Again! I was affected so viscerally by this! In spending my days drafting and crafting curricuoum for girls and young women I found this article beyond valaubale and important. Thank you for that.
The phrase "in her own right" carries with it the weight of a historical context where women were not afforded the same opportunities, recognition, or agency as men. When discussing female artists, using this phrase inadvertently perpetuates the remnants of a time when women's achievements were often overshadowed or dismissed. By continuing to use such language, we risk perpetuating the notion that a woman's success or merit is somehow secondary or contingent upon external factors, rather than inherent to her talent and efforts alone.
Moving away from language that diminishes or undermines the accomplishments of female artists is essential for fostering a more equitable and inclusive cultural landscape. By banishing phrases like "in her own right," we affirm the autonomy, talent, and agency of women in the arts, ensuring that their contributions are recognized and celebrated on their own merits, free from the constraints of outdated gender norms and biases. It is crucial that we consciously choose our words to reflect a more just and equal society, one where all artists, regardless of gender, are judged based solely on the brilliance of their work.
Don't we want better for ourselves? Our sisters? Our daughters?
Michele, you said so many things I was trying to say, but couldn't find the words for! "Contingent" is an excellent word for what this phrase suggests. So is autonomous.
I think of "in her own right" as "you go girl" language— a bit condescending, like we're shocked she could do something on her own!
Agreed! I think the framing of the "you go girl" is perfect, actually! We should come up with our own verbiage or nomenclature for just this such statement and make it trend!
What’s wild is, does this apply to writers? I’d say no — think of Mary Shelley. Or singers. Singers can be married and both shine. Actors can be married and both be great. It’s painters that can’t co-exist when one is great. Maybe it’s an egomaniac story that we believe about artists. Artists can be great friends but not lovers and partners? It doesn’t help that there are many historical examples of working female artists that sacrificed their own careers for their husbands. People like that storyline. Maybe people romanticize artists and need them to fit into a sort of mold. In a traditional patriarchal relationship, domestic duties take up so much time and energy that often the female suffers. The secret is to not marry a caveman 😂 I know many artists couples, so I’m not sure it’s an actual problem in today’s world . . . but that phrase IS still used. Trash it for sure!
That's an interesting observation— as for actors and musicians, so much of their work happens outside of the home, in collaboration with others, they each act as their own person when doing their own work. The solitary nature of being an artist makes things more fluid (and therefore makes it easier to accomodate the other person).
When I wrote about artist/couples in the Salon (many moons ago), many suggested that there was a mutual influence and support between themselves and their spouses!
In that post I may have mentioned an exhibition of the work of the married couple Sheila Pepe and Carrie Moyer. The show showed what an exhibition of a couple on equal footing looks like (and is utterly possible). It doesn't escape me that both are women, however!
It’s an interesting point about art happening inside the home/studio vs singing or acting. I was thinking about where else we see this kind of overshadowing and think about how many male scientists and other notable academics usually had wives they collaborated with or even took ideas from (e.g. Einstein). I definitely wish we could banish the phrase and allow the discussion of their work and life to stand alone as their male spouses are already enjoying that privilege.
Ah yes, the persistent tendency to define women in terms of the nearest man as if we’re still not allowed to leave the house without a man’s permission. If she was actually in her own right, why mention an adjacent man at all? Reminds me of a trend in book/movie titles: “Musician’s Daughter,” “Musician and His Wife,” “The Surgeon’s Wife,” an endless list of poor writing.
Great post Hall. The comments have been enthralling and the thread is deep.
I thought of the ageism and condescension of “for her/their age.” I had a few others that have slipped my mind.
The key is the word qualify. If you find yourself about to say something in description of another person and there is a qualifying statement in there, some need to justify or prove the statement you are about to make, cut it.
Here is one for you. Back in the 80s I was attempting to write contemporary horror fiction. My combo pro/antagonist had a muscular hatred of men. So I looked up the word for this and there was no word for the hatred of men in the dictionary. There was a word for the hatred of mankind but nothing specifically for the hatred of men. And everyone knew what misogyny was. They could not even conceive of the idea that that could exist.
A friend in my writing circle was a scholar and worked at Shakespeare & Company. I asked her about this. And she was just as vexed. So we got down with the Latin roots and we made up a word, misandrony.
Again! I was affected so viscerally by this! In spending my days drafting and crafting curricuoum for girls and young women I found this article beyond valaubale and important. Thank you for that.
The phrase "in her own right" carries with it the weight of a historical context where women were not afforded the same opportunities, recognition, or agency as men. When discussing female artists, using this phrase inadvertently perpetuates the remnants of a time when women's achievements were often overshadowed or dismissed. By continuing to use such language, we risk perpetuating the notion that a woman's success or merit is somehow secondary or contingent upon external factors, rather than inherent to her talent and efforts alone.
