I wanted to react to the interesting views proposed by Kant
in regards to women and their views on the sublime. He basically stated that
while women could have a general appreciation for nature, they couldn’t quite
comprehend the deeper meaning and emotions that go with that appreciation. It
really does show how the general culture stood in relation to sexism and
viewing women as intellectual inferiors. It is true, however, that in history
it is mainly men who are documented as being writers, explorers, or artists,
for the American sublime. This does not mean that there weren’t women who felt
the exact same way, but as tends to happen, women were somewhat pushed over to
the side. Perhaps the socially constructed ideal was that females only did
admire superficial beauty. They, especially in the eyes of society back in the
18th-19th century, weren’t up for the high-level ways of
thinking that involved the incorporation of mathematics and technology. I
suppose this really spoke to me because I have an absolute passion for nature
and feel almost overwhelmed with emotions over a scenic view, and I’m a female.
It’s also interesting that these deep feelings are viewed as masculine, while
today sometimes I notice that any kind of deep emotional involvement is thought
of as being feminine.
I was also appalled when I read that section. It's somewhat ironic, we refer to nature and earth as "Mother Nature" or "Mother Earth", yet during the 18th and 19th century, women were thought to be incapable of observing the "sublimity" of nature? It's ridiculous! I think it's so silly that levels of appreciation were determined by someone's intellect. I think it plays part into how humans and society are always looking for a way to find power and hierarchy. But c'mon, appreciation is appreciation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Laura. Women were considered inferior because of the man-dominant society at that time. The great majority of women did not have the opportunity to obtain education in the 18th to 19th century. The women's appreciation of the nature sublime were often deemed shallow and pointless. As far as I'm concerned, the nature sublime belongs to the all human-beings regardless of the gender. Women have the exact same right to appreciate the sublime. And because of the sensitive nature of the women, I believe that they could have a deeper understanding of the nature sublime.
ReplyDeleteI agree, this whole view on women and the sublime really baffled me. I also find this a bit contradictory for I thought that aspects of nature and emotions were rather linked to women. Yet, I think that not all men held that opinion because they really believed in it (though most of them probably did). I think denying women the ability to truly feel the sublime was just another way to keep them in check. At some point in the text, Nye explains that women weren't always given the chance to experience such sublime sights for it often would have required to travel and usually women “had so many domestic burdens that they seldom could leave home to enjoy the natural scenes around them. Their aesthetic concerns were usually limited to the immediate surroundings, especially their gardens and their efforts at landscaping.” (Nye 30) Making women believe that a trip to natural sights would not be worth the effort, since they could not fully experience the sublime anyway, might have been another way to make sure that they simply stay at home. Anyway, experiencing nature and the sublime is always a subjective matter – there is and there should be no right or wrong, better or worse.
ReplyDeleteI can't believe how ignorant and stubborn most men were at the time when it came to the recognition of women. Naming our planet Mother Nature is correlating Earth with women, showing how powerful and special women are. However, they were viewed as the complete opposite. It's a shame women couldn't fully enjoy the sublime back then like men did, but it's a good times have changed for the better now.
ReplyDelete