<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: What¿s taught in university Women¿s Studies
Review: Part of a Big Ten university curriculum in Women's Studies, Bartky makes valid points concerning social biases for young women about to depart the ivory towers and notes significant differences between various feminist perspectives. Enlightening barbaric modes of thought - her primary mission - though commendable should not be expected to reach perfect uniformity. Bartky, however, demands utopian cleansing and as such may enjoy a lifetime of complaint as perfection will never be achieved. She frightens the reader by stating, "I argue that sexual fantasy, not just sexual behavior, should be made the object of moral justification." Who's to be in charge of thought control? The author makes great use of Marxist theory by analogy of labor to that of women. True, much of the workplace "mortifies the body and ruins the mind", or as Joseph Campbell stated, it's a "life extinguishing experience", but the failures of Marx - the creation of a middle class which he never anticipated, the extremes and generalizations of his hypothesis are translated directly into Bartky's work. In Marx workers are forced/coerced and their creations dehumanized for capital. Despite realities at the birth of industrialization, today that capital does not end with the capitalists. People willingly exchange their freedom for the labor of others in a trade of life from one to the other. People are possessed by their possessions (a disgust Barkty and others share) but if they haven't the conscious wit to see through this ruse it may be they are best suited for the condition they're in and are thus not victims at all, other than of their own ignorance. Is the same true of male/female perceptions today? Marx, like Bartky, stop short of positives in the system and its full circuit, conveniently for the benefit of their hypothesis. Bartky notes the objectification of women as indication of a sexist, suppressive society. But men are objectified as well, for their wealth, height, intelligence, appearance, items of display from expensive cars to big houses (or lack of these). Though male oppression is not her topic, does that make society sexist and suppressive of males? Or is society simply a large-scale inflection of biology? And if so, who's to blame but the species itself? Biologists call it the handicap principle - males (of all species) display their recourses to females looking for support for their young, while females (of all species) present the appearance of youth to males looking for those capable of baring offspring. As Bartky notes girls desire to be a Playmate vs. Madame Curie. Today boys would rather be Brad Pit than Albert Einstein. Is all of it really something to fight? The nature of works like Bartky's are an imitation of religious claims to truth - claims that cannot be refuted. As feminist theory (like psychoanalysis and sociology) is an area of study not science, its authors make claims which by making them alone seems sufficient to make them true. Though this author deserves recognition for crediting a handful of males, never do we examine the extensive and often used power women have over men. What we get from Bartky are biases in the workplace, perspectives of female sexual dimorphism, and a linty of past offenses, but none of the power and dominance women enjoy today in personal relationships. It may be true the workplace is still a boys club - inferred from the near homogeneity of males as overpaid CEOs - and certainly biology still influences perceptions and values, but we hear nothing of the gains in those arenas and the perpetual power women have over men's sexuality, which drives so much of male behavior and materialistic avarice. Human nature's desire to create or emphasize "us versus them" from before the Old Testament to the Cold War as a real means of survival or simple unity loses none of its power with Bartky. Until feminists such as Bartky see themselves as heroic, rather than in terms of our modern currency as victims, they will continue to blame, seek vengeance and demand "from others" certain payments and consideration. In America, victim status carries significant rewards, most importantly the freedom from challenge. Bartky and so much of women's studies gets a free ride and the product is our university output.
Rating: 
Summary: a way of looking at how we're socialized for trouble
Review: There's nothing worse than forced femininity and how it limits a woman's life.This book gets you beyond all the gender bias non-sense and leads you to understand how we got in this mess in the first place and how to change,because humans ARE capable of change and do not have to stay in boundaries which bind their talents,aspirations and individual make up. Within all humans,there are different degrees of femininity and masculinity and the masculine based way that men are raised,has allowed them not only greater freedom in the world but also greater freedom within,to think strong and be strong,whilst women have been given a limited recipe for life which binds them to a femininity which may not be part of a particular woman's physical or emotional make up..I get the message that women are taught to play a role of false femininity which suffocates their true natures as individuals.
Rating:
Summary: an essential read to help understand human relations
Review: though i first read this book for a class, i have since turned to it many times. ms. bartky has a clear grasp on the dynamics of relations between men and women not only on the basic level of how we treat eachother, but on the intimate level of how we treat ourselves. this is a must read not only for feminists, but for anyone who has ever wondered why men and women are treated differently in our society... why we ARE different, and how we can change or overcome our seeming differences. it may be a bit thick at times on philosophical and sociological language, but the messages come through loud and clear enough so that you don't need to be schooled in either discipline to enjoy it.
<< 1 >>
| 
