A woman’s freedom
Yesterday I attended a screening of A Woman Like That, a movie about the life and work of the 17th century painter Artemisia Gentileschi interwoven with that of the filmmaker Ellen Weissbrod.
Through all the fascinating and touching moments of discovery and self-discovery, the idea that overwhelmed and inspired me as I walked away from the film was this: in many ways, women are more free than men.
In our society, men have a lot of opportunities, if only they follows certain rules. Women have less opportunities, and because of this they can feel more free to break the rules. To put it another way, when a man chooses the path less taken, he is often throwing away a lot of sure bets for security and stability. On the other hand, when a woman forges her own way, she has less to lose.
See the movie trailer here.
Recently I had a conversation with a young man in a comment thread on my blog. A seventeen year old with strong convictions, he asserted that men would rather do business with other men and that it’s a normal inclination. I responded:
There’s nothing inherently wrong with people wanting to do business with people who are like them—men with men, women with women. It’s actually pretty human, I think, to want to deal with people who are like oneself.
The issue is that women do not hold as many positions of power in business as men, and this keeps the women who do want to do business from having as many opportunities as men. Women who are trying to do business often don’t have the option of working with other women.
Why are there not as many women in positions of power as men? While most men are slogging away at their jobs or building their careers during the prime years of 30-45, a lot of women have put jobs and careers on the backburner in order to raise children.
Do women deserve a leg up when they re-enter the workforce and/or their careers after their family-focused time? Should men look to do business with women specifically because of this disparity? My answer is YES. What’s yours?
The young man did not answer my question in the thread, but, after some prompting in a private conversation via email, he responded by asking me what my male friends’ answer to my question was.
Artemisia Gentileschi’s Susanna And The Elders 1610
Gentileschi could not do business with women, because there were no women for her to do business with. Her career broke all the rules again and again, both in that she had a career at all and in what she painted.
Because she was less likely to have opportunities handed to her, she didn’t feel the need to conform strictly to a society that wasn’t built to help her. She broke the rules of what a painting should be about because it wasn’t as if following the rules would get her anywhere. Her sex made her more free as an artist and as a person.
RELATED ARTICLES:
- For art or for money? / Pour l’art ou pour l’argent?
- The feminist art / L’art féministe
- The 1960s radical separatist feminist in my head
CATEGORIES: - Featuring artists - Feminism - Philosophy - Reviews -
(6) Comments / Commentaires: A woman’s freedom
@Catherine: What bothers me most about the family-raising issue and how it impacts opportunities for all women, even those who do not have children, is that it’s thought of as women asking for some kind of special treatment.
I have just one question for people who think that way: what exactly is special about having the hard work of raising the next generation recognized as a valuable contribution to society?
I wish someone could answer that for me…!
Wishful thinking.
Oppression is not opportunity.
Slavery is not freedom.
Gentilleschi had plenty of help and support from her artist father, so she benefited from his privilege. She still had to align herself with a man in order to do anything. Same situation today. Unless a woman is independently wealthy, she has to align with men in order to survive at all, let alone have a career. Still. Despite all the progress we think we’ve achieved.
Drawing a romantic veil over the cruel reality may help you get through the day, but it does not improve the lot of women. We need to acknowledge the reality before we can hope to change it.
@M.K. Hajdin: I’m talking about women not holding themselves back in a society that still very much holds them back.
I’m not saying that women are free of all oppression. And I’m certainly not making the problem seem smaller than it is—I actually point out a big part of the issue in this article!
What I am doing is proposing the beginning of a solution. If you think that finding a solution is wishful thinking, that’s fine. I prefer to keep working at it, and I would love as many women as possible to do the same, to not hold themselves back.
My favorite example of female freedom is clothing. We can wear just about anything we want without getting in ‘too much’ trouble. Men have a fairly strict uniform in the acceptable range. We can wear a cute little dress one day and levi’s the next day.
It’s a small freedom but one of my favorites.
@Kelly in AK: Agreed. And even though this freedom says so much about how we view the sexes (it’s okay for girls to be like boys but boys should never be like girls), I do still relish the flexibility it gives me!
Catherine...
Thanks, Gwenn, this is a very good point and something to think about.
And yes, I agree that we should try to give women a leg up. Raising kids is such a large and important part of any society, and doing it inevitably falls more to women, generally even in very conscientious relationships. After spending such a large chunk of time doing that, whether part time while working outside the home, or full-time at home, people need to have an avenue into the workplace and to have that time considered.
--- -- - --- - ---- - - --- ----- -- -