Summary Of Disconnect Young's Throwing Like A Girl
While the glass ceiling hangs over our heads we must forget the saying that “those in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.” Women face an invisible barrier between the limited space they inhabit and the space that is actually available to them. The glass ceiling is traditionally defined as “an unofficially acknowledged barrier to advancement in a profession, especially affecting women and members of minorities” (Merriam-Webster). I argue that through Young’s analysis of the modalities specific to feminine spatiality, it becomes clear that the glass ceiling exists not only in professional environments but throughout a woman’s life. Women experience space as enclosed or confining, the severance between a “here” and a “yonder” creates a disconnect
…show more content…
between the current situation of women, and the possibilities they see for others but not themselves, that the glass ceiling amplifies patriarchal society’s portrayal of women as objects, and finally that this invisible barrier sometimes acts as the only defense women have against the invasion of their space. Young begins Throwing Like a Girl by discussing Beauvoir’s account of the situation of women to lay a foundation for her analysis of how women comport themselves and exist in space.
Young states that through Beauvoir’s account it seems as if it is “woman’s anatomy and physiology as such that at least in part determine her unfree status” (23). However, it is not the anatomy of a woman that weighs her down, but society’s patriarchal views of women’s bodies, and thus women’s relationship with space. Young clarifies, as should I, that the claims made within both her paper and mine apply to the “feminine” existence and therefore do not apply to all women. The feminine existence is “a set of structures and conditions that delimit the typical situation of being a woman in a particular society, as well as the typical way in which this situation is lived by the women themselves” (24). Young combines Beauvoir’s account of the “feminine” existence, and the situation of women with the theory of the lived body as expressed by Merleau-Ponty. Merleau-Ponty theorises that “phenomenal space arises out of motility and lived relations of space are generated by the capacities of the body’s motion and the intentional relations that motion constitutes” (32). If lived space arises from our relationship with space and the ability to use our bodies, a connection can be drawn from the situation of women to our perception of space as enclosed or
confining. In a study conducted by Erik Erikson, he concluded that “females emphasize inner or enclosed space” (32). Young suggests that this is a “reflection of the way [women] live and move their bodies through space” (32). The space that is available to women is often larger than the space used by women. Thus, it is as if there is an invisible barrier women must face, not only in professional environments but throughout our lives; we perceive a limited space for the feminine “I can” (33). For Merleau-Ponty, there is an “immediate link between the body and outlying space” (33). For the feminine existence, however, “the projection of an enclosed space severs the continuity between a “here and a yonder” (33). There is a distinct difference between the space we currently inhabit, the “here,” and the space beyond, the “yonder.” In the feminine existence, the space of “yonder” exists as possible for someone but not for myself. The disconnect between the “here” and the “yonder” is an expression of the “discontinuity between aim and capacity” (33). The severance of the connection between a “here” and a “yonder” is expressed in the discontinuity between where women perceive they belong and the possibilities they see for others. The “timidity, immobility, and uncertainty” (33) that characterize feminine movement, also characterize the lack of agency women possess to exist as they wish. Imagine someone looking throw a window, they must acknowledge that people are passing by, but they also recognize that they cannot pass through the glass. “Yonder” exists for the feminine essence as something which she is “looking into rather than moving in” (33). Thus, in feminine existence, not only do women face a glass ceiling, we face a glass house. The glass house women face is built pane by pane as we accept our “feminine status” (35). As children, boys and girls show almost no difference in spatial perception, spatial problem-solving, and motor skills, but as these differences increase with age (36). Girls are more often encouraged to play house or to play with dolls. Whereas boys are encouraged to “tinker,” to get dirty and to play sports. These activities encourage “free and open engagement with the world” (35). The play of girls often reinforces gender roles and often begins to build the barriers females face as they grow older. When a girl is told she cannot “get hurt [or] get dirty,” that “what she desires to do is dangerous for her” (35), she internalizes these commands and it translates to a limited range of choices for what she believes she can and cannot do later in life. When she learns to comport her body in ways that are feminine, she learns to “hamper her movements” (35). As girls grow older, they often take on more and more of these traits and they actively “enact [their] own body inhibition” (35). The socialization of girls ensures that the glass ceiling stays in place through a self-maintained system. Similarly to Young spending hours practicing a “feminine” walk, I can recall my first time walking in heels; both create a limited range of movement. In Merleau-Ponty’s account “the body is the original subject that constitutes space” (33). Without the body, there would be no space, thus the body does not occupy the same position