FEMININITY FAILS FEMALES–A REVIEW OF THE FEMININE MYSTIQUE AND WHY HAVETHERE BEEN NO GREAT FEMALE ARTISTS?

Flying Banana

It is common knowledge that since the creation of the concept of a central government, nearly every powerful leader has been a man. So have most scientists. Even in the case of female scientists, scholars and leaders, nearly all of them had a friend, family member, or partner that had a similar profession, or had equal power as the woman in question. Take Marie Curie for instance, her husband was also a chemist. Wu Zetian, China’s only empress, only became empress because her husband Tang Gaozong was the emperor. You see? Throughout history, successful women have rarely been able to make those accomplishments solely on their own. Why is this? Why are men the dominant gender in society and politics? Precisely because of femininity.The entire essay forwards will revolve around the core messages and ideas of Linda Nochlin’sWhy Have There Been No Great Female Artists? and Betty Friedan’sThe Feminine Mystique, both being revolutionary writings on the subject of femininity.

Femininity is “a set of attributes, behaviors, and roles generally associated with women and girls”; it isdesigned to “guard men from unwanted competition” (Nochlin, 16), and it does so by purposefully excluding women from equal education in “almost any field of human endeavor” (Nochlin, 2).It expects utter obedience and mediocrity so that women can better serve their husbands.Even until the 70s, women were still finding themselves victims of discrimination and sexism, be it in the workplace or at home, even though feminist ideals have been championed ever since the birth of the United States. It is out of such discrimination and prejudice that Friedan produced theFeminine Mystique in 1963, which was shortly followed byNochlin’sWhyHave There Been No Great Women Artists? in 1971.

The former elucidates the nature of femininity, whereas the latter elaborates on the negative concomitants of femininity, the most important among which is the silencing of many potentially great voices.In this way, the two readings complement each other to offer the reader a comprehensive understanding of the concepts of femininity, along with its profound impacts on society.

Notwithstanding their complementary messages, the purpose of the two articles differs greatly. Friedan, through her psychoanalytical masterpiece, aims to report her findings and warn people of the dangers of Freudian thought and the ways that it’s rearing its head even after the death of Freud. However, its purpose ends there – it’s simply a warning. There's not much of a point for a warning if there is no countermeasure proposed, and that’s where Nochlin’s writing comes into place. Nochlin outlines a clear “countermeasure,” diving into the forms of discrimination that women face in the field of art. But she doesn’t stop there; she then tells us, in the end, that “what is important is that women face up… to their history and of their present situation…using as a vantage point their position as underdogs…women can reveal institutional and intellectual weaknesses in general.”

The combination of No Great Women Artists and theFeminine Mystiqueoffers unique ways to view feminism, the latter refuting a well-cemented system of thought, but giving no clear call for action. It explains femininity by disproving Freud but never suggests concrete implications of Freudian thought. However,No Great Women Artistspresents an effective call for action, one that is magnified by the fact that it follows from the realizations posited by both articles. It materializes the abstract explanations of Feminine Mystique with solid examples, including how Rosa Bonheur succumbs to the “frilly blouse syndrome” (Nochlin, 22).Nochlin also explains why victims of discrimination are powerless to alter the oppressive system. Being barred from equal education is out of the control of women, “ ‘lady’ students were not admitted to life drawing at the Royal Academy of London” (Nochlin, 12). Such prejudice pervades every field, as Nochlin suggests herself, “Why have there never been any great women artists (or composers, or mathematicians, or philosophers, or so few of the same)?” She uses art as a representation of the oppression faced by women in all fields, implying that while there have been women geniuses, they were never given the chance – be it training or attention – to demonstrate their talents. Just like Tom Robinson faced conviction of a nonexistent rape because of the color of his skin in To Kill a Mockingbird, women face hostility and prejudice that seal their fate and kill their dreams. While there are exceptions, their success was achieved against a multitude of odds and was built upon a meticulously optimized series of events.

Illuminating the concept of femininity and its effects helps us understand why women’s status is lower than that of men in the status quo. According to Nochlin, the reason behind the perceived lack of women artists is because of the ideas of femininity: women were supposed to be bound to their households. They were prohibited from painting nudes, an essential part of 19th-century art. “What if Picasso had been a girl?” Nochlin argued that had Picasso been of the so-called “lesser sex,” he is unlikely to have “paid as much attention or stimulated as much ambition for achievement.” There have been women geniuses in art, and by extension, other fields of study. However, they weren’t ever given the chance to demonstrate their expertise and intellect. If we keep holding these biased and outdated thoughts in our minds, humanity will continue to overlook these talents, ultimately hindering the development of humanity.