This post was some time in the making. I sat down trying to weigh out “What does English say about ‘The War on Women?’ In doing so I came up with a couple of really good mechanisms of Literary Criticism that served the goals I set out to achieve. New Historicism is a valid tool for such an endevour. As a lens, New Historicism does not automatically give priority to one social construct or another. For the same token, Postmodern structures of deconstruction (see what I did there?) can completely neuter the predominant social considerations behind current value structures.
Because of that whole mess; a broad notion such as a ‘war on women,’ is a tough nut to crack. We can, instead, look at the social considerations of participating in the exchange itself. New Historicism tells us to look beyond the literal considerations of a ‘text,’ and to take into account and consideration the social and political environ from which it springs-- as equals. Many proponents or advocates of ‘raising awareness’ on the ‘war on women’ are not engaging the discourse which defines the matter we are discussing. But rather these proponents wear their advocacy as a badge which locates them within a set of established, rigid, xenophobic values. This advocacy utilizes similar external argumentation and rhetorical positioning to the American Silver Legion, or the German Sturmabteilung (SA.) Showing your support for ‘women,’ in this ‘war on women,’ doesn’t really do anything. But rather it locates the individual within a particular discourse community. Identifying their allegiance and providing a cue to others for their preferred mechanism of interaction.
The social milieu, the cultural identity, which is promulgated by advocating the existence of a ‘war on women’ simultaneously supports a “White Liberal Middle Class” supremacy while giving the illusion of opposing it. Slavoj Zizek states that “Progressive liberals are, of course, horrified [...] However, a closer look reveals how their multicultural tolerance and respect of differences share with those who oppose [them] the need to keep others at a proper distance. "The others are OK, I respect them," the liberals say, "but they must not intrude too much on my own space. The moment they do, they harass me – I fully support affirmative action, but I am in no way ready to listen to loud rap music." What is increasingly emerging as the central human right in late-capitalist societies is the right not to be harassed, which is the right to be kept at a safe distance from others. A terrorist whose deadly plans should be prevented belongs in Guantánamo, the empty zone exempted from the rule of law; a fundamentalist ideologist should be silenced because he spreads hatred. Such people are toxic subjects who disturb my peace” (Source). This duality allows a panoptic enforcement of “White Liberal Middle Class” values, while projecting an image of tolerance. The very image of humanist tolerance is at its very core intolerant. Intolerant to the cultural values which precede it, intolerant to religion and intolerant to opposing views. Hateful intolerance with a “human face,” as Zizek would put it.
The most important aspect of the ‘war on women,’ is the acceptance of victimization which is a formic value which must be accepted in order to assimilate the concept of an organized movement against ‘womanhood.’ This short trieste does not speak to the affect or even the causes of this social movement, but it is necessary to point out that I believe in equality of gender. I do not believe in, nor do I support the supplication of a gender, or sex, even if it is willfully chosen by way of a portrait of self-victimization.
