A little feminist rant from yours truly

I've been feeling bugged today. The reason for my annoyance can be traced back to a discussion in one of my literature classes in which we discussed the importance - or unimportance - of preserving "the canon", that tried and true collection of salient literature that has carried us to where we are today. I respect the canon. I agree that it has left a literary legacy that numerous authors have been able to build on. Additionally, its effect upon masses of people cannot be easily dismissed. The trouble with the canon, however, is that though it is important, protecting the canon at all costs includes using a standard of judgement that can be exclusive.

For some, this is a good thing. In the words of one of my classmates, it means that "the cream will always rise to the top." But what if the canon fails to reflect the truth of a particular time period? Or of life for enormous groups of people? For example, I took a late Renaissance literature class and would have had absolutely no clue that women were even putting pen to paper in the late 1600s had I not done some studying on my own, my professor being a "canon protector". Sure we studied Jonson, Donne, Herbert, Vaughan and Bacon. It was great. But what did women have to say about life and their situation during the late Renaissance? What about Margery Kempe or Mary Herbert? What about Mary Wroth and the ever present "anonymous" writer? What about freaking Queen Elizabeth? And hmm...what about people of color?

This is where the class discussion took a more disturbing turn. The classmate previously mentioned essentially insinuated that women just hadn't been capable of producing "cream". He couldn't help notice, as both an english and philosophy major, that women just hadn't contributed to these fields as men had. He continued that perhaps women just weren't rational enough, at which point I became extremely pissed off.

Huh. Women not rational enough for philosophy? So that explains it. I'm glad we have that so tidily cleaned up. Now whenever I note that men are at the forefront of certain professions I can say to myself, "women just aren't rational enough" and feel better.

My question is, how is it somehow excusable in the minds of certain persons to make ridiculous generalizations about women, even when we've learned that making those same generalizations about other entire groups of people is morally and intellectually reprehensible?

Let's take one very important profession. Neurosurgery. Wow. Not a lot of female neurosurgeons. In fact, I could pretty much guarantee you that female neurosurgeons are outnumbered significantly by male ones. This must mean women aren't rational enough for neurosurgery. Or smart enough. Or whatever easy mental solution you have for this issue. Easy, right? But wait, how many of those neurosurgeons are people of color? If they, too, are vastly outnumbered by white male neurosurgeons this also must mean that they are somehow deficient just as women are, right? Wrong.

Dr. Ben Carson is widely considered the best pediatric neurosurgeon in the world. He has directed the pediatric nuerosurgery unit at Johns Hopkins for years. And he is an African-American. Hmm...so it seems my classmate's simple formula has suddenly become a bit more complicated. Unless you believe the case of Ben Carson is a fluke, which is stupid.

Perhaps there are more Ben Carsons out there who, given the opportunity, will change the face of neurosurgery as we know it. Perhaps there are women who will do the same. I don't doubt it for a second. I just wish the idiot (confused individual) in my class didn't either.