A Subjective Look at the Subject of Feminism

A few reactions to this week's reading:
To be frank, my first response to the Califia reading was one of shock and dismay as I was in disbelief at how gravely Janice Raymond manipulated the essentialist argument. While her argument lies largely on the notion that transexualism is a manipulation of biology as well as a "reinforcing of sex-role stereotypes," Raymond's outright bigotry sparked a different question about biology for me. And that is, this blatant power hungry feminist ideology that Raymond is touting, makes me wonder if we humans are not simply biologically predisposed to subjugate one another no matter how low we may be on someone else's totem pole. I think what Califia succeeds in doing, is realizing that many of the problems women face vis a vis feminism today is due to the lack of reception, love and support from fellow women. Perhaps her most prominent reflection was her realization that "We (women) will have to change at least as much, if not more, than men." Halberstam echoes this sentiment as well in "Female Masculinity," as she speaks of the women who sneer and snicker at tomboy and "masculine" looking women. Women reinforce just as many stereotypes as men, and whether the patriarchal structure is responsible for that lack of support, is almost irrelevant. It is incumbent upon us to confront internal female hatred and bigotry.
Another point that stuck out was Raymond's assertion that one of the reason's men may want to become transexual is because of a certain envy of female biological power. I'm curious to discuss how women in this class view their biological stance, how relevant child-bearing is for everyone and whether it is viewed as a source of empowerment or burden.

In the piece by Oyeronke Oyewumi, what are the distinctions made between the terms woman, feminist, wife, and mother? How do these roles function differently in the different social structures discussed in the article? When thinking about family structures other than the traditional "nuclear family," how does your concept of the "woman" change, or does it?

In her piece, Family Bonds/Conceptual Binds: African Notes on Feminist Epistemologies, Oyeronke Oyewumi engages in a push to dismantle western discourses as applied to nonwestern women in feminist thinking. She specifically is interested in the notion of 'family' and how it translates to African women. However, not much attention is paid to the fact that 'African' as a category is, in itself, a vast generalization. How far is too far in breaking down categories to their smallest common denominator in understanding epistemologies?

Transphobia & The Women's Movement

Although arguably (extremely) biased, Pat Califa's article "Sex Changes" was refreshingly honest.  Her critique of Ms. Raymond and her book shows an ugly side to feminism that brings up many questions about solidarity within the women's movement.  Eventually in the movement, new forms of feminism (for black women, for lesbian women, for black lesbian, etc) came into existence.  As smaller and smaller groups of feminism form, doesn't that take away from the togetherness supposedly emitted by a movement?  Doesn't that contribute to its downfall (did it, in this case?)?  In other movements (i.e. Civil Rights Movement), there were different degrees of diversity within them, yet all (at least) semi-successfully achieved a sense of consensus that led to success.  Is there such a platform within the Women's Movement?  Why or why not?  If not, is there really not ONE THING that all* women (*let's just stick to women in America for now) can't agree to fight for and gain/achieve?

Yes, all these questions came from Califa's article. : )

As I read Judith Halberston's "Female Masculinity," I couldn't help but feel ashamed at myself because I realized that I could be one of those women who, upon seeing a "gender-ambiguous" person in the women's bathroom thinks, "Is he or she in the right place?" I would never say it out loud, but thinking it is just as awful. I felt so evil for being someone who could make such a public, free space such an awful experience for others. While I know now not to think such things, what can be done to effect this change in others? On the one hand, simply creating gender-neutral restrooms wouldn't really solve the problem because it reinforces the idea of separation; it goes against (what I believe to be) the feminist credo of equalizing. On the other hand, it deeply troubles me that those who are "gender-ambiguous" find bathrooms such an intensely limiting space, so perhaps a gender-neutral bathroom would be a safe haven of sorts for those who want it while simultaneously ushering society into a new era of acceptance and awareness. I think that the addition of gender-neutral bathrooms would foster open and honest discussion on what gender really means. So... what is the "right" thing to do?

(Someone posted about the effect on children, which I think is a fantastic point--I wouldn't have even thought about that!)

In her introduction, Halberstam discusses the problems facing those who do not fit clearly into either traditional gender category. In some of our earlier readings, authors have discussed the idea of femininity as being something feminists should either celebrate or strive to break free from. How would these feminists treat the idea of the "third gender"? How does the "third gender" fit into their ideas about femininity and the goals of feminism at large?

In "Female Masculinity," Judith Halberstam writes, "...although we seem to have a difficult time defining masculinity, as a society we have little trouble in recognizing it, and indeed we spend massive amounts of time and money raifyiing and supporting the versions of masculinity the we enjoy and trust" (936).  Halberstam fails to, in this section at least, truly divulge into what masculinity is.  What and how then can we define masculinity and how does it differ as views of family and all aspects of life do in other cultures?

In Female Masculinity, Judith Halberstam devotes an entire section to her version of "The Bathroom Problem." For Halberstam, "[The bathroom problem] illustrates in remarkably clear ways the flourishing existence of gender binarism despite rumors of its demise" (949). I agree with Halberstam's idea that gendered bathrooms highlight gender differences and promote a binary system of gender in the public sphere. She focuses on how this affects those who are gender ambiguous, but what about gendered public bathrooms' effect on children? Young children are often initially confused when a parent of the opposite gender tells them it's no longer appropriate for them to accompany the child to the bathroom in public. Why not? What's the big deal? By subjecting our children to separate public bathrooms, are we teaching them to be ashamed of body differences and conditioning them to accept a binary gender system?

Who is the subject of feminism?

