Last
Tuesday I shared a dinner table with friends, acquaintances and strangers. In
such a situation it's tempting to ignore the strangers, but that would be rude,
lazy and would also exclude the possibility of interacting with people who
might bring new ideas and enthusiasms to the table. In any case, it's not so
difficult to strike up a conversation: strangers too are looking to
interact, though they might be shy of making the first move.
The topic of football soon came up
(this is Manchester) and, despite my lack of enthusiasm for sporting events, I
was able to contribute something.
"So, the England versus France
Women's World Cup qualifier kicked off earlier," I said to the stranger
from Rochdale sitting opposite me. "Why does women's football have such a
low profile?"
"Because
they should all be back 'ome in the kitchen," he replied. His wife did not
demur. When a seat became vacant further down the table, I moved to it.
On
reflection, I had raised the issue not so much to talk about football as to
discuss the marginalisation of women in society: Rochdale man had seen that
coming and counter-attacked promptly.
Three days previously I had been at Tate Modern where I had fallen straightaway
under the spell of the colourful compositions of Sonia Delaunay (wife of the
more famous Robert Delaunay). She is described as "One of the pioneers of
abstraction and a central figure of the Paris avant-garde" yet I had not previously
heard of her - not that I am so knowledgeable about art, but her contribution
would seem to have deserved wide cultural acknowledgement.
Sonia
Delaunay went to art school in 1904 at the age of 19 and worked until her death
in 1979. During her lifetime "women's lib" came and went, yet she had
already fought the battle and shown she could win. Recognition, however,
followed much later. In this she is not alone: the expectation that those in
the limelight (men) would actively encourage women to share it is akin to
expecting turkeys to vote for Christmas. Education, of course, is the essential
requirement for those who strive against such oppression, a fact which has
always been understood by those who are jealous of their control over others:
withholding education is still a primary technique they employ, fundamental
religionists being the most blatant practitioners.
It may
seem, on casual observance, that so-called Western societies are well beyond
the stage of active suppression of women but this is only partly true. Like an
iceberg, the attractive part is visible but the ugly part remains submerged and
ready to do damage. Considering that it was as long ago as 1792 that Mary
Wollstonecraft published her book A
Vindication of the Rights of Women, progress towards equality has been slow
and painful. The first women's suffrage society was formed in 1865 (in
Manchester, of course) and, although women of means and from liberal families
began to acquire education around that time, they remained politically
disenfranchised. There were some men who took up the cause, notably John Stuart
Mill who advocated their enfranchisement but, ironically, the most powerful
woman in the world at the time, Queen Victoria, was implacably opposed to it:
the status quo is a stubborn adversary.
The policy of restricting women to the kitchen is counter-productive: having half the human race unable to contribute to society outside of the home must be a hindrance to human development. Men may be protective of their positions and egos but they will ultimately be subverted. As the man said when I asked for the boss that time, "Would you like to speak to the man in charge, or the woman who knows what's going on?"
Sonia Delaunay |
No comments:
Post a Comment