I've been reflecting on my work. My work is not about passive women (ie the way men portray women in art), not women to be looked at. My work is about active women (a woman portraying women).
The women I valued started as being valued for their Intellectual skills (I think this is a value created by men. I think the hierarchy that places intellect above practical derives from men and power). Thus I was working within a male value system. I started depicting an Intellectual Woman who was not allowed to develop her intellect formally because of her gender - this was typical of her era. She had something valued by the patriarchy, yet was restricted in her capacity to use it by her gender. Then I moved to Argumentative Woman, who uses her intellect to argue, typically with men, for the benefit of anyone who was Othered. So I continued to value the intellectual.
Then I moved to valuing Homemaker Woman - manual, domestic activities. Highly skilled home-making/comfort based. Valuing housework as labour is a well worked theme, but has often focussed on the monetary value rather than the skill base.
Next was Migrant Worker Woman - valuing distasteful manual, public service, work that native British people won't do.
Finally I'm looking at Manual Worker Woman. High volume manual work.
Activity Environment Power Base
Intellectual (Mrs K) Private (home) Church; father; husband
Intellectual (me) Public Corporate (transport);
Manual (Aunt Joan). Private Husband; church
Manual (cleaners) Public Corporate (cleaning); church
Manual (machinists) Public Corporate (cars); union
Whether these women are working in a public or private environment, they are operating in a patriarchal power base. Which affects how they are valued.
No comments:
Post a Comment