Jul 2, 2012

A biased culture for heroes

By Siri Hustvedt, novelist, essayist and poet.

© Marion Ettlinger.
Steve Jobs is an icon of late capitalism. A parallel, equal feminine icon is impossible. No matter how sleek her products, the hypothetical Stephanie Jobs could not and would not occupy the same place in our culture as her brother. It is not that there are no female entrepreneurs or CEO’s, no brilliant women who can package a product as well as any man, but rather, that Jobs is the projection of an idea that remains hyper-masculine, a rags to riches American myth for our era. Along with beautifully designed computers and phones, Jobs sold himself as tech hero, master of a new revolutionary culture of connectivity that is still coded as male not female.

«Jobs is the projection of an idea that remains hyper-masculine, a rags to riches American
myth for our era»

It is fascinating that Jobs chose Walter Isaacson as his biographer, a man who had previously written best-selling books about Benjamin Franklin and Albert Einstein. Franklin, Einstein, and Jobs have little in common except their iconic “genius” status, which is, of course, the point. Simone de Beauvoir’s reiterated statement in The Second Sex that woman is Other to man, that women are not accorded universal status, or, in other words, Everywoman is radically different from Everyman, remains true. Men are not trapped inside their sex. Women are. It is this inescapable “femininity” that makes the woman “genius” an anomaly, a riddled, contorted, or suppressed being in history. Consider this: The person credited with creating the first computer program was Ada Byron, Countess of Lovelace (1815-1852), daughter of the poet and Anne Isabelle Milbanke. Although there is no question about her contribution, she is not a historical icon.

«It is this inescapable “femininity” that makes the woman “genius” an anomaly, a riddled, contorted, or suppressed being in history»

If we do not examine and articulate the reasons for our hero worship, we will continue to be duped by unconscious biases against women. Apparently, Isaacson’s biography uncovers a ruthless, unpleasant narcissist. As Sue Halpern noted in The New York Review of Books, the biography proves that “it is possible to write a hagiography even while exposing the worst in a person.” Could a grasping, manipulative, ambitious, high-achieving woman gain the same stature as cultural saint? At this juncture in history, it seems to me that the answer is a resounding no.

3 comments :

  1. Thanks for your Input Siri, I totally agree. It seems to be, that public appreciation is only for men, and this just because of the physical superiority. It is the same, like 2000 years ago...
    The most unfortunate about it, that it makes women (or maybe just me) even more weak and sad, while trying to understand this lasting situation. So what do you think would bethe best advise, to change this?

    Best
    Agnieszka

    ReplyDelete
  2. Don't know if Thatcher was so manipulative but she is certainly seen as a cultural saint by many and she was clearly a ball breaking, ruthless type. Here's my article on Steve Jobs in which I say that he was clearly a spoilt brat and that it made me very uncomfortable but at the end of the day it's a business biography - not the portrait of a philosopher or artist. http://schoolofrevolution.com/was-steve-jobs-horrible-analysis-personality Thanks for writing and giving me a more female perspective....

    ReplyDelete
  3. Men and women are different and our history has been writen by men, or in their style if writen by women (see Thatcher). In the future maybe will evolve a new mixed style of men and of women. Or maybe both styles will evolve side by side. Anyway, maybe this will happen because men supremacy is nowadays objectively obsolete.
    Thank you kindly, Siri.
    Paulo

    ReplyDelete


  Openthoughts2012
  UOC

  UOC
  OSRT
  Gender
  IN3
  Creative