"L'enfer c'est les autres"--JP Sartre
This year, students will explore the theme of otherness. What defines the mainstream and how does this mainstream dictate to others? What does it mean to be marginalized? How has the mainstream impacted the world of ideas across the centuries?
I think it is better to be locked out, even though it might hurt to be marginalized. If a person is locked in, they can't escape. The person is expected to conform and play by the rules. Being locked in comes with so many expectations and pressure. I believe that by being locked out one is not influenced and is able to observe, and who ever said a person cannot fight to get in if they really wanted to or tried changing whatever was locking him/her out. By being locked out, a person becomes more mature and can see both sides, the outside but the inside as he/she looks in. In A Room of One's Own I don't think the female speaker wants to get into the those doors that are locking her out to become like the men that cause her injustice, but she wants to get in to gain equality and justice. I feel that it is different when a person is trying to get in just to fit in and becoming something he/she is not necessarily and that is when I would say that being locked out is better, but if a person is locked out because of their nature and truly seeks a way in to gain equality, I think being locked in is better. It is very tricky to be found either locked in or out.
I would add that clearly Woolf is saying women have no room here. They are kicked off the grass and onto the gravel. So they are working to make a room of their own. So far, it only offers soup and water, but at least it's a start.
At first i thought that it was better to be locked out that locked in but after further "analysis" I don't think that it is possible to pick one over the other. Locked in means being trapped but locked out also means, for the women at least, being denied a proper education and well being (ie-the food). It is interesting to think that the men are locked in when they are receiving an Oxford education. In fact, it is ironic because an education is supposed to teach you moral, equality, justice, fairness... but these men are "brainwashed" and taught to discriminate against women. The women on the other hand are more powerful because they see the unfortunate consequences of being locked in and can therefore fight this seemingly grim "fate". However, the women, even though locked out, are missing their basic freedoms such as good food to be healthy and be intellectually productive-so are they really better off? Can we really chose one angle over the other knowing that each of them have something that we cannot be without?
I agree with the fact that it is difficult to pick being locked in over being locked out or vice versa. Though being locked in means these men are receiving an education far superior to the education the women are receiving, like Layla said, "these men are 'brainwashed'" and so their education is limited whereas the women have the opportunity to teach themselves and discover things on their own. In this sense, one can say that these women have more freedom when it comes to their education because there is no one to tell them exactly what they need to know. On the other hand, women don't exactly have the basic tools to educate themselves as they wish (the narrator is not allowed in the library). As much as women may have more knowledge about the injustice of their situation, they do not have the opportunities to express themselves so their knowledge becomes useless. In this sense, it may be better to be locked in. Once again, i find that it is extremely difficult to choose one over the other.
I think the best is not be be locked at all, in any way. I may just seem to be dodging the question, but when you think about it, Virginia Woolfe advocates the power of the androgynous mind. Isn't the androgynous mind the antithesis of being locked in and/or out? Because a mind has both the female and the male, the question of being locked (whether it be by stereotypes or by situation) is no longer relevant. Now we must ask ourselves, how do we get out of the place where things are locked and go to that better place where we can achieve the best thinking?
I think this whole locked in/locked out thing is a question of perception. Wolfe wants to be let into the library (let in), but she also wants to be able to have a room in which she can think (locked in). She wants to be woman and a man all at the same time which is difficult, especially in the world she was living in. So yes being locked in is more confining, at least when your are on the outside you are free to do what you want, but Woolfe doesn't see it that way. She wants the liberty to lock herself in, on her own time. Is this such an outrageous request?
The whole idea that there is a better situation between being locked in and locked out is debatable. I think that Woolf is trying to make us think about both as an inconvenient. In her essay, she brings up the idea that women are in more of a disadvantage over men and that they suffer the consequences of being locked out. But, the fact that she brings up men being locked in is also showing that she thinks men aren't in as good a position as they think they are; they are also restricted by their gender. By writing this, not only is she opening the eyes of men towards women's situations, but also toward their own situations. In the beginning, I thought that the purpose was to display only the women's problems, but it turns out she is doing both at the same time. Which brings me to think that she is saying that being both locked in and locked out are a disadvantage. The idea that there is no choice and that one must be locked in or locked out makes us wonder if she thought there might be a place where one can be neither in nor out. Writing what she thought could have been the only way that she wasn't locked out, that she was finally in the circle. But, she might have realized that by knowing that both genders were in a disadvantage made her be locked in another place. Except, by being locked in, she realized that she was the only one who knew the problem, so she ended up being alone. She got to be locked in and locked out at the same time: she was locked in because she was no longer ignorant of the problem but could no longer escape it, and she was locked out because she was still a woman.
I think it is better to be locked out, even though it might hurt to be marginalized. If a person is locked in, they can't escape. The person is expected to conform and play by the rules. Being locked in comes with so many expectations and pressure. I believe that by being locked out one is not influenced and is able to observe, and who ever said a person cannot fight to get in if they really wanted to or tried changing whatever was locking him/her out. By being locked out, a person becomes more mature and can see both sides, the outside but the inside as he/she looks in. In A Room of One's Own I don't think the female speaker wants to get into the those doors that are locking her out to become like the men that cause her injustice, but she wants to get in to gain equality and justice.
ReplyDeleteI feel that it is different when a person is trying to get in just to fit in and becoming something he/she is not necessarily and that is when I would say that being locked out is better, but if a person is locked out because of their nature and truly seeks a way in to gain equality, I think being locked in is better.
It is very tricky to be found either locked in or out.
I would add that clearly Woolf is saying women have no room here. They are kicked off the grass and onto the gravel. So they are working to make a room of their own. So far, it only offers soup and water, but at least it's a start.
ReplyDeleteAt first i thought that it was better to be locked out that locked in but after further "analysis" I don't think that it is possible to pick one over the other.
ReplyDeleteLocked in means being trapped but locked out also means, for the women at least, being denied a proper education and well being (ie-the food).
It is interesting to think that the men are locked in when they are receiving an Oxford education. In fact, it is ironic because an education is supposed to teach you moral, equality, justice, fairness... but these men are "brainwashed" and taught to discriminate against women. The women on the other hand are more powerful because they see the unfortunate consequences of being locked in and can therefore fight this seemingly grim "fate". However, the women, even though locked out, are missing their basic freedoms such as good food to be healthy and be intellectually productive-so are they really better off?
Can we really chose one angle over the other knowing that each of them have something that we cannot be without?
I agree with the fact that it is difficult to pick being locked in over being locked out or vice versa. Though being locked in means these men are receiving an education far superior to the education the women are receiving, like Layla said, "these men are 'brainwashed'" and so their education is limited whereas the women have the opportunity to teach themselves and discover things on their own. In this sense, one can say that these women have more freedom when it comes to their education because there is no one to tell them exactly what they need to know. On the other hand, women don't exactly have the basic tools to educate themselves as they wish (the narrator is not allowed in the library). As much as women may have more knowledge about the injustice of their situation, they do not have the opportunities to express themselves so their knowledge becomes useless. In this sense, it may be better to be locked in. Once again, i find that it is extremely difficult to choose one over the other.
ReplyDeleteI think the best is not be be locked at all, in any way. I may just seem to be dodging the question, but when you think about it, Virginia Woolfe advocates the power of the androgynous mind. Isn't the androgynous mind the antithesis of being locked in and/or out? Because a mind has both the female and the male, the question of being locked (whether it be by stereotypes or by situation) is no longer relevant. Now we must ask ourselves, how do we get out of the place where things are locked and go to that better place where we can achieve the best thinking?
ReplyDeleteI think this whole locked in/locked out thing is a question of perception. Wolfe wants to be let into the library (let in), but she also wants to be able to have a room in which she can think (locked in). She wants to be woman and a man all at the same time which is difficult, especially in the world she was living in. So yes being locked in is more confining, at least when your are on the outside you are free to do what you want, but Woolfe doesn't see it that way. She wants the liberty to lock herself in, on her own time. Is this such an outrageous request?
ReplyDeleteThe whole idea that there is a better situation between being locked in and locked out is debatable. I think that Woolf is trying to make us think about both as an inconvenient. In her essay, she brings up the idea that women are in more of a disadvantage over men and that they suffer the consequences of being locked out. But, the fact that she brings up men being locked in is also showing that she thinks men aren't in as good a position as they think they are; they are also restricted by their gender. By writing this, not only is she opening the eyes of men towards women's situations, but also toward their own situations. In the beginning, I thought that the purpose was to display only the women's problems, but it turns out she is doing both at the same time. Which brings me to think that she is saying that being both locked in and locked out are a disadvantage.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that there is no choice and that one must be locked in or locked out makes us wonder if she thought there might be a place where one can be neither in nor out. Writing what she thought could have been the only way that she wasn't locked out, that she was finally in the circle. But, she might have realized that by knowing that both genders were in a disadvantage made her be locked in another place. Except, by being locked in, she realized that she was the only one who knew the problem, so she ended up being alone. She got to be locked in and locked out at the same time: she was locked in because she was no longer ignorant of the problem but could no longer escape it, and she was locked out because she was still a woman.