My husband gave me Are Woman Human? by Dorothy Sayers last night. I read it this morning in less than an hour. It contains two short essays by Sayers on the topic of feminism: “Are Women Human?” and “The Human Not Quite-Human.” Though I was able to read them both while getting my older son ready for church and finish them while nursing my baby, I will be wrestling with the ideas for weeks and weeks.
In case you are unfamiliar with this remarkable woman, Dorothy Sayers is currently most widely known for her detective fiction. Her Lord Peter Wimsey is one of the great fictional detectives from the 20's and 30's, what is known as the "Golden Age of Detective Fiction." And yet Sayers was so much more than a mystery writer. She graduated from Oxford in 1912, when women's classical education was still very new and revolutionary. She translated Dante's Divine Comedy. She was a playwright, essayists, and a close friend of C..S. Lewis and several other of the Inklings.
The concept in this book is simple. Women are human. As humans we reserve the right to be individuals. Good at some things. Bad at others. Not as a category, but as individuals. She argues that women as a category may have special knowledge on some subjects. For example, more women spend time around small children, so as a category, a woman’s point of view on raising children has value. However, not every woman has as much experience in this field as others. And even two women who are stay-at-home moms with children of similar age may disagree on specific issues, as two doctors may disagree on specific diagnoses. Their special knowledge doesn’t presuppose an agreement.
However, she goes on to say that on other issues the concept of a “woman’s point of view is nonsense. “But there are other questions-as, for example, about literature or finance-on which the ‘woman’s point of view’ has no value at all. No special knowledge is involved, and a woman’s opinion on literature or finance is valuable only as the judgment of an individual.” (pg 30)
I actually applauded when I read above quote. There is something so freeing in this idea that categories help us to a certain degree, but they must be abandoned when they no longer serve their purpose. Poor Meryl Streep recently tried to express something like this when asked about the lack of minorities on a panel for a film festival. While Streep’s comment was perhaps unfortunately particularly well phrased for explosive click-bait headlines, I believe Sayers would agree with her idea. Is the opinion of black film critic or Arab film critic or any other minority who chooses to be a film critic better because of their race or because of they are good at what they do?
This does not deny that minorities do not as a whole have different experiences, but to presume that every individual black man or woman has something particular to say about white privilege or racism or any other topic is as ridiculous as to assume that every black man or woman has something particular to say about jazz or hip hop or fried chicken. A stereotype is a stereotype. If a minority who has experienced racism first-hand chooses to share that experience with me, I would be a fool not to listen to them. But not because they are a minority, because of their experiences.
If I’m being unclear, let me try again. If I meet a Muslim, from that category, I know certain things about them. As a Muslim, they believe in the Qu’ran. They believe in Allah and that Muhammad is his prophet. But while there are five pillars of Islam, I know that there are spiritual disciplines in my own life that I do not practice as I like. So I do not know that they pray five times a day. I do not know their opinion about politics or gender. So I will take from the category what I do know, then I will do away with the category so I can know the individual.
If I meet a police office, I know what his job entails. I do not know what kind of man he is. If I meet some who is on the autism spectrum or has Down’s Syndrome or…. The list goes on and on. The category can be useful. Use it, then discard it.
Now at the risk of sounding like I am completely backtracking on myself, I do not believe that this means that there is not a distinction in the masculine and feminine, in the father and the mother, the wife and the husband. That is another essay that perhaps I will write if ever figure it out.
But until then, as a Christian, I feel that the answer to racism, chauvinism, feminism, ageism, or any other ism is answered in one verse:
“There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
In case you are unfamiliar with this remarkable woman, Dorothy Sayers is currently most widely known for her detective fiction. Her Lord Peter Wimsey is one of the great fictional detectives from the 20's and 30's, what is known as the "Golden Age of Detective Fiction." And yet Sayers was so much more than a mystery writer. She graduated from Oxford in 1912, when women's classical education was still very new and revolutionary. She translated Dante's Divine Comedy. She was a playwright, essayists, and a close friend of C..S. Lewis and several other of the Inklings.
The concept in this book is simple. Women are human. As humans we reserve the right to be individuals. Good at some things. Bad at others. Not as a category, but as individuals. She argues that women as a category may have special knowledge on some subjects. For example, more women spend time around small children, so as a category, a woman’s point of view on raising children has value. However, not every woman has as much experience in this field as others. And even two women who are stay-at-home moms with children of similar age may disagree on specific issues, as two doctors may disagree on specific diagnoses. Their special knowledge doesn’t presuppose an agreement.
However, she goes on to say that on other issues the concept of a “woman’s point of view is nonsense. “But there are other questions-as, for example, about literature or finance-on which the ‘woman’s point of view’ has no value at all. No special knowledge is involved, and a woman’s opinion on literature or finance is valuable only as the judgment of an individual.” (pg 30)
I actually applauded when I read above quote. There is something so freeing in this idea that categories help us to a certain degree, but they must be abandoned when they no longer serve their purpose. Poor Meryl Streep recently tried to express something like this when asked about the lack of minorities on a panel for a film festival. While Streep’s comment was perhaps unfortunately particularly well phrased for explosive click-bait headlines, I believe Sayers would agree with her idea. Is the opinion of black film critic or Arab film critic or any other minority who chooses to be a film critic better because of their race or because of they are good at what they do?
This does not deny that minorities do not as a whole have different experiences, but to presume that every individual black man or woman has something particular to say about white privilege or racism or any other topic is as ridiculous as to assume that every black man or woman has something particular to say about jazz or hip hop or fried chicken. A stereotype is a stereotype. If a minority who has experienced racism first-hand chooses to share that experience with me, I would be a fool not to listen to them. But not because they are a minority, because of their experiences.
If I’m being unclear, let me try again. If I meet a Muslim, from that category, I know certain things about them. As a Muslim, they believe in the Qu’ran. They believe in Allah and that Muhammad is his prophet. But while there are five pillars of Islam, I know that there are spiritual disciplines in my own life that I do not practice as I like. So I do not know that they pray five times a day. I do not know their opinion about politics or gender. So I will take from the category what I do know, then I will do away with the category so I can know the individual.
If I meet a police office, I know what his job entails. I do not know what kind of man he is. If I meet some who is on the autism spectrum or has Down’s Syndrome or…. The list goes on and on. The category can be useful. Use it, then discard it.
Now at the risk of sounding like I am completely backtracking on myself, I do not believe that this means that there is not a distinction in the masculine and feminine, in the father and the mother, the wife and the husband. That is another essay that perhaps I will write if ever figure it out.
But until then, as a Christian, I feel that the answer to racism, chauvinism, feminism, ageism, or any other ism is answered in one verse:
“There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Comments
Post a Comment