In the Aughterson excerpts, I most enjoyed Leslie's argument for both its creativity and its persuasive power. Like Knox, Leslie uses scripture as his guide. But whereas Knox cites the stories of the bible, such as Eve proving women's creational subordinance, Leslie gets technical and goes to the words themselves, providing tangible evidence--finally!--through Latin grammar rules in regards to the gender of words.This is especially interesting because of the OED search we did in class: gender was first and foremost a grammatical term, then it switched to describing sex. We can certainly see that here.
The arguments (between Knox, Aylmer, Leslie, Smith, etc) switch so seamlessly between lofty ideals and minute details, it's difficult to even view them as part of the same discussion. They're responding to one another, sure, but I feel like they're doing so with apples and oranges: Knox makes broad, sweeping, conceptual statements that women are naturally foolish, mad, frail, and subordinate to men. Then Alymer comes back and makes concrete, rational arguments that women are allowed to inherit, and inheritance is linked with empire, etc. I don't feel like either argument touches the other because their foundations are inherently different. Would Knox (or his followers) care about grammar/inheritance technicalities when he is functioning on a different knowledge base (philosophical, "natural") entirely?
The arguments (between Knox, Aylmer, Leslie, Smith, etc) switch so seamlessly between lofty ideals and minute details, it's difficult to even view them as part of the same discussion. They're responding to one another, sure, but I feel like they're doing so with apples and oranges: Knox makes broad, sweeping, conceptual statements that women are naturally foolish, mad, frail, and subordinate to men. Then Alymer comes back and makes concrete, rational arguments that women are allowed to inherit, and inheritance is linked with empire, etc. I don't feel like either argument touches the other because their foundations are inherently different. Would Knox (or his followers) care about grammar/inheritance technicalities when he is functioning on a different knowledge base (philosophical, "natural") entirely?
No comments:
Post a Comment