Separation of Spheres: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
'''Nature''' | '''Nature''' | ||
According to Ruskin, the female role is dependant and also determined by the inherent 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 totally Mill's approach saying that the distinctions between gender temperaments and roles are culturally created and thus a result of an artificial cultivation. | According to Ruskin, the female role is dependant and also determined by the inherent 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 totally Mill's approach saying that the distinctions between gender temperaments and roles are culturally created and are thus a result of an artificial cultivation. | ||
Revision as of 19:55, 25 January 2010
Separation of the Spheres - Private and Public-
In the 18th century and afterwards there was one major belief towards a separation of male and/or female roles (duties) 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 such as domestic life. 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 Stuart Mill's Subjection of Women one is enabled to understand easily 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 low class women were also far more public than private. But both in different ways.
Nature
According to Ruskin, the female role is dependant and also determined by the inherent 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 totally Mill's approach saying that the distinctions between gender temperaments and roles are culturally created and are thus a result of an artificial cultivation.
Education
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.
Sources
Millet, Kate: The Debate over Women. in: Vicinus, Martha (ed.): Suffer and be still. Indiana University Press, 1972. pp. 121-139.