as other objects. However, through Young’s discussion of the socialization of girls and women, we can see that the “feminine bodily existence is self-referred and thus lives itself as an object” (33). Merleau-Ponty argues that “visual perception and motility stand in a relation of reversibility; an impairment in one leads to an impairment of the other” (34). Women’s view of objects as rooted in place and “anchored in their immanence” (34) act as a reflection of the impairment in their motility. The barrier women face in enacting their own agency and being recognized as people, socially and culturally amplifies the objectification they experience. One of the sources of the “modalities of feminine bodily existence” is that “patriarchal society defines woman as object” (36). As the meaning of art is left to the interpretation of the viewer, women are presented as “the potential object of another subject’s intentions and manipulations in society” (36). Women’s bodies are constantly on display in media, through commercials, and music videos. This constant sexualization of women’s bodies partnered with the dismissal of our bodies as “manifestations of action and intention” (36) often creates uncomfortable, and sometimes even dangerous situations for women. The glass ceiling acts not only to limit the activities girls can partake in, and the career opportunities women have access to, but it also acts as a defense against “the threat of invasion of her bodily space” (36). Young mentions that this invasion of space includes both ends of the spectrum, rape, but also other more subtle ways. Attached to the “window” that women look out of to see the possibilities for others is a wall. Women often try their best to transmit an air of unapproachability, or we at least try to not draw attention to ourselves. We wall ourselves off from the world by walking with our arms to our chest, attempting to take up as little space as possible. There have been many times on the bus where I have barricaded myself in my seat with my bags, sitting against the window, and putting my headphones in an attempt to evade unwanted interaction with others. While all the unwanted interactions I have had on the bus have thankfully only been an inconvenience, it is because of my lack of belief in my ability to use my body’s capacity to protect myself from the threat of violence that could occur if I rejected the advances. The attempt at projecting a closed space for myself, like many other women is the only way I know how to defend myself from such advances. Thankfully, significant strides have been made and continue to be made in improving the situation of women since Throwing Like a Girl was first published. However, society is still built on a patriarchal framework and thus many women still live live in the glass house created by the feminine experience. Women experience space as enclosed or confining because of the process of socialization starting when we are young, women often experience a lack of confidence because of the severance between a “here” and a “yonder,” the glass ceiling acts to amplify the objectification of women, while also acting as a defense mechanism against the unwarranted advances women face as a consequence of the objectification. It is time to start throwing stones; the time for the glass house to come down is now.
between the current situation of women, and the possibilities they see for others but not themselves, that the glass ceiling amplifies patriarchal society’s portrayal of women as objects, and finally that this invisible barrier sometimes acts as the only defense women have against the invasion of their space. Young begins Throwing Like a Girl by discussing Beauvoir’s account of the situation of women to lay a foundation for her analysis of how women comport themselves and exist in space.
Young states that through Beauvoir’s account it seems as if it is “woman’s anatomy and physiology as such that at least in part determine her unfree status” (23). However, it is not the anatomy of a woman that weighs her down, but society’s patriarchal views of women’s bodies, and thus women’s relationship with space. Young clarifies, as should I, that the claims made within both her paper and mine apply to the “feminine” existence and therefore do not apply to all women. The feminine existence is “a set of structures and conditions that delimit the typical situation of being a woman in a particular society, as well as the typical way in which this situation is lived by the women themselves” (24). Young combines Beauvoir’s account of the “feminine” existence, and the situation of women with the theory of the lived body as expressed by Merleau-Ponty. Merleau-Ponty theorises that “phenomenal space arises out of motility and lived relations of space are generated by the capacities of the body’s motion and the intentional relations that motion constitutes” (32). If lived space arises from our relationship with space and the ability to use our bodies, a connection can be drawn from the situation of women to our perception of space as enclosed or
