A Companion to Global Gender History. Группа авторов
Читать онлайн книгу.
Evelyn Brooks (1992) “African‐American Women’s History and the Metalanguage of Race.” Signs 17(2; Winter), 251–74.
23 Hillyer, Barbara (1993) Feminism and Disability. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
24 hooks, bell (2000) Feminism is for Everybody: Passionate Politics. Cambridge: South End Press.
25 “Intersectionality: Theorizing Power, Empowering Theory” (2013) Special issue of Signs 38 (4), 785–1055.
26 Keenan, Deirdre (2001) “Trespassing Native Ground: American Indian Studies and Problems of Non‐Native Work.” The Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Association 34 (1; Winter).
27 Liu, Tessie (1991) “Teaching the Differences Among Women from a Historical Perspective: Rethinking Race and Gender as Social Categories.” Women’s Studies International Forum 14 (2), 265–76.
28 Lorde, Audre (1984) “Learning from the Sixties,” in Audre Lorde, Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches. Trumansberg, NY: Crossing Press.
29 Lyons, Scott Richard, ed. (2000) “American Indian Sovereignty: What Do Indians Want from Writing.” College Composition and Communication 51 (3), 447–68.
30 McClintock, Anne (1995) Imperial Leather: Race, Gender, Sexuality in the Colonial Context. New York: Routledge.
31 Minh‐ha, Trinh T. (1989) Woman, Native, Other: Writing Postcoloniality and Feminism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
32 Mohanty, Chandra Talpade (2003) “Under Western Eyes,” in Chandra Talpade Mohanty, Feminism Without Borders: Decolonizing Theory, Practicing Solidarity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
33 Morgan, Robyn (1984) Sisterhood is Global. Garden City, NY: Anchor.
34 Nestle, Joan and Howell, Clare, eds. (2002) Gender Queer: Voices from Beyond the Sexual Binary. Los Angeles: Alyson Books.
35 Rifkin, Mark (2011) When did Indians Become Straight?: Kinship, the History of Sexuality, and Native Sovereignty. New York: Oxford University Press.
36 Roberts, Dorothy (1995), “Punishing Drug Addicts Who Have Babies: Women of Color, Equality, and the Right to Privacy,” in Kimberlé Crenshawet al., eds. Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings that Formed the Movement. New York: New Press.
37 Rubin, Gayle (1984) “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality,” in Carole Vance, ed., Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality. Boston: Beacon.
38 Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky (1990) Epistemology of the Closet. Berkeley: University of California Press.
39 “Sexuality, Nationality, Indigeneity” (2010) Special issue of GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 16 (1–2).
40 Shoemaker, Nancy (1995) Negotiators of Change: Historical Perspectives on Native American Women. New York: Routledge.
41 Smith, Barbara, ed. (1983) Home Girls: A Black Feminist Anthology. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
42 Somerville, Siobhan B. (2000) Queering the Color Line: Race and the Invention of Homosexuality in America. Durham, NC: North Carolina University Press.
43 Snorton, C. Reilly (2018) Black on Both Sides: A Racial History of Trans Identity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
44 Spivak, Gayatri (1984–5). “Criticism, Feminism, and the Institution.” Thesis Eleven: A Socialist Journal 10–11, 175–87. Reprinted in The Post‐Colonial Critic: Interviews, Strategies, Dialogues (London: Routledge, 1990), 1–16.
45 Stryker, Susan (2017) Transgender History: The Roots of Today’s Revolution. 2nd edition, New York: Seal Press.
46 Suleri, Sara (1992) “Women Skin Deep: Feminism and the Postcolonial Condition.” Critical Inquiry 18 (4), 756–69.
47 Swisher, Karen Gayton (1996) “Why Indian People Should Be the Ones to Write About Indian Education.” American Indian Quarterly 20 (Winter), 83–90.
NOTE
1 1 Deirdre Keenan wrote this chapter in the first edition, but was unable to update it for this second edition. Rather than commission a new essay and lose her insights, the two editors decided to revise it instead.
Chapter Seven Gender and Material Culture History
Meha Priyadarshini
Introduction: Genders of Things, Things of Genders
In 2018, Frieda Hughes, daughter of renowned poets Sylvia Plath and Ted Hughes, auctioned off many of the things belonging to her parents. The event was notable not just because of the personalities involved but because Plath’s things sold for much more money than her husband’s, a surprising fact because historically objects belonging to men have usually been valued more than women’s things (Bolick, 2018). Plath’s typewriter sold for $46,071, whereas Hughes’s was sold for $4,977. The auction signals a shift; women and their things are in demand as collectibles in a way that they have not always been. The fact that we are witnessing this change tells us that the value of objects is not somehow intrinsic to them but is dependent on the fashions, norms, and mores of a particular time and place.
The auction also shows us how deeply entangled our notions of gender are with material objects. Plath’s things sold for more than Hughes’s not just because she was a woman but because she was a famous woman, which might suggest that both men and women would be interested in buying her belongings. However, if we look at who bought her things, it turns out that a great percentage of the buyers were women. It seems, then, the rise in interest in women figures is generated to a great degree by women themselves and is linked to their ability to be able to build collections of their own owing to the rise in women’s incomes (Belk and Wallendorf, 1997). Here we see that both the gender of the person who owned the object and the person who was buying it mattered in determining the object’s value. We can conclude, then, that the collecting of art and artifacts is not a gender‐neutral activity.
The entanglement of material goods with society’s conceptions of gender becomes more obvious when we take a closer look at the specific objects that were sold in the auction. Take for example a yellow summer frock that belonged to Plath (Figure 7.1). It tells us something about Plath’s tastes but also tells us about the sorts of clothes women of a particular social demographic in 1950s and 1960s England would wear. Plath would have bought the frock, or dress, because in that era in England such a garment was deemed “women’s wear.” However, while the object was already gendered in its conception, it also shaped gender norms of the time. The way the dress covered and gave shape to a woman’s body would have given material form to the notions of femininity at the time. The dress would have also circumscribed the wearer’s body in other ways; she would, for example, have been expected to sit in a particular manner while wearing it as compared to if she was wearing trousers. The dress and other clothes made for women could be said to be quite literally defining the lived experiences of women.
Figure 7.1 Sylvia Plath's yellow checked dress, with label “Made in U.S.A. for Harrods, London,” 1950s. Sold for $1,417.
Image courtesy of Bonham’s Auction House.
The dress could also be used to think more generally about aspects of the culture of 1960s England. If it is compared to the clothing of women of lower or higher class than Plath, we can learn something about how social status was indicated through dress. Comparing the dress to that of the attire of similarly aged women of other cultures could be telling of the social mores of England at the time. Such a methodology of comparison is also deployed by scholars when they study texts. They try to