Women's Rights Rhetoric
The rhetoric of women's rights has blossomed with the voices of Sojourner Truth, Hilary Rodham Clinton, and bell hooks creating a discursive space for women to discuss their rights. Each of these women has interrogated how rights are afforded and denied to women—rights that should encompass all humanity. So, why women's rights? Do not human rights encompass women's rights? Women's right activists clamor to be heard; however, other rights' rhetorics are begging to be heard as well in the public sphere. With so many speaking, the public sphere is drowned in a cacophony of rights' rhetors, but the public sphere does not recognize the message of many of these groups. The great noise of rights' rhetorics silences the message; thus, many rights continue to be violated, in particular, women's rights.
In her speech to the Convention on Women's Rights held in China(read text here), Hilary Rodham Clinton delineates the importance of women's rights. She articulates how the domestic sphere or the woman's domain is influencing the public sphere. She provides those who are heavily invested in the public sphere a valuable cache for protecting the domestic sphere underneath the banner of human rights. When the domestic sphere is devalued, the public sphere loses value as well. The home is the locus from which the public sphere gains stability and can perform its function in society. The women who labor in the domestic sphere support husbands and raise children. These actions reproduce another generation to work in the public sphere. We should place more value upon the work that is performed at home rather than devaluing its lack of visible influence within the public sphere. When women's work is valued, women gain their rights.
In the academic community, we bemoan the current state of women's rights. We focus so much of our efforts on championing the marginalized woman's domestic work. This is not to say these third world women or low income women do not need us to speak about their cause; however, by focusing our discourse on the other, we risk denying a discursive space for another group of women, in particular, the “middle-class” mother. According to Clinton, the mother labors within the domestic sphere whose work we should value. We neglect her cause. Perhaps, we assume that she has been given rights already because she occupies a pseudo-position of power or through her marital status or through her race. Who are we in our academic community to privilege one woman's rights over another? In her speech, Clinton does not differentiate between which domestic sphere—the Western or third world—has more value or needs more support in the public sphere. We need to question consistently our motivations for participating in women's rights rhetoric and the repercussions of our speech. Who are we marginalizing or worse silencing?
As a female academic and mother, I am truly inspired as I read and reread Hilary Clinton's speech. My work in the domestic sphere has value, and there are women laboring to show its importance; however, in the academic community, I must bifurcate my roles as academic and domestic. I discuss in graduate seminars the rights of other women and their silencing within the domestic sphere, but I do not speak of my participation within the domestic sphere. When I do speak about my dual role as an academic and mother, I am usually explaining why I can't fully participate within the academic community. I can only attend so many conferences or apply to a select few PhD programs. This usually receives the awkward silence which is followed by the suggestion that maybe being an academic is not “right” career path for me. So, I remain silent about my domestic role and continue working on my academic pursuits. One day, my domestic labour will hold some cache in the academic community.
Subscribe To http://tolstoy2tinkerbell.blogspot.com/
Subscribe To http://tolstoy2tinkerbell.blogspot.com/
