Читать книгу Rural Women in Leadership - Lori Ann McVay - Страница 38

Well. Don’t, don’t try to be a man, is one thing. I mean, and that’s something that I would have fought very hard because as I said I was very much right through working in a man’s world. Even down to the fact I refused to get dressed up in a navy pinstripe suit. I thought, ‘I’m not doing that!’ [laughs] … But probably as I got older, I always wore a skirt. And I made a point of doing it. ‘I’m not going to come in here as the, you know, sort of, [laughing] half-man type person wearing pants.’ So, I mean, even wee things like that, I refused, I refused to to be turned into into a man. And I mean at times, I mean whenever they would have been debating things- I mean [I] feel I was coming from a female point of view. And I do think women have a different way of looking at things. And I would have said that. I think you need both. I mean, I’m not- And that I suppose is another thing. Don’t try to do men down. They are human beings. They have their points of view. They’re coming at it from a different point of view. Try and work with them – as human beings. I, I, I always feel very uncomfortable when I’m with other women and they just start getting at men. I don’t think that’s on.

-Katherine (emphasis hers)

As illustrated appositely by Katherine’s words, the robust and intricate junctures at which these women’s distinctly rural voices intersected with others of their voices in addressing issues of gender identity and/or what they perceived as feminist issues confirmed Little and Panelli’s (2003) declaration of the rural as a source for generating original concepts rather than as simply another subject for examination within current theoretical frameworks. Despite their concerns regarding the place of women in society in Northern Ireland, many of the women were quite concerned that they not be viewed as feminists⁹, and brought that point to my attention with no prompting or direct referencing of feminism on my part. Sara provided a further illustration of this uniquely complex intersection of viewpoints. Although she spoke with conviction about the negativity of the Catholic Church being ‘so male-orientated and dominated’ (emphasis hers), the very word ‘feminist’ elicited from her a tremendous reaction:

And I would say as well, I’ve had exposure to, feminists, you know. And- I don’t li- I don’t, you know- Better watch what I say, I suppose. But it just gives me images of militants and going out and burning your bra and stuff. And, even-funny I was reading something came in the post to me from the WRDA – Women’s Resource and Development Agency – and, I was reading their mission statement and or, or some of their stuff in their new brochure. And it said they come at it from a feminist perspective. And all of a sudden I was going [makes shuddering noise]. You know, because, I don’t see myself as a feminist. I see myself as a, a family woman, as a mother. As a worker. And-Maybe feminism is too much of a challenge for me. [laughs]

Sara’s identification of herself as ‘a family woman, as a mother. As a worker’ holds true to literature that suggests rural women are concerned that they be viewed in the rural community as nurturing and caring (Saugeres, 2002; Heather et al., 2005). Her frustration at the lack of women in leadership in her faith community (a situation likely to be identified as problematic by feminists) was later followed by her reassertion that she abides by traditional roles, suggesting a complex dance between identifying with feminist ideals and rejecting the label ‘feminist’. However, even in this complex dance, she demonstrated confidence through continuing to express her opinion at the risk of offending me (‘Better watch what I say, I suppose’) and also by speaking against an organization that supported her work in community development. In so choosing to confidently speak ideas that resonated with feminist thinking (albeit not under the label ‘feminist’) and to positively assert her identity within the rural community in roles that could be perceived by feminists as oppressive, Sara represented several of the women in the study who embodied Shortall’s (2008, p. 452) view of non-participation (here in feminism) as a ‘valid and legitimate choice … made from a position of power’.

Sara was not alone in characterizing herself as filling traditional roles, nor in her rejection of the label ‘feminist’, nor in recognizing the male-dominated nature of many organizations present in rural areas. Margaret – who echoed Sara in asserting ‘I’m not a feminist’ – went a step further than Sara and embraced her identity as ‘woman’ as a means for change, although housing it safely within the language of service to family: