Jestina Ortega

WGS 297

Judith Butler

                                                            Gender Trouble

            In Judith Butler’s book, Gender Trouble, she presents the theory that sex is socially constructed and that gender is a performance. This implies that sex is biological and gender is social. For example, the distinction between being female and being a woman, set the stage for the difference between sex and gender. I agree that because not everyone is biologically male or female (and can be non binary), gender is social and only real to the extent it is performed.

            As mentioned in Gender Trouble, the two sex system didn’t become dominant until the 18^th Century. There are various cultures that experienced and still experience gender beyond the restricted two sex system such as Egyptian, Ethiopian, Turkish and Native American societies to name a few. Although this is true, these cultures were vastly influenced by Westernized gender norms through mass media. Therefore, the gender- variant identities worldwide eradicated acceptance in certain areas of the world and/or their practices were silenced. Silencing another culture’s rejection to the Western gender binary is a form of imperialism. If we can’t see that a society with members who are transgendered can thrive, how do we protest the gender binary currently in society today? Silencing a different culture with different values, works toward silencing American citizens into thinking what is current is most successful and practical. We as a society need to push back against this imperialistic tactic in order to question the validity of gender being directly connected to sex.

            We as a society tend to act out our gender. Masculinity and femininity are instructed rather than inherited. For example, there are two newborn twins in the room and both are wearing pink. The parent’s friends are appalled that the newborn boy isn’t wearing blue because it goes against gender norms. The onlookers might also state that the boy will be a strong fighter while the daughter looks like a dancer even though both newborns look the same and are making identical movements. The adults are continuing to turn the wheel on societal norms and coming up with how these children will behave and who they will desire even if the babies are less than a year old. These gender roles given to the babies by their parents and friends are a direct result of biology. Although gender pressures are consistent since birth, it doesn’t mean girls won’t like playing sports and boys won’t enjoy wearing makeup.

            Gender isn’t something we have or are, it is something we do. Gender is a performance; gender is a source of pleasure and performance is a source of anxiety. In performing gender, you are either actively doing what you’re told by societal means or actively rejecting social norms and being self creative. I found while reading this that there can be critique in stating gender is a performance by the interpretation that we can choose our gender since we can choose how to perform. Performing and gender are linked but not to the point where we choose our gender. For example, I feel like performance is a source of pleasure and is also used to attract people you are sexually attracted to in order to grasp their attention. For example, Laverne Cox is a trans woman who wears heels and blonde wigs. Although she states that her attire may be problematic in the sense that is the image feminists have been trying to stray away from for years, it’s also empowering for her. In my opinion it is also used to grasp the attention of men who admire that image in order to find her sexually attractive and that is where the source of pleasure may also stem from.

MacKinnon

Jestina Ortega

WGS 297

September 20, 2016

                                    Difference and Dominance (Catharine MacKinnon)

            Catherina MacKinnon has two approaches to sex equality; the difference approach and the dominance approach.  The differences approach pushes for equality in treatment in both men and women. An example of this, would be in the work field. In the dominance approach, MacKinnon discusses how equality is about the distribution of social power. She goes on to mention that sex inequality are questions of systematic dominance of male supremacy. While I agree with both approaches, I feel as though the dominance approach is more effective because it delves into the question of why we consider men to be superior to women. Therefore, the dominance approach reaches our subconscious. In order to make strides toward equality in our actions and how we treat people of both genders, we must first understand why we mark them as different in the first place. All in all, I agree with MacKinnon’s approaches.

            MacKinnon’s difference approach ultimately emphasizes similarities between the two genders and ignores differences in order to continue her principle of equality. A way for us as a society to combat treating both genders differently starts from birth. As soon as we are born, colors, accessories and extra curricular activities (whether it be basketball or dance) determine what gender you represent, not only to yourself, but to the world and people around you. When you see a newborn baby you look for a color or name to differentiate what gender the baby is. If the baby doesn’t have pink on, you begin to question your response as an onlooker.

