U1416843 A Critical evaluation of Sherry Ortner's claim AI4101 1415

Maisie D Dawes that women are universally subordinate to men. UEL

This essay is an evaluation of Sherry B. Ortner's paper claiming that women are universally
subordinate to men. Ortner unpacks the reasoning behind womens universal secondary status, taking
this status as a given with little evidence. Her explanations for the subordination of women lie in her
beliefs that women are seen to be closer to nature and how men deal with this. Ortner takes her ideas
from areas of anthropological research such as feminist anthropology, ethnopsychology as well as the
physiological nature of human beings. I am going to display some counterarguments within this field
and show my ideas surrounding how to reach this egalitarian society that Ortner and many others
wish for. To reach a cultural competence universally we need to look at all sides of the debate
surrounding gender. What exactly does Ortner mean when she uses the word subordinate? First I will
look at her ideas surrounding why women have this secondary status and how this links in with the
comparative difference between someones sex and gender role. Next I will show how this may be
universal when looking at institutions and womens participation. Then a discussion of Ortners ideas
surrounding the differences in the psychic structures of men and women and just how complex
feminist ideas can often be. What journey do we need to take to address some of the issues that Ortner
raises and how can we bring about equality between two sides of the world, when we do not yet know
the root problem?
Ortner begins by explaining her ideas of why a womans secondary status is pan-cultural,
despite cultural variations on the views of gender. Her reasoning behind this is that within the generic
process of every culture there is evidence of devaluing women, defilement as a symbol of inferior
valuation and social rules that prohibit a womans participation.Evidence of these behaviours are
certainly found worldwide and many women will experience this in their lives but is it as universal
as Ortner explains? The fact that Ortner is writing about this matter shows that these ideas of womens
rights are not the basic personality of all human beings.
'A multidimensional category of personhood encompassing a distinct pattern of social and cultural
differences. Gender categories often draw on perceptions of anatomical and physiological differences
between bodies, but these perceptions are always mediated by cultural categories and meanings'
(Roscoe; 341)
When looking at Roscoes definition of gender we can clearly see that the sexual dimorphism is the
only thing that may be the same pan-culturally as the cultural ontology of every area and arguably
every individual is different. The core discovery of our sex may be the only thing that everyone has
in common because our sexual identity, and therefore our ideas behind subordinating women, is our
own personal experience. Examples can be seen in homosexuality and the new generations of many
Western countries in which a woman will be the breadwinner and the man will stay at home.
However, despite the assumption that every culture holds these views of women being
secondary citizens, if we look at statistics across global and local institutions there is a significant
1
U1416843 A Critical evaluation of Sherry Ortner's claim AI4101 1415
Maisie D Dawes that women are universally subordinate to men. UEL
difference between the amount of men in careers holding power compared to women.
'What could there be in the generalized structure and conditions of existence, common to every
culture, that would lead every culture to devalue women?' (Ortner; 6)
Ortner explains that this subordination of women happens across all cultural value systems, most
explain this with biological determinism, however Ortner believes it is the affect of our ideas
surrounding nature leading into the cultural value systems that causes these views of women. While
women bear the organs of reproduction and all this brings, men are left to trascend nature for future
generations using symbols and artifacts so that human consciousness can take control. These ideas of
each human having a 'guided reinvention of culture' is reflected in scientists research surrounding
how each individual learns a language and therefore their culture around them. It is argued that we
learn words atomically however we also add our own 'slant' on our findings, then inputting this into
the culture we live in. Therefore it is possible for both men and women to 'transcend nature'. Could
the view of women being 'closer to nature' really be why some men see women as being 'scarcely
human' (Lee and DeVore; 91)? Ortner uses rituals and economics to show men controlling nature -
and therefore women - but across all rituals and religions, historically and spacially, many have been
celebrating nature rather than the destruction of it. Annette Weiner found that within the trobriand
islanders both women and men were equal participants in their exchange system and the role of
domestic duties and bringing up children was taken on my everyone, despite the fact that women
have the most 'obvious' of the reproductive organs.
Most of Ortners ideas surrounding why women are treated differently to men, and in some
instances unfairly, are true but are they universal? Ortner continues by explaining how traditional
roles of men and women have led to each sex having a completely different history and therefore
psychic structure. While man has become evermore destructive, women have taken on domestic roles
and become closer to nature. She uses Chodorows ideas on the matter as an example. Across many
tribes after a woman has completed her goal of raising the children the young men need to be rid of
feminine defilement before becoming men. Also in many cultures a womans period is seen to be
disgusting and in need of cleansing, which is something that Ortner argues brings women closer to
nature, lodging them in between nature and culture. Many feminist anthropologists take a different
