Mini Feminist Rant
Dec. 29th, 2014 01:10 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
siglinde99Yesterday we read Psalm 148. It's a fine praise song (it even has dragons), but with one glaring omission. It mentions children, young men, maidens and old men, but no older women. Is it a sexist omission, or is it a reflection of the fact that, between early marriage, frequent pregnancy and poor maternal health outcomes, there were few old women who survived to praise the Lord?
Last night, I needed to look for a picture of Ruth using a quern in the BBC series on life in a 13th C castle (set at Guédelon) and came across this: http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2014/nov/19/secrets-of-the-castle-review-good-old-fashioned-medieval-fun. I was appalled. What right has the reviewer to assume that the work done by Ruth (referred to as bandage-head because she has on a proper headdress) is any less interesting than that done by the men, just because it happens to be focused in the first episode around the household and garden? I re-read the article again today and it still makes me cranky. I can see that the reviewer is trying to be funny, but by disparaging the work that is done by the most articulate and apparently knowledgeable of the three stars of the show, simply because she is highlighting work that was gendered at the time makes me insane. Clearly, he thinks he is being all non-sexist by criticizing "women's work" but in fact he is contributing to the perception that it is less valuable than the work done by men.
Last night, I needed to look for a picture of Ruth using a quern in the BBC series on life in a 13th C castle (set at Guédelon) and came across this: http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2014/nov/19/secrets-of-the-castle-review-good-old-fashioned-medieval-fun. I was appalled. What right has the reviewer to assume that the work done by Ruth (referred to as bandage-head because she has on a proper headdress) is any less interesting than that done by the men, just because it happens to be focused in the first episode around the household and garden? I re-read the article again today and it still makes me cranky. I can see that the reviewer is trying to be funny, but by disparaging the work that is done by the most articulate and apparently knowledgeable of the three stars of the show, simply because she is highlighting work that was gendered at the time makes me insane. Clearly, he thinks he is being all non-sexist by criticizing "women's work" but in fact he is contributing to the perception that it is less valuable than the work done by men.
