“Strictly speaking, women cannot be said to exist.”
-Julia Kristeva
Before
I even opened the reading for today I was intrigued. I had already studied up on gynocentrism, so
honestly, I was expecting Butler’s argument to build upon the logical and
emotional construction that is feminism, but what she does is far more
interesting and thought provoking. If I had
to use a single word to describe Butler’s work, it would not be “feminism,” “gender,”
or even “sex,” it would be “performance.”
This decision stems from her highly important distinction between gender
and sex, a distinction that is, in a way, responsible for “Gender Trouble” as a
whole (Butler, 9-10):
Sex = Biological
Gender = Societal
This separation, at first glance, makes a great deal of
sense. Actually, it makes sense period.
It is the implications of this
separation that drives Butler forward and will, in my opinion, serve as the
main catalyst for today’s discussion.
Gynocentrism stems from feminism and feminism stems from a
definition of “female.” The arguments supporting feminism are rooted in the idea
of the “female,” an idea that is defined through action and past
discrimination. This is the irony that
Butler brings to light. A majority of
feminists would not see a genetic
male as being included in this idea of “female” that they idolize. The only
thing separating this man from being included is the “body” that his
consciousness inhabits, the “passive medium on which cultural meanings are
inscribed or as the instrument through which an appropriative and interpretive
will determines a cultural meaning for itself.” (Butler, 14-15)
There is a great deal to say regarding this concept, as it
can be seen as expressing a particularly negative view of the impact society
has on development, happiness and freedom.
1 comment:
We talk a lot in my gender and sexuality classes about how gender is highly performative. We always discuss how to be "female" requires a certain performance according to certain hegemonic standards, and to be "male" requires a different performance. But then there are gray areas of course. Society has a hard time with the gray areas...
Such as: Feminism. As you mentioned in your post, Ryan, feminism seems to idolize a particular type of female. Stereotypes suggest that a good feminist woman is a bit of a rebel. She's got short hair, hates all men, and despises cleaning the house. But in reality, we know that is a crazy misconception.
I also think that part of the "gender trouble" women face is that women (or society) seem to define female in terms of male. That is, in order for members of society to understand women, they must compare them to men (because men are the rulers of society and thus the dominant standard) and then gauge and account for differences between the two.
So I guess what I am saying is that it's really hard to define gender and sexuality because they are so indiscernible. There is no absolute and correct standard of maleness and femaleness. There is just opinion and individual understanding. Society makes up our hegemonic ideas of gender, but we make up our individual understandings.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.