Musings on Gender

[j_forias]

So, I've got to plan a disseratation in about three weeks. I've decided to do it on some kind of feminist take of Defoe's Moll Flanders, looking at Moll's voice. It's a really fascinating issue for me, particularly as I'm writing a first person novel in a female voice (or trying!).

Comments

[ehnel]

Hmm, something else I thought of: a lot of archaeological theorists are interested in how your own assumptions/prejudices are reflected onto archaeological interpretations. At the most basic level, it is VERY basic. You excavate what looks like you to be a pot made of clay: therefore you assume it served the function of a pot or a container, because you have pots in your everyday life. But it might not have seemed that way to the person who made it. So, that interpretation could be right. But it could be wrong. At its more complicated level, these assumptions ARE complicated. Perhaps you excavate a skeleton that you cannot sex using the bones, and there was a sword buried with it. Most people would immediately assume this to mean the skeleton is male, because swords are almost exclusively associated with men in this culture. Could be right. Could be wrong. Ditto if you excavate an unsexable skeleton with an infant's skeleton. The automatic assumption might be that it's a female adult skeleton buried with her baby. Could be right. Could be wrong ...

So, there's this whole thing about projecting gender roles into the past onto societies which simply might not have seen things that way.

[j_forias]

Aye, yes, I can see how that would work. It's amazing how these theories touch so many aspects of human life and human knowledge. They question are base assumptions in almost every academic and life area. Wow!

Thank you so much for taking the time to explain that. (And yes, the Marxist archeologists sound bonkers.) I'll check out the link tomorrow! Got to head towards bed now. Up at 6am. :(