slant on the matter. There has been many studies backing up ideas that women and men use different
sides of their brains, men can be more aggressive and women more nurturing, however in terms of
nature we are all human and in terms of culture we all have an equal amount. So is Ortner assuming
that a womans domestic role is a bad thing despite the possibility that men and women may be
interested in different things altogether? Mary Douglas argued that women do not pollute men
because they are bad rather because women and men belong in different categories altogether. Women
may be less publicised in their views and may be 'closer to nature' in some respects but is it possible
2
U1416843 A Critical evaluation of Sherry Ortner's claim AI4101 1415
Maisie D Dawes that women are universally subordinate to men. UEL
for them not to be if men and women have different psyches as Ortner suggests? The question is
rather, are there some women that are forced into extreme versions of these positions, as well as men
into theirs? This is all that needs to change.
Ortner argues that because women are fully conscious, as men are, they fully particpate with
society, as a man does, but this only leads to women accepting their subordination as they are
culturalised to accept their gender roles. An example of this can be seen when we look at the language
of each gender. Maltz and Borker summarized the differences in each genders communication. Lakoff
suggests that this is an effect of male domination and female subordination (93). However Maltz and
Borker themselves explained it differently. They argued that it was because men and women are part
of different sociolinguistic subcultures. So are the differences between men and women in language
and roles because of our biological differences or is it a reflection of male domination as Ortner
explains? If Ortner is correct it is to assume that the segregation and differences of men and women
are because of oppression. When researching this I came across the works of Rayna Reiter and her
ideas behind 'sexual geography'. After examing a French village she found that the women did not
feel inferior, in some cases they even laughed at the men, it was only the case that men and women
interacted in different places and conducting different activities. Maybe we should not assume that
men are the problem and women are oppressed. To gain cultural competence we need to understand
what cannot be changed rather than trying to force the sexes into the same activities.
I agree with Ortner, as a woman I am someone who has experienced these things she talks of,
however I do believe that in order to tackle the problems of control that many women face we need
to look further than Ortners universal claims of sexism and possibly look to how gender differences
can work together. So are women universally subordinate to men? I go back to my question of what
it means to be subordinate. I think there is two meanings of subordination that is being discussed in
Ortners paper. Firstly there is the possible natural 'subordination' of women that links with the
different biology of men and women but this cannot be linked with the societal subordination of
women due to the fact that many women, especially in todays societies, are gaining as much power
as men and they have the same biology as other women. So it is not this subordination which Ortner
thinks needs to change, it is the second one mentioned of the devaluation of women. She shows how
it is women being in the domestic role that leads to them having little power and being heavily
controlled due to the way that society controls domestic to its gain. Ambiguous gender roles pan-
culturally have shown us that men and women are not always forced into the traditional roles that
possibly reflect our biological differences, however the devaluation of women among some
institutions means that many women who make the choice to change their roles cannot and are often
mistreated in trying to do so; this is what I believe Ortner is trying to address.
As Ortner suggests feminist anthropology is a complex subject and is constantly being
3
U1416843 A Critical evaluation of Sherry Ortner's claim AI4101 1415
Maisie D Dawes that women are universally subordinate to men. UEL
reshaped and thought out as we notice changes in our own society, discovering more of what humans
are capable of. For women to be subordinate/devalued within societal structure does not necessarily
mean that universally men have more culture and women are closer to nature. Although in some
circumstances things do need to be addressed as there is still a modal personality among humans that
women are inferior within institutions and more worryingly within their choice of who should control
their own actions. Maybe it is natural that men and women act like this, it has always been so.
However with a goal leading towards an egalitarian society we need to accept this and look at what
is harmful to women and degrading rather than making men and women the same. Equal policy
making may be the key. It is already present among some cultures where domestic roles are shared
and within larger societal structures technology such as contraception is making it possible for men
and women to take an equal role in policy making and domestic roles, even if it is true that they may
enjoy different sides of the matters at hand. As a seperate issue that needs to be looked at, would equal
policy making be more beneficial to the planets health in terms of Ortners ideas that men are
'destructive' and women are more caring and 'closer to nature'? We need to achieve equality and
cultural competence by letting women be women and men be men, together.

References

Ortner, Sherry B; Fall 1972; 'Is Female to Male as Nature is to Culture?'; Feminist Studies; 1; 2;
Periodicals Archive Online pg.5

Eller, Jack D; 2009; 'Cultural Anthropology; Global Forces, Local Lives'; 2nd Edition; Abingdon,
Oxon; Routledge

Hurford, James R; 2014; 'The Origins of Language, a slim edition'; UK; Oxford University Press