I think you're misinterpreting the passage a little there, although I can't explain how... I see your point somewhat, and there's some sense to it, but I think that in general what you're talking about, identifying the gender of a painter or whtever as a woman, is used..
... actually, I think you're totally right. o.O And yet, I believe that to some extent, because there are still differences particularly in the roles of women, the fact that a painter or an author is a woman is still relevant, because it can sometimes give you an insight: the painter is coming from this point of view as a woman, as someone struggling with these percieved roles, in the same way you might note that a male author (or female) is gay, or maori, or second generaton indian immigrant, because coming from that background, from that role or stereotype or perspective, can be important to the work, it can help understand why the work was written. So you're right, of course, but the fact is still relevant and it is not neccesarily the product of sexism, it is a consequence of the remaining sexism in society, of you take the distinction.
no subject
... actually, I think you're totally right. o.O And yet, I believe that to some extent, because there are still differences particularly in the roles of women, the fact that a painter or an author is a woman is still relevant, because it can sometimes give you an insight: the painter is coming from this point of view as a woman, as someone struggling with these percieved roles, in the same way you might note that a male author (or female) is gay, or maori, or second generaton indian immigrant, because coming from that background, from that role or stereotype or perspective, can be important to the work, it can help understand why the work was written. So you're right, of course, but the fact is still relevant and it is not neccesarily the product of sexism, it is a consequence of the remaining sexism in society, of you take the distinction.