Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 16 views

    Short Response 10-26

    Uploaded by

    Abigail Carter
    The document compares the views of McClintock and Kant on gender, freedom, and morality. McClintock sees gender as the basis for limits on freedom, while Kant views morality as limiting freedom. McClintock discusses how Europeans viewed conquered land as 'feminized' and 'virgin' territory to be taken. The views contrast McClintock's more modern perspective with Kant's 18th century views that positioned women as morally deficient.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Short Response 10-26

    Uploaded by

    Abigail Carter
    16 views1 page
    The document compares the views of McClintock and Kant on gender, freedom, and morality. McClintock sees gender as the basis for limits on freedom, while Kant views morality as limiting freedom. McClintock discusses how Europeans viewed conquered land as 'feminized' and 'virgin' territory to be taken. The views contrast McClintock's more modern perspective with Kant's 18th century views that positioned women as morally deficient.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document compares the views of McClintock and Kant on gender, freedom, and morality. McClintock sees gender as the basis for limits on freedom, while Kant views morality as limiting freedom. McClintock discusses how Europeans viewed conquered land as 'feminized' and 'virgin' territory to be taken. The views contrast McClintock's more modern perspective with Kant's 18th century views that positioned women as morally deficient.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    16 views1 page

    Short Response 10-26

    Uploaded by

    Abigail Carter
    The document compares the views of McClintock and Kant on gender, freedom, and morality. McClintock sees gender as the basis for limits on freedom, while Kant views morality as limiting freedom. McClintock discusses how Europeans viewed conquered land as 'feminized' and 'virgin' territory to be taken. The views contrast McClintock's more modern perspective with Kant's 18th century views that positioned women as morally deficient.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Abigail Carter 1

    Short Response 10/26


    As a whole, McClintock speaks in a much more exposed, gendered, and sexual way. She
    talks much more of perspective of the world based upon gender than any of the other authors we
    have discussed in class, especially compared to the readings of Kant. In Kant’s eyes, the idea of
    boundaries on freedom comes from morality. This means that the only true limit on freedoms is
    one’s morals. McClintock disregards the idea of morality as the base of freedom and instead
    seems to say that the basis of limits is within gender. McClintock describes how Europeans circa
    1500 were only limited by what they could not feminize. In battle, McClintock views the
    boarders created by taken land to be feminized based upon the “threshold items” that would be
    left behind. These would include figures and drawings of women in the nude.
    It is interesting to note that McClintock makes sure to mention that the Europeans referred to
    the undiscovered or unconquered land as “virgin” land. McClintock pushes the idea the
    feminized term “virgin” in relation to something that needs to be conquered because of how
    inherently anti-feminist the idea is. However, McClintock also seems to view battle and the
    European conquest as something that is dangerously erotic, and it is necessary for the
    involvement of women. This is very separate in view when comparing to Kant, however. Kant’s
    philosophy of moral justness pushes the idea that women are morally deficient, due to their
    inclination towards vanity. McClintock seems to encourage the opinions of women, especially
    encourage their sexual nature, while Kant pushes to repress the ideas and moral limits of
    womankind as a whole.
    The views that Kant instates imply that women are sexual objects in Europe and are used for
    the benefit of the European man, however they are still of use and necessary for culture and
    conquest. McClintock’s more modern take on philosophy shows that there has been an
    improvement on the views of women and the idea of feminization recently, especially compared
    to the times of Kant. This may be because McClintock is a 1995 woman, sharing her views on
    the past use of feminization, while Kant lived in a different era in the 1700s, sharing his views on
    women from the male gaze.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy