Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient: Victoria University Students' Paper. Vol. 29, No. 11. 1966.

an angry girl hits back

an angry girl [unclear: hits back]

I Wonder how often the educators of this university have paused long enough in their paternal concern for the fresher to consider the problems of just being a female here? Have they ever thought that there might be such problems on a purely educational level?

Perhaps I am schizophrenic, but it appears ever more strongly to me that there are two Kinds of minds in the world, and that only the masculine kind is recognised universally as valid. The other kind is recognised as valid only if it parrots the male. Are men genuinely so vain that a woman is considered intelligent only if her thinking conforms to the male pattern of "premiseargument-conclusion?" (Or whatever other pattern men devise among themselves, such as the famous "Firstly . . . second . . . third . . ." etc.)

On an immediate and practical level, women in this university must face the unpleasant fact that they have to understand how men think if they are to get top grades in male-dominated departments (and which aren't, regardless of the number of women employed in them?) Perhaps some women adapt unconsciously, but it would be interesting to compare a female student's first-year papers with her final papers at the end of her degree, to see the pattern of thought differences. Her power of reasoning can't have changed, but her form of expression probably has.

I am not contending that this is necessarily a bad thing —on the contrary, if she is aware of this process she will be a far broader and more diversified reasoner, able to inhabit two worlds of thought formation—but it just might be a pity if her female way of looking at things has been subjugated and even shamed. Do men know such a lot about the female outlook that they can afford to conclude unequivocally it has little value? Do they think their handsome, differential smiles, polite at-tentiveness in seminars and lip service to the equality of women imply a critical concern with the female's mind? If so. a little more objective criticism in the same ruthless spirit as that given to men would clear up this misconception in the minds of some of us. Perhaps some of us are a little vexed at being treated as decorative, educated upstarts who must be discreetly impressed by the masculine dominance of all positions in society which really count. The fact that they might have more to learn from a female's viewpoint at this stage, than we nave after a lifetime of being hammered with the male viewpoint of the world, rarely seems evident.

To put it bluntly, I am damn tired of listening to men expounding in abstract, conceptual terms which imply the embodiment of all truth. I am sick of reading books written mostly by men who think the same way, or by women who have been forced to think that way. I don't agree that larger numbers of women students and staff will solve everything. Only a general recognition by all men that women's viewpoint may contain just as much truth as their own is necessary. (Would the Anarchist Association accept me as a member perhaps?)

I think men are madly attractive, and ordered thinkers, but I sometimes wish wistfully that I could be free to think naturally, allowing my thoughts to follow whatever route they please, without any fear of ultimate rejection by some male who says "Why do you mention this? Cut this sentence out, and arrange the paragraphs in this order." With supreme self-confidence in his natural superiority he then trims the essay down into a recognisably masculine, acceptable form. Does he think I had not arranged it in any particular order before I gave it to him? Or is he too lazy to sit down with it and think it through several times to see if there is an inner order after all? This is what I must do with all my material — lecture notes and reference books—in order to perceive the pattern of thought and then think about the actual argument. Can he not make an equivalent effort? I can assure him that it is excellent intellectual exorcise, it's such a shame that only women should avail themselves of it.

In case my claims sound exaggerated, I have proved to myself on numerous occasions the practical advantages of striving to present everything to men from a masculine point of view and the impracticality of presenting anything at all from a feminine viewpoint ... in the academic realm, that is. Men are supposedly the adaptable, flexible thinkers, but this particular female derives a distorted sense of satisfaction from getting grade "A" for essays which imitate beautifully her male lecturer's method of thinking. The same lecturer is completely unnerved if lie receives work which appears at first sight disorganised and lacking in unity of thought. He has neither the habit nor the inclination to study the work from anything but his traditional point of view. Puffed up in his swivel chair. he knows how the world really goes around, and has two and a half thousand [unclear: ye] to back up his narrow [unclear: outl]

Hasn't it ever [unclear: occurred] him that women [unclear: might] his type of thinking [unclear: rat] dull, limited, repetitive, [unclear: st] unimaginative — in a [unclear: w] boring? I am not [unclear: talking] about the lecturer [unclear: personal] but his method of [unclear: thinking] I think being a woman [unclear: is] more exciting, and[unclear: me] thinking stimulates [unclear: my] way of thinking. [unclear: The] frustration is in not [unclear: being] able to converse with men my own way, but having continually adapt to [unclear: the] language and [unclear: consequent] restrain and revise my [unclear: ov] thinking in order to [unclear: make] intelligible to these [unclear: brilliant] flexible and broad [unclear: arbitrate] of all human knowledge. [unclear: L] the English race, they [unclear: th] that if people don't [unclear: spe] their language, they are [unclear: n] worth listening to. Is [unclear: that] desire for knowledge [unclear: tri] sincere, or is it a [unclear: convenie] veneer for a university [unclear: tead] ing position?

To get back to my [unclear: original]int: My immediate [unclear: prob-] consist in spending [unclear: pro-]rtionately more time [unclear: study-]ing and analysing the [unclear: mascu-]e method of thinking than actually studying the [unclear: sub-] I am taking. Is this [unclear: a]r load on the female [unclear: dent?] How would men [unclear: feel]suddenly called upon to look the world solely from a [unclear: nlne] point of view if [unclear: they]are to pass their [unclear: exams?]this is the burden I carried [unclear: ear] (e.g. three days [unclear: iting] the essay, six days [unclear: re-]ng it the masculine way) successfully, it turned out, [unclear: t] why should I have to [unclear: do]is if I want to be an "A" [unclear: dent] again this year? I [unclear: peat], men think they [unclear: are]knowledging my intelli-[unclear: gence], when in fact they are [unclear: rely] flattering their own [unclear: y] of looking at things. [unclear: An] pass gives no indication my intelligence, only of [unclear: ability] to analyse men's [unclear: nds], which many [unclear: non-]iversity women do better.