Thursday, October 18, 2007

HW 22: Woolf Isn't Down with Patriarchy.

In Chapter two of A Room of One’s Own, Virginia Woolf explains her opinion that anyone who reads the newspaper would realize that England is under the rule of patriarchy. Woolf then goes on to explain how easy it is for one to pick up the paper and realize men are in charge, women are inferior to men. Woolf goes on to say that, “nobody in their senses could fail to detect the dominance of his professor” (Woolf 33) This sentence uses “his” instead of her or one, and professor was clearly directed toward men because women didn’t have jobs, they were poor. Chapter two extends from chapter one explaining more about how women didn’t have any say, they didn’t take a stand, they weren’t treated equally. Woolf makes her point every so clearly explaining, “his was the power and the money and the influence. He was the proprietor of the paper and it’s editor and it’s sub-editor.” (Woolf 33) It’s HE who makes it happen. Women were nothing but objects to the men. After searching around on the online New York Times Newspaper, I came to the conclusion that if a transient were to visit our planet they wouldn’ be given the impression that the United States is under a patriarchy. And my reasons are many of the articles are about both women and men. None of the artcles that I browsed had putdowns on either sex. Also, all the articles are written by men and women. This is my main reason I believe we’re not under a patriarchy. I believe if we were under patriarchy, men would compose the articles. I also believe the articles would be more sexist, and neither of these seem to be an issue.

1 comment:

Tracy Mendham said...

Well, women did have some jobs, like the jobs Woolf says she that she held, but yes, it was hard for women to earn much money.
Did you find in the NY Times that just as many articles were written by women as men? (The day I looked there seemed to be about a 2 to 3 ratio.) Woolf observes about her paper that man's dominance is seen in that he was "the proprietor of the paper and its editor and subeditor. He was the Foreign Secretary and the Judge. He was the cricketer...He was director of the company...he suspended the film actress..." (Woolf 33-34). Did you look to see what gender the heads of state and ambassadors and company owners and athletes mentioned in the New York Times were? And the editor? Do the representations of men still outnumber those of women in powerful, non-domestic roles? I think this would be the way to make a more in-depth comparison.