I could start this post by saying:
Ever since I stumbled across some feminist writings on how history was male …
but in reality the spark which brought me to my senses was Michael Jackson’s double album “HIStory”. Bought whilst I still lived in Spain, much treasured too, it was the first time I understood the inconvenient truth behind the word itself. History – literally – belonged to men. And women were, more often than not, being written out of the picture.
Today I am minded by this tweet which came my way this morning to write about another possible example of unspoken oppression:
analytical or intuitive mind – one is not better than the other, they each have a different role to play #cipdlrn
To which I responded in this way:
@RapidBI Isn’t an intuitive mind simply an analytical one whose processes we don’t fully perceive?
And, later, in this:
@RapidBI Perhaps we call s’thing analytical when we’re able to share it with others. If not possible to share, the intuition label kicks in.
Traditionally, of course, the analytical mind has been considered male. Or, perhaps, we should say that’s a certain kind of analytical mind. It seems to me – intuitively, of course! – that when people talk of “feminine intuition”, they are conflating their understanding of what they easily understand with an idea of how people should (be obliged to) think.
If oppression of the HIStorical kind I mention above is repeating itself with respect to the intuitive mind, I would suspect it has far more to do with fearing the power of an unknown process than any objective assessment of its true nature. That is to say, much safer to argue the process is unknowable than face the consequences of knowing it all too well.
For, in such circumstances, it’s easier to discard your female brain’s thought processes as non-analytical, simply and entirely because you don’t share its basic assumptions. It’s rather more difficult to take onboard the idea that perhaps intuition – as we (continue to refuse to) comprehend and define it – is a powerful set of analytical tools which require far greater powers of observation to properly perceive and exert.
It may even be that the kind of men who have described and handed down the history of human intellect have been unable to acquire or manage the skillset which intuition encompasses. And so, in this way, this inability to acquire something of undoubted importance has led to their desire, instead, to vigorously dismiss it – to undervalue its inherent power and capability and to present it as some mysterious and almost empty-headed process.
A potential HIStory of oppression, indeed.