Judith Butler explains in Gender Trouble that gender, sex and even the word "woman" is just another way to classify or represent someone. Being a woman has a strong social discourse already attached to the term, but do other classifications-such as race or even sexuality- have control over how a "woman" is viewed? Butler explains that "Feminist critique ought also to understand how the category of 'women,' the subject of feminism, is produced and restrained by the very structures of power through which emancipation is sought" (4). By labeling women as a woman are we simply taking a step backward in the world of feminism? Can women overcome the bearing weight that is held over them simply due to the fact that they are indeed a woman?
Feminism is a movement that is searching for equality, more specifically for women to be viewed and treated equally towards men. But by labeling one as a feminist, is that all that you are now? Butler explains that "if one 'is' a woman, that is surely not all one is..." and that the term "fails to be exhaustive..." (4). In other words, once you are a woman or even more so a feminist, that is all you are, and nothing like your culture, race, religion or any other aspect of yourself is taken into consideration. It is because of this that we cannot separate the political ties that come with nationality or culture, and gender has become a politically charged idea. Gender is something everyone uses to define who they are, and when higher powers of politics get involved in that decision, it causes feminism to no longer be viewed as the representation it can be.
Butler also explains that there is a lot more connected to "man" or "woman" when it comes to gender. Gender and sex are to completely different terms, Butler questions how we even begin to decide on gender or sex. She even questions what sex is at all: "And what is 'sex' anyway? Is it natural, anatomical, chromosomal, or hormonal, and how is a feminist critic to assess the scientific discourses which purport to establish such 'facts' for us? (Butler, 9) We have no way of truly knowing how one identifies with either sex or gender even if it is attempted to be defined scientifically based off of anatomy or hormones. Anatomy can be removed or added, hormones can be altered. There is no black and white way to determine one's sex and in turn that means there is definitely no way to define gender, the more mentally decided of the two.
In order for feminism to thrive, and in order for the gender power to be equal, we must remove the idea that a man and a woman are such based off of their bodies and minds only. Currently, a woman is only a woman based off of everything that doesn't make her a man. It is feminism that is striving to change this.
Hello!
ReplyDeleteI think that your blog post is really informative! I however noticed one part, " In other words, once you are a woman or even more so a feminist, that is all you are, and nothing like your culture, race, religion or any other aspect of yourself is taken into consideration." It's really important to discuss the intersections between feminism, gender, sex orientation, and religion, as those contain elements that are not even in mens rhetoric and affect how womanhood is viewed (see female castration, the treatment of trans woman, and the historical role of women in various religions). I think that George had said something similar when she said that womens' rhetoric differed from mens' rhetoric ("As both Patricia Bizell and Jane Donaworth observe, sometimes womens rhetorical theory looks very much like that of canonical man, but, more often, it looks very different, perhaps not even directly addressing persuasion (Bizell, 51; Donaworth, xv-xvi) (344).)
Hello!
ReplyDeleteI think that your blog post is really informative! I however noticed one part, " In other words, once you are a woman or even more so a feminist, that is all you are, and nothing like your culture, race, religion or any other aspect of yourself is taken into consideration." It's really important to discuss the intersections between feminism, gender, sex orientation, and religion, as those contain elements that are not even in mens rhetoric and affect how womanhood is viewed (see female castration, the treatment of trans woman, and the historical role of women in various religions). I think that George had said something similar when she said that womens' rhetoric differed from mens' rhetoric ("As both Patricia Bizell and Jane Donaworth observe, sometimes womens rhetorical theory looks very much like that of canonical man, but, more often, it looks very different, perhaps not even directly addressing persuasion (Bizell, 51; Donaworth, xv-xvi) (344).)
I really liked the line about how a woman is only a woman because of the things that don't make her a man because it means the reverse is true as well. These distinctions between the two are so easily alter that the issue or men or women is not as much of a factor as it used to be. The idea of identifying as a woman is interesting because I am a woman, but its not something that I have to think about or question. I never think I'm Kristin the woman. I'm just Kristin. I also don't define myself that way because of my attitude or behavior because there are no standards governing which is which. it is interesting to think that the ideals and differences between men and woman change from place to place and culture to culture. Which further illustrates that the differences are ones that we have put in place for ourselves.
ReplyDelete