Both Califia and Halberstam's essays discuss the obscure blending of male and female. Halberstam refers specifically to "feminine masculinity" while Califia investigates "male-identified" transsexuals and their relationship to other women. In both circumstances, Califia and Halberstam are alluding to the strict gender binary system that exists within cultures around the globe. Do you think that by eliminating the fundamental vocabulary creating the gender dichotomy (male vs. female, man vs. women) could we, as a society, eliminate the gender hierarchy? Oyewumi's essay allocates a great deal of social power to linguistics and words. Does this mean that by changing gendered vernacular, we can change the cultural stigmas associated with sex and gender?

In "Changing Sex," Raymond's rather extreme "essentialist" argument included the idea that "[a]ll transsexuals rape women's bodies by reducing the real female form to an artifact" (Califia 95) and yet at the same time seems to regard female biology, or two X chromosomes, as the ideal. Must a woman be defined by her body? It seems like Raymond is in this case arguing against both maximizer and minimizer feminism - if by maximizer perspective women's bodies are to be appreciated, biological men who prefer to have women's bodies would appear to be advocates of such a belief ("look! even men want to be women, being a woman is fantastic!"), while from the minimizer's viewpoint it is undesirable to cite biological differences as a barrier between the sexes. In "Female Masculinity" the issue of gender definition through perceived biology is raised again in the bathroom problem (Halberstam 947-954), which also ties to conceptualization of "self" and "other" - neither gender is comfortable enough with the other gender thanks to centuries upon centuries of social constructs that even someone of the same sex with characteristics of the opposite sex will cause commotion in the restroom. This seems very silly since the restroom is, at the basic level, a communal wastebasket. So why do people rely so heavily on visual perception to define others (and why do they become so outraged when they realize their eyes tricked them)?

The article, Female Masculinity, keeps bringing up the idea of a line being crossed; the line referring to the socially constructed norm. When speaking of tomboys on page 938, it's stated, "Tomboyism is punished....when it threatens to extend beyond childhood and into adolescence." Society gives younger girls mixed signals in that tomboyism "may even be encouraged" at a younger age but then there comes a point in time where if one was to remain a tomboy, it crosses a line to the point where it threatens the norm. The same can be said for the bathroom issue. When a tomboy walks into a women's bathroom, she is accepted. When a female with a low voice walks into a women's bathroom she is accepted as long as quiet. But when a "masculine" or out-of-the-norm female or MTF walks into a women's bathroom, some feel threatened and feel the need for that person to be removed. Where is that line, that society constructs with the socially accepted as normal and okay on one side and the threatening and abnormal on the other? When can one be accused of crossing it and what is the correct punishment?

Female Masculinity Judith Halberstam------Gabriela Graham

In female Masculinity by Judith Halberstam she discusses the "bathroom problem" which many "butch women" encounter. She talks about her friends experiences with women's reactions when they have entered the washroom. Is this a reactionary tendency pushed by society  or is this our own doing? Certainly the level of violence is a chosen road by troubled individuals however are simple glances and disapproval "normal" reactions that women feel pressured to give or, even worse, don't even realize they are giving?

Re: Sept. 18th discussion

I had a similar reaction to Sujean to Oyewumi's "Family Bonds/Conceptual Binds: African Notes on Feminist Epistemologies." Oyewumi criticizes Western feminists for "white soipsism" and the universalization of the western white middle class female experience, but she merely replaces one generalization with another. She begins with some sense of specificity in her discussion of the language and primary maternal identity of Yoruba women, but then extends these characteristics of identity to "many African women" and then just "african women" (1096, 1097). When she makes sweeping statements about "all African family arrangements" or "The African family," she falls into the same trap of generalization that Mohanty talked about in last week's reading, creating a "unified subject" even as she claims one does not exist. 

Is there any way to combine an essentialist ideology with a trans-inclusive feminist agenda? There may be no way to reason with extremists like Janice G. Raymond, who are (more or less) essentialists (as well as, of course, gender supremacists and bigots, which are NOT part of the general essentialist contingent) but is it possible to allow transsexuals equality in an ideology that unites women through their biology? Is it fair to force male-identified women to identify with females, simply because they were born with a female body? Can one's mode of thinking alone allow identification with the female population?

"Female Masculinity"

In her article, "Female Masculinity," Judith Halberstam urges her readers that masculinity is not exclusively the property of men. She writes, "...Masculinity must not and cannot and should not reduce down to the male body and its effects"(p. 936). Though she has trouble defining the word "masculinity" she seems to refer to qualities of "heroism" (as per her example of James Bond), assertiveness, and other qualities than many societies define as "male" attributes. Halberstam continuously reminds readers that women, too, can and do possess and exercise the very same masculinity that men do. However, the term "masculinity" is and will probably always connote "maleness". Therefore, if Halberstam's goal is to prove that women can and should exercise the various qualities mentioned above, would she not be better off naming these exact traits instead of promoting the idealization of masculinity, and by default maleness? Does not naming these admirable qualities "masculinity" further the notion that maleness is the ultimate ideal?

Sept. 18th Discussion

Oyeronke Oyewumi’s article, Family Bonds/Conceptual Binds: African Notes on Feminist Epistemologies, criticizes white feminist discourse for being rooted solely in the “nuclear family.” While I believe that her argument successfully shows that African family arrangements do not fit into this mold, I feel that the family discourse that she introduces still portrays African women (in her essay) as the “Other.” She merely replaces the man or husband with children/kinship as the “Subject,” which determines the “woman’s role.” Since family discourse dominates all feminist discourse, is there a way to change it so that the family becomes the “Object” to the autonomous woman?