confining. In a study conducted by Erik Erikson, he concluded that “females emphasize inner or enclosed space” (32). Young suggests that this is a “reflection of the way [women] live and move their bodies through space” (32). The space that is available to women is often larger than the space used by women. Thus, it is as if there is an invisible barrier women must face, not only in professional environments but throughout our lives; we perceive a limited space for the feminine “I can” (33). For Merleau-Ponty, there is an “immediate link between the body and outlying space” (33). For the feminine existence, however, “the projection of an enclosed space severs the continuity between a “here and a yonder” (33). There is a distinct difference between the space we currently inhabit, the “here,” and the space beyond, the “yonder.” In the feminine existence, the space of “yonder” exists as possible for someone but not for myself. The disconnect between the “here” and the “yonder” is an expression of the “discontinuity between aim and capacity” (33). The severance of the connection between a “here” and a “yonder” is expressed in the discontinuity between where women perceive they belong and the possibilities they see for others. The “timidity, immobility, and uncertainty” (33) that characterize feminine movement, also characterize the lack of agency women possess to exist as they wish. Imagine someone looking throw a window, they must acknowledge that people are passing by, but they also recognize that they cannot pass through the glass. “Yonder” exists for the feminine essence as something which she is “looking into rather than moving in” (33). Thus, in feminine existence, not only do women face a glass ceiling, we face a glass house. The glass house women face is built pane by pane as we accept our “feminine status” (35). As children, boys and girls show almost no difference in spatial perception, spatial problem-solving, and motor skills, but as these differences increase with age (36). Girls are more often encouraged to play house or to play with dolls. Whereas boys are encouraged to “tinker,” to get dirty and to play sports. These activities encourage “free and open engagement with the world” (35). The play of girls often reinforces gender roles and often begins to build the barriers females face as they grow older. When a girl is told she cannot “get hurt [or] get dirty,” that “what she desires to do is dangerous for her” (35), she internalizes these commands and it translates to a limited range of choices for what she believes she can and cannot do later in life. When she learns to comport her body in ways that are feminine, she learns to “hamper her movements” (35). As girls grow older, they often take on more and more of these traits and they actively “enact [their] own body inhibition” (35). The socialization of girls ensures that the glass ceiling stays in place through a self-maintained system. Similarly to Young spending hours practicing a “feminine” walk, I can recall my first time walking in heels; both create a limited range of movement. In Merleau-Ponty’s account “the body is the original subject that constitutes space” (33). Without the body, there would be no space, thus the body does not occupy the same position as other objects. However, through Young’s discussion of the socialization of girls and women, we can see that the “feminine bodily existence is self-referred and thus lives itself as an object” (33). Merleau-Ponty argues that “visual perception and motility stand in a relation of reversibility; an impairment in one leads to an impairment of the other” (34). Women’s view of objects as rooted in place and “anchored in their immanence” (34) act as a reflection of the impairment in their motility. The barrier women face in enacting their own agency and being recognized as people, socially and culturally amplifies the objectification they experience. One of the sources of the “modalities of feminine bodily existence” is that “patriarchal society defines woman as object” (36). As the meaning of art is left to the interpretation of the viewer, women are presented as “the potential object of another subject’s intentions and manipulations in society” (36). Women’s bodies are constantly on display in media, through commercials, and music videos. This constant sexualization of women’s bodies partnered with the dismissal of our bodies as “manifestations of action and intention” (36) often creates uncomfortable, and sometimes even dangerous situations for women. The glass ceiling acts not only to limit the activities girls can partake in, and the career opportunities women have access to, but it also acts as a defense against “the threat of invasion of her bodily space” (36). Young mentions that this invasion of space includes both ends of the spectrum, rape, but also other more subtle ways. Attached to the “window” that women look out of to see the possibilities for others is a wall. Women often try their best to transmit an air of unapproachability, or we at least try to not draw attention to ourselves. We wall ourselves off from the world by walking with our arms to our chest, attempting to take up as little space as possible. There have been many times on the bus where I have barricaded myself in my seat with my bags, sitting against the window, and putting my headphones in an attempt to evade unwanted interaction with others. While all the unwanted interactions I have had on the bus have thankfully only been an inconvenience, it is because of my lack of belief in my ability to use my body’s capacity to protect myself from the threat of violence that could occur if I rejected the advances. The attempt at projecting a closed space for myself, like many other women is the only way I know how to defend myself from such advances. Thankfully, significant strides have been made and continue to be made in improving the situation of women since Throwing Like a Girl was first published. However, society is still built on a patriarchal framework and thus many women still live live in the glass house created by the feminine experience. Women experience space as enclosed or confining because of the process of socialization starting when we are young, women often experience a lack of confidence because of the severance between a “here” and a “yonder,” the glass ceiling acts to amplify the objectification of women, while also acting as a defense mechanism against the unwarranted advances women face as a consequence of the objectification. It is time to start throwing stones; the time for the glass house to come down is now.