Separation of Spheres: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Gender-based division of social spheres into domestic (for women) and public (for men). Emerges in the 18th centuries due to the Industrial Revolution and becomes the dominant ideology in the 19th century. | |||
== Private and Public == | |||
''' | In the 18th century and afterwards there was one major belief towards a separation of male and/or female gender roles in society. On the one hand there was the "public sphere" which was generally associated with male duties such as war, money, politics and learning, whereas on the other hand the "private sphere" was linked to female duties. The male duties can also be referred to as ''privileged duties'' whereas female duties allow a definition in terms of ''responsibility'' in the domestic field. One could also think of a "system of subordination" (male power over women). | ||
By contrasting two literary works, firstly John Ruskin's ''Of Queens Gardens'' and secondly John Stuart Mill's ''Subjection of Women'' one is enabled to understand the attitudes towards the separation of male and female spheres. ''Of Queens Gardens'' refers to the maintenance of a "system of subordination", the ''Subjection of Women'' however attempts to expose and to break this "system of subordination". | |||
This idea about the segregation of the two spheres of life can be seen as quite idealized, as no one really lived completely in the private or public as stated in the theory. Upper-class women for instance were far more public than private, and lower-class women were also far more public than private. But both in different ways. | |||
In trying to find an additional way to justify the | |||
== Justifications/Discourses == | |||
According to John Ruskin, the female role is supposedly dependent and also determined by nature and the abilities of the women themselves and equality is not possible since women are in nothing alike to men at all. This is a rather artificial approach to the separation of the spheres and contrasts with Mill's approach saying that the distinctions between gender temperaments and roles are culturally created and are thus a result of an artificial cultivation. | |||
In trying to find an additional way to justify the separation of the spheres, Ruskin says that women are not supposed to be the object of education (language, literature etc.) for they grow like flowers. Education should be used in order to prepare them for their private duties and responsibilities, for instance being a good wife and mother. On the other hand there is Mill developing an image of traditional education as being some kind of "mental enslavement" preventing mankind’s abilities from doubling the world’s intellectual talents by not teaching women. | |||
---- | |||
'''Source''' | |||
Millet, Kate: "The Debate over Women". In: Vicinus, Martha (ed.): ''Suffer and be still''. Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1972. 121-139. | |||
Latest revision as of 15:47, 19 November 2013
Gender-based division of social spheres into domestic (for women) and public (for men). Emerges in the 18th centuries due to the Industrial Revolution and becomes the dominant ideology in the 19th century.
Private and Public
In the 18th century and afterwards there was one major belief towards a separation of male and/or female gender roles in society. On the one hand there was the "public sphere" which was generally associated with male duties such as war, money, politics and learning, whereas on the other hand the "private sphere" was linked to female duties. The male duties can also be referred to as privileged duties whereas female duties allow a definition in terms of responsibility in the domestic field. One could also think of a "system of subordination" (male power over women).
By contrasting two literary works, firstly John Ruskin's Of Queens Gardens and secondly John Stuart Mill's Subjection of Women one is enabled to understand the attitudes towards the separation of male and female spheres. Of Queens Gardens refers to the maintenance of a "system of subordination", the Subjection of Women however attempts to expose and to break this "system of subordination".
This idea about the segregation of the two spheres of life can be seen as quite idealized, as no one really lived completely in the private or public as stated in the theory. Upper-class women for instance were far more public than private, and lower-class women were also far more public than private. But both in different ways.
Justifications/Discourses
According to John Ruskin, the female role is supposedly dependent and also determined by nature and the abilities of the women themselves and equality is not possible since women are in nothing alike to men at all. This is a rather artificial approach to the separation of the spheres and contrasts with Mill's approach saying that the distinctions between gender temperaments and roles are culturally created and are thus a result of an artificial cultivation.
In trying to find an additional way to justify the separation of the spheres, Ruskin says that women are not supposed to be the object of education (language, literature etc.) for they grow like flowers. Education should be used in order to prepare them for their private duties and responsibilities, for instance being a good wife and mother. On the other hand there is Mill developing an image of traditional education as being some kind of "mental enslavement" preventing mankind’s abilities from doubling the world’s intellectual talents by not teaching women.
Source
Millet, Kate: "The Debate over Women". In: Vicinus, Martha (ed.): Suffer and be still. Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1972. 121-139.