We are more comfortable with our social responses to the baby when we are given a gender color or name in order to continue the conversation concerning the newborn. If it is a boy, the initial response would be “What a strong looking baby!”, and if the newborn is a girl the onlooker’s response would be, “How precious and pretty she is.”. Undoubtedly, our uncomfortableness stems from strict gender norms engraved in our society. We are influenced by society as on onlooker with our responses, and our responses influence the perception the child has to himself/herself through the gaze of other people. How we are raised impacts who we are and what we choose to do. Routinely treating girls differently than boys impacts how they treat each other and themselves.

            The dominance approach questions the nature of gender (ie: masculinity and femininity). One of my favorite professors recently responded to this question with the answer: There is no real reason as to why there is femininity and masculinity; this idea is strictly a social construct and form of embodiment. As a society, we need to realize that because of this idea (that masculinity and femininity are social constructs) gender norms should neither be strict depending on the sex of the person, nor should determine a person’s worth and legitimacy. This is an important notion for everyone to understand in order to move forward in the fight for feminism and equality as Catherine MacKinnon worked hard to do.

            

What's Wrong With Inequality?

­­            Gary Cutting of the New York Times conducted a very interesting and insightful interview with Elizabeth Anderson, an author and professor of philosophy and women’s studies at the University of Michigan.  The interview circled mostly around the various types of inequalities in the world, and some of Anderson’s ideas about the relationships within these inequalities and possible solutions. 

One issue Anderson brought up that caught me by surprise was the idea of inequalities of standing, which is when certain people’s interests are weighed more heavily than others. The example she gives is in a law firm, where it might “promote a culture of off-hours socializing over drinks between partners and associates that excludes women who need to spend time with their children.”  This thought had never occurred to me before, but after thinking it over, I realized that especially in white collar jobs (which tend to hold more social and economic power than their blue collar counterparts), there is this a strong underlying culture revolving around very 20^th century traditions.  Meeting associates or potential clients for drinks, cigars or even at strip clubs is still a fairly common event, and while there is no law or technicality that limits women from participating, the culture remains a very androcentric one.

            Another interesting point that Anderson brought up was her disagreement with what she calls “luck egalitarianism.”  This is the idea that “people should suffer from the consequences of their choices they’ve freely made, but be protected against losses that they couldn’t have avoided.”  She brings up the example of basketball, and how just because a taller person might have more opportunities to play professional basketball, it doesn’t make it unfair, as this is based on merit they were lucky enough to be born with and not a societally imposed advantage. She goes on to say that there is nothing wrong with choosing people based on unique talents, as long as everyone is granted the same opportunities to develop their talents, which isn’t true in today’s society. I found this to be a great point, because the reality is, nature cares nothing for human desire. We are thrown into the world dealt a certain deck of cards, and that’s simply what we must deal with. However, if we lived in a world where everyone was granted equal opportunity, then everyone’s strengths would hold equal value in the world. The aspiration to achieve a world like this is something I believe everyone should strive for, regardless of gender, race, etc.

            The one subject Anderson talked about that I am in serious disagreement with, is her solution to wealth inequality: “Outright cash transfers to the poor have been found to be hugely successful in promoting productivity in many places, including brazil, Kenya and even North Carolina.” I don’t know where these statistics came from, but I can say from a lot of personal experience, this would be a huge waste of money, given the current socioeconomic environment of America. Growing up in New York City, I was exposed to both great amounts of affluence along with great amounts of poverty. I’ve found that more well-off people fail to grasp the mindset of those who live in poverty. Most who received cash wouldn’t utilize it to better their education or invest it. Instead it would be used for things that provide more short term satisfaction or benefits, like clothing, food, cars etc. This isn’t the fault of those who live in poverty, it's simply the result of growing up in an environment where materialistic things are held in higher regard and the long term benefits of things like starting a business or getting a higher education aren’t even considered.