these ideas that have influenced the
reading and that despite Leonora’s opposition to masculinity and femininity, it
is not yet something that has been drained from culture as she wants it to be,
because although she is not feminine in some aspects she is still in others as
a part of what subhuman society dictates, as is Andrew when it comes to the
masculine.
Discussion Questions:
1. These ideas being raised by Leonora certainly
seem to come from an early feminist perspective, as they wish for a sort of
equality between men and women, as she wants her and her husband to work together
as a “unit”. However there is the question as to whether or not this equality
can be achieved as she sees it, and do we see it as being possible, as both the
subhumans we are living in a more modern world, or as fellow Persons, as
Alethea suggests we must then be devoid of the idea of importance? And is
importance something we can rid humanity of? This seems to be one of many of
the big questions and whatnot that the text is asking rhetorically.
2. I think it is interesting the ideas that both Leonora and Alethea put forth on the production of art in subhuman society or rather the roles that she feels that men and women would take on in her more idealized world where men and women can live and work together, and I was wondering what do you think of the roles that she gives to each? Do any in your mind seem to fit with either sex, or is that idea just a product of thinking in relation to gender? Why are men still the inventors, and women become interpreters? Why then are there still distinctions between what each can or should do? (Also as a side note it was really strange to see Alethea's wording and think of the idea of Helen of Troy as a fertilizer to many men across generations rather than just a muse or an inspiration. But it showed that even things such as these that one does not normally think of are still influenced by gender codes.)
3. For my last question, I found it weird that after all of this discussion that takes place, that Leonora then goes on to marry James Grey. How then do you take it that she sacrifices her own ideals and beliefs for love? Did you expect her to not marry him? Does it change anything about her character that she did?
Since class today, the thought of us as puzzle pieces vs. us as squares has been lingering in my head. Leonora and other subhumans see themselves as puzzle pieces looking for their missing piece that will complete them. However, the Genuine Person, Alethea views herself and her companions from the futures as self-sufficient and in no need of a partner, in other words, a square. I think the Person sounds so void of feeling and emotion, it almost reduces them to nothing but a machine. In my opinion, Leonora isn't really giving up on her beliefs or ideals rather she is finding happiness in companionship and love. I don't think her marriage to James makes her a hypocrite, it just makes her more human. She recognizes she has imperfections; while she is not trying to extricate her problems, she is opening herself up to addressing problems like her child's death.
ReplyDeleteAlso, in class we talked about the notion of love and its absence. Subhumans have love, therefore, they have hatred. But, in the Person's world, there is no love or any other emotion. It seems to me, that the world in which the Person lives is considered a perfect or utopia-esque place. I just can't help but think this world described might feel vapid and gloomy.
I guess that was a bit of a rant, but I simply think Leonora isn't wrong for her marriage. I believe it's her recognition that she does have inadequacies but she is striving for wholeness. All I think is It's more interesting to watch a character make an effort rather than not act at all and be flawless.
It's interesting to go back to this post after reading The Left Hand of Darkness and take a look at gender in both texts. In your second paragraph, you are leaning towards the question "what would happen if we got rid of gender altogether?" Luckily, The Left Hand of Darkness gives us a suggestion. Le Guin is able to create a society where each person has an exact same chance to become a woman or a man, so gender discrimination is eliminated entirely. In kemmer, they can't change their genitals, so each person has an equal chance of bearing a child. People also can hold occupations traditionally held by men, like the king, who coincidently has a child.
ReplyDeleteTo Le Guin, gender is not one or the other, both in terms of gender and society vs biology, but is both. Each person is not strictly male or female; people combine each part in order to make up the whole. Everyone is different and has different biological parts, which is beautiful in itself. People do not need to be androgynous beings in order to appreciate biological differences. Le Guin uses her text as a metaphor to suggest that gender does not have to be one or the other, but is both.