In the article “Is Female to Male as Nature is to Culture?” Sherry B. Ortner discusses how females are associated symbolically with nature and males with culture. The article supports the notion that male dominance is universal. Written in 1974, this was a very popular idea among Feminists in the 70s. The author explores this idea in her structural gender analysis of cultural female devaluation. Additionally, she uses this article as a platform to suggest political change which would enhance equality between women and men.
This structuralist perspective of binary opposition was first formulated drawing on Levi-Strauss and de Beauvoir, but has since been criticized for being simplistic and ethnocentric. I will delineate Ortner’s argument and …show more content…
She argues that women have always been symbolically associated with nature. Since nature is subordinate to men, women are subordinate to men. She suggests that women’s role as child bearer makes them natural creators, while men are cultural creators (1974: 18-20). Ortner points out that men without high rank are excluded from things in the same way women are excluded from them. Although Ortner’s analysis helps us understand the cross-cultural differences in gender structure and exemplifies this operationally thorough her child-rearing illustrations, I believe that it may not be quite useful for the problem in which she states as the “universal fact of culturally attributed to second-class status to woman in every society” (1974:6). What I mean is that I do not believe it is applicable to every society.
To be quite frank it seems that this first part of the problem mentioned above is more of a broad generalization that oversimplifies the role of women and how they are culturally perceived. She attempts to clarify her argument by talking about cultural evaluations but she specifically states that “in every know culture, woman is considered in some degree inferior to man” (1974:7). Since it is apparent that there is are not primary or secondary sources provided to support her argument that this theory is universally practiced in all cultures, I find this article more opinionated than an analytical
This structuralist perspective of binary opposition was first formulated drawing on Levi-Strauss and de Beauvoir, but has since been criticized for being simplistic and ethnocentric. I will delineate Ortner’s argument and …show more content…
She argues that women have always been symbolically associated with nature. Since nature is subordinate to men, women are subordinate to men. She suggests that women’s role as child bearer makes them natural creators, while men are cultural creators (1974: 18-20). Ortner points out that men without high rank are excluded from things in the same way women are excluded from them. Although Ortner’s analysis helps us understand the cross-cultural differences in gender structure and exemplifies this operationally thorough her child-rearing illustrations, I believe that it may not be quite useful for the problem in which she states as the “universal fact of culturally attributed to second-class status to woman in every society” (1974:6). What I mean is that I do not believe it is applicable to every society.
To be quite frank it seems that this first part of the problem mentioned above is more of a broad generalization that oversimplifies the role of women and how they are culturally perceived. She attempts to clarify her argument by talking about cultural evaluations but she specifically states that “in every know culture, woman is considered in some degree inferior to man” (1974:7). Since it is apparent that there is are not primary or secondary sources provided to support her argument that this theory is universally practiced in all cultures, I find this article more opinionated than an analytical