Moving away from language that diminishes or undermines the accomplishments of female artists is essential for fostering a more equitable and inclusive cultural landscape. By banishing phrases like "in her own right," we affirm the autonomy, talent, and agency of women in the arts, ensuring that their contributions are recognized and celebrated on their own merits, free from the constraints of outdated gender norms and biases. It is crucial that we consciously choose our words to reflect a more just and equal society, one where all artists, regardless of gender, are judged based solely on the brilliance of their work.
Don't we want better for ourselves? Our sisters? Our daughters?
Banish it.
Michele, you said so many things I was trying to say, but couldn't find the words for! "Contingent" is an excellent word for what this phrase suggests. So is autonomous.
I think of "in her own right" as "you go girl" language— a bit condescending, like we're shocked she could do something on her own!
Agreed! I think the framing of the "you go girl" is perfect, actually! We should come up with our own verbiage or nomenclature for just this such statement and make it trend!
What’s wild is, does this apply to writers? I’d say no — think of Mary Shelley. Or singers. Singers can be married and both shine. Actors can be married and both be great. It’s painters that can’t co-exist when one is great. Maybe it’s an egomaniac story that we believe about artists. Artists can be great friends but not lovers and partners? It doesn’t help that there are many historical examples of working female artists that sacrificed their own careers for their husbands. People like that storyline. Maybe people romanticize artists and need them to fit into a sort of mold. In a traditional patriarchal relationship, domestic duties take up so much time and energy that often the female suffers. The secret is to not marry a caveman 😂 I know many artists couples, so I’m not sure it’s an actual problem in today’s world . . . but that phrase IS still used. Trash it for sure!
That's an interesting observation— as for actors and musicians, so much of their work happens outside of the home, in collaboration with others, they each act as their own person when doing their own work. The solitary nature of being an artist makes things more fluid (and therefore makes it easier to accomodate the other person).
When I wrote about artist/couples in the Salon (many moons ago), many suggested that there was a mutual influence and support between themselves and their spouses!
In that post I may have mentioned an exhibition of the work of the married couple Sheila Pepe and Carrie Moyer. The show showed what an exhibition of a couple on equal footing looks like (and is utterly possible). It doesn't escape me that both are women, however!
It’s an interesting point about art happening inside the home/studio vs singing or acting. I was thinking about where else we see this kind of overshadowing and think about how many male scientists and other notable academics usually had wives they collaborated with or even took ideas from (e.g. Einstein). I definitely wish we could banish the phrase and allow the discussion of their work and life to stand alone as their male spouses are already enjoying that privilege.
Interesting! I’ll go back and look at that article. Equal footing is key.
Ah yes, the persistent tendency to define women in terms of the nearest man as if we’re still not allowed to leave the house without a man’s permission. If she was actually in her own right, why mention an adjacent man at all? Reminds me of a trend in book/movie titles: “Musician’s Daughter,” “Musician and His Wife,” “The Surgeon’s Wife,” an endless list of poor writing.
Great post Hall. The comments have been enthralling and the thread is deep.
I thought of the ageism and condescension of “for her/their age.” I had a few others that have slipped my mind.
The key is the word qualify. If you find yourself about to say something in description of another person and there is a qualifying statement in there, some need to justify or prove the statement you are about to make, cut it.
Here is one for you. Back in the 80s I was attempting to write contemporary horror fiction. My combo pro/antagonist had a muscular hatred of men. So I looked up the word for this and there was no word for the hatred of men in the dictionary. There was a word for the hatred of mankind but nothing specifically for the hatred of men. And everyone knew what misogyny was. They could not even conceive of the idea that that could exist.
A friend in my writing circle was a scholar and worked at Shakespeare & Company. I asked her about this. And she was just as vexed. So we got down with the Latin roots and we made up a word, misandrony.
I have printed this out and am adding it to my general nomenclature!
Just for fun...
"In her own sovereign capacity..."
"Through her own agency and empowerment..."
"In her own unique authority..."
"Based on her individual achievements..."
"Through her own self-determination..."
"By virtue of her own capabilities..."
"Through her own autonomy and resilience..."
"In her own rightful position..."
"As a force unto herself"
"In her own sovereignty"
"With her own agency"
"Asserting her autonomy"
"On her own terms"
"In her own sphere"
"With her own power"
"Embracing her own authority"
"With her own voice"
"In her own domain"
"She stands independently as..."
"She asserts her own authority as..."
"She claims her rightful place as..."
"She commands recognition as..."
"She holds her ground as..."
"She asserts her autonomy as..."
"She establishes herself as..."
"She asserts her sovereignty as..."
"She affirms her individuality as..."
"She defines herself as..."