It seems as if Ortner is talking on behalf of a certain culture. Not on a societal basis. For the most part, I can relate and agree with what I read. The details in the passage uphold to the way things are now. Indeed men activites, such as warfare are praised more than child birth. Personally, I wouldn't praise it more, but I can see why. Simply for the fact that it takes more of a couragous act to take a life than to make a life. Ortner also speaks of the female body being somewhat of a part of nature. Nature is associated with grace, beauty, naturalality, and life. All qualities a woman can bring about. She also speaks of gender roles. Men providing education and care. Women provide the essentials a child needs when the child is growing up, although it comes to a point in time where a male has to take over and provide somewhat the same care, but on a larger scale at a higher level. That I can relate and agree with because, it is not only in one specific culture, it happens all around the world and even in our lives.
People confuse human nature with culture all the time. Human nature to me is something that happens to a human body as norm, it's not out of the ordinary because it happens to everyone. Culture would be, everybody may do somewhat of the same thing, but a specific group of people does this/that differently, in their own manner.
(Just what I thought about it, it sounds like rambling though)
-Kerry
I'm interested in the distinction you make between culture and society- consider reading Shaquesha Smith's post as she also mentions this. Can you think of an example related to society that would support or refute Ortner's claim? Also the last part of your post, where you define nature and culture provides a great means to opening Ortner's claim- women are closer to nature, men are closer to culture- to discussion. For example, if human bodies-male and female- are part of nature, why does Ortner insist that women are closer to nature than men?
ReplyDelete