Quote: “Women, Jefferson argued,
could not participate in public deliberations because ‘promiscuous mixing’
would distract men from business and create ‘ambiguity’ in decision making.
Jefferson reflected the common belief that women appealed to the passions
rather than to reason and would inevitably corrupt civic virtue if they were
mixed ‘promiscuously’ at public meetings. ” (Zaeske 193)
Question: Wouldn’t this be a
shortcoming on the male’s part? Isn't Jefferson really just saying that men are
mentally incapable of focusing solely on a given task if any distraction is
presented? Also, in my opinion, Jefferson is being quite ‘ambiguous’. What
about women specifically is he talking about? What is so distracting that men
couldn’t possibly move past it? If he is going to bring up women as an issue,
shouldn’t his argument be more clear and explicit? All I read was vague assumptions without proof
or rationale. Couldn't we say that he lacks ethos, logos and even pathos? How
could Aristotle agree with these claims about women if they weren’t supported
with viable, scientific, proofed evidence?
I loved your quote, it really stood out to me as well. I feel like what Jefferson is attempting to say is basically women are too emotionally unstable to deliver any sort of discourse to the public. Jefferson is definitely being ambiguous with his choice of words as well.
ReplyDeleteI didn't take this message from it the first time reading through, however, that's an interesting point. I went to Catholic private school growing up with a very strict dress code. We had to wear uniforms, couldn't wear "unnatural" makeup, dye our hair, or paint our nails because it would "distract" the people around us from learning and I think that is kind of what Jefferson is trying to argue. But I agree with you. I think if one isn't capable of continuing working and is that easily distracted, it definitely is a shortcoming on their end.
ReplyDelete