Harrogate posted this cartoon earlier. I think that it should be reexamined.
Historically, this is a comon topos. It dates back to the suffrage movement. The original argument made sense in terms of cultural expectations and speaking the language of the audience: women "belonged" in a certain role and "fulfilled" those expectations that men wanted. When they argued for the right to vote, they adopted the language of those expectations: if you expect us to clean up after you in private, then we should clean up after you in public.
Historically, this argument is not as sexist as typically suggested. By using this argument and by focusing on the "traditional" gender roles, women could gain access to the public sphere. It is a great "rhetorical turn" for gender roles.
One interesting aspect to this would be how this argument worked in terms of class. If women were rich and possessed servants, this option may not be available to them (they did not clean up after their husbands or their family). Rich women faced more restrictions and possessed less access to the public sphere. While they could finance the movement, they had no voice and no possible "duties" to enter public debate.
For a really good example, read Anna Howard Shaw's "The Fundamental Principles of a Republic.".
The question remains: what would be the correct metaphor for women in politics? Women as cleaners still makes sense because of the larger cultural beliefs (men are messy, less responsible), but it does lose some of its power. Any suggestions for the correct metaphor?
2 comments:
So given this historical context, what do you see as the cartoon's particular engagement with the current rhetorical situation in which is appears?
Having re-read your post and the Shaw piece, it seems Harrogate sort of answered his own question: Madson use of the "cleaner" metaphor taps into something, a notion of women in politics, that Shaw herself was attempting to tap into. And so now, what would be a better notion, supported by metaphor, to tap into?
Sophomoric as it sounds, Harrogate wonders if a separate metaphor for women in politics is necessary at this point, at all. Just because the "cleaner" works doesn't mean that it improves the conversation. Madson may have meant well, but in the end he didn't improve the conversation in any way. He did give pinheads like us something to talk about, though, so it's not a totally lost cause.
Post a Comment